×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Negative comments for approved practice design of a raft foundation

Negative comments for approved practice design of a raft foundation

Negative comments for approved practice design of a raft foundation

(OP)
Hi people.
Plase look at the sketch attached.
Short description:
Virgin ground under the future raft slab is removed (aboth 20cm).
Beam trenches are dig out.
Beams are poured first and serve later as the "side formwork" for good hardcore compaction.
Virgin ground (slab part) is compacted and then filled with harcore compacted filling (fractions raging from 1-32mm).
An "mud slab" is poured (above the harcore fill) wich then serves as the leveling plane for the proper reinforecement placement.
Beams are poured first and later serev as the "side formwork" for good hardcore compaction.
Hidroisolation is placed on the raft surface as the first layer of the residential floor.

note: virgin ground level (left in green) and the down side of the RC raft slab are at the same elevation.

Im interested in your negative comments for this design.
Thank you.

RE: Negative comments for approved practice design of a raft foundation

Why would you pour the beams first ?
Just form the slab and pour the beams and slab at the same time.

RE: Negative comments for approved practice design of a raft foundation

(OP)
I forgot to attach the reinforcement arangement.
I blue dotet line you can see the pouring break. (attached raft2)

I agree with you that the monolitic cast would probably result in a stiffer construction but I think that could be neglected due to provided reinforcement and links in the beams wich connect the two pour stages.
Advantage of beams beeing poured first that they can serve later as the "side formwork" for good hardcore compaction. You basicly made an "ground pool" with fixed edges wich wont allow any side movement of the fill during the compaction process.

If using one pour I could do it with forming an "skewd" compacted hardcore face (attached raft3)wich will also in return create an thicker "slab-beam" connection but I question the compaction at that face.

RE: Negative comments for approved practice design of a raft foundation

I would prefer the monolithic casting. I don't see the compaction of the granular layer as a difficult operation. I would do it all before beginning the beam excavations.

You called this a "raft foundation". By that, I assume you mean that there are a series of internal beams in both directions.

RE: Negative comments for approved practice design of a raft foundation

(OP)
"I would do it all before beginning the beam excavations"

Removing the virgn soil, compacting its exposed surface then filling the "hole" with granular material compacting it and then, excavating for ground beams would defineltly couse disturbance around the excavation trenchs and could couse corners sides caving in (depending on the soil properties).
Youve done projects like this?

"I assume you mean that there are a series of internal beams in both directions"

Theres the "all around" perimeter beam.
Internals only provided if the "bay ratio" is more then lx/ly > 2.
I want to have the feel of two way slab behaviour when using downstand beams with a thiner slab.

RE: Negative comments for approved practice design of a raft foundation

1. Yes, I have done it that way, without undue difficulty. Detailed excavation is always messy at first, until the hand shovel guys do their thing.

2. Your terminology is strange to me. What you have is a slab on grade with perimeter footings (or beams). A raft foundation consists of a grid of beams or slab thickenings, and is typically used where there is a degree of volume change sensitivity to moisture.

RE: Negative comments for approved practice design of a raft foundation

(OP)
1.) Ill remain skeptical due to later excavations and possible ground distubance

2.) Why do you call this an slab on grade?
Raft foundation can be a solid plate element without any thickenings, or with them, can have downstand beams...there are various solutions. Typicaly used where the ground conditions are such that differential settlements are to be expected wich can couse structural damage to the superstructure. Like you said, swelling clays are also a bit concern.

What are you thought on the hydroinsulation position?

RE: Negative comments for approved practice design of a raft foundation

I'm not familiar with the terms 'hydroisolation' or 'hydroinsulation', so I guess I can't help there.

RE: Negative comments for approved practice design of a raft foundation

(OP)
Hydro insulation = waterproofiing

RE: Negative comments for approved practice design of a raft foundation

In that case, waterproofing goes on the side where the water comes from.

RE: Negative comments for approved practice design of a raft foundation

(OP)
Why do you think that the positions of the hydro insulation drawn in the previous attached sketch is completly wrong and it doesnt serve its purpose?

RE: Negative comments for approved practice design of a raft foundation

What material is used for the "hydro insulation"? I thought the top surface of your slab would be the wearing surface, or at least a substrate for a finish of some sort. If you are trying to stop moisture coming from below, I don't see why you would want it trapped between the slab and an impervious layer.

RE: Negative comments for approved practice design of a raft foundation

(OP)
hokiee 66 sorry for the delay.
To answer your questions.
Please look at the picture attached wich shows the arangement of the residential floor layers.
This is something thats been bothering me for a while.
As said, this is a system that been used for over 30 years as the standard in insulating residential groundfloors resting on soil.
Material used for the water insulation is bitumenius paper wich is placed and fixed directly ON the RC slab.

Like you said water and moisture will come under the slab.
Placing the water insulation ON the slab will not prevent the slab of beeing exposed to water coming from the ground.
The PE folie (vapor barrier) is placed on the warmer side of the floor layer wich will prevent the moisture of condenstaing in the thermoinsulation.
But this is also contradicting the capillary action coming from under the slab becasue if the ground moisture penetrates the slab it wont have any problem wetting the thermoinsulation.

Maybe casting the RC slab directly on the vapor barrier...



RE: Negative comments for approved practice design of a raft foundation

Maybe it has been used for 30 years somewhere, but I have not seen it done that way.

RE: Negative comments for approved practice design of a raft foundation

(OP)
Agree on that.
So, how did you see it?

RE: Negative comments for approved practice design of a raft foundation

(OP)
hokie66,
Im still interested to hear your thoughts

RE: Negative comments for approved practice design of a raft foundation

I thought I had made myself clear...any material intended to prevent water or moisture penetration of a concrete slab must be placed on the side where the moisture exists. So for a slab on grade underneath, for a roof slab on top.

RE: Negative comments for approved practice design of a raft foundation

..and the usual practice in USA is to place a vapor barrier directly under the slab, maybe also place an layer of granular material...

RE: Negative comments for approved practice design of a raft foundation

(OP)
Hi!
I read aboth these stuff a lot.
The placement of the vapor barrier seems to be crucial.

RE: Negative comments for approved practice design of a raft foundation

(OP)
Hi!
Ive been reading more and more on USA recommendations for floors on ground insulating solutions.
Ive found one article here that goes in-depth on explaining how the capilary action + water vapor under the slab are two main concerns.
The articel is located here:
http://www.jdtechnical.com/VaporBarriersNus_Nec_PA...

I agree on most part mentioned on capilary action that can occur under the slab and its effect on the concrete slab, BUT, I cannot agree on the part thats written on the water vapor coming from ground into residental space.
Water vapor always travels from higher pressure to lower pressure!
If we assume that, in winter,
- inside heated residential spaces have temperature of 70F and relative humidity of 50-60%.
I cannot agree on values below 30% of relaitve humidity couse youll probably have serious sympthoms of "dry throat"
- temperature of soil below the slab dependes on many factors, air temperture, type of soil, depth at wich its measured...but lets say that outside temperature is around 40F and for simplicity let assume that thats also the temperature of the soil.
If we assume the worst case scenario that the soil under the slab has 100% relative humidity the water vapor pressure would be around 150psi
So internal water vapor pressure 180psi > soil water vapor pressure 150psi
Vapor would travel from the inside towards the ouside (soil).
Your thoughts...

RE: Negative comments for approved practice design of a raft foundation

(OP)
Guys I frogot to ask, how do you thermo-insulate your residential slabs on grade?
Where do you place thermo-inslulation?
Whats usual practice in USA?

RE: Negative comments for approved practice design of a raft foundation

(OP)
Can nonwoves geotextiles be used as capilary break under the slab?
Ive found an article that explains this very good but Ive always thought geotextiles where used when you wanted to direct waterflow?
Anyone has any experience?

RE: Negative comments for approved practice design of a raft foundation

I'd have put the PEVB underneath the concrete (encapsulating the edge beams). This stops the water from entering the system... as Hokie noted, put the PEVB on the wet side.

It's my experience that raft foundations are generally used with poorer soils and that the consolidation of the granular fill may be an improvement (if required). As long as the soil is essentially undisturbed, I can take no exceptions to your detail. I'd have used hooked dowels in the top all around and then spliced straight bars for the top reinforcing.

Dik

RE: Negative comments for approved practice design of a raft foundation

(OP)
Can someone explain a bit the difference in geotextile weight and they performance.
I mean, when to choose wich model.
For non-woven there are 4oz 6oz 8oz 10oz...
Can any of these model be whitstand the pressure that will a slab on grade produce?

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources