Installation of tendons for a post-tensioned

slab on grade. Unbonded post-tensioning

is an effective way to eliminate joints within
a days slab placement.

Part 3 of a 3-part series

Control of shrinkage and curling

in slabs on grade
By Robert F. Ytterberg

How to control cracks

n the first two parts of this series, I
discussed the causes of concrete
shrinkage and how to reduce it in
slabs on grade. I also made suggestions for control of the warping and
curling that result from shrinkage
and temperature differentials between the top and bottom of slabs.
This final installment emphasizes
ways to control slab cracking:

Use of distributed reinforcement

Use of shrinkage-compensating
concrete
Post-tensioning
Removal of restraints to shrinkage
or expansion
Distributed reinforcement
PCAs Concrete Floors on
Ground (Ref. 1) promotes plain (un-

reinforced) slabs on grade with joints

at frequent intervals, as shown in
Table 3 (see Part 2, December 1992,
page 889), or alternatively, slabs on
grade with distributed reinforcement, based on the subgrade drag
formula shown in the following
equation, with joints at much greater
distances.
As = F L w
2 fs
where
As = required cross-sectional area
of steel, in square inches per lineal
foot of slab width.
F = coefficient of subgrade friction.
(Designers use 1.5 or 2.0 for pavements; 1.5 is recommended for concrete floors on ground.)
L = slab length (or width, if appropriate), in feet between free ends (a

free end is any joint free to move in a

horizontal plane).
w = weight of slab, in pounds per
square foot (for regular-weight concrete, designers use 12.5 pounds per
inch of floor thickness).
fs = allowable stress of reinforcement, in psi (this usually is 0.67 or
0.75 times the yield strength of the
steel).
The design philosophy for plain
(unreinforced) slabs on grade with
joints 10 to 20 feet apart is that since
normal concrete is going to crack
about every 15 feet due to drying
shrinkage, locating joints every 10 to
20 feet will eliminate drying shrinkage cracks.
The design of distributed reinforcement is a compromise between
increasing joint spacing and the cost

of providing reinforcement. I believe

that 0.15% distributed reinforcement
by cross-sectional area of concrete
should be the minimum for slabs on
grade. Smaller percentages of reinforcement are so fragile that they
cannot be assuredly placed in the upper half of enclosed slabs on grade
where laborers and finishers walk in
the fresh concrete.
Joint spacing should be maximized (joints eliminated) to reduce
problems associated with joints.
From the subgrade drag formula,
0.175% steel is required for 100-foot
joint spacings for a typical 6-inchthick slab on grade, provided the
subgrade friction factor is no more
than 1.5 and that shrinkage restraint
from load-transfer dowels does not
occur. Distributed reinforcing steel,
as calculated from the subgrade drag
formula, does not increase the loadcarrying capacity of the slab.
Generally, slabs on grade should
be placed in square panels to reduce the amount of perimeter construction (contraction) joints, where
slab edges are most apt to curl. If
the slab must be placed in long,
narrow strips, then a higher percent of steel will be needed in the
long direction than in the transverse direction.
Many highway pavements are
designed with continuous reinforcement rather than with distributed
reinforcement. Continuous reinforcement allows elimination of routine transverse joints. However, industrial floor slabs on grade often
are not designed with the high percentages (for example, 0.6%) of reinforcement called for in continuous
highway reinforcement.
Joints in slabs on grade can, however, be reduced to just those perimeter joints that surround a day of slab
placement (usually about 8,000 to
10,000 square feet) by use of distributed reinforcement or use of both
distributed reinforcement and
shrinkage-compensating concrete.
Post-tensioning also can be used to
eliminate joints within a days slab
placement. My company has had
success with all three of these approaches. However, design of the
joints requires special attention to
protect them from top corner break-

down because the joints will open 12

inch or more.
Reinforcement
Specifying the percentage of steel
by cross-sectional area is not enough.
The size, type, and location of reinforcement are important. Because the
upper half of a slab on grade has the
greatest shrinkage, reinforcement
should be as close as possible to the
top of the slab to restrain shrinkage
and reduce curling, but no closer
than 112 inches as needed for protective cover.
Deformed reinforcing wire or
bars for enclosed slabs on grade
should be spaced a minimum of 15
inches on center to accommodate a
workers foot encased in a rubber
boot. When workers stand in fresh

In addition to the minimum spacing, enclosed slab-on-grade reinforcement should have a minimum
diameter of about 0.4 inch to provide sufficient stiffness to hold the
steel in the upper half of the slab
and to prevent bending of the steel
during concreting operations. To
achieve this minimum spacing and
diameter, the steel placed in the upper half of enclosed slabs should be
greater than the amount shown by
the subgrade drag formula, but not
less than 0.15% by cross-sectional
area of concrete.
Shrinkage-compensating
concrete
Expansion is greater in the top
half than in the bottom half of concrete slabs made with shrinkage-

Using distributed reinforcement in the upper half of a slab on grade is one of several ways to increase joint spacing. Note steel spacing that permits workers to
step between and not on the steel.

concrete ahead of the straight-edging operation, they should place

their feet between reinforcing bars
to avoid pushing down reinforcement during slab construction. Locating tightly spaced reinforcement
in the upper slab half is not a problem when spreading machines are
used in highway paving, but such
spreading machines are not economical to use in the construction of
enclosed slabs because roof columns
may interfere.

compensating concrete. This is so

because even if reinforcing steel is
properly placed in the top half of
the slab, the subgrade friction restraint is greater than the reinforcement restraint. The effect of this is
that edge curling in slabs on grade
can be reduced if shrinkage-compensating concrete is used.
In placing well over 100 shrinkage-compensating concrete floor
slabs on grade throughout the U.S.
over the past 28 years, my company
has found that edge curling is gen-

erally less than with conventional

portland cement concrete. Designers
who wish to pursue this alternative
should consult ACI 223 (Ref. 20),
and they should specify that daily
expansion tests be run. Use ASTM C
806 mortar expansion test method
to verify the 0.04% to 0.10% expansion specified in ASTM C 845 for
Type K cements. Use ASTM C 878
concrete expansion test for shrinkage-compensating concrete.
Post-tensioning
Post-tensioning is a cost effective
way to install slabs on grade with no
intermediate joints within a days
slab placement. The Post-Tensioning
Institutes publications on floor slabs
on grade (Refs. 21 and 22) give complete design information.
Post-tensioned slabs keep shrinkage cracks positively closed. Therefore joints can be spaced far enough
apart to justify spending extra time
and money designing a rugged joint.
Post-tensioned slabs on grade will
open slightly more at joints than distributed-reinforced slabs of the same
length, due to the amount of elastic
shortening of the slab caused by
compressive post-tensioning stress.
By adding compressive stress to the
slab, post-tensioning decreases the
natural tensile stress in the top of
the slab (caused by drying shrinkage) and increases the existing compressive stress in the bottom of the
slab. The additional compressive
stress in the bottom helps to resist
loads placed on the upper surface.
Friberg (Ref. 23) says that slab edge
warping can be much decreased by
centering the prestress below the
mid-depth of the slab.
Removing restraints
It is important to isolate slabs on
grade from anything that could restrain slab shrinkage or expansion,
thereby initiating cracking. Avoid
anchoring foundation or pit walls to
the finished floor slab. Other shrinkage restraints to consider during
slab design are guard posts, roof
columns, floor drains, and machine
foundations that penetrate the floor
and are anchored into the ground.
Compressible material must be

specified around such shrinkage restraints to allow slabs to move.

Load-transfer dowels can become
restraints to shrinkage/expansion,
and the designer should consider
ways to eliminate them from contraction joints.
Perimeter joint design
I have suggested that designers
eliminate joints within a days slabon-grade placement. This should be
done either with post-tensioning or
with distributed reinforcement alone
or in combination with shrinkagecompensating concrete. Current slab
thickness design methods are based
on Westergaard theory (Ref. 19),
which assumes the slab will remain
in contact with the subgrade. Therefore, if using these design methods,
wherever possible eliminate slab
edges that can curl.
Since joints at the perimeter of
each days slab placement cannot be
eliminated, special care should be
given to their design. Protect the upper surface of the slab from edge
breakdown and consider eliminating load-transfer devices between
successive days of slab placement.
Where load-transfer devices must be
used, their potential restraining effect should be evaluated and minimized. Further, I suggest using additional reinforcement at slab edges, or
thickening the slab at these perimeter joints. If thickened edges are a
problem, consider thickening the
entire slab.
One recommendation is that designers thicken slabs on grade 50%
at perimeter joints to reduce vertical
curling deflection at these joints.
The slab thickness increase should
be graduala maximum slope of 1
in 20 is recommended. Thickening
the slab at perimeter contraction
joints will add weight and reduce
the ratio of exposed surface to concrete volume, both of which should
reduce edge curling. Some designers object to slab edge thickening because the edge may not be shaped
properly and the edge might restrain shrinkage. It is impossible to
justify slab edge thickening on the
basis that the additional weight will
eliminate edge curling. It would take
about 3,000 pounds per foot of joint

to hold the slab edge down to a 50

mil deflection, assuming E = 4 106
psi and a cantilever length of 60
inches.
Research reports (Refs. 24 and 25)
indicate that large percentages of reinforcement can eliminate curling. I
suggest that designers increase reinforcement at slab edges. One percent
reinforcement could be justified in
the direction perpendicular to and
for 10 feet from the slab edge to reduce edge curling. Reducing curling
deflection by use of additional reinforcing will not, however, reduce
curling stress.
Load-transfer devices, either keyways or smooth steel dowels, that
permit a joint to open are commonly
specified at contraction jointsat
least at joints where reinforcement is
interrupted so that the joint is free to
open. From my observation, neither
keyways or smooth dowels prevent
upward edge curling, nor do they
prevent upwardly curled slab edges
from deflecting downward under
load. Several studies (Refs. 24, 26,
and 27) indicate that improperly designed dowel details or dowel layouts can increase cracking and require the use of additional
distributed reinforcement.
What is needed is a rational slab
thickness design procedure that
takes edge curling into account.
In the absence of such a design
method, I suggest that designers
consider omitting load-transfer devices at contraction joints. They can
use the money saved to help pay for
additional concrete thickness or additional edge reinforcement in an attempt to keep the bottom of the slab
in contact with the ground at contraction joints.
Summary and conclusions
Designers of slabs on grade have
an obligation to their clients to ensure that the concrete mix with the
lowest practical shrinkage is used
and that shrinkage testing is specified to be done before and on a regular basis during installation. Instead
of expecting slump to control shrinkage, designers should bring about
real shrinkage reduction by specifying low-shrinkage, stony concrete

mixes with large maximum-size

coarse aggregate.
Drying shrinkage and curling can
be reduced by using less water. Some
ways to reduce water content are:
Use coarser sand
Keep aggregates free of clay
and other fine materials
Use coarser ground cement
Use cement with a low C3A
content
Use the largest possible maximum-size coarse aggregate
Reduce travel time from central
mix plant to job
Limit agitating revolutions after
complete mixing is achieved
Lower the mix temperature
High-range water reducers do not
necessarily reduce shrinkage in proportion to their ability to reduce water content. ASTM C 494 should be
revised to require water-reducing admixtures also to reduce concrete
shrinkage.
To minimize slab shrinkage, designers should consider alternatives to high strengths whose only
benefit is slightly thinner slabs. The
4000/4500-psi-minimum, 28-day,
6x12-cylinder compressive strength
requirements of ACI 302 for Class
4, 5, 6, and 9 floors severely restrict
the use of low-shrinkage concretes
without assuring improved abrasion resistance.
The 28-day requirements of ACI
302 should be reduced to 3500 psi
to permit reduction of shrinkage.
Three-day strength requirements
should apply only to formed structural slabs and to tilt-up slabs that
may receive early construction
loads. A 90-day, rather than 28-day,
strength should be used in designing slab thickness for other than
tilt-up slabs, assuming that design
loads will not be applied during
the first 90 days.
Designers also should protect
their clients from using poorly
drained, high-water-table building
sites. On sites of that type, the designer should specify a good moisture barrier system that can withstand construction abuse.

When reinforcement is used to

permit greater joint spacing, use
the subgrade drag formula to compute distributed reinforcing steel,
but specify at least 0.15% reinforcement in the upper half of the slab.
Use at least 15-inch spacing and a
minimum diameter of 0.4 inch for
distributed reinforcement in industrial floor slabs.
Shrinkage-compensating and
post-tensioned concretes offer alternative methods of minimizing joints
and reducing shrinkage and curling.
Daily expansion testing of shrinkagecompensating cement and concrete
should be specified. Thickened
and/or reinforced slab edges, elimination of restraints to slab movement, and deletion of certain loadtransfer devices are other choices the
designer has in reducing slab cracking and curling.
Despite everything, designers and
their clients must be aware that some
drying shrinkage cracking and some
upward curling at slab edges may
still take place. By following the
guidelines presented here, however,
designers can reduce the problems
caused by shrinkage and curling.
Specifiers should note the exceptions taken to References 1, 2, and 16.
The cement and concrete industries
must develop a better understanding
of the inevitable drying shrinkage
and curling behavior of concrete
slabs on grade.
References
NOTE: This reference list repeats
some references from Parts 1 and 2
that also are cited in Part 3.
1. Concrete Floors on Ground, 2nd
ed., Portland Cement Association
(PCA), 1983.
2. ACI 302.1R-89, Guide for Concrete
Floor and Slab Construction, American Concrete Institute (ACI), 1989.
6. Robert F. Ytterberg, Shrinkage
and Curling of Slabs on Grade
(published in three parts), C o n c re t e
International, April 1987, pp. 23-31;
May 1987, pp. 54-61; and June
1987, pp. 72-81.
16. Ralph E. Spears, The 80 Percent
Solution to Inadequate Curing Problems, Concrete International, April
1983, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 15-18.

19. H. M. Westergaard, Analysis of

Stresses in Concrete Roads Caused
by Variations of Temperature, Public
Roads, May 1927, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp.
54-60.
20. ACI 223-90, Standard Practice for
the Use of Shrinkage-compensating
Concrete, ACI, 1990.
21. Design and Construction of Posttensioned Slabs-on-ground, Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI), 1980.
22. Post-tensioned Commercial and
Industrial Floors, PTI, 1983.
23. Bengt F. Friberg, Prestressed
Concrete, A Natural for Highway and
Airport Pavements, Roadways and
Airport Pavements, ACI, 1975, pp.
197-210.
24. Douglas J. Lindsay, Control of
Cracking in Portland Concrete Pavement, Causes, Mechanism, and Control of Cracking in Concrete, ACI,
1968, pp. 159-177.
25. H. M. S. Abdul-Wahab and A. S.
Jaffar, Warping of Reinforced Concrete Slabs Due to Shrinkage, ACI
Journal Proceedings, March-April
1983, Vol. 80, No. 2, pp. 109-115.
26. Design Considerations for Concrete Pavement Reinforcement for
Crack Control, ACI Journal Proceedings, October 1956, Vol. 53, No. 4, pp.
337-362.
27. Ernest K. Schrader, A Proposed
Solution to Cracking Caused by Dowels, Concrete Construction, December 1987, pp. 1051-1053.

Robert F. Ytterberg is president of

Kalman Floor Co., Evergreen, Colo., a
national subcontractor specializing in
construction of exposed concrete floors
for industry. He is a member and former
chairman of ACI Committee 360, Design
of Slabs on Grade. He is a former member of ACI Committee 302, Concrete
Floor Construction.
Editors note
This three-part series has been condensed and updated from Ref. 6.
Parts 1 and 2 appeared in the November and December issues.

PUBLICATION #C930042
Copyright 1993, The Aberdeen Group
All rights reserved