See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245289967

Case Study of Courtyard House Damaged by

Expansive Soils

Article in Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities · November 2002

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(2002)16:4(169)

CITATIONS READS

5 403

2 authors:

Jie Li Donald Anthony Cameron

RMIT University University of South Australia
41 PUBLICATIONS 95 CITATIONS 47 PUBLICATIONS 193 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Jie Li
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 18 September 2016
 Case Study of Courtyard House Damaged
by Expansive Soils
Jie Li1 and Donald A. Cameron2

Abstract: This paper presents a case study of a U-shaped, courtyard house damaged by expansive soils. The field investigation revealed
that the damage was caused by edge heaving as a result of water ponding in the courtyard. A back-analysis procedure using finite-element
analysis is presented that is based on the measured slab surface levels. The back-analysis provides a representation of the underlying
ground movement. The results of the back-analysis compared reasonably well with the actual observations in the field. It was deduced that
the slab cracking could have been prevented and the distortion of the house would have been significantly reduced if a strap beam had
been added in the courtyard area.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0887-3828共2002兲16:4共169兲
CE Database keywords: Case reports; Expansive soils; Buildings, residential.

Introduction 2. Each rectangle of the slab is further equated to single beams

Damage to lightly loaded structures founded on expansive soils
has been widely reported throughout the world 共Day 1997兲. Ex-
pansive soil is predominantly clay soil, which undergoes appre-
ciable volume change following a change in moisture content.
This volume change occurs as shrinkage upon drying, and swell-
ing upon wetting. Buildings constructed on expansive soils may
be subjected to severe movement arising from nonuniform soil
moisture changes. Consequently, the distortion may be manifested
as cracking of walls, and possibly loss of function of doors and
windows.
In areas of expansive soils, practical experience has shown that
the configuration of a house often has significant effects on its
performance. In general, with the same site condition, a rectangu-
lar building performs much better than buildings with nonrectan-
gular shapes. However, for either architectural reasons or greater
economy, the majority of residential houses have irregular con-
figurations such as U, L, I, and T shapes.
Over the last 10 years or so, U-shaped courtyard houses have
come into vogue in Australia. Footing designers, using conven-
tional two-dimensional design principles 共Standards Australia
1996兲, characterize the slab as three fully overlapping rectangles,
as indicated in Fig. 1. The shape of the soil support for each
rectangle is assumed to be either a cylindrical center heave or a
cylindrical edge heave mound shape similar to that shown in Fig.
presumed to act independently in the long and short directions of
the footing.
However, problems have been observed with this particular
house layout 共Gibbs 1993兲. Cracks can develop in the masonry
wall and within the concrete slab. Poor performance of courtyard
houses has caused concern among consulting engineers who have
applied conventional 2D design principles. Therefore, more re-
search is needed to get a better understanding of the problem and
to improve the footing design procedures for courtyard houses.
It is widely recognized that case histories can provide a valu-
able basis for the advancement of engineering knowledge 共Aitchi-
son et al. 1977兲. Improvements of current design methods can be
achieved by case studies of the performance of raft slab footings
on expansive soils. In this study, the field investigation and back-
analysis of a cracked courtyard house were carried out. The back-
analysis procedure was based on the three-dimensional finite-
element method and floor slab levels obtained from a level survey
of the deformed structure. The purposes of this case study are to
determine the causes of deformation and cracking, and to find out
how failure could have been prevented.
Field Investigations
The case study described herein refers to a single story, articu-
lated masonry veneer dwelling 共approximately 16⫻8 m), built on

1
Senior Research Fellow, Dept. of Civil, Surveying and Environmen-
tal Engineering, Univ. of Newcastle, Callaghan NSW 2308, Australia.
E-mail: jli@mail.newcastle.edu.au
2
Senior Lecturer, School of Geosciences, Minerals and Civil Engi-
neering, Univ. of South Australia, Mawson Lakes SA 5095, Australia.
E-mail: Donald.Cameron@unisa.edu.au
Note. Discussion open until April 1, 2003. Separate discussions must
be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing Editor.
The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible
publication on November 6, 2001; approved on February 22, 2002. This
paper is part of the Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities,
Vol. 16, No. 4, November 1, 2002. ©ASCE, ISSN 0887-3828/2002/4-
Fig. 1. Subdivision of slab into rectangular components
169–175/$8.00⫹$.50 per page.

JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES / NOVEMBER 2002 / 169

 a highly expansive soil foundation. The house was constructed in
June of 1990 in a northern suburb of Adelaide, Australia. The
courtyard was not paved. Three boreholes, each to a depth of 3 m,
were drilled at the site before construction to evaluate the soil
reactivity. A typical soil profile for the site is given in Table 1.
The site classification for reactivity following Australian stan-
dard 共AS兲 2870 共Standards Australia 1996兲 was Class E 共i.e.,
Fig. 2. Cylindrical mound shapes used in 2D design methods: 共a兲
center heave; 共b兲 edge heave
extremely reactive; Table 2兲. Site classification is based on y s , the
predicted design site surface movement, over the life of the
house, which is based on design soil suction change profiles for
different climatic regions of Australia.
The stiffened raft slab was designed by using AS 2870 共Stan-
dards Australia 1996兲, which generates empirically based ground
distortions or mound shapes from the design site surface move-
ment. Two basic mound shapes are designed for—the short-term
Table 1. Description of Typical Soil Profile edge wetting distortion, or ‘‘edge heave’’ mound; and the longer-
Depth 共m兲 Soil description term edge drying 共and central stabilized兲 distortion, or ‘‘center’’
heave. The initial site conditions are assumed conservatively to be
0.00–0.10 Fill—clay, sandy 共CH兲, calcareous, gray-brown seasonally dry.
0.10–0.25 Sand, clayey 共SC兲, low plasticity, dark gray-brown The design ground movement for the site is based on projected
0.25–0.55 Clay 共CH兲, high plasticity, dark brown soil suction differences for the climatic region and does not take
0.55–1.05 Clay 共CH兲, high plasticity, brown with cream mottling into account close vegetation or poor site drainage, but it does
1.05–3.00 Clay 共CH兲, very high plasticity, brown with some gray take account of the general effects of urbanization. In Adelaide,
and cream mottling the most reactive soil profile from three boreholes is used to es-
timate the potential movement. The active depth is 4 m, which
exceeds the depth of seasonal movement 共approximately 2 m兲.
The design then proceeds to limit footing deflections to levels
tolerable for the supported building, by adding stiffening beams
of sufficient depth and with adequate reinforcement. Interaction
between the loaded footing and the soil is considered. Routine
Table 2. Site Classification Classes in AS 2870 共Standards Australia design, however, is based on a simplified 2D analysis. In particu-
1996兲 lar, the slab plan must be divided into fully overlapping rect-
y s 共mm兲 Class Description angles, with each rectangle being designed for center heave and
edge heave cylindrical mounds in both the short and long direc-
y s ⫽0 A Nonreactive tions. One rectangle will dictate the beam sizes for the whole slab.
y s ⭐20 S Slightly reactive For this case study, the footing layout was as shown in Fig. 3.
20⬍y s ⭐40 M Moderately reactive The external beams were 300 mm wide by 550 mm deep, rein-
40⬍y s ⭐70 H Highly reactive forced with 8/Y16 rods, four at the top and four at the bottom. A
y s ⬎70 E Extremely reactive Y16 rod refers to a 16 mm nominal diameter deformed bar with a
yield strength of 400 MPa. The internal beams were 250 mm wide
by 550 mm deep, reinforced with 6/Y16 rods, three at the top and
three at the bottom. The slab was 100 mm thick and was rein-
forced with F72 mesh, placed 25 mm from the top surface of the

Fig. 3. Plan layout of raft slab

170 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES / NOVEMBER 2002

 Fig. 4. Crack in concrete slab in kitchen area
slab. F72 refers to plain hard drawn steel fabric, of 7 mm nominal
diameter and spaced at 200 mm centers in two directions, and
having a yield strength of 450 MPa.
Damage to the house superstructure consisted of cracking of
the floor slab and ceiling, and doors that were inoperable. The
location of the slab cracking is shown in Fig. 3. The cracks started
from the edge adjacent to the courtyard, extending into the
kitchen area for a distance of about 2.5 m. The maximum slab
crack width was approximately 3 mm 共Fig. 4兲. A crack in the
ceiling was observed in this same area of the house. The vertical
articulation joint in the masonry veneer wall, at almost the center
of the south wall, had opened up significantly at the top 共Fig. 5兲.
The door to Bedroom 2 was inoperable, owing to jamming of the
door frame at the top corner.
A site investigation was conducted by the writers, to examine
the cause of damage to the building in March of 1993, in the
seasonally dry period. A level survey was performed around the
perimeter and the interior of the house to determine the general
pattern of the movement. Contours showing relative vertical
movement are plotted in Fig. 6. The maximum differential move-
ment was 46 mm. The deflection ratio along Section I-I was
1:610, which is less than the recommended maximum deflection
ratio of 1:400 for this particular form of construction—namely,
articulated masonry veneer 共Standards Australia 1996兲. All de-
flection ratios quoted do not include tilting movements, but rather
consider only distortional movement. However, along the same
section, the maximum differential deflection was found to be 31
Fig. 6. Measured relative slab deflection 共mm兲
JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES / NOVEMBER 2002 / 171
Fig. 5. Vertical control joint at approximate center of south wall
mm, just exceeding the maximum allowable limit of 30 mm
共Standards Australia 1996兲. It should be noted that despite the
crack width in the slab corresponding to ‘‘significant damage’’ in
AS 2870 共Standards Australia 1996兲, the measured differential
movement was insufficient to categorize it as such.
The contour plot indicates that the northeast corner of Bed-
room 1 had moved up substantially more than the rest of the
building 共presumably due to soil heave兲, and there was a tendency
for the slab to tilt toward the west and the south. The maximum
differential displacement along Section A-B was 32 mm, giving
rise to a tilt of 1:225.
The site investigation revealed that the house distortion could
be attributed to soil heave due to the inadequate provision of site
drainage. There was evidence of water flowing from west to east,
between the brick wall of the house and the fence on the north
boundary of the property 共Fig. 3兲. Water was observed ponding in
the courtyard. The sump within this same courtyard was about
 200 mm higher than the ground level 共Fig. 7兲, which inhibited its
function as a drain. At the time of site inspection, more than 20
potted plants were observed along the external wall of Bedroom
1, facing the courtyard. Overwatering of these plants might also
have contributed to the edge heave.

Back-Analysis

The back-analysis of this distressed courtyard house was carried

Fig. 7. Soil wetting in courtyard
out to determine the stress level in the stiffened slab and to esti-
mate the free soil mound shape of the expansive soil underlying
the building, so that methods of preventing such failures could be
recommended. It was recognized that a suitable method of back-
analysis has to utilize the information available from a distorted
house. The proposed back-analysis procedure was based on the
measured slab surface levels. It was first assumed that the slab
was flat at the time of construction. The following information
was generally required for a back-analysis:

Fig. 8. Finite-element model for stiffened raft slab

Fig. 9. Finite-element mesh and location of concrete cracking

172 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES / NOVEMBER 2002


Fig. 10. Differences between measured slab displacements and
displacements of slab from back-analysis
• Footing layout;
• Footing cross-sectional properties 共including the width and
height of stiffening beams; the slab thickness; the number,
size, and location of steel bars in all beams; and the details of
the reinforcement mesh in the slab兲;
• Contour plot of the measured slab deformation;
• Recorded magnitudes and locations of cracking in the wall,
floor, and ceiling;
• Loadings on the footing 共from construction兲; and
• Soil type and soil profile.
The back-analysis was carried out using the finite-element
method. The reinforced-concrete beam was modeled with one-
dimensional beam elements by defining a number of lumped rods
with either concrete or steel material properties at a specified
distance to the neutral axis in the x- and y-directions, as illustrated
in Fig. 8. The reinforced-concrete slab was modeled by several
layers of two-dimensional plate elements; one layer was the
uniaxial, distributed reinforcement layer that functions with a per-
fect bond to the surrounding concrete, while the other layers mod-
eled the concrete. A smeared crack model was adopted for the
reinforced-concrete slab. In this model, cracked concrete was
treated as a continuum; that is, cracking was taken into account
by modifying the material’s constitutive relationship, retaining the
original discretization. The finite-element model for the stiffened
raft slab is shown in Fig. 8.
The foundation soil was modeled as a series of nonlinear
spring or gap elements, by specifying both the initial gap and the
spring stiffness. These elements allowed for separation and rela-
Fig. 11. Free swelling mound shape—3D view 共mm兲
JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES / NOVEMBER 2002 / 173
tive lateral displacement between the slab and foundation soil.
Detailed descriptions of the finite-element modeling can be found
in Li 共1996兲.
The finite-element mesh is shown in Fig. 9. It consisted of 928
plate elements, 362 beam elements, and 549 gap elements.
A line load of 6.5 kN/m was imposed along all of the edges to
simulate the masonry walls and roof loads. An internal distributed
load of 2.2 kPa was applied to model loading from internal par-
titions, the floor, and live loads.
The concrete in the raft slab footing was assumed to be non-
linear elastic with a compressive strength of 20 MPa and a tensile
strength of 2.7 MPa. The long-term elastic modulus of concrete
was 15,500 MPa, in accordance with AS 3600 共Standards Austra-
lia 1994兲. This value of the modulus accounts for the influence of
creep, shrinkage, age, and loading on the modulus. The concrete
density was taken as 2,400 kg/m3 and a Poisson’s ratio of 0.2 was
adopted. The steel reinforcement in the beam and slab was treated
as an elastoplastic material, obeying the von Mises yield criterion
and the kinematic hardening rule. Properties adopted for the rein-
forcing steel were a yield strength of 400 MPa, a Young’s modu-
lus of 200 GPa, and a Poisson’s ratio of 0.3.
The swelling stiffness of the foundation soil 共kPa/m兲 was as-
sumed to be 100q, as suggested by AS 2870 共Standards Australia
1996兲, where q is the average slab loading 共kPa兲. The spring
stiffness of each spring/gap element was therefore a function of
the supported footing area.
Analyses of cracked footings resting on expansive soil profiles
reported by Lytton 共1970兲 indicate that once the tensile cracking
moment has been exceeded in the slab, the footing bends easily so
that it conforms very closely to the shape of the pressure-free soil
surface. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the free soil
mound shape occurring under the cracked footing is similar to,
but slightly larger in magnitude than, the distorted shape of the
footing, owing to the suppression of swelling by loading.
The first step in the back-analysis procedure was to determine
the measured deflection at each node of the finite-element mesh.
This was achieved by overlaying the finite-element mesh on the
contour plot of the measured slab displacement. The measured
vertical displacements of the slab were multiplied by an amplifi-
cation coefficient and were then enforced on the underside of the
gap/spring elements. Assuming that the mound movement could
be up to 60% larger than the slab movement, the amplification
coefficient would be expected to range from 1.0 to 1.6. It was
found that the selected value within this range had little influence

Fig. 12. Footing beam layout for Option 2
on the final results. A value of 1.3 was used in this study. The
calculated nodal displacements in the first finite-element analysis
run were compared with the measured footing displacements. The
difference was used to modify the enforced displacement values
for the second analysis. This procedure was repeated until the
differences between the calculated values and the measured val-
ues were acceptably small. Six iterations were required for this
case study. The final enforced displacements provided an estimate
of the free mound shape under the slab, prior to any interaction
with the building and its footing.
The differences between the measured displacements and the
calculated displacements for this case study are shown in Fig. 10.
The maximum difference was approximately 2 mm, which oc-
curred in an area of possible slab lift-off.
The results of the back-analysis were as follows. Stresses in
the raft slab at the reentrant corner, C 共Fig. 9兲, were the most
critical, with the maximum tensile stress toward the top of the
beam estimated to be in excess of the concrete tensile strength. At
the same location, the maximum tensile stress in the beam top
steel reinforcement was predicted to be 110 MPa. Maximum
beam torsion and the maximum concrete compressive stress in the
slab also occurred in this area. The calculated maximum beam
torque and bending moment were 91 and 134 kN•m, respectively,
and the maximum shear force was 64 kN. The back-analysis pre-
dicted concrete cracking in the beam and the slab at the locations
indicated in Fig. 9, close to the location of the observed slab
cracks 共Fig. 3兲.
The free soil mound shape derived from the back-analysis is
shown in a three-dimensional view in Fig. 11. The predicted
shape emphasizes the origins of the distortion, with site drainage
provisions in the courtyard area being inadequate, leading to soil
heave in the vicinity of Points B and C in Fig. 6.
Having determined the free soil mound shape, an evaluation of
alternative footing designs may be made in terms of preventing
distress to the structure. So, further finite-element analyses were
performed with the derived soil mound shape to determine if a
larger beam size or different footing beam layout would have
limited the slab stress and slab differential movements to an ac-
ceptable level.
Two options were tested. In Option 1, the depth of all stiffen-
ing beams was increased from 550 to 700 mm, since this beam
depth was calculated to be satisfactory for the derived mound by
the AS 2870 共Standards Australia 1996兲 recommended method. In
Option 2, a ‘‘strap beam’’ with the same beam size as the con-
structed footing was added at the head of the courtyard area to
provide some continuity between the external beams 共Fig. 12兲,
thereby moderating the abrupt change in bending stiffness in the
long direction of the house. Beam depths were kept the same as
the ‘‘as-constructed’’ depths 共550 mm兲. It was assumed that the
same reinforcement was used for all cases.
174 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES / NOVEMBER 2002
Table 3. Results of Case Study Analysis
Deflection Ratio Stress in
Slab Torquea Momenta beam steela
Option I-I A-B 共tilt兲 cracking 共kN•m兲 共kN•m兲 共MPa兲
‘‘As 1:640 1:225 Yes 91 134 110
constructed’’
Option 1 1:910 1:220 Yes 33 189 107
Option 2 1:960 1:370 No 58 77 41
a
At the reentrant corner, C.
The results are summarized in Table 3 to permit comparison
between the two options. It can be seen that Option 1 reduced the
deflection ratio of the slab footing, but could not eliminate the
slab cracking. In addition, increasing the beam depth had very
little effect on the maximum tilt of the slab. However, slab crack-
ing was eliminated with Option 2. The maximum values of the
deflection ratio, bending moment, torque, and tensile stress in the
reinforcement were all significantly reduced, by providing a con-
tinuous footing beam layout, as shown in Fig. 12. In summary, a
strap beam would seem to be a simple and desirable option, par-
ticularly since the cost incurred by adding a strap beam across the
courtyard would be much less than increasing all beam depths by
over 25%.
Lessons Learned
The case study emphasized the importance of site management
for buildings on expansive soil sites, with the aim of maintaining
a reasonably uniform state of subsoil moisture around the build-
ings. Although the causes of the house distortion were out of the
footing designer’s control, it is the writers’ belief that the slab
cracking would have been prevented and the distortion would
have been significantly reduced, if a continuous footing beam
layout 共or Option 2兲 had been adopted.
Jones and Holtz 共1973兲 indicated that there is reluctance to
strengthen footings to resist all soil movement, since the costs
could exceed the damage prevented. Nevertheless, it is believed
that the extra cost incurred by adding a strap beam within the
courtyard is acceptable for the builder and potential house buyer.
The benefit is obvious, providing a more acceptable level of per-
formance of the structure.
This case study involved a deformation pattern that is not cov-
ered by the existing two-dimensional approaches. It may be con-
cluded that the design of footing systems for houses with this
particular geometry based on the current 2D design methods is
inadequate.
Conclusions
In this research, a case study of a U-shaped courtyard house dam-
aged by expansive soils was carried out. Field investigations re-
vealed that the actual footing deformation pattern was complex
and could only be described accurately in three dimensions. The
back-analysis model that was developed compared well with the
field observations in terms of the recorded crack locations and
deflection ratio.
 The major conclusion from the case study, based on assess-
ment of observations and finite element modelling, indicated that
an extra beam outside, but continuous with, the main floor slab
area is needed to improve the performance of raft slabs for
U-shaped courtyard houses. A few practitioners have already
adopted a strap beam for courtyard housing, based on their expe-
rience with the poor performance of houses without it 共Gibbs
1993兲. The intuition of these engineers is well supported by this
study, and should provide confidence to the rest of the commu-
nity.
The evaluation of this courtyard house also indicated a flaw in
the current two-dimensional approach to designing slabs on ex-
pansive soils. This flaw is associated with the geometry of the
floor plan. Simply stated, the current approach appears to be lim-
ited to essentially rectangular and L-shaped floor plans. Designers
should be cautioned to apply their engineering judgment in con-
junction with the two-dimensional approach, for other shapes. It
is the writers’ belief that case studies such as the one described
and treated in the manner in this paper can lead to a higher level
of understanding of the performance of footings on expansive
soils, and can subsequently reduce the risk in routine footing de-
sign.
JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES / NOVEMBER 2002 / 175
References
Aitchison, G. D., Peter, P., and Power, R. F. 共1977兲. ‘‘Stress-deformation
mechanisms in clays as determinants of design requirements for small
and large structures—An evaluation through case histories in Ade-
laide, of the relative significance of several mechanisms.’’ Proc.,
Symp. on How to Live with Geotechnical Risks, 26 –33.
Day, R. W. 共1997兲. ‘‘Soil-related damage to tilt-up structures.’’ Pract.
Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2共2兲, 55– 60.
Gibbs, R. 共1993兲. ‘‘Some problems encountered in the performance of
courtyard house footings.’’ Rep. Prepared for Footings Group of
South Australia.
Jones, D. E., and Holtz, W. G. 共1973兲. ‘‘Expansive soils—The hidden
disaster.’’ Civ. Eng. (N.Y.), 43共8兲, 49–51.
Li, J. 共1996兲. ‘‘Analysis and modelling of performance of footings on
expansive soils.’’ PhD thesis, Univ. of South Australia, Mawson
Lakes, Australia.
Lytton, R. L. 共1970兲. ‘‘Design criteria for residential slabs and grillage
rafts on reactive clay.’’ Rep. Prepared for CSIRO, Division of Applied
Geomechanics.
Standards Australia. 共1994兲. ‘‘Concrete structures.’’ AS 3600, Sydney,
Australia.
Standards Australia. 共1996兲. ‘‘Residential slab and footings.’’ AS 2870,
Sydney, Australia.