Long-Term Structural Deficiencies in a Mat

Foundation on Clay Soil

Gaetano Russo, M.ASCE1; Margherita Pauletta2; and Nunzio Scibilia3

Abstract: A 3-story building with a mat foundation consisting of a slab on a grid of grade beams performed poorly on clay soil. Cracking of the
slab became progressively worse as a result of the incorrect design and fluctuations in the groundwater pressure under the foundation. The cyclic
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

presence and absence of water rusted the steel reinforcement, and the sulfates in the clay soil caused formation of ettringite in the concrete.
Plastic hinges formed in the slab and settlements occurred, causing damage to the beams. The situation is still in progress and may lead to
the collapse of the structure under normal service conditions. The geotechnical and structural investigations performed to survey and assess
the aforementioned problems are described in this paper. The causes and the consequences of the detected anomalies are analyzed, and a pre-
diction of potential future structural problems is provided. A strengthening procedure is proposed, and an estimate of the cost to realize it is
provided. Recommendations are offered to help avoid the problem in new constructions. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000331.
© 2013 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Mat foundations; Concrete slabs; Progressive collapse; Differential settlement; Soil water; Cracking;
Clays.
Author keywords: Mat foundation; Concrete slab; Progressive collapse; Differential settlements; Soil-water movement; Cracking; Geo-
technical investigations.

Introduction
The load-bearing capacities of clay soils are limited if increases in
moisture as a result of rising groundwater levels may occur. The
recommended foundations for these soils are mat foundations,
which permit the distribution of building loads and reduce the
differential settlements (displacements). The mat foundation may
consist of a grid arrangement of interconnected grade beams
(foundation beams) capped with a floor slab (foundation slab). The
downward loads acting on the mat come from the individual col-
umns or walls. If the foundation is not appropriately designed,
structural problems may arise. In this paper, several reasons for these
problems, together with their effects, are recorded and discussed by
describing as an example the case of a real building. Also, the checks
that have to be performed on the structure to reveal the presence of
such problems and a structural repair solution are described.
Case Study
The case study described herein was the object of a civil suit be-
tween the owners of the individual units of a condominium and the
building company that built it. The condominium is composed of
a single underground story, reserved for garages and accessories, and
two separate structures rising from the ground floor, which covers the
garages. Both structures comprise ground, first, second, and third
floors, with 15 dwelling units in each building. Construction was
completed about 10 years ago, and the certificate of habitability was
issued in 2001. The vertical load-bearing structure of the building
complex is composed of RC walls. The ground floor is a monolithic
slab made up of precast reinforced Predalles-type slabs with an in situ
concrete topping and an overall thickness of 200 mm. The first, sec-
ond, and third floors are made of bricks and concrete, with 600-mm
joist spacing and an overall thickness of 280 mm. The foundation
consists of a 300-mm-thick RC slab, which constitutes the flooring of
the basement. The slab is top and bottom reinforced by a 6-mm-
diameter welded wire mesh in 200-mm sheets, and it is stiffened by
a grid of RC beams (Fig. 1) protruding 300 mm from the slab bottom
surface and having an overall depth of 600 mm. Under the slab and the
beams there is a 100-mm-thick lean concrete base. The owners of the
condominium units complained that cracks with water coming out
appeared in the basement floor some months after the units were
completed. The cracks, besides creating discomfort and limiting the
use of interior premises, could potentially affect the integrity and
durability of the foundation, worsening its service condition over time.

1
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Univ. of Actions to Verify Conditions of Sites and Structures
Udine, Via delle Scienze 206, 33100 Udine, Italy.
2 Two types of assessments were necessary; i.e., one of a geotechnical
Ph.D. Engineer, Dept. of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Univ. of
Udine, Via delle Scienze 206, 33100 Udine, Italy (corresponding author).
nature and the other of a structural nature—the former to determine
E-mail: margherita.pauletta@uniud.it the soil type and presence of groundwater and the latter to assess the
3
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Univ. of Palermo, presence and importance of the cracks and to investigate the exis-
Palermo, Viale delle Scienze Ed. 8, 90128 Palermo, Italy. tence or source of any other potential structural problems.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on July 29, 2011; approved on
January 13, 2012; published online on January 19, 2012. Discussion period
open until November 1, 2013; separate discussions must be submitted for Geotechnical Investigations
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Performance of
Constructed Facilities, Vol. 27, No. 3, June 1, 2013. ©ASCE, ISSN 0887- The ground of interest for the lawsuit was obviously the one just
3828/2013/3-295–302/$25.00. beneath the condominium complex. However, to avoid drilling and

JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2013 / 295

J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2013.27:295-302.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Basement floor of the building with the crack pattern and points of the survey
taking samples inside the building, geotechnical observations and
tests were performed outside the structure at two points of inves-
tigation near the building. Conventional rotary drilling with con-
tinuum sampling and a static penetrometer test were performed at
each point of investigation. These tests revealed that the soil under
the building is composed mainly of normally consolidated non-
sensitive clay layers (coherent soil). The soil permeability was, on
average, 1 3 1025 mm=s at depths from 3 to 5 m below the ground
surface, and 1 3 1026 at depths of 6–20 m.
Regarding the presence of water in the soil, in the geological
report, which was required for the construction of the building, it
was stated that the water table fluctuated between 1.8 and 2.2 m
above the bottom surface of the basement slab. Moreover, four
piezometers were installed for the civil suit, two to a depth of 15 m
below the ground surface in order to survey the deep water layer
and two to a depth of 4 m in order to survey the water table depth.
The piezometers revealed that the water table was 1.3 m above the
bottom surface of the basement slab and 1.6 m above the bottom
surface of the foundation beams. Consequently, the water pressure
at the slab bottom surface was 0.013 MPa, and at the bottom surface
of the foundation beams it was 0.016 MPa.
Structural Investigations
The structural investigations included the following steps:
1. Coring in the slab: Three cores (at Points C1–C3 in Fig. 1) were
drilled in the slab to assess its thickness and the presence of
296 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2013
J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2013.27:295-302.
lean concrete, and to obtain cylindrical samples to perform
compression tests on concrete. The slab was 300-mm thick as
designed, and the thickness of lean concrete was 100 mm.
2. Compression tests on the slab concrete: The tests revealed
a concrete average cylindrical compression strength fcm 5
40:35 MPa; hence, the characteristic (nominal) cylinder com-
pressive strength was fck 5 fcm =8 5 32:35 MPa and the cube
compressive strength was Rck 5 fck =0:83 5 39 MPa [Comité
Euro-International du Béton (CEB) 1990], which is greater
than the specified design strength (Rck 5 25 MPa).
3. Indirect assessment of concrete strength of the structural walls:
Sclerometer tests performed on the walls between the foun-
dation and the ground floor (at Points S1–S6 in Fig. 1)
presented a fair repeatability. Taking into account that the
scattering of the results for this type of nondesctructive test is
6 7% and taking the conservative lower bound of the measure-
ments, the average of the measured values was 36 MPa, which
is greater than the specified design strength of 30 MPa.
4. Assessment of the slab reinforcement: The surveys made with
an electromagnetic rebar detector (at Points P1–P6 in Fig. 1)
confirmed the presence of 6-mm-diameter welded wire fabric
in 200 3 200 mm sheets as reinforcement, with cover thick-
nesses over the reinforcement ranging from 10 to 30 mm.
5. Assessment of cracking pattern: Many cracks, even long and
branched cracks, could be seen on the basement floor (Fig. 1).
The whole passage leading to the garages was crossed ap-
proximately at the centerline by a continuous crack that
appeared like a trunk line from which other orthogonal and
 diagonal cracks departed. Some of the latter cracks also
penetrated and branched into the garages in places where
other continuous cracks appeared and ran parallel to the main
trunk line. Moreover, individual cracks were present in some
garages parallel to the RC walls that separated one garage
from the other. The maximum measured crack opening was
1.5 mm, and many cracks were wider than 0.5 mm. Percolat-
ing water was present in some cracks, while in many cracks
where water was not present deposits of dark gray material
could be observed. After sampling and reaction with hydro-
chloride acid, the dark gray materials proved to be calcium
carbonate, a sign of water migrating through the concrete.
Capillary cracks were found in the RC walls facing the path
separating the two aboveground structures; these cracks were
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
visible on the stories between the ground and the second floors
and at the corners of some door and window openings.
6. Monitoring of crack openings and temperature: Changes in
crack width were monitored by potentiometric displacement
transducers at eight points of measure (A–H in Fig. 1) inside
the basement, to assess any progress of cracking. Moreover,
because crack openings can depend on temperature variation,
the temperature was monitored at four different points;
i.e., three inside the basement (T1–T3 in Fig. 1) and one
outside (TE in Fig. 1), in one of the basement air outlets.
Despite the brief period of monitoring—slightly less than
3 months—the crack openings underwent changes that, in many
cases, did not depend on temperature variations. In particular,
with reference to the position of the transducers in Fig. 1
(Points A–H), the following evidence was recorded. Only two
of the eight monitored cracks did not undergo variations in
width. These were the cracks at Points A and H. Point A was
over the foundation beam, which is less deformable than the
slab, and Point H was near another foundation beam that, being
short, was even less deformable. The cracks at Point B (near
the entrance hall) and Point C (under the air outlets) were
highly sensitive to temperature variation. However, at the end
of the monitoring period, when the temperature was very
similar to that at the beginning, they exhibited an increase
in width greater than the accuracy of the transducers (0.01
mm). The crack at Point D was the only one that reclosed,
perhaps as a result of the increase in width of a nearby crack
that had more recently appeared. The cracks at Points E, F,
and G, which were not sensitive to temperature variation
because they were in positions protected from air circulation,
all evinced progressive crack opening.
Causes of the Detected Anomalies
Cracking of the Slab
Because no lining is present on the basement floor, the detected
cracks are structural cracks. They are widely spread and affect both
the slab and the foundation beams. The reasons for the cracking
are explained here and, because the civil suit took place in Italy,
formulations referred to in the Italian Code D.M. 16/01/1996
[Ministry of Public Works (MPW) 1996] are used in the sub-
sequent discussion.
The maximum calculated moments on the slab would have been
63.64 kN×m under gravity loads and earthquake, and 58.26 kN×m
without earthquake. In addition to gravity loads, pressure as a result
of the presence of groundwater acts on the slab; however, it was not
considered by the designer. The value of this pressure is 0.013 MPa,
and the relevant moment is Mwater 5 26:4 kN × m. Hence, the overall
JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2013 / 297
J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2013.27:295-302.
maximum acting moment as a result of vertical loads without
earthquake is Moverall 5 58:26 1 26:4 5 84:66 kN × m. Because no
earthquake had occurred since the construction of the structure, and
the slab was cracked, it is obvious that its cracking moment is less
than 84.66 kN×m. The slab cracking moment is calculated here by
using the elastic theory method and considering a slab portion of
unitary width with the following mechanical characteristics: con-
crete cube compressive strength (derived from the measured cyl-
inder compressive strength) Rck 5 39 MPa; compressive and tensile
elastic moduli of concrete Ec 5 28,500 MPa and Ect 5 10,000 MPa,
respectively; and steel elastic modulus Es 5 206,000 MPa. The
considered section is reinforced by five 6-mm-diameter bars both at
the top and bottom. The neutral axis depth of the section xc is given by
bx2c ðh 2 xc Þ2
þ nA9sðxc 2 d9Þ 2 nAs ðd 2 xc Þ 2 n9b ¼0 ð1Þ
2 2
where b 5 1;000-mm section width; h 5 300-mm section height;
d9 5 23 mm and d 5 distances from the extreme compression fiber
of the concrete to the centroid of the longitudinal compression and
tension reinforcements, respectively; As 5 141 mm2 and A9s 5
141 mm2 5 areas of longitudinal tension and compression rein-
forcements, respectively; and n 5 15 and n9 5 Ect =Ec 5 0:35.
The moment of inertia about the neutral axis just before cracking
is
h i
Jn ¼ b x3c þ n9ðh 2 xc Þ3 þ nA9s ðxc 2 d9Þ2 2 nAs ðd 2 xc Þ2
3
ð2Þ
and the cracking moment
fcfm Jn
Mcrack ¼  ð3Þ
n9 h 2 xc
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
where fcfm 5 1:2 3 0:27 3 3 R2ck MPa (MPW 1996), the concrete
average tensile strength in presence of flexure. Because the slab
is reinforced by a welded wire fabric, distance d can be equal to
dmin 5 300 2 20 2 6 2 6=2 5 271 mm or dmax 5 300 2 20 2 6=2 5
277 mm. For each distance there is a cracking moment with mini-
mum and maximum values Mcrack,min 5 73:3 kN × m and Mcrack,max 5
73:7 kN × m, respectively. In some sections the slab is crossed by
a drainpipe with a diameter of 60 mm. When the drainpipe touches
the slab top reinforcement (Fig. 2) the slab cracking moments are
Mcrack,pipe,min 5 69:9 kN × m and Mcrack,pipe,max 5 70:2 kN × m, respec-
tively. All the calculated moments have values that are less than the
acting moment of 84.66 kN×m; hence, it is obvious that the slab
should have cracked. Because the drainpipe is positioned in the
Fig. 2. Slab section where the drain pipe touches the slab top
reinforcement
 centerline of the basement aisle (Fig. 1), where moments are near
the maximum, the cracks are continuous above the drainpipe. The
concrete and steel stresses have to be calculated to understand if
they are near failure or not. The neutral axis depth is obtained from
Eq. (1) as follows:
" sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi #
n × ðAs þ A9sÞ 2bðAs d þ A9sd9Þ
xc ¼ × 21 þ 1 þ ð4Þ
b nðAs þ A9sÞ2
Fhe moment of inertia of the cracked section is
bx3c
Jci ¼ þ nA9s ðxc 2 d9Þ2 2 nAs ðd 2 xc Þ2 ð5Þ
3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
and the maximum concrete and steel stresses are sc 5 Moverall
ðxc =Jci Þ519:4 MPa and ss 5n × Moverall ½ðd2xc Þ=Jci 52;257 MPa,
respectively.
The concrete stress was far from attaining the average cylinder
compressive strength of 40.35 MPa, as obtained from the core
samples tested in the laboratory. The steel reinforcement had
exceeded the average yield strength of 494.5 MPa. However, it had
not exceeded its maximum deformation because in this case the slab
should have failed. The conclusion that can be drawn is that the slab
reinforcement is underdesigned.
Cracking of Vertical Structures and Beams
The cracks detected on RC walls and at the corners of some openings
were probably caused by differential settlements of the foundations.
These settlements may also have produced cracks on the beams. The
RC walls that form the bearing structure of the two buildings from
the basement to the ground floor have their reinforcement anchored
in the mat foundation. Hence, the structural walls transfer to the
foundations the dead and variable loads that come from the buildings
standing above them. If the center of gravity of the loads coincides
with the center of the mat foundation, often the pressure on the soil is
regarded as uniform and equal to the sum of the downward loads
divided by the area of the mat. The subject slab, which was the object
of the civil suit, was designed in this way. However, this method is
dangerous, and in most cases wrong, because it does not take into
account that the loads transferred to the soil through the mat foun-
dation usually are not uniformly distributed because they are higher
beneath the walls and columns. Such nonuniform loads cause dif-
ferential settlements among the centers of vertical members (the
centers of sections of columns and walls), and large differential
settlements give rise to moments and shears, both on the foundations
and on the horizontal members. Regarding the beams, the individual
member (beam), AB, in Fig. 3 subjected to the differential dis-
placement DAB will crack at the top at Section A and at the bottom
at Section B. If the vertical displacement is large, plastic hinges
may develop in the beam near Sections A and B. In conclusion, the
slab foundation was designed as a rigid mat subjected to a uniform
uplift pressure, while it should have been designed as a beam on
an elastic soil.
Fig. 3. Beam subjected to vertical differential displacement
298 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2013
J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2013.27:295-302.
Water Movements
The water coming in the basement floor is a result of the cracking of
the slab. Although the designer knew that the water table was above
the bottom of the slab, the slab of a waterproofing membrane was not
provided. As a consequence of this being omitted, water infiltration
spreads from bottom to top across the cracks. The quantity of water
occasionally permeating through the cracks is not great at the mo-
ment because of two reasons. The first reason is that the pathway is
small because it depends on the crack width, the number of cracks,
and the ratio (very small) between the floor cracked surface and
uncracked surface. The second reason is the tortuous nature of the
path along which the water has to run. Moreover, the water that
permeates the foundation spreads on the large basement floor and
evaporates as a result of the air circulation. Because the slab had
deformed and risen in the central parts of the basement aisle and
centers of garage spaces, if for any reason a larger quantity of water
should penetrate the basement, functionality problems may arise
because the prescribed floor slopes have been modified and are now
inadequate to permit the flow of water on the basement floor.
Consequences of the Detected Anomalies
The first and most important consequence of the detected anomalies
is that the foundation structure is not durable under normal service
conditions and could be not safe in 10 or more years in relation to the
evolution of cracks and settlements. As demonstrated previously,
the acting moments have caused the cracking of the slab and the
yielding of the steel reinforcement. The maximum positive moments
as a result of pressure are attained near joints between the slab and
columns and walls. Hence, at these locations, cracks occur at the
bottom surface of the foundation beams and are directly in contact
with water and soil. The width of these cracks may increase if ad-
ditional differential settlements occur at sections where the dis-
placements are already great. The presence of calcium carbonate
(dark gray deposits) in the cracks bears witness to the presence of
water moving through the concrete. Carbon dioxide dissolves in
water to form carbonic acid, which attacks the calcium in concrete
and forms calcium carbonate (carbonation). When water is absent,
the calcium carbonate deposits remain. If carbonation progresses to
the depth of the steel, water and oxygen reach the reinforcing bars,
which react with the oxygen and water to produce rust (oxidation).
In this case study, in portions of the foundation that are riddled with
cracks, the steel reinforcement has oxidated and rust has formed; the
rust formation results in a reduction of the steel cross section and,
consequently, of the force that the steel can bear. The phenomenon
unavoidably progresses over time, and steel stresses and strains
increase. The strains in concrete in contact with the steel increase,
too, with the possibility of causing tensile cracking if these strains
exceed the tensile strain capacity of the concrete. The progressive
spreading of cracking over time leads to redistribution of stresses
and strains in the slab and to the consequent changing of its resisting
schemes. In addition, when water is present, it flows through the
cracks carrying sulfates, thereby causing ettringite formation, a
phenomenon also known as sulfate attack. Ettringite crystals exert
high expansive stresses, which exceed the concrete tensile strength
and produce further extension of cracking. Moreover, the presence
of a water table with a variable depth may greatly increase the
pressure at the bottom surface of the foundation slab, and even more
at the bottom surfaces of foundation beams, the latter lying at a lower
level than the former. The water pressure adds to the soil pressure,
and if it is not adequately taken into account may increase cracking
of the mat foundation concrete. The effects of the aforementioned
 detrimental occurrences may combine and give rise to serviceability
or maintenance inefficiency and also to failures in service. In con-
clusion, the durability of the structure in question is by no means
assured because the structure has not retained the physical and
mechanical properties with which it was designed.
Anomalies that May Occur in the Future
Apart from the increase in stresses caused by the presence of water,
most of the aforementioned phenomena (differential settlements,
oxidation resulting in expanding corrosion, and ettringite growth)
develop slowly over time. The main consequence is that their pro-
gressive growth may lead to variations in the foundation structural
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
scheme. A possible evolution of the slow or time-dependent phe-
nomena is described here.
Plastic Hinge Formation and Propagation
A slab portion of unitary width can be considered as a continuum
beam on more than two supports, where the supports are the struc-
tural walls or the foundation beams bounding the basement aisle and
the loads are the soil and water pressures directed upward. Conse-
quently, the moments at supports are positive (i.e., produce tension
at the bottom fibers of the slab) and the moments at midspans are
negative (i.e., produce tension at the top fibers of the slab). It is well
known that moments of continuum beams at the intermediate sup-
ports are greater than moments at midspans. Because the slab has
symmetrical reinforcement, it follows that unseen cracks at the slab
bottom surface are larger than the ones visible at the slab top surface.
The yield moment of the slab is calculated by means of the elastic
theory with the average strengths of materials; i.e., steel average
yield strength fmy 5 1:15 × fyk 5 1:15 3 430 5 494:5 MPa, where
fyk is the characteristic yield strength; concrete average cube
compressive strength Rcm 5 fcm =0:83 5 40:35=0:83 5 48:6 MPa;
and d9 5 23 mm and d 5 277 mm. The obtained value Myield 5
18:6 kN × m is often less than the calculated moments acting at the
midspans of the basement aisle. Hence, large portions of the
foundation slab work as a three-hinged beam (cylindrical hinges), as
illustrated in Fig. 4(a). The same occurs for some slab portions inside
the garages. Where two cracks run along the basement aisle (see
Fig. 1), the corresponding slab portion can be represented by a four-
hinged beam [Fig. 4(b)]. Because flexural strains increase as a result
of steel oxidation, the still elastic sections, being stiffer, oppose the
increased strain. Consequently, increases in stresses occur in these
sections, which become locations of the formation of plastic hinges.
Moment redistribution occurs, giving rise to even more plastic
hinges, and the slab becomes progressively more deformable. Even
if deterioration phenomena progress slowly, as the slab degrades and
becomes strained it moves toward incremental failure. Naturally, the
Fig. 4. Schematic representation of slab portions: (a) three-hinged
beam; (b) four-hinged beam
JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2013 / 299
J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2013.27:295-302.
previously described mechanism has been simplified because the
slab is a bidimensional member and is not composed of unidi-
mensional members placed side by side. However, the essence of the
argument did not change. The slab in question was designed to
distribute structural loads from above, and to balance the resulting
downward force with the upward force caused by uniformly dis-
tributed soil pressures. As the slab degrades, the soil pressures acting
on the more deformed slab portions decrease, and because static
equilibrium of the system must be maintained, the upward forces
migrate and concentrate under the stiffer slab portions. The soil
pressure under these portions increases and, as a consequence of the
modification of the slab loading scheme and redistribution of forces,
the acting downward pressure could exceed the bearing capacity of
soil in the future.
Incremental Settlements
On the basis of the investigations performed to date, it can be as-
serted that the settlements of the building foundation have not yet
finished. These settlements are still increasing and will induce in-
creasing differential settlements in the aboveground structures.
These settlements will cause additional stresses and strains in the
structures. The progressive evolution of slab cracking indicates that
the slab retains some functionality, and the loads of the structure are
not borne entirely by the foundation beams. Because the slab
cracking moment is greater than the yield moment, it is assumed for
the cracked slab portions that both the top and bottom steel re-
inforcement have yielded. Therefore, in the case of a single crack at
the centerline of the basement aisle, a slab portion of unitary width
can be represented by a three-hinged beam [Fig. 4(a)]. The three- and
four-hinged [Fig. 4(b)] beam mechanisms are governed by rigid
body motion laws and not by linear elastic theory. By assuming the
starting configuration of an undeformed basement aisle [the straight
line between Points A and C in Fig. 4(a)], the deformed shape caused
by the rotation of the plastic hinge in the midspan is represented by
the broken line, ABC, shown in Fig. 4(a). The maximum measured
crack opening increment da was very small and equal to 0.03 mm
(point of measure, E, in Fig. 1). Considering an average width L of
5.7 m for the basement aisle in Fig. 4(a), and by assuming a crack
depth equal to the half-slab thickness h=2, the rigid rotation between
the left and right slab portions in the three-hinge schematic is
equal to a 5 da =ðh=2Þ 5 0:03=ð300=2Þ 5 2 3 1024 rad. Neglecting
elastic deformation, the relative vertical displacement between the
hinge at the beam midspan and the one at the support [Points B and
A, respectively, in Fig. 4(a)] is d 5 ðL=2Þ × ða=2Þ 5 ð5;700=2Þ ×
ð2 3 1024 =2Þ 5 0:285 mm.
In the case of the four-hinge schematic [Fig. 4(b)], for the same
value of da , the relative displacement is d 5 a × L=3 5 ð2 3 1024 3
5;700=3Þ 5 0:38 mm.
It should be understood that the relative displacements computed
previously are slowly occurring settlements, and will continue over
time, as described subsequently. Strain in coherent nonsensitive
soils develops as a result of compression or expulsion of gas or
water, if any. The quickness of the phenomenon depends on the
permeability and compressibility, and above all on the drainage
pathway through the soil, with time lapses that may last decades or
even centuries. Slowly occurring settlement in clay soils is always
greater than rapidly occurring settlement (Cestelli Guidi 1980).
Because the permeability of the soil under the structure in question is
low (1026–1025 mm/s), the measured settlements are part of slowly
occurring settlements, which may continue for decades. For 1 year,
the settlement behavior can be considered linear. Therefore, because
measurements were taken over a 3-month period, the settlement of
the slab portion represented by the three-hinged beam can, in 1 year’s
 time, be estimated to reach 0:38 3 4 5 1:52 mm. Over a longer
period, the settlement behavior cannot be considered linear because
the progression of slow settlements under constant loads reduces as
the years go by. However, for this case study the loads are not
constant because of the previously described redistribution of loads
from the slab to the foundation beams and to slab portions under
load-bearing walls. This redistribution of loads causes an increase in
pressure on parts of the subgrade soil over time, and, with increasing
pressure, increasing settlement occurs. Taking into account that the
decreasing rate of settlement has a greater influence than the increase
in settlement because of increasing soil pressure, it can be ap-
proximately assumed that the settlement after 10 years would be
equal to the settlement that would have occurred in 8 years, if the
behavior would have been linear over that time. Proceeding with this
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
a4,5C-C,i 5 15=ð1;900=2Þ 5 0:0054 rad, and w4,5C-C,i 5
0:0079 3 150 5 1:2 mm. The previously calculated crack
openings (0.7, 0.8, and 1.2 mm) are similar to the values
measured on site, which were all less than 1 mm, except for the
crack widths at Points M and N in Fig. 1, which had openings
of 1.3 and 1.5 mm, respectively. Because the survey of the
cracks was performed 4 years after the building construction, it
can be said that the previously calculated crack openings were
consistent with the immediate settlements calculated as part of
the geotechnical investigation, plus a small additional amount
of consolidation settlement, which contributes to the total or
final settlement.
2. The final crack opening widths are calculated by using the total
or final settlements reported in Table 1. Regarding Points 3

assumption, and considering as differential settlement in 1 year’s
time the previous calculated one (1.52 mm), the differential set-
tlement of the slab section represented by the three-hinge schematic,
over 10 years from the building construction, can be estimated at
1:52 3 8 5 12:2 mm. To obtain the overall differential settlement at
10 years, this settlement has to be added to the corresponding differ-
ential settlement occurring immediately after the building construction.
and 4 of Section A-A, the average final differential settlement
is d3,4A-A, f 5 ð29 1 24Þ=2 5 26:5 mm, the rotation between
the faces of the crack is a3,4A-A, f 5 26:5=ð5700=2Þ 5 0:0093
rad, and the final crack opening is w3,4A-A, f 5 0:0093 3 150 5
1:4 mm. Regarding Points 3 and 4 of Section B-B, d3,4B-B, f 5
ð33 1 66Þ=2 5 49:5 mm, a3,4B-B, f 549:5=ð4;800=2Þ50:021

Table 1. Calculated Settlements

Crack Openings Computed from the Results of the Point of computation
Geotechnical Investigation
Section 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
To estimate the final settlements and the corresponding crack Immediate settlement (mm)
openings, first (Item 1 in the subsequent list), it was determined
whether the measured crack openings were consistent with the initial A-A 9 13 14 12 13 18
settlements calculated in the geotechnical study. Then (Item 2 in the B-B 17 6 7 19 20 8 7 17
subsequent list), the final crack openings were calculated based on C-C 7 11 31 19 11 9 11
the final settlements determined in the geotechnical investigation. Final settlement (mm)
The immediate and final settlements, resulting from a finite-element
A-A 9 26 29 24 23 25
analysis based on the soil stratigraphy obtained from the geo-
B-B 22 29 33 66 67 45 40 22
technical investigations, are reported in Table 1, respectively, for 21
C-C 29 40 45 48 48 48 58
points of computation. The names of the points of settlement and
sections correspond to those shown in Fig. 5.
1. Immediate settlements occur immediately after the soil has been
loaded by the structure. Hence, when such settlements occurred,
the slab should still have been intact. Structural calculations
taking into account the water pressure demonstrated that many
slab portions were subjected to flexural moments near the
maximum moment of 84.66 kN×m, while the slab cracking
moment ranged from 69.9 kN×m to 73.7 kN×m. Therefore, when
immediate settlement occurred, the slab cracked, and plastic
hinges formed. Considering this, slab portions of unitary width
can be represented by the three- or four-hinged beam schematics
presented in Fig. 4. For example, Points 3 and 4 of Section A-A
in Fig. 5 were subjected to immediate settlements equal to 14
and 12 mm, respectively (Table 1). The unitary slab portion
between these two points is cracked in the midspan (Fig. 1);
hence, it can be represented schematically by the three-hinged
beam in Fig. 4(a). The average differential displacement be-
tween the midspan hinge and the edge hinges is d3,4A-A,i 5
ð14 1 12Þ=2 5 13 mm. Therefore, the rotation between the
faces of the crack is a3,4A-A,i 5 13=ð5;700=2Þ 5 0:0046 rad,
and the immediate crack opening is w3,4A-A,i 5 0:0046 3
150 5 0:7 mm. Regarding Points 3 and 4 of Section B-B,
d3,4B-B,i 5 ð7 1 19Þ=2 5 13 mm (Table 1), and taking
into account the slab portion length of 4.8 m, a3,4B-B,i 5
13=ð4;800=2Þ 5 0:0054 rad, and w3,4B-B,i 5 0:0054 3 150 5
0:8 mm. Between Points 4 and 5 of Section C-C two
cracks opened (Fig. 1); hence, a four-hinge mechanism oc- Fig. 5. Sections and points of settlement calculation
curred [Fig. 4(b)], d4,5C-C,i 5ð19111Þ=2515 mm (Table 1),

300 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2013

J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2013.27:295-302.

 rad, and w3,4B-B, f 5 0:0213150 5 3:1 mm. Regarding Points
4 and 5 of Section C-C, d4,5C-C, f 5 ð48148Þ=2 5 48 mm,
a4,5C-C, f 5 48=1;900 5 0:0025 rad, and w4,5C-C, i 5 0:00253
150 5 3:7 mm. Crack openings of 3.1 or 3.7 mm were not
measured at any point of the slab, providing proof that the
building is far from reaching the total or final settlement and
the consequent state of structural stability.
Therefore, it is necessary to assess the damages that the structure
will suffer in subsequent decades, until it will have reached the state of
stability. To do this, the relative vertical displacements that affect the
horizontal structural members have to be taken into account in the
calculation of the acting moments on such members. These dis-
placements are caused by the vertical settlements of the vertical
members. Hence, the final settlements of the building (Table 1) were
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
used to assess the moments and cracking condition of one of the
building beams. The considered beam is one that lies in the plane of
Section B-B in Fig. 5, is anchored to the lift/elevator shaft at Point 4,
and goes from Point 4 through Points 3 and 2 to Point 1 (area bounded
by the dashed lines in Fig. 5). The schematic of Beam 1-2-3-4, at-
tached to the wall at the first floor, is presented in Fig. 6. This beam was
loaded with the gravitational loads and the settlements of the vertical
members to which it is connected. The obtained acting moment in
Point 4 at the first floor was 256.02 kN×m, much greater than the beam
cracking moment, which was equal to 38.03 kN×m. The obtained
crack opening of 1.1 mm was significantly larger than the values
allowed by many codes; for example, the 0.2 or 0.4 mm permitted in
Eurocode 2 [European Committee for Standardization (CEN) 2005].
Moreover, the acting moment produced a steel stress of 947 MPa,
which is greater than the steel average yield strength of 494.5 MPa. In
conclusion, under final settlement conditions, the beam in question
will fail, and it seems probable that many other members of the
structure will fail, too, leading the whole structure to collapse under
normal service conditions. Hence, structural repairs must be made.
Proposed Restoration Solution
To avoid the detrimental consequences of relative displacements
caused by the slow or time-dependent settlements, it is necessary to
prevent the occurrence of differential settlements or at least to limit
their extent. To obtain this, the following three different restoration
solutions were analyzed: (1) stiffen all horizontal structural mem-
bers (beams and joists) at every floor; (2) build another slab over the
existing one, and implement good connections between them; and
(3) realize, under the structure, pile foundation completed by means
of a new slab over the existing one. Solution 1 was excluded because
it was too complex, very expensive, and would cause a high level of
discomfort for the occupants of the building. Regarding Solution 2,
unfortunately the height of the basement was only 2.63 m and, for
the codes on fire protection, it must not be lower than 2.40 m. Hence,
at least, the additional slab could have been not thicker than 200 mm.
Such a slab, even opportunely connected to the existing one and
highly reinforced, would not have been sufficient to adequately
prevent the differential displacements caused by the slow settle-
ments. This was because the existing slab was already very de-
graded, permeable to water, with underdesigned reinforcement,
Fig. 6. Schematic of Beam 1-2-3-4
JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2013 / 301
J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2013.27:295-302.
greatly strained by the settlements that had already occurred, and not
very stiff and strong. Hence, the new slab with a smaller thickness
would have to deal with the greater part of slow settlements that
would have developed in the future, settlements that would have
been greater than those that had already occurred and that the
existing slab was not able to bear. Adequate strength could have
been provided to the new 200-mm slab by a large amount of re-
inforcement. However, adequate stiffness could not be provided
because the slab moment of inertia strongly depends on the slab
thickness. Hence, the most appropriate restoration solution appeared
to be Solution 3; i.e., to found the structure on micropiles and,
concurrently, build a second slab on the existing one. Pile founda-
tions allow for the transmission of structural loads through the upper
zones of poor soil to a depth where the earth is capable of providing
the desired support. The micropiles could be placed by drilling
through the existing foundation, without creating excessive dis-
comfort to the owners, except for the temporary unavailability of the
garages. Each pile should have a diameter of 88.9 mm, a thickness of
6.3 mm, and an overall steel area of 1,634 mm2. The piles should be
9–10 m long to reach the sand layer that lies at 9–12 m from the
ground surface, according to borings drilled outside the building. It is
recommended that a maximum pile-to-pile spacing of 1 m be used
under the exterior walls, with two piles placed every 1.5 m under the
interior structural walls, one pile every 0.5 m under the foundation
beams, and 32 piles under the lift/elevator shaft. The new slab could
have a maximum thickness of 200 mm and should be made with
concrete having a characteristic cube compressive strength of 35
MPa. It should be securely joined to the existing slab by means of
mechanic connectors. An impermeable sheathing layer should not
be placed on the existing slab because it could carry water to the
bases of structural walls, thereby causing corrosion of their rein-
forcing steel. The reinforcement of the new slab should be designed
with the understanding that the slab must bear the stresses caused
by the water pressure acting at the bottom surface of the existing slab
and not the soil differential settlements because the settlements
under the piles would be negligible.
Cost of the Proposed Restoration
An analysis of costs of the proposed restoration for the building was
performed. The overall computed cost was around V860,000, and it
took into account delivery of the materials (steel reinforcement,
concrete, and tubes for micropiles); all of the work necessary to place
the piles; and technical expenditures for designing, project man-
agement, and safety and quality assurance records at the construction
site. It is evident that the proposed restoration action has a high cost;
however, it is necessary to assure the future usability of the building
under normal service conditions.
Conclusions
On the basis of the case study described herein, the following rec-
ommendations are made to avoid structural problems in concrete
mat foundations on clay soils with fluctuating water tables.
1. Because long-term settlements of foundation may be very high
(on the order of several centimeters), the eventuality that the
foundation slab may be not strong enough to support the soil
settlements has to be considered. In this case, it must be
verified that the foundation beams are capable of bearing all
of the structural loads without any contribution from the slab,
while operating in the elastic range and not settling excessively
or exceeding the soil’s bearing capacity. To work in the elastic
range the foundation beams have to be designed to be
 adequately stiff, while to avoid soil failure they must be wide
enough to distribute the load. Moreover, because long-term
settlements may be high, the strength of the horizontal ele-
vating members (beams) must also be verified.
2. To assure durability of the structure, especially under con-
ditions of water table fluctuations, oxidation must be avoided
by providing adequate concrete cover, as prescribed by build-
ing codes. In the presence of clay soils, which may contain
sulfates, the concrete must either be made with sulfate-
resisting cement, or a crack control plan must be imple-
mented. In the presence of clay soils with water, because of
the long-term progression of settlements, ideally the mat
foundation should be designed to resist loads without crack-
ing at all. In this way, the previously described process of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
progressive degradation of the foundation can be avoided.
3. The possible presence of water under the foundation and the
consequent additional hydrostatic pressure have to be taken
adequately into account in the design of the foundation slab
and foundation beams.
Acknowledgments
Support for this research by the Italian Department of Civil Protec-
tion under the auspices of Executive Project DPC-ReLUIS 2010-
2013 is gratefully acknowledged.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
As , A9s 5 areas of longitudinal tension and compression
reinforcements, respectively;
b 5 section width;
d 5 distance from extreme compression fiber of
concrete to centroid of longitudinal tension
reinforcement;
d9 5 distance from extreme compression fiber of
concrete to centroid of longitudinal
compression reinforcement;
da 5 crack opening increment;
302 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2013
J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2013.27:295-302.
Ec , Ect 5 compressive and tensile elastic moduli of
concrete, respectively;
Es 5 compressive elastic modulus of steel;
fcfm 5 concrete average tensile strength in the
presence of flexure;
fck , fcm 5 characteristic and average cylinder
compressive strengths of concrete,
respectively;
fyk , fym 5 characteristic and average yield strengths of
steel, respectively;
h 5 section height;
Jci 5 moment of inertia of the cracked section;
Jn 5 moment of inertia about the neutral axis just
before cracking;
L 5 width of the basement aisle;
Mcrack , Myield 5 cracking and yielding moments, respectively;
n 5 modular ratio;
n9 5 ratio between the concrete tensile and
compression moduli;
Rck and Rcm 5 characteristic and average cube compressive
strengths of concrete, respectively;
xc 5 neutral axis depth;
a 5 rigid rotation between the slab portions;
d 5 differential settlement; and
sc , ss 5 concrete and steel stresses, respectively.
References
Cestelli Guidi, C. (1980). Geotecnica e tecnica delle fondazioni, Vol. 2,
Hoepli Publishing House, Milan, Italy (in Italian).
Comité Euro-International du Béton (CEB). (1990). “CEB-FIP model
code.” Bulletin d’Information 195, Lausanne, Switzerland.
European Committee for Standardization (CEN). (2005). “Eurocode 2:
Design of concrete structures—Part 1-1: General rules and rules for
buildings.” EN 1992-1-1, Brussels, Belgium.
Ministry of Public Works (MPW). (1996). “Norme tecniche per le cost-
ruzioni in zone sismiche.” Italian Ministerial Decree D.M. 16/01/1996,
Rome (in Italian).