JOINT FREE SLABS ON GRADE

Warwick Colefax1 BE(Hons) MIEAust CPEng RPEQ

SUMMARY

Joint Free Slabs™ is an innovative method for the construction of vast areas of slab on
grade without the traditional formed and sawn shrinkage control joints. A crack inducer grid
is used to induce a closely spaced network of fine cracks throughout the entire area of the
slab that do not need to be reflected through applied floor finishes.

The joint free slab system is a very appropriate system for retail centres and supermarkets
where the installation and maintenance of control joint cover strips is both costly and
troublesome. They can be readily constructed at the rate of 1,500 to 2,000 square metres
per day per crew, delivering substantial savings in construction time as well as cost.

INTRODUCTION
Traditional slabs on grade are typically detailed
with a regular grid of shrinkage control joints at 6
to 10 metres centres in both directions. The most
commonly used shrinkage control joints are keyed
joints, sawn joints, dowelled joints, and
combinations of these.
One of the most popular control joints is the sawn
joint because of its simplicity and lower cost,
however all too often in the field sawn joints are
ineffective. If the saw cut is installed too long
after the slab has been placed, thermal shrinkage
cracks may have already occurred [9] and in such
cases the cracks do not coincide with the straight
line of the saw cut. The saw cut must be installed
within about four hours of placing the concrete if it
is to have a high prospect of success, and in
building projects this rarely occurs.
Dowelled joints in the past have rarely worked
effectively as it was commonplace for the dowels
to be not firmly and accurately secured in position
and to be not correctly aligned. In such
circumstances the concrete on both sides of the
control joint becomes effectively locked. When
this happens a shrinkage crack usually appears
along a wandering line at one end of the dowels.
In recent times pre-fabricated dowel cages have
become readily available, and these have greatly
improved the situation, however the cages are
expensive and there are still many aspects of
dowelled joints that can result in failure if they are
not properly addressed.
One of the most effective joints in controlling
shrinkage is the keyed joint, however this type of
joint is very susceptible to damage of the concrete
slab edge over the female section of the key, and
it has questionable load transfer characteristics
_________________________________
1
Director, Colefax Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd
once it opens up. Also, all too often slabs are
thickened at the key thereby providing restraint
against shrinkage and rending the joint ineffective.
The joint free slab system provides an alternative
approach to the detailing of many large area slabs
on grade that does away with all traditional
shrinkage control joints. In joint free slabs a crack
inducer grid is used in lieu of traditional control
joints, and this induces a closely spaced network
of fine cracks throughout the entire slab area that
do not need to be reflected through the applied
floor finishes. This contrasts with traditionally
detailed slabs on grade in which significant
movement is designed to occur at the control
joints, and hence the joints must be reflected
through finishes if damage is to be avoided.
Joint free slabs can be readily substituted for most
traditional slabs on grade where there is a desire
to reap the many potential benefits. The system is
particularly suited to slab on grade floors that are
to have finishes applied. It is these applications
that have the greatest potential savings in
construction time, construction cost and ongoing
maintenance cost.
HISTORY
The joint free slab on grade system was first
launched in October 2000. The concept
germinated from a client’s request to eliminate all
of the traditional shrinkage control joints in a roller
blade skating rink measuring some 50m x 30m in
which the joints were perceived to be a hazard to
the skaters. The outcome of this trial slab was so
successful that it was quickly recognised there
was a huge potential for use of the system in a
wide variety of commercial projects, and the first
commercial project soon followed.
In the early days there was much talk about the
need for the passage of time so that all of the
claims could be substantiated and the long term
performance of the system could be properly
evaluated. This is a difficulty faced with most new
product and system launches, and it can make it
very difficult for innovators in the building industry.
It was most fortunate that there were a number of
builders and developers in the early days that
were quick to recognise the potential of the the
joint free slab system, understood the principles
on which it was based, and were prepared to give
it a go. Almost all of those that tried the system in
its early days have gone on to use it again, and
again. Hutchinson Builders for example have now
used the system on five Officeworks projects in
Queensland and NSW over the last two years and
and are planning on using the system in further
projects in the second half of 2004.
In 2001 the joint free slab system also received
substantial recognition when it was awarded an
Excellence Certificate at the CIA biennial
conference in Perth. This provided a great boost
to the industry acceptance of the system in the
early days.
The system is now being used on many projects,
and notably it is being used on projects for large
national retail chains in Australia such as
Woolworths, Officeworks, Bi-Lo, Big W, Super
Cheap Auto and Coles. The list of both projects
and users is continuing to grow. Joint free slabs
have also been installed on projects for Qantas,
BP Australia, NSW Department of Education,
Project Services Queeensland, and other private
school groups.
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
Analysis is not necessary for lightly loaded slabs.
This is no different to normal practice with
traditional slabs on grade where to a great extent
most slabs under 150 thick are specified and
detailed on an empirical basis.
For more heavily loaded slabs however, and slabs
with known heavy point loads, stacking loads and
repetitive wheel loads, analysis and design is
often required to satisfy the engineer that the slab
will perform satisfactorily to the client’s
requirements in the long term.
In these circumstances we use and recommend
beam on elastic foundation analysis software to
analyse joint free slabs. A 1m wide slab strip in
two orthogonal directions is modelled for analysis
_________________________________
1
Director, Colefax Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd
with segment lengths of 250mm. A hinge is
introduced at 1m centres (every fourth node) to
simulate an induced crack, and this is really the
only difference between a joint free slab and a
traditional slab on grade when it comes to
modelling for analysis. It should be noted that this
is considered a conservative approach as not
every crack inducer will always induce a crack,
and as the induced cracks will not behave as
perfect hinges because the reinforcement is
continuous through them.
As always, the designer needs to complete a
sufficient number of analyses with different load
case combinations to satisfy himself/herself that
the worst case for stress and deflection has been
identified. It is only then that the designer can
proceed to determine the minimum slab thickness
and concrete strength with a satisfactory level of
confidence.
A sample output of a beam on elastic foundation
analysis for a joint free slab is attached in
Annexure A.
Designers should be aware that in recent years
there has been a drift away from the use of beam
on elastic foundation analysis to the use of finite
element analysis (FEA) wherein soil layering is
modelled. FEA was used to generate the design
charts in the latest edition of the C&CA Guidelines
[2]. The earlier editions of the Guidelines [1] used
beam on elastic foundation analysis, but in a case
study of a pavement failure on a project in
Australia it was concluded that using a Modulus of
Subgrade Reaction approach to the design
contributed to the pavement failure.
In his paper [11] on the new C&CA Guidelines [2]
presented at a recent seminar in Sydney on
industrial pavement design, Professor Harry
Poulos explained that the shortcoming in using
subgrade reaction theory is that the subgrade
modulus is dimension dependent. He showed that
an increase in the area of loading should coincide
with a decrease in the subgrade modulus used in
the analysis.
Hence while it is satisfactory to use beam on
elastic foundation analysis for slabs with small
loaded areas (such as wheel loads), it can lead to
problems where heavy loads are applied over
large areas unless a lower value is used for the
subgrade modulus. Poulos made the point that
soil layering also affects the subgrade modulus,
and that it is difficult to take layering into account
in other than FEA.
It is the author’s belief and experience that very
few engineers in practice would complete a finite
element analysis for a slab on grade because of
the complexity and hence the expertise, the time
and the expense involved. It is therefore
suggested that taking steps such as using a
conservative value of the subgrade modulus can
compensate for the effects of large loads over
large areas.
The important thing is to be aware of potential
shortcomings and take them into consideration
when preparing the analysis and the design.
STRUCTURAL DESIGN
This section has been written around the SAA
Codes and it is will be necessary for delegates at
Queenstown to substitute the NZ equivalents.
AS 3600 – Concrete Structures [5] is the
principal reference in Australia for reinforced
concrete structures, and for the uninitiated
reference should be made to the following
Sections/Clauses to begin with:
Clause 1.3: Use Of Alternative Materials Or
Methods
SECTION 2: Design Requirements And
Procedures
SECTION 4: Design For Durability
Clause 9.4.3: Crack control for shrinkage and
temperature effects
SECTION 16: Concrete Pavements, Floors And
Residential Footings
The relevance of each of these Clauses and
Sections is elaborated on below.
AS 2870 - Residential slabs and footings –
Construction [6] is the main reference in
Australia for stiffened raft slabs used for
residential footings and it generally applies to
single dwellings of limited area. This code is cross
referenced to AS 3600 [5] and it contains details of
standard designs for ‘deemed to comply’ raft slabs
on sites with differing site classification.
There is limited scope for the standard designs
however and in Clause 3.1.1 it is stated that they
do not apply to slabs that are greater than 25m in
length, or slabs that contain contraction or control
joints. This is simply because the rafts are
intended to behave as stiff footings and thereby
_________________________________
1
Director, Colefax Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd
control damage to the super structure that could
be caused by differential movement of the
foundation material. ‘Flexible’ and articulated
slabs will not achieve this outcome.
Industrial Floors and Pavements - Guidelines
for design construction and specification [2] is
a primary reference used by engineers when
designing floors that are to be subjected to heavy
point loads and stacking loads. As with the earlier
publications, it is the design charts and the
detailed technical content that makes this
publication particularly popular.
a) Concrete Strength
One of the first tasks faced by the design engineer
is to select a characteristic compressive strength
for the concrete that will be adequate for the
application. This is no different for joint free slabs
than it is for traditional slabs on grade.
The main factors affecting the choice of an
adequate concrete strength are serviceability,
durability, and the anticipated flexural tensile
strength requirement in the case of more heavily
loaded slabs.
Rarely these days is a slab on grade specified
with a concrete compressive less than 25Mpa,
however 20Mpa is adequate for lightly loaded
slabs that are to experience negligible wear or
abrasion, or that are to be covered with ceramic
tiles, vinyl tiles, toppings or the like.
Section 4 in AS 3600 [5] stipulates the minimum
concrete strengths for various exposure
classifications, and the minimum strength is
20Mpa for the mildest exposure classification.
This section addresses the need to provide
adequate protection to embedded reinforcement in
aggressive environments.
Table 4.7 in AS 3600 [5] nominates the minimum
characteristic strengths for various applications to
ensure the concrete has adequate resistance to
the anticipated wear and abrasion (see over).
Table 1.3 in the C&CA Guidelines [2] is totally
consistent with AS 3600 Table 4.7 [5].
There are further requirements in AS 3600 Clause
4.8 [5] for slabs that may be affected by freezing
and thawing.
AS 3600 Table 4.7
STRENGTH REQUIREMENTS FOR ABRASION
Member and/or traffic
Footpaths and residential
driveways
AS 3600 Clause 16.2.2 [5] states that:
The thickness of the slab shall be proportioned to
Minimum adequately distribute concentrated loads to the
characteristic foundation.
strength (f′c)
and in Clause 16.3 it requires residential floors
and footing to be designed and constructed in
20MPa accordance with AS 2870 [6].

Commercial and Industrial AS 2870 [6] stipulates a minimum slab

floors not subject to vehicular 25MPa thicknesses of 100mm for stiffened raft slabs but
traffic allows for this to be reduced to 85mm in Western
Australia subject to it being “specified by an
Pavements or floors subject to: appropriate qualified engineer”.

(a) Light pneumatic tyred
traffic (vehicles up to 3t
gross mass)
(b) Medium or heavy
pneumatic tyred traffic
(vehicles heavier than 3t
gross mass)
(c) Non-pneumatic tyred traffic
The C&CA Guidelines [2] in Clause 3.3 provides
25MPa for a simplified thickness design based on
previous satisfactory performance, i.e. selected on
an empirical basis. The minimum recommended
thicknesses are as tabulated below:
32MPa C&CA Guidelines Table 1.14
Minimum pavement thicknesses for lightly-loaded
industrial pavements
40MPa

(d) Steel-wheeled traffic To be Typical application Rating of Minimum

assessed but subgrade thickness
not less than of
40MPa pavement
(mm)

If it is anticipated that flexural tensile stresses will

govern the determination of slab thickness, then Shops, garages
there may be a need to select a greater than mainly for private Poor 150
minimum concrete strength as this will reduce the cars, light industrial
slab thickness. premises with live Medium
loading up to 5kPa to Good 130
In summing up, concrete strength should not be
over-specified as stronger concrete will contain
more cement and hence will generally have Garages mainly for
greater shrinkage and higher cost. An increase in commercial vehicles, Poor 200
shrinkage will generally result in more cracking industrial premises
and/or larger cracks. with live loading Medium
between 5 and 20kPa to Good 180

b) Slab Thickness

The thickness of a slab on grade is either
empirical or calculated, however for the vast
majority of light to medium duty slabs on grade up
to 150mm thick, the thickness is empirical. In
these cases it is left to the design engineer to
choose or nominate the slab thickness.
Written guidance is available as follows:
In the main references used by engineers the
above is the only guidance to nominal slab
thicknesses, and it must be remembered that
these are minimum thicknesses, not mandatory
thicknesses. Engineers may always specify
greater thicknesses without fear of retribution, but
as always responsibility ultimately rests with the
engineer just as it would if a thinner slab was
specified.

_________________________________
1
Director, Colefax Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd
Many engineers do specify the minimum or It is advised in the C&CA Guidelines [2] that no
nominal thickness in accordance with the above, research has been carried out to determine
however some specify thinner or thicker slabs due appropriate values for k1, hence it is suggested
for example to personal experience, inexperience, that values be chosen from Table 1.17 for various
personal preference, or traditional practice of the loading types:
firm he or she happens to be working for.
C&CA Guidelines Table 1.17
As can be seen above there is a large number of k1 for various loading types
slab on grade applications that are not covered by
the minimum Code or Guideline recommendations
or the tabulated empirical slab thicknesses, and Loading type Range of k1
for these applications it is left to the engineer to
decide on the slab thickness.
Wheel 0.85 – 0.95
Where such selection is not based on calculation
but simply on tradition or personal
Post 0.75 – 0.85
preference/experience, there is often a great
contrast between what different engineers will
Distributed 0.75 – 0.85
specify for a similar or identical application on
similar sites. For example the author has seen
designs for supermarket slabs that vary from
100mm to more than 150mm for no other reason When adopting a value for k1 circumstances in
than they were specified by different engineers. which the higher end of the range may be
This is most unfortunate as there are significant appropriate include:
cost implications for builders and developers.
‰ concrete and geotechnical parameters are
When the design brief includes specific stacking assessed conservatively
loads, racking loads and/or wheel loads it might be ‰ site-specific correlations are used for design
necessary (even for relatively lightly loaded slabs) parameters
for the design engineer to analyse and calculate ‰ careful construction control will be applied
the slab thickness if he/she hasn’t done so for a
similar project before. In the absence of specific test data, the
characteristic flexural tensile strength can be
Just as with traditional slabs on grade, traditional calculated as follows:
design methods are used for calculating the
minimum slab thickness of a joint free slabs. Once f′cf = 0.7√f′c
the analyses have been completed for the various
load combinations, the slab thickness can be This is the relationship recommended in the
calculated based on allowable flexural tensile C&CA Guidelines [2], and it should be noted that it
stresses and punching shear stresses. The is less conservative than the relationship given in
designer must also give due consideration to AS 3600 Clause 6.1.1.2 [5]
calculated deflections of the slab.

The following equation for design tensile stress c) Restraint

(MPa) is given in the C&CA Guidelines [2] Clause
3.4.9: Restraint to shrinkage is a real problem with
traditional slabs on grade and it is the reason that
f allowable = k1 k2 f′cf reinforcement is installed, therefore every effort is
made to eliminate restraint. Such measures
where include the installation of sand blinding, and the
k1 = a material factor that varies from 0.75 to 0.95 installation of compressible isolation wherever the
k2 = a load repetition factor that varies from 0.50 slab interfaces with rigid elements such as walls
to 0.73 and columns.
f′cf = the characteristic flexural tensile strength of
The unfortunate thing with compressible isolation
the concrete (MPa)
strips is that more often than not in practice, they
are not installed such that they penetrate the full
It should be noted that the design tensile stress so
thickness of the slab and hence do not effectively
calculated is for use with permissible stress limit
isolate the slab from the rigid member.
state design
_________________________________
1
Director, Colefax Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd
The other unfortunate thing with traditional slabs
on grade is that in a practical sense it is
impossible to eliminate the restraint caused by
edge and internal thickenings unless the
thickenings themselves are eliminated.
In contrast, joint free slabs are designed to be
regularly cracked and hence many of the
difficulties encountered in trying to eliminate
cracks in traditional slabs on grade simply don’t
exist. The use of sand blinding with joint free
slabs is discouraged as it is advantageous to
increase the frictional resistance between the slab
and the subgrade, and generally all compressible
isolation is deleted for a similar reason.
Every effort is made to maximise the restraint with
joint free slabs to the extent that internal
thickenings are introduced in most jobs for the
sole purpose of increasing the level of restraint.
d) Reinforcement
For traditional slabs on grade the design engineer
must determine the reinforcement requirements
based on the geometry of the slab. The
reinforcement is not used to achieve flexural
capacity; it is simply installed to control cracking
due to restrained shrinkage and other non-flexural
effects. As mentioned above sand blinding is
normally installed on the building platform to level
the site and to reduce the friction effect, however it
must be appreciated that the larger a slab panel
is, the greater the build up of internal stresses due
to frictional restraint and other effects and hence
the greater the reinforcement requirement.
AS 3600 Clause 16.2.3 [5] is written for traditional
jointed slabs on grade. It states that:
The reinforcement and the spacing,
pattern and type of joints, shall be
designed to minimise cracking due to
shrinkage and warping
At first glance therefore it could be argued that
joint free slabs by their very nature do not comply
with AS 3600 [5]. This is overcome however with
Clause 1.3.1 which states:
Provided that the requirements of Section
2 are met, this Standard shall not be
interpreted so as to prevent the use of
materials or methods of design or
construction not specifically referred to
herein.
_________________________________
1
Director, Colefax Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd
AS 3600 Section 2 [5] outlines the general design
requirements for strength, serviceability, durability,
fire resistance, fatigue etc. For most applications
these requirements are clearly met with joint free
slabs, hence it is postulated that joint free slabs
comply with AS 3600 through the provisions of
Clause 1.3.1.
But despite the fact that Joint free slabs comply
with AS 3600 [5] for the reasons outlined above,
the reinforcement provisions of AS 3600 obviously
do not entirely apply to joint free slabs.
Reinforcement is installed in joint free slabs for
two main reasons:
‰ to tie the slab through all induced cracks
and hence keep the crack widths minimal
and under control
‰ to adequately trim all re-entrant corners and
penetrations to minimise the occurrence of
unintended cracks, and again to keep the
widths of such cracks minimal.
The reinforcement mesh used in joint free slabs is
proportioned such that the area of steel in both
directions is in the order of 0.175% of the cross
section of concrete above the crack inducer tubes.
RF62 is the lightest mesh used in Australia (665 in
New Zealand) as it is not practical to walk on
mesh lighter than this when it is chaired at 1m
centres.
In the four years that joint free slabs have been in
the market place, this level of reinforcement has
been found to be satisfactory. Arguably, it also
complies with the provisions of AS 3600 Clause
9.4.3.4(a)(i) [5] in which the minimum
reinforcement for a restrained slab in an interior
environment “where a minor degree of control
over cracking is required” is nominated. This
would have to be a fitting description of what is
expected for typical joint free slabs.
If a Joint Free Slab is to have no applied finishes,
the area of reinforcement is increased to 0.225%
minimum, but note again that this percentage is
applied to the net area of concrete above the
crack inducer tubes. The area of reinforcement is
increased purely for aesthetic purposes.
Trimmer bars are treated very seriously in joint
free slabs. The typical requirement is for 2N12
bars (2D12 in New Zealand) around the full
perimeter of each pour and on the four sides of all
penetrations. At re-entrant corners the perimeter
trimmer bars are crossed and fully anchored, and
additional diagonal trimmers are also installed to
suit. The minimum number of N12 (D12) diagonal
bars at re-entrant corners is two.
At construction joints the perimeter trimmers are
extended into any subsequent pour sufficiently for
a full tension lap or full anchorage.
STRUCTURAL DETAILING
The structural detailing of joint free slabs is a
simple and relatively quick activity when compared
with traditional slabs on grade. Once the outline
of the Joint Free Slab has been agreed/decided, a
1m square grid is overlayed and positioned for
‘best fit’ between all sides. The excess grid is
then cropped off and all internal ground restraints
positioned to suit the grid. The perimeter
restraints are marked on the plan and the utilised
details are dragged in from the standard suite of
details supplied. Any additional sections are
drawn and the standard notes adjusted as
necessary to complete the job.
CONSTRUCTION
Joint free slabs utilise a crack inducer grid to
induce a closely spaced network of shrinkage
cracks throughout the entire area of the slab. This
is the main difference between joint free slabs and
traditional slabs on grade however there are other
smaller differences that make construction
simpler, quicker and generally less expensive.
Site preparation:
Proper preparation and compaction of the building
platform is as important for joint free slabs as it is
for traditional slabs on grade, however sand
blinding is not required and its use is discouraged.
With joint free slabs full perimeter restraint is
required and this can be achieved by a perimeter
thickening or by fixing the slab edge to tilt-up
panels or the like. In contrast to traditional slabs
on grade every effort is also made to restrain the
slab throughout its length and breadth. Internal
ground restraints are used for this purpose and
these are typically located at about 14m centres in
both directions. Internal ground restraints are
typically continuous trenches measuring 200mm in
depth and 300mm in width, however other forms
of restraint can also be utilised.
Grid Installation:
The crack inducer grid comprises extruded plastic
conduits that are pushed onto moulded four way
_________________________________
1
Director, Colefax Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd
plastic junctions. The junctions double as bar
chairs and the conduits are supplied cut to length
for a 1m square grid. As such every fifth bar in a
standard reinforcement mesh (in Australia) is
supported on a junction.
In consideration of the different standard mesh
configuration in New Zealand, it is intended to
ultimately manufacture a 1050x1050 grid for the
New Zealand market.
The crack inducer grid is assembled in position on
site and is placed directly on the ground or on the
vapour barrier as applicable. The grid is set out
such that on site cutting of the conduits around the
perimeter is minimised, and on most projects no
cutting is required.
Reinforcement:
Reinforcement mesh is supported on the junctions
and the sheets of mesh are lapped at the sides
and ends such that the 200mm grid of bars is
maintained throughout. Nominal 200mm side and
end laps are adjusted marginally as necessary to
cater for minor discrepancies in the fabrication of
the mesh sheets or the accurate alignment of the
crack inducer grid.
Similar applies in New Zealand except that the
spacing of bars in New Zealand mesh is 150
instead of 200mm.
Each alternate run of mesh is staggered by half a
sheet length to avoid four sheet corner laps.
All slab perimeters, penetrations and re-entrant
corners are trimmed, typically with 2N12 bars
(2D12 in New Zealand).
Traditional bar chairs are only required around the
slab perimeter and where reinforcement is cut
locally around penetrations. More bar chairs are
required in New Zealand for general support but
this will change when the grid dimension is
increased to 1050mm x 1050mm.
Concrete:
The perfect concrete for a Joint Free Slab floor is
one with minimum long term shrinkage but with
high early shrinkage. Concrete with a maximum
80 slump and a 56 day shrinkage of 600
microstrain is specified for most projects, and the
use of super plasticiser can be an advantage
provided it does not adversely affect the short
term strength or long term shrinkage.
Best practice placing and compaction is very
important and the addition of water is not
permitted after the concrete has left the batching
plant.
Other Details:
In contrast to traditional slabs on grade
compressible separation between slab edges and
walls, columns etc is not generally required.
Where construction joints are required, they are
positioned adjacent to a ground restraint such that
the restraint is included in the edge of the first
pour. The edges of the slabs on both sides of the
construction joint are trimmed with 2N12 bars
(2D12 in New Zealand), and the mesh
reinforcement is continued through the
construction joint to lap with the mesh in the
subsequent pour.
The preferred formwork at a construction joint is
quick and simple, and can be installed at short
notice. A run of stock length timber boards of
suitable thickness is placed across the crack
inducer tubes and the mesh is laid on the boards.
A second run of stock length timber boards is laid
on top of the mesh in vertical alignment with the
first run of timber, and the two lines of timber
boards are tied together using reinforcement tie
wire to clamp the boards to the reinforcement.
The formwork is very simply removed within hours
of the first pour in readiness for the subsequent
pour.
Curing:
Curing should be adequate to achieve a concrete
strength and surface quality suitable for the
application, but if the curing method can be
tailored to achieve the desired high early
shrinkage with low early strength it is an
advantage.
AVAILABLE PRODUCT RANGE
Two sizes of crack inducer grid are currently
available and these are suitable for slab
thicknesses in the range of 90mm to 140mm. The
small grid is 30mm high and the large grid is
38mm high. These dimensions represent 30% of
a 100mm and 125mm slab respectively.
On certain jobs bar chairs might be required for
slab thicknesses at the upper end of the range for
each of the two grids to reduce top cover to the
reinforcement.
_________________________________
1
Director, Colefax Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd
The methodology of joint free slabs and the plastic
junctions are protected by an Australian patent
and a New Zealand patent. Applications have
also been filed for international patents in a
substantial number of countries, and it is
anticipated these will all be granted over the next
couple of years.
ADVANTAGES OF THE JOINT FREE SLAB ON
GRADE
The advantages of joint free slabs are numerous,
generally amounting to simplicity of construction,
reduced construction time, reduced construction
cost, reduced maintenance cost and superior
aesthetics of the finished floor. The following is a
more detailed list of the individual advantages:
‰ Deletion of sand blinding
‰ Generally lighter reinforcement
‰ Deletion of all slab edge compressible
isolation strips
‰ Deletion of all traditional formed and sawn
control joints
‰ Simpler and faster reinforcement placing
‰ Elimination of most conventional bar chairs
‰ Larger concrete pours possible
‰ Reduced concrete pump usage
‰ Superior surface finish on slab
‰ Deletion of cover strips and fillers needed for
traditional control joints
‰ Reduced construction cost
‰ Reduced construction time
‰ Superior termite resistance
‰ Superior aesthetics of the finished floor
‰ Increased versatility
‰ Reduced on-going maintenance costs in many
projects
 SUITABLE PROJECTS
There is a wide range of projects in which the use
of joint free slabs is both appropriate and
beneficial. Whilst selection of the system is most
often driven by cost savings alone, aesthetics,
versatility and reduced construction time are also
important considerations.
The system is obviously suitable for all large area
floors that are to have applied finishes such as
vinyl tiles, sheet vinyl, carpet, ceramic tiles etc, but
it is increasingly being used in car parks and
industrial floors as well.
Retail:
The time and cost advantages offered by the
system are maximised in retail developments
where there is usually extensive use of applied
finishes of all types, and where the control joint
cover strips normally installed are expensive and
often ineffective.
The system is not considered appropriate for retail
floors that have a burnished or polished concrete
finish.
Commercial:
The system is suited to a wide range of
commercial developments that have applied floor
finishes such as carpet, vinyl and ceramics.
The system has also been specified into large car
park areas, both under croft and on grade, where
the primary objective was to save time. In multi
storey construction some builders prefer to form
off slabs in under croft car parks thus bringing the
slab on grade construction onto critical path, and
hence any time saved in placing the slabs has
direct impact on delivery of the project.
Industrial:
Industrial applications require special
consideration as most often there are no applied
floor finishes. It must be remembered that it is a
joint free slab system, not a crack free slab
system.
The system has been installed in selected
industrial applications, including floors with epoxy
paint finishes and floors with no applied finishes.
As an indication of market approval, there are
repeat clients in this area as well.
_________________________________
1
Director, Colefax Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd
Schools:
The system has been installed in one public
school project in QLD and has been installed in an
indoor sports hall at Blaxland High School in
NSW. It has also been used in several private
school projects in NSW and Victoria.
Indoor & Outdoor Sports Facilities:
This is an area where there is a huge potential for
joint free slabs, and it is an area that overlaps
considerably with school projects.
Many indoor basketball courts and similar facilities
have sprung timber floors install directly on a
concrete slab on battens. Once the timber floor is
installed the sub floor space is inaccessible. Any
open control joints or large cracks in the base slab
provide ready access for termites in a perfect
environment to inflict extreme damage virtually
unnoticed until it is too late. This may not be a
problem in New Zealand but it is a huge problem
in mainland Australia.
Joint free slabs are quicker to construct, and
provide a more uniform surface for installing the
sprung floor or resilient rubber overlay.
Residential:
The system has been used in a number of
residential projects including an award winning
sprawling residence in north Queensland which
had extensive use of natural stone floor finishes
throughout. Many residences are not of sufficient
floor area to justify use of the system, however
there is a proliferation of medium density housing
projects in which the system could be of great
benefit to developers.
Hospitals:
An obvious application is in hospital wards,
however to date the system has not been used in
any hospital project. Most modern hospitals and
nursing homes have either vinyl or carpet floor
finishes throughout, and apart from saving
construction time and cost, the system provides
for an uninterrupted surface finish which is far
more clinical than a floor with cover strips and the
like.
 TECHNICAL SUPPORT & ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION
The joint free slab system is the brainchild of two
consulting structural engineers in Australia. They
make themselves available to answer questions
and help other engineers incorporate the system
into their projects. They also make available CAD
files, standard details and specifications.
A lot of information is also available on the
following websites:
www.jointfreeslabs.com
www.canzac.com
10. O’Moore, Dr Liza and Dr Peter Dux, 2003
Seminar - Developments in Slab and
Pavement Construction, Crack Control - are
we getting it right?, Concrete Institute of
Australia (NSW Branch) & Institution of
Engineers Australia, Sydney Division.
11. Poulos, Prof. Harry, Industrial Floors &
Pavements Seminar 2004, Development of
New Design Charts for Concrete Industrial
Slabs, Cement & Concrete Services.
12. Schafer, Barry and Samia Guirguis, Biennial
Conference July 2003, Concrete Slabs and
Subterranean Termites, Concrete Institute of
Australia.

REFERENCES

1 Cement and Concrete Association of

Australia, July 1995, Concrete Industrial Floor
& Pavement Design

2. Cement and Concrete Association of

Australia, May 1999 (second edition),
Industrial Floors and Pavements -
Guildelines for design construction and
specification.

3. The Concrete Society, Technical Report No

34 Third Edition, Concrete Industrial Ground
Floors - A guide to design and construction.

4. Portland Cement Association, Second Edition

1983, Concrete Floors on Ground.

5. Standards Australia, 2001, AS 3600 Concrete

Structures, Standards Australia International
Ltd.

6. Standards Australia, 1996, AS 2870 Reidential

slabs and footings - Construction, Standards
Australia International Ltd.

7. Colefax, Warwick, 2001, Inducing Small

Cracks to Create the Joint-Free Slab,
Concrete in Australia Vol22 No3.

8. Colefax, Warwick & Colefax, Robert, Biennial

Conference July 2003, Joint Free Slabs on
Grade - An innovative approach to the
construction of large area floor slabs,
Concrete Institute of Australia.

9. Cockerell, Allan BE(Hons) MIEAust RPEQ,

Industrial Floors & Pavements Seminar 2000,
Sawn Joints in Concrete Pavements for Crack
Control, Cement and Concrete Services Pty
Ltd.
_________________________________
1
Director, Colefax Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd
 ANNEXURE A:

Beam on elastic foundation analysis completed for

a 20m long x 1m wide slab strip comprising 80 x
250mm long segments with a hinge inserted at
every fourth node to represent a crack induced by
the crack inducer grid.

Input details:

I000 wide slab strip x 125 thick

Modulus of subgrade reaction = 35kPa/mm

Primary load cases:

Load Case 1 - slab self weight

Load Case 2 - skip pattern 7.5kPa live load
Load Case 3 - 20kN/m wall input as 80kN/m UDL
Load Case 4 - Fork Lift axle load 40kN
Load Case 5 - Fork Lift axle load 40kN

Combined Load Cases:

Load Case 6 - LC1 + LC2 + LC3 + LC4

Load Case 7 - LC1 + LC2 + LC3 + LC4 + LC5
Load Case 8 - As for LC6 but with fork lift axle
increased to 60kN
Load Case 9 - As for LC7 but with both fork lift
axles increased to 60kN

Plotted Diagrams:

‰ Bending Moment Envelope - all load cases

‰ Part BM Envelope enlarged
‰ Part Loading Diagram enlarged
‰ Part Slab Deflection Diagram enlarged

_________________________________
1
Director, Colefax Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd
_________________________________
1
Director, Colefax Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd
_________________________________
1
Director, Colefax Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd