Use of SLOG and Theory

USE OF SLOG AND THEORY
Presented by John Serrano

2
Intrax Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd
Background
Shrinking and swelling of reactive clays in
response to a change in water content is one of
the most common geotechnical causes of
damage to residential buildings
Approximately 20% of surface soils in Australia,
can be classified as reactive.
In Victoria, approximately 50% of soils are
reactive.
3
4
Ys & Definitions
5
Hs: The depth of design suction change.

Δu: change in soil suction
6
Ht: The depth of design

suction change
Ht Vs Hs;
Ht = Hs + increased
drying
depth due to trees.
7
Mechanisms of Building Distortion due to

Reactive Soils
 Distortion of shallow footings may be caused by (think P-Class Sites);
 Seasonal changes
 Trees
 leaking pipes/poor drainage
 many other factors
8
9
Mathematical Methods of Analysis and

Design of Footings on Reactive Soils
10
Footing Design for Reactive Soils
2 common methods for designing footings for

reactive soils (refer Appendix F AS2870-2011).
1) Mitchell Method – Peter W Mitchell (1979)

2) Walsh Method – Paul F Walsh (1978)
Difference between the two is primarily soil

mound shape.
11
Ym & Difference in Mound Shapes

Ym: The differential mound centre heave.
Mitchell’s Mounds
Walsh’s Mounds
12
Calculating ym with AS2870

13
SLOG Footing Design

SLOG is an acronym for SLab On Ground
It is a software package for the design of
footings on expansive soil.
Uses the Mitchell Method to analyse the soil
structure and its interaction with a footing on
reactive (or expansive) soils.
14
How SLOG (Mitchell Method) works

Footing Stiffness (EI)
 Analysed like a concrete beam (flexure).
 Divided into n nodes, with a finite element approach
to identify at each node, i; Soil Pressure, Footing Deflection
 EI perfectly flexible;
 Footing will drape over soil mound
 No bending moment induced in footing
 Massive Δ.
 EI perfectly rigid;
 Large soil pressures generated -> large bending moments induced in footing
 No Δ.
 Over conservative design.
15

 Essentially a performance based software.
 1) You specify the Δ (as per Table 4.1 AS2870).
 2) You calculate your ym, based on your ys.
 3) This goes into SLOG;
 Assesses soil-footing interaction for centre heave and edge heave
mounds.
 Output: Determines footing specifications with the

minimum EI required to limit Δ for the ym experienced.
16

 AS2870 – Section 4: Design By Engineering Principles
 SLOG analysis in conjunction with this chapter.
17
18
Equation For Mound Shapes In SLOG

19
Comparing
Walsh & Mitchell predictions Vs Real World Values Observed
http://australiangeomechanics.org/admin/wp-
content/uploads/2015/02/34_3_1.pdf
20
SLOG at Intrax
Used for;
 Non-standard designs.
 P-Class Sites, subject to abnormal moisture conditions.
 E – Class for Raft/waffle/strip footings
Generally for Non-Deemed to comply and
alternative designs
Increasing waffle depth increases stiffness (ie EI
of slab)
21
Intrax Standard Detail – Double Waffle
Increasing waffle depth increases stiffness (ie EI of slab)

22
Worked Example – Job 110280 (Waffle Slab)

23
24
Soil Report: Removed Trees - P/H2

Ym = 70.33, E-Class
25
26
Wall Openings – 10% resi rule of

thumb, or you can comp yourself.
27
Reminder!
We are designing a waffle slab, so we design what
is referred to as a ‘Hybrid Waffle’.
Hybrid Waffle Approach;

1) Design ‘Globally’ to work as a raft
 Deepened edge beams (300mm wide).
2) Design ‘Locally’ to work as a waffle

 300mm max void, so slab is 385mm overall.
 No deepened edge beams, as don’t want internal ribs below FGL.
28
29
Start SLOG Software

30
Data Input Screen

31
Structure Geometry
32
Structure Geometry – Length/Breadth

33
Structure Geometry – Global Beam Count

34
Structure Geometry – Depth of Embedment

 Depth of embedment is the
vertical depth below ground
level (must apply to all
beams counted).
 Waffles are above ground,
so always 0 for local check.
 Having a footing below
ground level, provides a
perimeter cut-off for
moisture. So including when
not applicable can make
design under conservative.
35
Structure Geometry
Make 0.4m
As can’t put 2 decimal places
36
Soil Properties
37
Soil Properties - Ym
38
Soil Properties – Depth of Suction Change Hs

39
Soil Properties
Mound Stiffness and Coefficient X in k = Xq
 As k increases -> mound stiffness increases-> soil stability increases.

 A higher k value is less conservative
40
Soil Properties – Depth of Suction Change Hs

41
Structure Loads – (Get from Tree Spreadsheet)

42
Structure Loads – Centre Loads Explained

Centre line loads;
 Due to central wall (may be loadbearing)
 =(0.5 x LL + internal wall loads + roof to loadbearing walls)/floor area
43
Structure Loads
44
Additional Properties
45
Additional Properties – Soil Edge Heave

46
Additional Properties – Beam Side Friction
 Check Geo report/to engineers discretion;

 25kPa by default.
 Approximate rules of thumb;
 25kPa applicable if well into natural clay.
 10kPa if bearing into uncontrolled fill with silt.
 Range should be within 10kPa – 25kPa.
 If you have sand, you probably shouldn’t be using SLOG as
it’s permeable material (low Ys).
47
Select Raft – Global Design

48
Select ‘Calculate footing depth for input steel’

49
Input data for Global Design

50
Input data for beams and sub-beams

51
Reference for values in

the next slide
52
Input data for Global beams

53
SLOG – Global Input Intrax Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd
54
SLOG – Global Output Intrax Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd
55
Structure Geometry – Local Beam Count

56
Structure Geometry – Local Beam Count
Final loadings have been retained based on global dimensions

from the Ys spreadsheet. Above, the new Ys local sheet idealizes
it to be a full slab (like it’s own isolated global slab), so is not
100% accurate. For edge beam it is accurate, though if we are
putting more load on the slab it is making our result better (less
conservative) as it helps to resist the heave i.e. ym.
Worth discussing and getting approach on this confirmed

57
Select Waffle-Raft Footing – Local Design

58
Select Waffle-Raft Footing – Local Design

59
Input data for Local Design

Taken 50% of
rib width as
Taken 100%
effective of steel
tributary area. reinforcement
in internal ribs
as 100% of
Worth
discussing and this goes
getting toward the
approach on local section
this confirmed
Taken 50% of
rib width as
effective
tributary area.
Worth
discussing and
getting
approach on
this confirmed
60
SLOG – Local Input Intrax Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd
61
SLOG – Local Output Intrax Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd
62
SLOG Output Vs What to Adopt?

 SLOG has given the
dimensions on the right as
the minimum footing
stiffness required.
 Unfortunately, we
currently have different
teams using different rules
of thumb, to reduce sizes.
 Fortunately, we have
research being completed
internally to determine
what reductions we can
safely make.
63
Visual of what SLOG is calculating

64
Centre Heave – Long Span

65
Centre Heave – Short Span

66
Centre Heave/Edge Settlement

67
Edge Heave – Long Span

68
Edge Heave – Short Span

69
Enge Heave/Center Settlement

70
Questions?
71
Thanks for listening!

Use of SLOG and Theory - 23.07.2018 (John Serrano - SLIDES)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Use of SLOG and Theory - 23.07.2018 (John Serrano - SLIDES)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Presented by John Serrano

Hs: The depth of design suction change.

Ht: The depth of design

Mechanisms of Building Distortion due to

Mathematical Methods of Analysis and

Footing Design for Reactive Soils

2 common methods for designing footings for

1) Mitchell Method – Peter W Mitchell (1979)

Difference between the two is primarily soil

Ym & Difference in Mound Shapes

Calculating ym with AS2870

SLOG Footing Design

How SLOG (Mitchell Method) works

How SLOG (Mitchell Method) works

 Output: Determines footing specifications with the

How SLOG (Mitchell Method) works

Equation For Mound Shapes In SLOG

Intrax Standard Detail – Double Waffle

Increasing waffle depth increases stiffness (ie EI of slab)

Worked Example – Job 110280 (Waffle Slab)

Soil Report: Removed Trees - P/H2

Wall Openings – 10% resi rule of

Hybrid Waffle Approach;

2) Design ‘Locally’ to work as a waffle

Start SLOG Software

Data Input Screen

Structure Geometry – Length/Breadth

Structure Geometry – Global Beam Count

Structure Geometry – Depth of Embedment

Soil Properties – Depth of Suction Change Hs

 As k increases -> mound stiffness increases-> soil stability increases.

Soil Properties – Depth of Suction Change Hs

Structure Loads – (Get from Tree Spreadsheet)

Structure Loads – Centre Loads Explained

Additional Properties – Soil Edge Heave

Additional Properties – Beam Side Friction

 Check Geo report/to engineers discretion;

Select Raft – Global Design

Select ‘Calculate footing depth for input steel’

Input data for Global Design

Input data for beams and sub-beams

Reference for values in

Input data for Global beams

Structure Geometry – Local Beam Count

Structure Geometry – Local Beam Count

Final loadings have been retained based on global dimensions

Worth discussing and getting approach on this confirmed

Select Waffle-Raft Footing – Local Design

Select Waffle-Raft Footing – Local Design

Input data for Local Design

SLOG Output Vs What to Adopt?

Visual of what SLOG is calculating

Centre Heave – Long Span

Centre Heave – Short Span

Centre Heave/Edge Settlement

Edge Heave – Long Span

Edge Heave – Short Span

Enge Heave/Center Settlement

Thanks for listening!

You might also like