Influence of the boundary conditions and reinforcement on

differential shrinkage of concrete slabs

Christophe Van Ginderachter

Belgian Building Research Institute, Brussels, Belgium
cvg@bbri.be
Benoit Parmentier
Belgian Building Research Institute, Brussels, Belgium

Summary

The paper will give part of the results and conclusions of a research carried out by the Belgian Building Research Institute over the last years. This part of the research had as goal to determine the influence of the
following parameters on the size of differential shrinkage of concrete slabs on grade :
the friction between the sub-base and the concrete slab
the presence of a vapour retardant on one side of the slab
the presence of reinforcement in the top or the bottom part of the concrete slab
One of the conclusions drawn is that shrinkage at early age is more impeded by the presence of the vapour
retardant then by the presence of armature. At later age (when the slab is older than 91 days until at least 184
days) the reverse has been noticed.
An other conclusion was that, although the friction coefficient observed on slabs cast on dry sand was
smaller, the best possible sub-base to reduce the amplitude of the shrinkage gradient will be sand with a PEsheet. This because sand on building sites is seldom completely dry and casting concrete on dry sand has
negative influences on the mechanical properties of the bottom side of the concrete slab.

Introduction

The research described in this paper concerned the

influence of boundary conditions on differential
shrinkage of slabs on grade. Differential shrinkage is
the cause of curling or wrapping of slabs on grade.
According to Oxford dictionary shrinkage means becoming smaller in size. This phenomenon is inextricably bound up with concrete as a material. The following kinds of shrinkage can be distinguished :
1. chemical shrinkage
2. plastical shrinkage (auto-dessication shrinkage)
3. hydraulical shrinkage
4. autogenous shrinkage
5. thermal shrinkage

Because in doing research on structure elements it is

difficult to split up the measured shrinkage into these
different kinds of shrinkage mentioned above, it was
decided to simply measure the shrinkage starting at
24h. The main part of the measured shrinkage is hydraulical shrinkage.
As long as these changes in volume can take place
without any external restrain, the negative consequences are very small. But because friction between
the sub-base and the slab on one hand; and the (partly)
prevented evaporation at the bottom side of the floor
slab on the other hand, the shrinkage cannot freely take
place at the bottom side of the slab.
This restrain creates differences between the size of the
shrinkage at the top and at the bottom of the slab;

which on its turn causes a gradient. This non-uniform

shrinkage is what we call differential shrinkage.

As the measured specimens were also stored under

standardized conditions (RH 65%, T 20C), the influence of the environmental conditions can be neglected.
To eliminate the influence of friction and determine the
influence of the two remaining parameters, the specimens were put vertically. These tests will be described
in 2.1.

The shrinkage amplitude and gradient are mainly influenced by

the concrete composition (W/C-ratio, quantity of
cement, )
the ambiant conditions (temperature, relative humidity, ..)
the thickness of the floor slab
the position of steel rebars in the slab
the friction amplitude between the sub-base and
the concrete slab
the possibility of evaporation of mixing-water of
the concrete via the sub-base
The research carried out by the Belgian Building Research Institute had as goal amongst others to determine the influence of one of the following three parameters on the differential shrinkage :
different types of sub-base under the concrete slab
use of a vapour retardant at the top of the slab
use of steel rebars in the top or the bottom part of
the concrete slab

Shrinkage tests

Different measurements were carried out on small

concrete specimens with dimensions of 70 x 70 x 20
cm. The size of the specimens was chosen to be able
to compare directly with friction tests and determine
the part of the friction on the total restrain.
As the dimensions of the fabricated specimens never
changed, the influence of the thickness of the floor slab
was eliminated.
Only drying shrinkage, also here called absolute
shrinkage, (S) was measured. For each concrete mix
reference prisms were cast and stored under standardized conditions (RH 65% and T 20C) in order to
measure the free shrinkage (F). When using the following formulae to calculate the reference shrinkage
(or relative shrinkage) R :

R =

S
F

Using this reference shrinkage to calculate the shrinkage-gradient , eliminates the influence of the concrete
mix, and so allows to compare measurements made on
samples from different concrete mixes (cast at different
dates).

In parallel, tests were carried out on other specimens

with the same dimensions resting on different kinds of
sub-bases (sand with different moisture contents, with
or without a plastic foil underneath the concrete slab
and the sub-base.). These tests will be described in
2.2.
2.1

Influence of steel rebars and vapour retardant

All slabs and reference prisms were stored and measured in an climatic controlled room at 20C and 65%
RH. In order to eliminate the friction, the concrete
slabs were put vertically. Hence, the contact surface
between the samples and the ground is reduced.
Two series of 7 slabs were cast. On some of the slabs,
a vapour retardant was spread on the sides B, C, D, E
and F (see Figure 1). In some other slabs, steel rebars
were put near side A (simulating upper reinforcement)
or B, (simulating lower reinforcement).

Floor 2-1
Floor 2-2
Floor 2-3
Floor 2-4
Floor 2-5
Floor 2-6
Floor 2-7

5
20

B - Lower
Surface

A - Upper
Surface

Double
Double
Lower
Upper
Lower
-

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

An example of the absolute and of relative shrinkage

gradient can be found in the diagrams below (Figure 2
& Figure 3). For example in Figure 2 you can see that
the absolute shrinkage of floor 1-3 is 460 S at the
upper part and 350 S at the bottom.
FLOOR 1-3. Dcothane lower, reinforcement
lower
1
1
3
7
14
28
42
63
91
119
184
Linear (184)
Linear (119)
Linear (91)
Linear (63)
Linear (42)
Linear (28)
Linear (28)
Linear (14)
Linear (7)

Relative height

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0.00

-50.00

-100.00

-150.00

-200.00

-250.00

-300.00

-350.00

-400.00

-450.00

D
A
Y
S

-500.00

Absolute Shrinkage [S]

Figure 2 - Example of Absolute shrinkage gradient

FLOOR 1-3 : Dcothane Lower, reinforcement lower

1

D
A
Y
S

1
3

7
14
28
42
63
91
119
184

0.8

Relative height

0.6

Linear (184)
Linear (119)
Linear (91)
Linear (63)
Linear (42)
Linear (28)
Linear (28)

0.4

Linear (14)
Linear (7)

0.2

0
0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

Relative shrinkage [-]

With the 2 x 7 combinations, of which you can find an

overview in Table 1, all the possible combinations
could be studied.
The reinforcement is always covered by 5 cm concrete.

Figure 3 - Example of Relative shrinkage gradient

With this information the gradients can be calculated,
as shown in Figure 4 & Figure 5).
Relative Shrinkage gradient
0.02

Relative Shrinkage gradient

[1/cm]

F
Figure 1 Outline of the measure points on the
vertical slabs (measures in cm).

2C
7C
7D

0.01

Table 1 Different vertical slabs cast

Name
Reinforcement
Floor 1-1
Floor 1-2
Floor 1-3
Floor 1-4
Floor 1-5
Floor 1-6
Floor 1-7

Double
Double
Upper
Upper
Lower
-

Vapour
retardant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

5D
2D

5C
1C
3C
6C
6D

1D

0
4C

4D

-0.01
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Age [days]

Figure 4 Relative shrinkage gradients, floors 1-1

til 1-7 (zoom)

Relative Shrinkage gradient

0.03

By analysing the results of slabs 1-4 and 2-4

slab 1-4 had a reverse gradient till the age of 90
days, as the vapour retardant reduced the shrinkage. Afterwards, the gradient turned around as if
the shrinkage was more prevented by the rebars.
This is clearly visible in Figure 6.

5C

Relative Shrinkage gradient

[1/cm]

5D

0.025

3C

0.02
7D

0.015

7C

0.01

2D
6C
2C

0.005

1D
4D

3D

6D

-0.005

Slab 1-4 : Dcothane at the bottom, rebars at the top

1C

-0.01

4C

-0.015
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1
3
7
14
28
42
63
91
119
184
Linear (184)
Linear (119)
Linear (91)
Linear (63)
Linear (42)
Linear (28)
Linear (28)
Linear (14)
Linear (7)

0.8

First of all some explanations should be given for interpreting the different figures. For series 1, if the
relative shrinkage is positive, the shrinkage measured
at side B is larger than the shrinkage measured at side
A. For series 2 this is the reverse.
The number standing next to the curve makes reference
to the border conditions described in Table 1, the letters C or D are a reference for the side where the measuring points were located.
These measurements show that the gradient amplitude
is not large. The influence of the restrain caused by
reinforcement or by the possibility of evaporation of
mixing water is thereby limited. Probably, the influence of friction is much greater. This will be discussed
in the next part 2.2 Influence of the type of sub-base
on differential shrinkage. Only the slabs 1-4, 1-5, 2-3,
2-4 and 2-5 have a perceptible decrease in gradient in
the timespan of 90 183 respectively 315 days. These
are 5 from the 6 slabs containing non-symmetrical
reinforcement.
The other slabs from series 1 (except 1-3) and slabs 2-2
and 2-7, show no increase in size of gradient at an age
of 90 to 183 resp. 315 days (in absolute shrinkage
gradient). These slabs only have the vapour retardant
as non-symmetrical boundary condition which can
cause a gradient.
From the slabs 2-1, 2-6 and 1-3 there were not enough
measures available to draw any conclusion.
In general, it seems that vapour retardant has only an
influence at young age while the presence of nonsymmetrically positioned steel rebars is effective on a
longer period. The following observations confirm this
conclusion :
in the second series, the largest gradient observed
at 90 days and at 315 days is the gradient of slab
2-5 (steel rebar and vapour retardant on the same
side of the slab). At 90 days, the slab with the second largest gradient is Floor 2-7, where there is
only a vapour retardant, while at 315 days floor
2-3 is the slab with the second largest gradient. In
this slab, there are steel rebars at one side and no
vapour retardant on the sides.

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0.25

0.50

0.75

D
A
Y
S

1.00

Relative shrinkage [-]

Figure 6 Shrinkage gradient of slab 1-4

The same phenomenon is visible in the measures of
slab 2-4 : in the beginning, there is a clear gradient
caused by the limited evaporation. After 42 days the
gradient started to tip, and at high age the gradient is
completely turned over.
Vloer 2-4 : Dcothane at the bottom, rebars at the top
0

D
A
Y
S

0.2

1
7
14
28
42
63
91
547
Linear (547)
Linear (91)
Linear (63)
Linear (42)
Linear (14)
Linear (28)
Linear (7)

relative height

Figure 5 Relative shrinkage gradients, floors 2-1

til 2-7 (zoom)

relative height

Age [days]

0.4

0.6

0.8

1
0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

Relative shrikage [-]

Figure 7 Shrinkage gradient of slab 2-4

2.2

Influence of the type of sub-base on differential shrinkage

Tests have been carried out on more types of sub-bases

as a complement to the first research programme (see
[1] & [6]). This was realised in order to quantify the
influence of the percentage of moisture content of a
well-compacted sand sub-base. Also, the use of a single or a double PE-sheet in combination with a viscous
oil to lower the friction effects has been investigated.
As said in the introduction of 2, in parallel with the
tests described in 2.1, other shrinkage tests were
carried out to determine the influence of the type of
sub-base used. This was done by casting small concrete
specimens on the different kinds of sub-bases and
measuring shrinkage on these samples.

The geometry of the slabs and the positioning of the

measuring points are as explained in Figure 8.

Shrinkage gradients for slabs on compacted

sand with PE-sheet, at an age of 91 days
1.00

200 mm

200 mm

200 mm

25
a
a
a
a
a
25

Relative height [-]

0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50

Linear (Sand +PE-sheet [1])

0.40

Linear (Sand +PE-sheet [2])

0.30

Linear (Sand +2*PE-sheet [3])

0.20

Linear (sand +2*PE-sheet [4])

4
56

0.10

Linear (sand +PE-sheet+oil [5])

1 2

50 mm

0.00
0.00

50 mm

0.10

0.20

Linear (sand +PE-sheet+oil [6])

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

Relative shrinkage [-]

Figure 10 Differential shrinkage gradients for

slabs on sand with PE-sheet, at an age of 91 days

700 mm

Figure 8 - Geometry of the slabs

and the positioning of the measuring points

To eliminate the other influences the slab thickness and

the climatic conditions were kept constant (20 cm,
20C and 65% RH) as explained in the introduction of
2. To eliminate the influence of the concrete mix,
relative shrinkage was measured, as explained earlier
in the introduction of 2.
As the slab thickness was 20 cm, the vertical distance
between rows of measuring points was 3 cm.
The following sub-base types were tested :
compacted sand with a PE-sheet
compacted sand with a double PE-sheet
compacted sand with a PE-sheet covered with
viscous oil
dry compacted sand (0 vol-%)
partly wet sand (8 vol-%)
wet sand (15 vol-%)

The above Figure 9 & Figure 10 show the shrinkage

gradients measured on the slabs cast on a sub-base of
well-compacted sand with a single PE-sheet, a double
PE-sheet and viscous oil on a single PE-sheet. There
can be seen that the presence of an extra PE-sheet or of
the viscous oil has a limited positive effect.
But as these measurements were observed for a notloaded slab (no imposed loads), this small difference
will increase when the slab is loaded, as is usually the
case with industrial flooring.
Providing an extra sliding surface between the slab and
the sub-base can reduce the differential shrinkage amplitude and the risk of curling.
Another remarkable effect, is that the gradient continues to increase after the end of the measuring period
which was 153 days (the end of the measurements).
In the following, the influence of the moisture content
of the compacted sand sub-base will be discussed.

Firstly the influence of the PE-sheet on the size of

differential shrinkage will be discussed.

relative shrinkage gradient

0.070

Relative shrinkage gradient [1/cm]

Relative shrinkage gradient

0.070

Relative shrinkage gradient

[1/cm]

sand +PE-sheet [1]

sand +PE-sheet [2]
sand +2*PE-sheet [3]
sand +2*PE-sheet [4]
sand +PE-sheet+oil [5]
sand +PE-sheet+oil [6]

0.065

0.060

0.055

0.060

6
3

0.050

0.040

0.030
1
2

0.020

dry sand [1]

dry sand [2]
partly wetted sand [3]
partly wetted sand [4]
wetted sand [5]
wetted sand [6]

0.010

5
3

1
6

0.050

0.000

0.045
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Age [days]

Figure 9 Relative shrinkage gradient for slabs on

compacted sand with PE-sheet

50

100

150

200

age [days]

250

300

350

Figure 11 relative shrinkage gradients for slabs on

sand with different Moisture Content

Gradients of slabs on sand with different

RH at an age of 91 days

Friction coefficient wetted sand

[1] Partly
wetted sand
(7%)

4.00

1.00

Shear force [kN/m]

Relative height [-]

0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60

Linear (Dry)
0.50

Linear (Dry)
0.40

Linear (Partly Wetted)

0.30

Linear (Partly Wetted)

Linear (Wetted)

0.20

3.00

2.50

[4] Wetted
sand (15%)

2.00

1.50

[5] Dry sand

2
1.00

[6] Dry sand

with PE-sheet

0.50

Linear (Wetted)

0.10

Linear (Sand +PE-sheet [2])

0.00
0.00

[2] Partly
wetted sand
(7%) with PEfolie
[3] Wetted
sand (15%)

3.50

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

0.00
0.00

1.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

Displacement [mm]

Relatieve krimp [-]

Figure 12 Differential shrinkage gradient of slabs

on sand with different RH at an age of 91 days

Figure 13 Friction coefficients of slabs on sand

with different kinds of moisture content

In Figure 12 the amplitude of differential shrinkage on

a slab on PE-sheet has been given for information and
to facilitate the interpretation.
The above Figure 11 & Figure 12 show a clear influence between the moisture content and the amplitude
of the differential shrinkage. The size of the gradient
measured on a slab cast on dry sand, is about 50%
smaller than the size of a gradient of a slab cast on a
wet or partly wet sub base.

It is also noticeable, in contrast to the findings of an

erlier publication [1], that the differential shrinkage
observed at a slab cast on a single PE-sheet and on wet
or partially wet sand are approximately the same and
much larger than the differential shrinkage amplitude
observed for slabs cast on sand. The only difference
that can be noticed, is that the shrinkage amplitude (not
the gradient) is larger when cast on a PE-sheet in comparison to the slabs cast on wet or partly wet sand.
The only reason that can be found to explain the larger
differential shrinkage for slabs cast on a PE-sheet,
(which was unexpected), is that the prevention of the
evaporation of the mixing water has a larger influence
than assumed. Usually, the lower friction coefficient
existing at the interface between the slab and the PEsheet in comparison to the slab cast directly on sand,
should lead to a smaller gradient. But (as can be seen
in the diagram below) because the movement of the
slabs caused by shrinkage is very limited :
(0.7 m / 2 x 500 S x 10-6 m = 175 x 10-6 m =
0.175 mm), the occurring friction force at this displacement is larger but not much larger for slabs cast
directly on sand than for slabs cast on PE-sheet, as it is
visible in the diagram below, Figure 13. This explains
the different observations

The restrain model

As mentioned in 2, friction is one of the important

parameters preventing the displacement of the slab due
to the drying shrinkage. In order to take the restrain
effects into account for a design of an industrial floor,
it is important to model the friction forces.
A number of models have been developed to model
these forces. The diagram reproduced in Figure 14 is
the classical diagram describing the phenomenon.

CShear
o n t rStress
a in te
c i s a i ll e m e n t

()

ax

r e s

F ig u1

(u)
g lis s e m e n t
Displacement

Figure 14 Modelling of friction between slab and

sub base
The important parameters are :
initial cohesion [kN/m]
9 0
9 max
maximal shear stress observed [kN/m]
9 res
residual shear stress observed [kN/m]
9 u(max) value for displacement when = max
The values of these parameters were observed to be
function of the load on the slab (self-weight and the
possible imposed loads), while these parameters are
usually simply described as constant for the design.
The most important are :
9 0 = 0/V [/]
9 max = max/V [/]

initial friction coefficients

maximum friction coefficients

9 res = res/V [/]

residual friction coefficients

The most important models are

The linear model
=0+.u
The power model
=k2.u

[LIN]

(1)

[POW]

(2)

Horizontal
displacement
transducer

Vertical
displacement
transducer

In the linear model the parameter can be defined in

different ways. In the research carried out by the BBRI
it has been defined as a secants module at 50% of max.
Force

In both models, the load is limited to max.

Anchorage

P
Horizontal
displacement
transducer

Different sub-bases have been tested to determine the

different parameters. These parameters are given in
annex 1.
During the last 2 years, the research has focused itself
on the influence of humidity of the sub-base, the
granulometry of the sub-base and the influence of an
extra sliding surface. These tests will be discussed in
detail.
3.1
Test setup
To determine these friction parameters, a test setup was
designed, as shown in Picture 1.

As shown in Picture 1, an anchorage was cast into the

slab. By this anchorage a horizontal pulling force was
applied on the slab and made it slide over the sub-base.
Between the border of the slab and the border of the
sub-base (the shuttering), there was about 20mm.
During the sliding of the slab, the horizontal (and vertical) displacement was measured and a graph like
Figure 14 was drawn up.

3.2

Influence of an extra sliding surface

In order to establish this, tests were carried out on the

following types of subbase :
double PE-sheet on compacted sand (2x)
double PE-sheet with oil on compacted sand (2x)
single PE-sheet on compacted sand
single PE-sheet on stabilised sand
The results are reproduced in the following Figure 15.
Sand (1SW)
3.00

2.50

Shear stress [kN/m]

A small concrete slab with dimensions of 100 x 100 x

12 cm was cast on different kinds of sub-bases with a
thickness of 15 cm.

Picture 1 test setup to determine

the friction coefficient

2.00
f18 (2PE + oil)
f17 (2PE)
f11 (1PE)

1.50

f12 (CBS +1PE)

f21 (2PE + oil)
1.00

f22 (2PE)

0.50

0.00
0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00

Displacement [mm]

Figure 15 Influence of the presence of PE-sheet on

the friction coefficients
The repeatability of the test with the double PE-sheet
on compacted sand was very good. In contrast, the
repeatability of the test with a double PE-sheet with oil
between the sheets, on compacted sand was not so

It is also visible that the shear stress of the stabilised

sand with a PE-sheet is greater than with normal compacted sand.

Influence of moisture content on friction coefficients

[1] Partly
wetted sand
(7%)

4.00

Shear Stress [kN/m]

good. The shear stresses caused by the friction of one

of the sub-bases with double PE-sheets and oil was the
lowest shear stress measured during the research. The
stresses were about 30% lower than the mean results of
the tests carried out on compacted sand with at least
one PE-sheet and with or without oil.

3.50

3
2.50

5
2.00

6
1.00

[5] Dry sand

0.50

[6] Dry sand

with PE-sheet

Influence of the moisture content of the subbase

4.00

To determine the influence of the moisture content of

the sub-base on the friction coefficients, the following
sub-bases have been tested :

Wet (7vol-%), compacted sand

Wet (7vol-%), compacted sand + PE-sheet
Very humid (15vol-%), compacted sand

With exception from the second test on compacted,

very humid sand (the yellow curve 3), the results obtained are logical. The yellow curve n3 looks like the
curves that have been obtained while testing uncompacted sand. We assume hereby that the compaction of
the sand wasnt properly carried out.
A first observation that can be made is that the maximal shear stress obtained on a sub-base with 7vol-% is
higher than the shear stress on a sub-base with
15volume%. This may seem strange at start, but
strokes with the sub-base characteristics :
dry sand had hardly any cohesion
by adding water, but not until saturation, this
water will work as a binding agent, so the internal cohesion will grow up
by adding water until saturation is reached,
the water will facilitate the movement of sand
particles, so the cohesion has dropped, but
will still be higher than the cohesion of dry
sand.

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

Displacement [mm]

10.00

12.00

Figure 16 - Influence of moisture content on friction

coefficients

Shear force [kN/m]

3.3

[4] Wetted sand

(15%)

2
1.50

0.00
0.00

But still, the friction parameters and the shear stress are
lower for any sub-base with a PE-sheet than without
one. In order to lower the friction parameter, the best
solution is to put a PE-sheet.

[2] Partly
wetted sand
(7%) with PEfolie
[3] Wetted sand
(15%)

3.00

Influence of moisture content on the friction

coefficients

[1] Partly
wetted sand
(7%)
[2] Partly
wetted sand
(7%) with PEfolie
[3] Wetted
sand (15%)

3.50

3.00

2.50

[4] Wetted
sand (15%)

2.00

1.50

[5] Dry sand

2
1.00

0.00
0.00

[6] Dry sand

with PE-sheet

0.50

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

Displacement [mm]

Figure 17 Influence of moisture content on friction coefficients

General conclusions

According to shrinkage tests described in 2, it is

clearly visible that from the three parameters
use of steel rebars
influence of climatic boundary conditions
friction between sub-base and slab
Even with a limited load on the specimens, the friction
is the most important parameter, although the two
others also influence the result.
When looking at the latter two, the test results show
that evaporation prevention has a larger influence at
young age (approximately the first 90 days) than the
use of steel rebars. But at later age the presence of steel
rebars has a larger influence.
By determining the friction parameters and the shrinkage tests carried out on different types of sub-bases, it
shows that the slabs cast on dry sand have the smallest
shrinkage gradient (this is in contradiction with precedent results published in 2002). The second smallest
gradient was observed on slabs cast on a PE-sheet.
The mentioned contradiction is probably caused the
humidity of the sand used during the first part of the
research. The moisture content could not be determined then, while this time the moisture content was
determined carefully.

But of course, in real conditions, the sand used on the

building sites is likely to contain a certain percentage
of moisture content. This is even advisable because
casting concrete on a dry sand sub-base diminishes the
mechanical properties of the bottom of the concrete
slab. So the best way to reduce the gradient is most
likely to put a PE-sheet on the sub-base.

Bibliographie

[1] Altoubat S.A. & Lange D.A. : Creep Shrinkage

and Cracking of restrained Concrete at early Age,
ACI Materials Journal July-August 2001
[2] CUR : Ontwerpen van Elastisch Ondersteunde
Betonvloeren en verhardingen, Aanbevelingen 35,
CUR, 2000
[3] IBN-BIN : NBN B 15-216, Essais sur bton : retrait
et gonflement, IBN-BIN 1974
[4] Parmentier Benoit, Van Ginderachter Christophe;
Differential shrinkage of Concrete; 5th colloquium
Industrial Floors Esslingen 2003
[5] Parmentier Benoit, Van Ginderachter Christophe;
Rapport Final Retrait empch des sols industriels,
valuation critique des prescriptions actuelles et
proposition dun cadre normatif. In french/dutch
only.
[6] Parmentier Benoit, Rapport Final, Vers une conception intgrale des sols industriels, 2003

Annex 1 : friction parameters and coefficient for different sub-bases

Vertical Load (1)
[kN/m]

SAND
WET SAND
7 volume%
WET SAND
15 volume%
GRAVEL
SAND + PE
Sheet
WET SAND +
PE-sheet
SAND + 2 PE
Sheet
SAND + 2 PE
Sheet
+ OIL
CBS

CBS + PE
SAND not
compacted
SAND not flat

LIN

2,76
17,76
50,76
2,76

0
[kPa]
0
0
0
1

[MN/m]
1,32
3,81
6,17
8

k2
[mm-0,5]
2,3
8
23
6

[/]
0,32
0,35
0,40
0,45

COEF
(max= 0+max. V)
max
[/]
0,90
0,79
0,70
1.33

2,76

1,5

2,7

1.65

0.65

1,05

2,76

2,3-3,5

0,72-0,78

3-5,5

2,76
17,76
50,76
2,76

0,3

1,9
3,5
0,27
4
5,5
2,7

1,15
8
20
1,25

0,14
0,35
0,3
0,14

0,50
0,52
0,58
0,55

1,4

0,1

0,62

0,9

0,1

0,47

35
100
1,9
11
32
2,2

0,25
0,40
0,12
0,20
0,22
0,20

13,26
2,52
1,17
0,64
0,50
1,09

2,5

0,1

0,91

2,76

2,76
17,76
50,76
2,76
17,76
50,76

POW