STATE OF PRACTICE OF RESIDENTIAL FLOOR SLAB FLATNESS

By Kenneth D. Walsh,1 Howard H. Bashford,2 and Brad C. A. Mason3

ABSTRACT: Forensic engineering investigations of residential structures often include measurements of ele-
vation differences across the slab-on-grade floor as an indicator of movement (settlement or heave) of the
underlying soil. Such assessments are predicated on an assumption that the slab was flat or very nearly so at
the time of initial placement. Despite the relatively frequent use of such measurements in practice, confirmation
of the underlying assumption is scarce in the archival literature. This paper describes a testing program to
measure the deviation from level of a large number of residential concrete slab-on-grade floors in Phoenix,
Arizona, within a few days of concrete placement. An average maximum elevation change of 13.5 mm was
observed. Average and maximum slopes are also presented. The construction of the residential structure atop
the slab was found to have no statistically significant effect on the levelness of the slab, nor did the season in
which the concrete was placed. Residential slab-on-grade construction methods are reviewed, concluding that
this degree of deviation from level is to be expected. Comparison of the data with recommendations in the
literature suggests that caution must be taken in evaluation of cosmetic or structural impairment of residential
structures based in large part on measurements of interior floor slab levelness.

INTRODUCTION sparse. There are a number of standards for such measure-

This paper presents the results of an investigation of the
degree to which residential floor slabs deviate from level when
they are placed. The study is motivated by the general obser-
vation that measurements of deviation from level of floor slabs
are commonly used as an indication of movement of the floor
slab. This observation has also been made in the relevant lit-
erature [for example, Koenig (1991); Marsh and Thoeny
(1999)]. Measurements of the deviation from level of the floor
slab are a common feature of forensic investigations of homes
that have experienced some level of cosmetic or functional
distress, and conclusions are often based on these results.
These conclusions are almost always based on the assumption
that the floor slab was flat and level at the time of construction,
and therefore any deviation from level must result from
postconstruction movements.
However, the engineering community has also recognized
that this assumption is likely incorrect. Specialized screeding
and finishing equipment and processes must be adopted to
achieve high degrees of flatness and levelness in industrial
floors, requiring a much higher standard of care and different
processes than are employed in residential construction. While
qualitative understanding of this issue exists, quantitative in-
formation about the deviations from level of newly placed res-
idential slabs has not been systematically obtained and made
publicly available. To date, the technical literature on this topic
has included only a relatively small number of actual slab
measurements. In this paper, the technical literature will be
reviewed in some detail. This will be followed by a description
of the measurement program for this study, with analysis and
statistical evaluation of the results. Finally, conclusions about
residential floor slab flatness will be presented.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The literature on the degree to which newly placed residen-
tial concrete slabs-on-grade may be out of level is relatively
1
Assoc. Prof., Del E. Webb School of Constr., Arizona State Univ.,
Mail Code 0204, Tempe, AZ 85287-0204. E-mail: ken.walsh@asu.edu
2
Assoc. Prof., Del. E. Webb School of Constr., Arizona State Univ.,
Mail Code 0204, Tempe, AZ 85287-0204.
3
Grad. Res. Asst., Del E. Webb School of Constr., Arizona State Univ.,
Mail Code 0204, Tempe, AZ 85287-0204.
Note. Discussion open until April 1, 2002. To extend the closing date
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of
Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and
possible publication on September 19, 2000; revised May 5, 2001. This
paper is part of the Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities,
Vol. 15, No. 4, November, 2001. ASCE, ISSN 0887-3828/01/0004-
01270134/$8.00 $.50 per page. Paper No. 21977.
JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES / NOVEMBER 2001 / 127
ments, but very few actual measurements. Significantly more
attention has been paid, especially in the recent literature, to
the measurement of the degree to which slabs in homes that
have experienced some damage are out of level. In this sec-
tion, the technical literature on measurements of both newly
constructed and serving residential floor slabs will be re-
viewed, along with a brief discussion of applicable standards.
The most straightforwardly applicable literature is that
which contains measurements of newly constructed floor slabs
of the sort obtained in this study. Remarkably few such results
could be found in the literature. Koenig (1991) is the most
extensive such study we identified with description of new
slabs as a primary goal. Koenig presents data from 54 newly
placed residential slabs in Texas. The elevations of nine points
on each slab (one in the center and eight around the perimeter)
were measured with a water level manometer. Koenig relates
that his sample exhibited a range of 3.2 to 25.4 mm (1/8 to 1
in.) of maximum elevation difference across the slab. The av-
erage maximum deviation from level was 13.7 mm (0.54 in.),
with a standard deviation of 5.33 mm (0.21 in.). Marsh and
Thoeny (1999) report a range of 15.2 to 25.4 mm (0.6 to 1
in.) and an average of 19.1 mm (0.75 in.) for a small study
conducted on only six newly constructed homes in southern
California. Bondy (2000) reports a range of 12.7 to 22.9 mm
(0.5 to 0.9 in.) and an average of 17.8 mm (0.7 in.) for a
sample of four one-day-old slabs in California.
By contrast, the literature contains a considerable amount
of work on the relationship between different types of slab
distortion and the type and severity of structural damage that
may be related. The classic work in this area is Skempton and
MacDonald (1956), who used extensive studies of many dif-
ferent types of buildings over an extended period of time to
determine the maximum settlement before damage is likely to
occur. The specific focus of their research was on the total and
differential movement of foundations, as opposed to slabs, but
to the extent that the performance of interior walls that bear
on the slab would be affected by similar distortions, the
Skempton and MacDonald (1956) results would be applicable.
Furthermore, their work is frequently cited as threshold criteria
for the appearance of cosmetic damage in a structure.
Skempton and MacDonald (1956) point out that the dam-
aging movements for the panels and finishes are actually the
distortions of those panels, rather than simple translations.
Based on their evaluation of the damage observed in a number
of buildings, they reported a range of permissible slopes de-
pending on the type of building or foundation. The most com-
monly selected criterion from this work is 1/300 as a threshold
rotation before cracking of panels and finishes can be expected
in framed structures. Strictly speaking, this recommendation
was not developed or intended for light residential structures,
but it has nonetheless been repeated many times in the tech-
nical literature.
Day (1990) studied the angular distortion and slab differ-
ential elevation of 34 residences in the San Diego metropolitan
area. These slab characteristics were linked to the observed
level and severity of cosmetic and structural damage to the
building. A range of observed damage from negligible to very
severe was reported for the homes in the study. It was con-
cluded through this analysis that cracking of panels in wood-
frame structures on lightly reinforced concrete foundations
may occur when the angular distortion of the foundation
reaches or exceeds 1/300, and structural damage may result
when the rotation exceeds 1/100.
Boone (1996) was generally critical of the practice of em-
phasizing individual measurements in the evaluation of struc-
tural damage. Boone proposes instead a systemic evaluation,
including a number of additional parameters such as the size,
location, and severity of cracks that occur (Table 1).
Marsh and Thoeny (1999) used the Boone approach in eval-
uating patterns of movement for different soil conditions and
residential slab-on-grade systems. As opposed to previous
studies, this research considered not only the slab and struc-
tural damage and the amount of slab movement, but also the
types of soil conditions and foundations. These characteristics
were then related to the specific type and severity of associated
damage to the structure and slab. The research design involved
measurements of the levelness of lower-level floor slabs of
one- and two-story detached residential homes and one- and
two-story attached and detached condominium/townhouse
units using a water level manometer. Additionally, visual ob-
servations of the slabs were used to determine the amount and
types of distresses that these slabs had experienced since being
constructed.
A total of 401 homes were reviewed over a 12 year period,
122 of which were available to assess the condition of the
slab. Information recorded included visual observations of soil
TABLE 1. Severity Characterizations from Literature
Boone (1996)
Damage level Description
Negligible Hairline cracks
Very slight Fine cracks appear that can be easily resolved with
simple redecoration; slight exterior cracks visible
upon close inspection and/or isolated slight frac-
ture in building
Slight Cracks appear that can be easily filled; redecoration
probably required. Several slight fractures may
appear showing inside structure of building; ex-
ternal cracks are visible and may need physical
repair
Moderate Cracks appear that may need opening up and can
be patched by a mason; external cracks present;
doors and windows stick; service pipes may frac-
ture; weather tightness may be impaired
Severe Damage includes large cracks requiring extensive
repair work, including breaking out and replacing
sections of walls (especially over doors and win-
dows); distorted door and window frames; lean-
ing of building walls; noticeably sloping floors;
disrupted service pipes
Very severe Damage often requires major repair job involving
partial or complete rebuilding; beams lose bear-
ing; walls lean and require shoring; windows are
broken with distortion; danger of structural insta-
bility
128 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES / NOVEMBER 2001
types and conditions, along with the number, location, and
severity of different types of cracks in the slab and structure.
With these observations and other results from the literature,
Marsh and Thoeny (1999) related a number of measures of
slab levelness and crack size to the damage level. These mea-
sures are shown in Table 1 along with the Boone (1996) re-
sults. Marsh and Thoeny (1999), while clearly derivative,
show general agreement with Boone.
Boone (1996) emphasizes the importance of descriptions
and measurements of cracks in determining building damage
level. Marsh and Thoeny (1999) agree with crack width as an
important measurement, but add a number of other measures.
Additional measures of severity presented by Marsh and
Thoeny include the total slab differential elevation and the
angular distortion of the slab. They provide a range of values
for these variables in different damage severity classifications,
depending on the specific type of soil problem at the site. They
divide potential soil problems into three categories: expansive,
settlement, or slope stability.
The measurements presented later in this paper were made
in new residential units in the Phoenix, Arizona, metropolitan
area. In Arizona, as in many jurisdictions, residential slab lev-
elness is not strictly controlled at the time of construction.
However, the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (AROC) may
be asked to evaluate construction quality in the event of a
dispute between a licensed contractor and a customer of the
contractor. In these cases, the AROC will use its minimum
workmanship standards (AROC 1997). These standards pro-
vide, among other things, a value for the maximum angular
distortion of a new concrete slab. While not precisely a stan-
dard, the AROC values are intended to describe the minimum
tolerance the contractor should be able to achieve.
A number of damage threshold criteria are presented in Ta-
ble 2. The values shown in the table are the thresholds reported
by each study before damage of some type, even cosmetic, is
likely. Also shown for comparison is the AROC workmanship
standard, which is considerably flatter than any of the thresh-
old values reported. It must be kept in mind that all of the
results in Table 2, with the exception of the AROC standard,
Marsh and Thoeny (1999)
Damage level Description
Negligible None
Slight or low Aesthetic damage; some doors and windows stick;
cosmetic repairs most likely necessary
Low to moderate More pronounced aesthetic damage; some doors
and windows stick; accelerated weathering to
external features; repairs to slab and foundation
often necessary
Moderate Distinct patterns of interior and exterior distress
appearing; pervasive cracking may be apparent;
tile in floor usually perceivable; repairs to home,
slab, and foundation usually necessary
Moderate to se- Distinct patterns of distress exist; window and
vere door frames distorted; perceivable tilt in floor;
serviceability of building affected; repairs to
home, slab, and foundation necessary
Severe Large pervasive cracks throughout; door and win-
dow frames severely distorted; wall frames lean-
ing noticeably; repairs to home, slab, and foun-
dation are necessary and often extensive
Very severe Increasing risk of structure becoming dangerous;
requires major repair and often removal of struc-
ture
 TABLE 2. Damage Threshold Criteria
Maximum Maximum
differential angular
Source elevation distortion
Skempton and McDonald Not given 1/300
(1956)
Day (1990) Cosmetic damage: 31.8 mm 1/300
(1.25 in.)
Structural damage: 88.9 mm 1/100
(3.5 in.)
Marsh and Thoeny (1999) 25.427.9 mma (11.10 1/4801/330a
in.)a
AROC (1997) workmanship Not given 1/580
standards
ACI 117-90 (1990) toler- FL > 13 1/96
ances for concrete con-
struction and materials
a
Depending on soil conditions.
arise largely from measurements made on structures that had
experienced some distress.
One inherent aspect of the studies reported in Table 2 is that
any type of observation that measures the slope or elevation
change of the slab and reports it as postconstruction movement
is based on the assumption that the floor was level when
placed. In the study by Marsh and Thoeny (1999), levels of
angular distortion and differential movement of the slab were
measured using a combination of manometer measurements
and information derived from the damage observations (ob-
servations of the types, extent, and severity of cracking) in the
slabs. Although an educated guess can be made as to the char-
acteristics and dynamics of these slabs given the loading, mea-
sures of levelness, and damage profile, much of the informa-
tion given in Table 2 is indirect and not truly derived from
pure observation and analysis.
Marsh and Thoeny (1999) acknowledged that information
about newly placed concrete slabs must be obtained before
truly accurate studies of this type can evolve: During inves-
tigations of distressed homes it is often necessary to assess
how much differential movement has occurred as a result of
soil influence. To do this, one must know some details of how
the slab was first constructed, such as how level it was ini-
tially (Marsh and Thoeny 1999). The Koenig (1991) data
represent one source for new slab levelness and point to the
possibility that new slabs may be out of level on the order of
12.7 mm (0.5 in.) maximum differential, on average.
Maximum elevation difference across the slab (that is, the
elevation difference between the highest point and the lowest
point) is a fairly commonly used indicator of distress in resi-
dential slabs. This is the measure used by Koenig (1991) and
frequently found in the relevant literature. The angular distor-
tions reported in Table 2 are slightly different, representing the
slope between adjacent measurement points on the slab. In
other words, they represent the elevation difference between
neighboring measurements, divided by the horizontal distance
between the measurements.
A different approach to slab geometric quality is presented
in the ASTM (1996) E1155-96 standards and the American
Concrete Institute (ACI 1990) 117-90 specifications. Here, in-
dex values are used to assess the flatness and levelness of a
newly placed slab. The indices are known as FF and FL, re-
spectively, and are calculated as dimensionless ratios involving
the mean and standard deviation of elevation measurements
on the slab surface made along 3.05 m (10 ft) lines following
the layout guidelines in ASTM E1155-96. The most appropri-
ate index to the current discussion is FL, defined as
317.5 mm 12.5 in.
FL = = (1)
3sz z 3sz z
JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES / NOVEMBER 2001 / 129
where z = average elevation difference (positive uphill) be-
tween points 3.05 m apart; and sz = standard deviation of sam-
ple of z values.
The ACI standard further defines a local FL in which only
a single pair of elevation measurements 3.05 m apart is used.
For this case, (1) can be rewritten as follows:
317.5 mm
FL = (2)
z
If the pair of points with the largest elevation difference (z)
were chosen, (FL)min would therefore result from (2). ACI 117-
90 provides tolerances for FL and (FL)min of 13 and 10, re-
spectively, for the type of finishing common in residential con-
struction. Using the local value, the standard thereby sets a
tolerance on zmax between two points 3.05 m apart of 31.75
mm (1.25 in.), corresponding to a slope of 1/96. The index
procedure has the advantage of being standardized, but in the
writers experience it is more common in residential practice
to focus on the maximum total differential elevation across the
slab.
SUMMARY OF FIELD STUDY
A water level manometer device (Sarek Company model
465C) was used to measure elevation differences in 98 con-
crete slabs at many locations across the Phoenix metropolitan
area. The measurements cover a number of builders and con-
crete subcontractors and were made at several different times
of year. The concrete subcontractors did not know the slab
measurements were going to be made, although in some cases
the builders superintendent was aware of the upcoming mea-
surements.
The water level manometer consists of a large reservoir of
water on an adjustable stand, connected by a plastic tube to a
graduated rod. The water level remains at the elevation in the
reservoir, which is transmitted by hydraulic continuity through
the tube and read on the graduated rod. The water level at the
rod can be read through the tube against the graduated scale
on the rod. The elevation difference between two points can
then be found by comparing the readings on the graduated rod
when it is held vertically at each point. The water level ma-
nometer is shown schematically in Fig. 1.
The manometer was used to obtain readings on concrete
slab-on-grade floors. Readings were taken on a 3.05 m (10 ft)
spacing. The slab was marked using a snap line around the
grid, beginning at a point 0.3 m (1 ft) inside an outer corner.
An example layout is shown in Fig. 2. No measurements were
made in the outer 0.3 m of the slab to avoid irregularities
arising from the screeding process itself. In addition to the
points of intersection on the grid, additional points were mea-
sured near utility penetrations through the slab to identify po-
tential problems in these areas that are difficult to screed and
finish.
The 3.05 m grid was selected based on timely completion,
convenience, and compatibility with the typical number of
points for forensic investigations in the writers experience. In
practice, measurement patterns on serving homes are usually
heavily controlled by the arrangements of interior partitions
and furniture, and great variability exists in the number of
points commonly measured by different investigators. The
writers are currently studying the impact of measurement spac-
ing on the accuracy and reproducibility of the results.
A typical measurement would proceed as follows. The ma-
nometer would be set up near one corner of the slab surface.
A 3.05 3.05 m grid was laid out across the slab, starting
from this corner. Each grid intersection point within the slab
was taken as a point of measure. A rough sketch of each slab
and measurement grid was drawn in the field. Measurements
 FIG. 1. Water Level Manometer Measurement System
FIG. 2. Example Showing Measurement Grid System
of elevation difference for each point were recorded on the
sketch. The subdivision name and homebuilder were noted for
each slab measured. The address of each was noted when
available. The concrete subcontractor was also documented
when that information was available. Concrete slab measurable
square footage was noted and ranged from 110 to 465 m2
(1200 to 5000 ft2) in this sample. Weather conditions at the
time of measurement, including temperature and wind condi-
tions, were noted. A database was developed using Microsoft
130 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES / NOVEMBER 2001
FIG. 3. Typical Condition of Interior Floor Space Prior to Final Grad-
ing
Access to organize and group the information gathered in these
analyses. Subsequent data reduction included identification of
the lowest point on the slab and calculation of the elevation
difference between this point and the other measured points
on the slab.
The sites included 89 slabs measured within four days of
concrete placement, and nine more measured after structural
loading using roughly the same technique. A loaded slab in
this context refers to a slab over which a house has been
framed, enclosed, and loaded with roofing tiles for at least one
week before water level measurement commenced, but prior
to installation of cosmetic flooring materials. These basic el-
ements of single-family home structures represent the majority
of dead loads that will be transferred to that slab. Because of
constraints associated with built-in units, interior walls, and
other fixtures, using a regular grid was not practical for the
slabs with structure in place. Instead, an average representative
number of measurements were taken at points within the slab.
These points were chosen so that their spacing from one an-
other, position relative to exterior and interior load-bearing
walls, and position relative to the central and outer areas of
the slab itself were representative of the number and spacing
of the unloaded slab measurements using the 3.05 m grid.
 The slabs in this study were all generally representative of
the typical concrete slab-on-grade (not posttensioned) methods
in use in the Phoenix metropolitan area, which are similar to
methods in use in at least the desert southwestern United
States, as well as many other portions of the country. The
footings and stem walls are formed and placed first, with the
top of the stem wall being set to the grade of the finished floor
elevation. The footing trench spoil is usually placed on the
floor side of the stem wall before placement of the footing,
and to this loose soil is added the spoil from any subfloor
utility trenches that must be installed (Fig. 3). After inspection
of the subfloor utilities, the concrete subcontractor is charged
with shading and backfilling the interior trenches, removal of
any excess spoil, and placement of an interior base course
layer that is commonly about 102 mm (4 in.) thick. In many
cases, the trench backfilling and placement of the base course
are completed without systematic attempts to compact or mois-
ture-control the materials.
The concrete contractor arranges for application of termiti-
cide the evening before the slab is to be placed. The fresh
concrete is then placed inside the stem walls (often integrally
with any interior bearing footings). The concrete is then man-
FIG. 4. Typical Residential Slab-on-Grade Screeding Operation
FIG. 5. Newly Placed Residential Slab Elevation Difference (n = 89)
JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES / NOVEMBER 2001 / 131
ually screeded using a lumber straightedge, to the level of the
top of the stem wall. The screeding process is conducted using
the top of the stem wall as a guide around the edges of the
floor slab, and then using the screeded zones near the edge in
the middle portions (Fig. 4). Obviously, using this method re-
quires considerable skill to obtain a plane surface, and very
flat conditions are not extremely likely. Interior joints are usu-
ally installed after concrete placement by saw cutting, but pre-
fabricated joints may also be used.
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
Each point of measurement on slabs tested for this study
yielded a difference (either positive or negative) between the
elevation of the reference point and the point of measurement.
To compute the maximum elevation difference noted for any
given slab, the maximum (most positive) and minimum (most
negative) differences between measurement points and the ref-
erence point were obtained for each slab. The maximum ele-
vation difference for the slab is then obtained using (3).
max = max(ref) min(ref) (3)
where max = maximum elevation difference across slab; and
ref = difference between measurement point and reference
point.
This process was conducted for every slab, and the maxi-
mum elevation differences are presented as a histogram in Fig.
5. The vertical axis represents the relative frequency of oc-
currence of measured values of maximum slab elevation dif-
ference in a bin centered on the value shown on the x-axis.
Relative frequency is the number of samples in each bin di-
vided by the total number of samples (89), expressed as a
percentage. Only a small fraction of the slabs in the sample
were measured to have a maximum deviation from level of
over 25 mm (1 in.). Also shown on the histogram, for com-
parison, is a normal distribution with the same average and
standard deviation, which can be seen to be a reasonable fit
to the measured results.
The maximum angular distortion for each slab was calcu-
lated using a similar procedure, but in this case comparing the
elevation difference between adjacent points instead of the ex-
trema. The elevation change is then divided by the distance
between the two points to arrive at the slope of the slab be-
tween the two points. This calculation is completed using (4).
For small angles
rise
tan =
run
refi refj
= (4b)
Lij
where refi = elevation difference to reference point for ith
measurement; and Lij = plan distance between ith and jth
points.
The calculation of the maximum angular distortion required
that all pairs of adjacent points be considered. A routine was
developed in the Access database to step through the data and
calculate the maximum angular distortion for each pair, and
then to identify the maximum value for each slab.
Summary statistics for the maximum slope and maximum
elevation difference are presented in Table 3. Note that the
average values for the loaded and unloaded slabs are remark-
ably similar. Further, note that the average maximum slope is
nearly as high as Day (1990) reported for cosmetic damage
and that the range includes values nearly as steep as Day de-
scribes for a threshold before structural damage will begin
(Table 2). Only the maximum elevation difference is presented
for the slabs measured after completion of the residential struc-
ture (loaded slabs). The distances between the points where
elevations were calculated for these slabs were not accurately
measured.
The results summarized in Table 3 indicate that, on average,
the slabs in the sample showed about 13.5 mm (0.53 in.) max-
imum deviation from level. These data can be used to estimate
the mean of the actual population. If the mean of the popu-
lation is given by , then the measured results for the sample
of newly placed slabs allow us to estimate the maximum de-
viation from level of the population, along with the confidence
interval for the estimate (Table 4). This estimate can be made
using the statistical function for estimating confidence inter-
vals for a large sample (n > 30), using (5):
s
= x z(/2)
n of degrees of freedom and the desired confidence level. The
where x = mean value of sample; z(/2) = critical z value for
confidence level desired (Devore 1991); s = sample standard
deviation; and n = number of observations in sample. From
Table 4, it can be seen that, to very high degrees of confidence,
the average deviation from level of concrete slabs is about 13.5
mm (0.53 in.) when the slabs are newly placed.
The smaller sample of the slabs measured after the struc-
tures were completed above them shows an average value very
similar to that of the sample of newly placed slabs. One is
tempted to conclude that the results show that the averages are
the same. However, because the samples represent random
TABLE 3. Summary Statistics for Slab Level Measurements in Study
Maximum Elevation Difference across Slab
Sample
Type size Range Mean
New placed slabs
max 89 6.3530.0 mm 13.5 mm
(0.251.18 in.) (0.532 in.)
max 89 1/8571/101 1/334
Loaded slabs max 9 11.717.0 mm 13.5 mm
(0.460.67 in.) (0.530 in.)
132 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES / NOVEMBER 2001
TABLE 4. Confidence Intervals for Mean of Population
Confidence Confidence
level Critical z interval for
(percent) [z(/2)] mean
90 1.645 [12.80, 14.22] mm
([0.504, 0.560] in.)
95 1.96 [12.67, 14.35] mm
(4a) ([0.499, 0.565] in.)
99 2.58 [12.40, 14.63] mm
([0.488, 0.576] in.)
draws from a population, it is statistically possible that the
nearness of the means is only an accidentthe luck of the
draw, as it were. To evaluate this possibility, the t-testing pro-
cedure was used. This procedure allows one to evaluate the
likelihood that two samples are the same. In this case, we will
be checking the hypothesis that the mean maximum deviation
from level of the population of slabs immediately after they
are placed is the same as the mean of the population of slabs
after the structures are completed; in other words, the hypoth-
esis is that the construction of the home does not affect the
deviation from level of the floor slab.
There are two possible errors that we could make in eval-
uating this hypothesis. The first, known as the error, is that
we reject the hypothesis when it is true. In this case, that
would mean that we conclude that the sample shows that the
construction of the home does affect the deviation from level
of the floor slab, when in fact it does not. The second or
error is to accept the hypothesis when it is false; this error
would mean that we conclude that construction of the home
does not affect the slab when in fact it does. The sample sta-
tistics in Table 3 allow us to evaluate the confidence we have
about the conclusions that might result from comparing the
means. In essence, the goal is to establish a probability that
we are right about the means being identical, or a probability
that in fact the home construction does not affect the levelness
of the slab.
The hypothesis is written in statistical terms as
H0:L U = 0 (6)
where L = mean of population of loaded slabs; and U =
mean of population of unloaded slabs.
The hypothesis H0 will be rejected if the calculated t-value
(5) for the samples is less than the critical t-value for the number
critical t-value can be obtained from a t-distribution, which is
tabulated in most elementary statistics books (we used Devore
1991). The calculated t-value assuming the hypothesis H0
comes from (7).
xU xL
t= (7)
1 1
sp
nU nL
where xU = mean of sample of unloaded slabs; xL = mean of
sample of loaded slabs; n = number of observations in each
sample; sp = (nU 1)s U2 (nL 1)s L2 /(nU nL 2); sU =
sample standard deviation for unloaded slabs; and sL = sample
standard deviation for loaded slabs.
For the 95% confidence limit, and for the appropriate num-
Standard
ber of degrees of freedom (89 9 2 = 96), the critical t-
deviation
value is 1.989. The calculated t-value using the values in Table
4.06 mm
3 and the equations above is 0.0318. As the calculated t-value
(0.160 in.) is well below the critical t-value, there is no statistical reason
1/796 to reject H0 to the 95% confidence level. In other words, the
1.70 mm likelihood that we ought to conclude that the means are alike
(0.067 in.)
is very high.
 The error is more difficult to evaluate. It requires an as-
sumption about the standard deviation of the population,
which is in truth unknown to us. However, it is likely that it
is close to the value for the unloaded slab sample, since that
sample is so large. If we assume that the standard deviation
of the population () is about 3.8 mm (0.15 in.), we can find
out the probability that the means of the unloaded and loaded
slabs are more than a set amount different, which amount will
be called . This probability is known as and is calculated
using standard charts and the d-value, which is calculated us-
ing (8).
yields = 0.04. The hypothesis H0 would therefore be rejected
incorrectly only 4% of the time. Taken together, these statistics
indicate that there is a high probability that the means of the
two populationsthat is, loaded and unloaded slabsare the
same. In other words, it appears likely that loading the slab
by construction of the house, including the interior partitions
and the roofing, does not affect the maximum deviation from
level.
Another way to look at this sample is to calculate a confi-
dence interval for the difference between the means of the two
samples. This is done using (9).

d=


nUnL
(nU nL)(nU nL 1)
(8) I = xU xL (t/2,nUnL2)sp
1
nU

1
nL
(9)

Using this equation and the 95% confidence level, we arrive

Obviously, the smaller the potential difference in the means
, the larger the probability that the means are different.
Therefore, one would ordinarily choose a such that a dif-
ference of that much would have engineering significance. In
this case, we chose to evaluate the likelihood that the true
means are within = 5 mm (0.2 in.) of each other. This leads
to a d-value of about 0.4 and at the 95% confidence level
at the conclusion that, to the 95% confidence level, the means
are no more than 2.8 mm (0.11 in.) apart. Again, this leads us
to the conclusion that the construction of the homes has no
statistically significant effect on the degree to which the slabs
are level.
Similar analyses can be used to check other kinds of ques-
tions one might ask about the results of this study. Two im-

TABLE 5. Summary Statistics for Maximum Elevation Difference in Comparison Studies

Sample Standard
Type size Range Mean deviation
Newly placed slabs
All data 89 6.430.0 mm 13.5 mm 4.06 mm
(0.251.18 in.) (0.532 in.) (0.160 in.)
Hot months 49 6.430.0 mm 13.4 mm 4.50 mm
(0.251.18 in.) (0.527 in.) (0.177 in.)
Cool months 40 8.926.9 mm 13.7 mm 3.61 mm
(0.351.06 in.) (0.538 in.) (0.142 in.)
Loaded slabs (max) 9 11.717.0 mm 13.5 mm 1.70 mm
(0.460.67 in.) (0.530 in.) (0.067 in.)
Koenig (1991), Texas 54 3.225.4 mm 13.7 mm 5.33 mm
(0.1251.00 in.) (0.54 in.) (0.21 in.)
Marsh and Thoeny (1999), California 6 15.225.4 mm 19.1 mm
(0.61.0 in.) (0.75 in.)
Bondy (2000), California 4 12.722.9 mm 1.78 mm
(0.50.9 in.) (0.7 in.)

FIG. 6. Normal Probability Distribution for Maximum Elevation Difference on Newly Placed Residential Concrete Slab-on-Grade Floors

JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES / NOVEMBER 2001 / 133

portant questions include the degree to which these data match
results presented in the literature, and the degree to which the
results vary by season. The maximum elevation difference val-
ues are summarized in Table 5. The hot month data are a
summary of the results obtained in June, July, or August, and
are separated out to determine if curing in the heat of summer
may introduce a larger maximum deviation from level, perhaps
by virtue of slab curling.
Using the same analysis procedure outlined above, it can be
shown that the data from the hot and cool months do not have
statistically significant differences from each other, the overall
result, or the loaded slabs. Furthermore, these results are not
statistically different from the Koenig (1991) data obtained for
newly constructed slabs in Texas. The Marsh and Thoeny
(1999) and Boone (2000) results did not include the standard
deviation and constitute only a very small sample. As a result,
it is impossible to make quantitative conclusions about the
statistical significance of the difference between these data and
the other rows. However, the range of results obtained by
Marsh and Thoeny are generally similar to those obtained by
Koenig and in the present study.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper has presented a summary of an investigation of
residential floor flatness for newly placed floors in metropol-
itan Phoenix, Arizona. The study included a review of the
relevant literature and a field testing program to measure the
flatness of 89 newly placed floors and 9 recently loaded floors.
Two studies reported average maximum deviations from
level of 12.7 to 19 mm (0.5 to 0.75 in.) More literature was
found with measurements of homes that have experienced dis-
tress, without information about the levelness of these floors
at the time of concrete placement. The literature indicates that
some level of distress may be expected when the maximum
deviation from level across a serving residential slab-on-grade
floor exceeds about 28 to 38 mm (1.1 to 1.5 in.). Furthermore,
the literature indicates that damage may begin to become ap-
parent when floor slab slopes exceed 1/300 and may become
severe when slopes exceed 1/100 (Day 1990; Marsh and
Thoeny 1999).
The data collected from concrete slab-on-grade floors im-
mediately after placement in this study resulted in an average
maximum deviation from level at the time of placement of
13.5 mm (0.53 in.), with a maximum observed value of 30.0
mm (1.18 in.). The average maximum slope observed on floors
in this sample was 1/334, with a maximum observed value of
1/101. The extrema from both the maximum elevation differ-
ence and the maximum angular rotation exceed the threshold
values found in the literature indicated in the previous para-
graph, but compare favorably with the tolerances set forth in
ACI 117-90. Obviously, since these extreme values came from
134 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES / NOVEMBER 2001
slabs on which no structure had yet been built, these values
do not indicate any cosmetic, functional, or structural danger
to the structure. Only those elevation changes that occur after
completion of the structure are in fact likely to produce dam-
age to the supported residence.
These results point out the potential inaccuracies that may
arise in forensic engineering studies that rely heavily on the
maximum elevation difference or the maximum angular rota-
tion of the residential floor slab. If the forensic engineer uses
such measurements to make conclusions about the likelihood
of any damage to the structure, they must consider the possi-
bility (indeed the likelihood) that the floor slab was not level
at the time of placement. Furthermore, the results of this study
can be used to address the question of postconstruction move-
ments probabilistically. Fig. 6 shows the probability, based on
a normal distribution having the same mean and standard de-
viation observed in this study, that any given value of maxi-
mum elevation difference might have existed at the time of
placement of the floor slab. Clearly, these results can be taken
as supportive of the general approach recommended by Boone
(1996), in which the elevation difference and slope measure-
ments from a residential floor slab of unknown initial flatness
are taken in the context of observed distresses to the structure.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was supported in part by a grant from the Arizona Con-
sulting Engineers Association.
REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 317. (1990). Standard
specifications for tolerances for concrete construction and materials
(ACI 117-90) and Commentary (ACI 117R-90), Detroit.
Arizona Registrar of Contractors (AROC). (1997). A guide for contrac-
tors: Minimum workmanship for licensed contractors, Phoenix, Ariz.
ASTM. (1996). Annual book of standards, American Society for Testing
and Materials, Philadelphia, Pa.
Bondy, K. B. (2000). Performance evaluation of residential concrete
foundations. Tech. Notes, 9, 16.
Boone, S. J. (1996). Ground-movement-related building damage. J.
Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 122(11), 886896.
Day, R. W. (1990). Differential movement of slab-on-grade structures.
J. Perf. Constr. Fac., ASCE, 4(4), 236241.
Devore, J. L. (1991). Probability and statistics for engineering and the
sciences, 3rd Ed., Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, Pacific Grove,
Calif.
Koenig, A. S. (1991). Relative elevation data analysis on newly con-
structed residential foundations. Paper Presented to the ASCE Texas
Section Spring Meeting, San Antonio, Texas, Available through the
Expansive Clay Research Institute, San Antonio, Tex.
Marsh, E. T., and Thoeny, S. A. (1999). Damage and distortion criteria
for residential slab-on-grade structures. J. Perf. Constr. Fac., ASCE,
13(3), 121127.
Skempton, A. W., and MacDonald, D. H. (1956). The allowable settle-
ments of buildings. Proc., Instn. Civ. Engrs., 5(3), 727768.