566 Chapter 11: Foundations on Difficult Soils

Chemical Stabilization
If conditions are favorable, foundation trenches can be flooded with solutions of sodium
silicate and calcium chloride to stabilize the soil chemically. The soil will then behave
like a soft sandstone and resist collapse upon saturation. This method is successful only
if the solutions can penetrate to the desired depth; thus, it is most applicable to fine sand
deposits. Silicates are rather costly and are not generally used. However, in some parts of
Denver, silicates have been used successfully.
The injection of a sodium silicate solution to stabilize collapsible soil deposits has been
used extensively in the former Soviet Union and Bulgaria (Houston and Houston, 1989). This
process, which is used for dry collapsible soils and for wet collapsible soils that are likely to
compress under the added weight of the structure to be built, consists of three steps:
Step 1. Injection of carbon dioxide to remove any water that is present and for
preliminary activation of the soil
Step 2. Injection of sodium silicate grout
Step 3. Injection of carbon dioxide to neutralize alkalies.

Vibroflotation and Ponding

When the soil layer is susceptible to wetting to a depth of about 10 m s<30 ftd, several
techniques may be used to cause collapse of the soil before construction of the foundation
is begun. Two of these techniques are vibroflotation and ponding (also called flooding).
Vibroflotation is used successfully in free-draining soil. (See Chapter 16.) Ponding—by
constructing low dikes—is utilized at sites that have no impervious layers. However, even
after saturation and collapse of the soil by ponding, some additional settlement of the soil
may occur after construction of the foundation is begun. Additional settlement may also
be caused by incomplete saturation of the soil at the time of construction. Ponding may be
used successfully in the construction of earth dams.

Extending Foundation Beyond Zone of Wetting

If precollapsing the soil is not practical, foundations may be extended beyond the zone of
possible wetting, although the technique may require drilled shafts and piles. The design
of drilled shafts and piles must take into consideration the effect of negative skin friction
resulting from the collapse of the soil structure and the associated settlement of the zone
of subsequent wetting.
In some cases, a rock-column type of foundation (vibroreplacement) may be consid-
ered. Rock columns are built with large boulders that penetrate the collapsible soil layer.
They act as piles in transferring the load to a more stable soil layer.

Expansive Soils
11.7 General Nature of Expansive Soils
Many plastic clays swell considerably when water is added to them and then shrink
with the loss of water. Foundations constructed on such clays are subjected to large
uplifting forces caused by the swelling. These forces induce heaving, cracking, and the

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 11.7 General Nature of Expansive Soils 567

Figure 11.8 Cracks in a wall due to heaving of an expansive clay (Courtesy

of Anand Puppala, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas)

breakup of both building foundations and slab-on-grade members. Figure 11.8 shows
the cracks in a wall due to excessive heaving. Expansive clays cover large parts of the
United States, South America, Africa, Australia, and India. In the United States, these clays
are predominant in Texas, Oklahoma, and the upper Missouri Valley. In general, expansive
clays have liquid limits and plasticity indices greater than about 40 and 15, respectively.
As noted, the increase and decrease in moisture content causes clay to swell and
shrink. Figure 11.9 shows shrinkage cracks on the ground surface of a clay weathered from
the Eagle Ford shale formation in the Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas area. The depth in a soil
to which periodic changes of moisture occur is usually referred to as the active zone (see
Figure 11.10). The depth of the active zone varies, depending on the location of the site.
Some typical active-zone depths in American cities are given in Table 11.3. In some clays
and clay shales in the western United States, the depth of the active zone can be as much
as 15 m s<50 ftd. The active-zone depth can easily be determined by plotting the liquidity

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 568 Chapter 11: Foundations on Difficult Soils

Figure 11.9 Shrinkage cracks on ground surface in a clay weathered from Eagle Ford shale
formation in the Dallas-Fort Worth area (Courtesy of Thomas M. Petry, Missouri University
of Science and Technology, Rolla, Missouri)

Ground Moisture
surface content

Seasonal variation
Active zone of moisture content
(Depth 5 z)
Equi ure cont
mois
libri
t
um nt
e

Depth

Figure 11.10 Definition of active zone

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 11.7 General Nature of Expansive Soils 569

Table 11.3 Typical Active-Zone Depths in Some

U.S. Citiesa
Depth of active zone

City (m) (ft)

Houston 1.5 to 3 5 to 10
Dallas 2.1 to 4.6 7 to 15
San Antonio 3 to 9 10 to 30
Denver 3 to 4.6 10 to 15
a
After O’Neill and Poormoayed (1980) (Based on data
from O’Neill and Poormoayed (1980) (O’Neill, M. W., and
Poormoayed, N. (1980). “Methodology for Foundations on
Expansive Clays,” Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering
Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 106,
No. GT12, pp. 1345–1367.)

index against the depth of the soil profile over several seasons. Figure 11.11 shows such a
plot for the Beaumont formation in the Houston area.
Shrinkage cracks can extend deep into the active zone. Figure 11.12 shows inter-
connected shrinkage cracks extending from the ground surface into the active zone in an
expansive clay.

Liquidity index
21 0 11

1
Approximate 4
depth
of seasonal
change, 1.67 m
2
(5.5 ft)
8
Depth (m)

Depth (ft)

3
Range over
several
seasons 12
4
Figure 11.11 Active zone in Houston
area, Beaumont formation (Based on
O’Neill, M. W., and Poormoayed, N.
5 16 (1980). “Methodology for Foundations
on Expansive Clays,” Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division,
American Society of Civil Engineers,
6 Vol. 106, No. GT12, pp. 1345–1367.)

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 570 Chapter 11: Foundations on Difficult Soils

Figure 11.12 Interconnected shrinkage cracks extended from the ground surface into the
active zone (Courtesy of Thomas M. Petry, Missouri University of Science and Technology,
Rolla, Missouri)

To study the magnitude of possible swell in a clay, simple laboratory oedometer tests
can be conducted on undisturbed specimens. Two common tests are the unrestrained swell
test and the swelling pressure test. They are described in the following sections.

11.8 Unrestrained Swell Test

In the unrestrained swell test, the specimen is placed in an oedometer under a small surcharge
of about 6.9 kN/m2 s1 lb/in2d. Water is then added to the specimen, and the expansion of the
volume of the specimen (i.e., its height; the area of cross section is constant) is measured until
equilibrium is reached. The percentage of free swell may then be expressed as the ratio

DH
swsfreeds%d 5 s100d (11.9)
H

where
swsfreed 5 free swell, as a percentage
DH 5 height of swell due to saturation
H 5 original height of the specimen
Vijayvergiya and Ghazzaly (1973) analyzed various soil test results obtained in
this manner and prepared a correlation chart of the free swell, liquid limit, and natural

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 11.9 Swelling Pressure Test 571

20

10

Percent swell, sw(free) (%)

60 Liquid
50 limit
40 5 70
1

Figure 11.13 Relation between

percentage of free swell, liquid limit,
and natural moisture content (Based on
Vijayvergiya, V. N. and Ghazzaly, O. I.
(1973). “Prediction of Swelling Potential
of Natural Clays,” Proceedings, Third
0.1 International Research and Engineering
0 10 20 30 40 50 Conference on Expansive Clays,
Natural moisture content (%) pp. 227–234.)

moisture content, as shown in Figure 11.13. O’Neill and Poormoayed (1980) developed
a relationship for calculating the free surface swell from this chart:

DSF 5 0.0033Zswsfreed (11.10)

where
DSF 5 free surface swell
Z 5 depth of active zone
swsfreed 5 free swell, as a percentage

11.9 Swelling Pressure Test

The swelling pressure can be determined from two different types of tests. They are
●
Conventional consolidation test
●
Constant volume test
The two methods are briefly described here.

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 572 Chapter 11: Foundations on Difficult Soils

Specimen
deformation, !

Consolidation
test
Swelling due
to addition of
water
+ve

0
Initial
–ve condition

9
"sw
Figure 11.14 Zero swell pressure from
Pressure, "9 conventional consolidation test

Conventional Consolidation Test

In this type of test, the specimen is placed in a oedometer under a small surcharge of about
6.9 kN/m2 (1 lb/in2). Water is added to the specimen, allowing it to swell and reach an
equilibrium position after some time. Subsequently, loads are added in convenient steps,
and the specimen is consolidated. The plot of specimen deformation (!) versus log "9 is
shown in Figure 11.14. The ! versus log "9 plot crosses the horizontal line through the
point of initial condition. The pressure corresponding to the point of intersection is the
zero swell pressure, "9sw.

Constant Volume Test

The constant volume test can be conducted by taking a specimen in a consolidation ring
and applying a pressure equal to the effective overburden pressure, "9o , plus the approximate
anticipated surcharge caused by the foundation, "s9. Water is then added to the specimen.
As the specimen starts to swell, pressure is applied in small increments to prevent swelling.
Pressure is maintained until full swelling pressure is developed on the specimen, at which
time the total pressure is

"9sw 5 "9o 1 "9s 1 "91 (11.11)

where
"9sw 5 total pressure applied to prevent swelling, or zero swell pressure
"19 5 additional pressure applied to prevent swelling after addition of water
Figure 11.15 shows the variation of the percentage of swell with effective pressure during a
swelling pressure test. (For more information on this type of test, see Sridharan et al., 1986.)
A "9sw of about 20 to 30 kN/m2 s400 to 650 lb/ft2d is considered to be low, and a "9sw
of 1500 to 2000 kN/m2 s30,000 to 40,000 lb/ft2d is considered to be high. After zero swell
pressure is attained, the soil specimen can be unloaded in steps to the level of the effective
overburden pressure, "9o . The unloading process will cause the specimen to swell. The

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 11.9 Swelling Pressure Test 573

sw (1)

Swell, sw (%)
Unloading

Figure 11.15
!9o 1 !9s !9sw Effective pressure Swelling pressure test

equilibrium swell for each pressure level is also recorded. The variation of the swell, sw in
percent, and the applied pressure on the specimen will be like that shown in Figure 11.15.
The constant volume test can be used to determine the surface heave, DS, for a foun-
dation (O’Neill and Poormoayed, 1980) as given by the formula

n
DS 5 o [s
i51
ws1d s%d]sHids0.01d (11.12)

where
sws1ds%d 5 swell, in percent, for layer i under a pressure of "9o 1 "9s (see Figure 11.15)
DHi 5 thickness of layer i
It is important to point out that the zero swell pressure ("9sw) obtained from the con-
ventional consolidation test and the constant volume test may not be the same. Table 11.4
summarizes some laboratory test results of Sridharan et al. (1986) to illustrate this point. It
also was shown by Sridharan et al. (1986) that the zero swell pressure is a function of
the dry unit weight of soil, but not of the initial moisture content (Figure 11.16).

Table 11.4 Comparison of Zero Swell Pressure Obtained from Conventional Consolidation Tests
and Constant Volume Tests—Summary of Test Results of Sridharan et al. (1986)
s9sw (kN/m2)

Liquid Plasticity Initial void Consolidation Constant

Soil limit index ratio, ei test volume test

BC-1 80 44 0.893 294.3 186.4

BC-4 98 57 1.002 382.6 251.8
BC-5 96 65 0.742 500.3 304.1
BC-7 96 66 0.572 1275.3 372.8
BC-8 94 62 0.656 147.2 68.7

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 574 Chapter 11: Foundations on Difficult Soils

500

Zero swell pressure, !9sw (kN/m2)

Moisture
Symbol
content
400 0 60
8.2
15.8
300 18.2 45

(lb/in2)
200 30

100 15

0 0
11 12 13 14 15 15.7
Dry unit weight (kN/m3)

Figure 11.16 Plot of zero swell pressure with the dry unit weight of soil (Based
on Sridharan et al., 1986.)

Example 11.1
A soil profile has an active zone of expansive soil of 2 m. The liquid limit and the aver-
age natural moisture content during the construction season are 60% and 30%, respec-
tively. Determine the free surface swell.
Solution
From Figure 11.13 for LL 5 60% and w 5 30%, swsfreed 5 1%. From Eq. (11.10),
DSF 5 0.0033Zswsfreed

Hence,
DSF 5 0.0033s2ds1ds1000d 5 6.6 mm ■

Example 11.2
An expansive soil profile has an active-zone thickness of 5.2 m. A shallow foundation
is to be constructed 1.2 m below the ground surface. A swelling pressure test provided
the following data:

Swell under overburden

Depth below and estimated foundation
ground surface (m) surcharge pressure, sw(1)(%)
1.2 3.0
2.2 2.0
3.2 1.2
4.2 0.55
5.2 0.0

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 11.9 Swelling Pressure Test 575

0 1 2 3
1.2 sw(1)(%)

2.0

3.2 1.2

0.55

5.2

Depth (m) Figure 11.17

a. Estimate the total possible swell under the foundation.

b. If the allowable total swell is 15 mm, what would be the necessary undercut?
Solution
Part a
Figure 11.17 shows the plot of depth versus sw(1)(%). The area of this diagram will be
the total swell. Thus

31122 s0.55 1 0ds1d 1 1122 s0.55 1 1.2ds1d

1
DS 5
100

1 1122 s1.2 1 2ds1d 1 1122 s2 1 3ds1d4

5 0.0525 m 5 52.5 m

Part b
Total swell at various depths can be calculated as follows:

Depth (m) Total swell, DS (m)

5.2 0
4.2 0 1 12 s0.55 1 0ds1ds1y100d 5 0.00275
3.2 0.00275 1 12 s1.2 1 0.55ds1ds1y100d 5 0.0115
2.2 0.0115 1 12 s2 1 1.2ds1ds1y100d 5 0.0275
1.2 0.0275 1 12 s2 1 3ds1ds1y100d 5 0.0525

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 576 Chapter 11: Foundations on Difficult Soils

0 20 40 60
1.2 DS mm

DS = 15 mm
3.2 Depth = 2.91 mm

5.2

Depth (m) Figure 11.18

The plot of DS versus depth is shown in Figure 11.18. From this figure, the depth of
undercut is 2.91 2 1.2 5 1.71 m below the bottom of the foundation. ■

11.10 Classification of Expansive Soil on the Basis

of Index Tests
Classification systems for expansive soils are based on the problems they create in the
construction of foundations (potential swell). Most of the classifications contained in the
literature are summarized in Figure 11.19 and Table 11.5. However, the classification
system developed by the U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station (Snethen et al., 1977)

5
Nonplastic

Swelling
High
Very

4
Med
Low

high

Extra high
120
100 )
3 ) 20
Plasticity index (%)

L-
Activity

Very High L -8 L
80 (L 3 (
0.
9 0.7
2 5 ne 5
60
High ne Li
Swelling Li A
Medium 40 U
1 Potential
Low 25% 20
5%
0 1.5% 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Percent clay sizes (finer than 0.002 mm) Liquid limit (%)
(a) (b)

Figure 11.19 Commonly used criteria for determining swell potential (Based on
Abduljauwad,
100 S. N. and Al-Sulaimani, G. J. (1993).7“Determination of Swell Potential of
Al-Qatif Clay,” Geotechnical testing Journal, American Society for Testing andcase
I Special Materials,
Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 469–484.) II High
f whole sample

6 III Moderate
Very High IV Low
5 V Nonexpansive
n(pF)

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Percent clay sizes (finer than 0.002 mm) Liquid limit (%)
(a) (b)
11.10 Classification of Expansive Soil on the Basis of Index Tests 577

100 7
I Special case
II High

Plasticity index of whole sample

6 III Moderate
Very High IV Low
5 V Nonexpansive

Suction(pF)
50 4
I
3
High V IV III II
Medium
2
Low
0 1
0 50 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percent of clay (2 !m) in whole sample Soil water content
(c) (d)

Figure 11.19 (Continued)

Table 11.5 Summary of Some Criteria for Identifying Swell Potential (Based on Abduljauwad, S. N. and
Al-Sulaimani, G. J. (1993). “Determination of Swell Potential of Al-Qatif Clay,” Geotechnical testing Journal,
American Society for Testing and Materials, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 469–484.)

Reference Criteria Remarks

Holtz (1959) CC . 28, PI . 35, and SL , 11 svery highd Based on CC, PI, and SL
20 < CC < 31, 25 < PI < 41, and 7 < SL < 12 shighd
13 < CC < 23, 15 < PI < 28, and 10 < SL < 16
(medium)
CC < 15, PI < 18, and SL ù 15 slowd
Seed et al. (1962) See Figure 11.19a Based on oedometer test using
compacted specimen, percent-
age of clay , 2 #m, and activity
Altmeyer (1955) LS , 5, SI . 12, and PS , 0.5 snoncriticald Based on LS, SL, and PS
5 < LS < 8, 10 < SL < 12, and 0.5 < PS < 1.5 Remolded sample ($dsmaxd and
(marginal) wopt) soaked under 6.9 kPa
LS . 8, SL , 10, and PS . 1.5 scriticald surcharge
Dakshanamanthy See Figure 11.19b Based on plasticity chart
and Raman (1973)
Raman (1967) PI . 32 and SI . 40 svery highd Based on PI and SI
23 < PI < 32 and 30 < SI < 40 shighd
12 < PI < 23 and 15 < SI < 30 smediumd
PI , 12 and SI , 15 slowd
Sowers and Sowers SL , 10 and PI . 30 shighd Little swell will occur when wo
(1970) 10 < SL < 12 and 15 < PI < 30 smoderated results in LI of 0.25
SL . 12 and PI , 15 slowd
Van Der Merwe See Figure 11.19c Based on PI, percentage of clay
(1964) , 2 #m, and activity
(Continued)

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 578 Chapter 11: Foundations on Difficult Soils

Table 11.5 (Continued)

Reference Criteria Remarks

Uniform Building EI . 130 svery highd and 91 < EI < 130 shighd Based on oedometer test on com-
Code, 1968 51 < EI < 90 (medium) and 21 < EI < 50 (low) pacted specimen with degree
0 < EI < 20 (very low) of saturation close to 50% and
surcharge of 6.9 kPa
Snethen (1984) LL . 60, PI . 35, %nat . 4, and SP . 1.5 (high) PS is representative for field
30 < LL < 60, 25 < PI < 35, 1.5 < %nat < 4, condition and can be used
and 0.5 < SP < 1.5 (medium) without %nat , but accuracy will
LL , 30, PI , 25, %nat , 1.5, and SP , 0.5 (low) be reduced
Chen (1988) PI $ 35 (very high) and 20 < PI < 55 (high) Based on PI
10 < PI < 35 (medium) and PI < 15 (low)
McKeen (1992) Figure 11.19d Based on measurements of
soil water content, suction, and
change in volume on drying
Vijayvergiya and log SP 5 s1/12ds0.44 LL 2 wo 1 5.5d Empirical equations
Ghazzaly (1973)
Nayak and Chris- SP 5 s0.00229 PIds1.45Cdywo 1 6.38 Empirical equations
tensen (1974)
Weston (1980) SP 5 0.00411sLLwd4.17q23.86w22.33
o Empirical equations
Note: C 5 clay, % PS 5 probable swell, %
CC 5 colloidal content, % q 5 surcharge
EI 5 Expansion index 5 100 3 percent swell 3 fraction SI 5 shrinkage index 5 LL 2 SL, %
passing No. 4 sieve SL 5 shrinkage limit, %
LI 5 liquidity index, % SP 5 swell potential, %
LL 5 liquid limit, % wo 5 natural soil moisture
LLw 5 weighted liquid limit, % wopt 5 optimum moisture content, %
LS 5 linear shrinkage, % %nat 5 natural soil suction in tsf
PI 5 plasticity index, % $dsmaxd 5 maximum dry density

is the one most widely used in the United States. It has also been summarized by O’Neill
and Poormoayed (1980); see Table 11.6. Sridharan (2005) proposed an index called the
free swell ratio to predict the clay type, potential swell classification, and dominant clay
minerals present in a given soil. The free swell ratio can be determined by finding the

Table 11.6 Expansive Soil Classification Systema

Liquid Plasticity Potential Potential swell

limit index swell (%) classification

,50 ,25 ,0.5 Low

50 – 60 25 – 35 0.5–1.5 Marginal
.60 .35 .1.5 High
Potential swell 5 vertical swell under a pressure equal to overburden pressure
a
Based on data from O’Neill and Poormoayed (1980)

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 11.10 Classification of Expansive Soil on the Basis of Index Tests 579

Table 11.7 Expansive Soil Classification Based on Free Swell Ratio

Free Potential swell

swell ratio Clay type classification Dominant clay mineral

ø1.0 Non-swelling Negligible Kaolinite

1.0–1.5 Mixture of swelling Low Kaolinite and
and non-swelling montmorillonite
1.5–2.0 Swelling Moderate Montmorillonite
2.0–4.0 Swelling High Montmorillonite
. 4.0 Swelling Very High Montmorillonite

equilibrium sediment volumes of 10 grams of an oven-dried specimen passing No. 40 U.S.

sieve (0.425 mm opening) in distilled water (Vd) and in CCl4 or kerosene (VK). The free
swell ratio (FSR) is defined as
Vd
FSR 5 (11.13)
VK
Table 11.7 gives the expansive soil classification based on free swell ratio. Also,
Figure 11.20 shows the classification of soil based on the free swell ratio.

80

4
2
1
1

60

III C III B III A

I ] Kaolinitic soils
1.5
1 II ] (Kaolinitic + montmorillonitic) soils
V d (cm3)

40 III ] Montmorillonitic soils

A ] Moderately swelling
II 1
1 B ] Highly swelling

C ] Very highly swelling

20
I

0
0 20 40
VK (cm3)

Figure 11.20 Classification based on free swell ratio (Based on Sridharan, 2005)

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 580 Chapter 11: Foundations on Difficult Soils

11.11 Foundation Considerations for Expansive Soils

If a soil has a low swell potential, standard construction practices may be followed.
However, if the soil possesses a marginal or high swell potential, precautions need to be
taken, which may entail
1. Replacing the expansive soil under the foundation
2. Changing the nature of the expansive soil by compaction control, prewetting, instal-
lation of moisture barriers, or chemical stabilization
3. Strengthening the structures to withstand heave, constructing structures that are
flexible enough to withstand the differential soil heave without failure, or
constructing isolated deep foundations below the depth of the active zone
One particular method may not be sufficient in all situations. Combining several tech-
niques may be necessary, and local construction experience should always be considered.
Following are some details regarding the commonly used techniques for dealing with
expansive soils.

Replacement of Expansive Soil

When shallow, moderately expansive soils are present at the surface, they can be removed
and replaced by less expansive soils and then compacted properly.

Changing the Nature of Expansive Soil

1. Compaction: The heave of expansive soils decreases substantially when the soil is
compacted to a lower unit weight on the high side of the optimum moisture content
(possibly 3 to 4% above the optimum moisture content). Even under such condi-
tions, a slab-on-ground type of construction should not be considered when the total
probable heave is expected to be about 38 mm (1.5 in.) or more.
2. Prewetting: One technique for increasing the moisture content of the soil is ponding
and hence achieving most of the heave before construction. However, this technique
may be time consuming because the seepage of water through highly plastic clays is
slow. After ponding, 4 to 5% of hydrated lime may be added to the top layer of the
soil to make it less plastic and more workable (Gromko, 1974).
3. Installation of moisture barriers: The long-term effect of the differential heave can
be reduced by controlling the moisture variation in the soil. This is achieved by
providing vertical moisture barriers about 1.5 m s<5 ftd deep around the perimeter
of slabs for the slab-on-grade type of construction. These moisture barriers may be
constructed in trenches filled with gravel, lean concrete, or impervious membranes.
4. Stabilization of soil: Chemical stabilization with the aid of lime and cement has often
proved useful. A mix containing about 5% lime is sufficient in most cases. The effect
of lime in stabilizing expansive soils, thereby reducing the shrinking and swelling
characteristics, can be demonstrated with the aid of Figure 11.21. For this, expansive
clay weathered from the Eagle Ford shale formation in the Dallas-Fort Worth,
Texas area was taken. Some of it was mixed with water to about its liquid limit.
It was placed in two molds that were about 152 mm (6 in.) long and 12.7 mm 3
12.7 mm (0.5 in. 3 0.5 in.) in cross section. Figure 11.21a shows the shrinkage of
the soil specimens in the mold in a dry condition. The same soil also was mixed
with 6% lime (by dry weight) and then with a similar amount of water and placed in
Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 11.11 Foundation Considerations for Expansive Soils 581

(a)
Figure 11.21 Shrinkage of expansive clay (Eagle Ford
soil) mixed with water to about its liquid limit in molds of
152 mm & 12.7 mm & 12.7 mm (6 in. & 1⁄2 in. & 1⁄2 in.):
(a) without addition of lime; (b) with addition of 6% lime
by weight (Courtesy of Thomas M. Petry, Missouri
University of Science and Technology, Rolla, Missouri)

(b)

six similar molds. Figures 11.21b shows the shrinkage of the lime-stabilized speci-
mens in a dry condition, which was practically negligible compared to that seen in
Figure 11.21a. Lime or cement and water are mixed with the top layer of soil and
compacted. The addition of lime or cement will decrease the liquid limit, the plastic-
ity index, and the swell characteristics of the soil. This type of stabilization work
can be done to a depth of 1 to 1.5 m (<3 to 5 ft). Hydrated high-calcium lime and
dolomite lime are generally used for lime stabilization.
Another method of stabilization of expansive soil is the pressure injection of lime
slurry or lime–fly-ash slurry into the soil, usually to a depth of 4 to 5 m or (12 to 16 ft)
and occasionally deeper to cover the active zone. Further details of the pressure injection
technique are presented in Chapter 16. Depending on the soil conditions at a site, single
or multiple injections can be planned, as shown in Figure 11.22. Figure 11.23 shows

Plan

Section

Figure 11.22 Multiple lime

slurry injection planning for a
Single injection Double injection building pad
Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 582 Chapter 11: Foundations on Difficult Soils

Figure 11.23 Pressure injection of lime slurry for a building pad (Courtesy of
Hayward Baker Inc., Odenton, Maryland.)

Figure 11.24 Slope stabilization of a canal bank by pressure injection of lime–fly-ash

slurry (Courtesy of Hayward Baker Inc., Odenton, Maryland.)

the slurry pressure injection work for a building pad. The stakes that are marked are
the planned injection points. Figure 11.24 shows lime–fly-ash stabilization by pressure
injection of the bank of a canal that had experienced sloughs and slides.

11.12 Construction on Expansive Soils

Care must be exercised in choosing the type of foundation to be used on expansive soils.
Table 11.8 shows some recommended construction procedures based on the total pre-
dicted heave, DS, and the length-to-height ratio of the wall panels. For example, the table

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 11.12 Construction on Expansive Soils 583

Table 11.8 Construction Procedures for Expansive Clay Soilsa

Total predicted heave
(mm)
Recommended
LyH 5 1.25 LyH 5 2.5 construction Method Remarks

0 to 6.35 12.7 No precaution

6.35 to 12.7 12.7 to 50.8 Rigid building Foundations: Footings should be small and deep,
tolerating movement Pads consistent with the soil-
(steel reinforcement Strip footings bearing capacity.
as necessary) mat (waffle) Mats should resist bending.
Floor slabs: Slabs should be designed to resist
Waffle bending and should be
Tile independent of grade beams.
Walls: Walls on a mat should be as
flexible as the mat. There should
be no vertical rigid connections.
Brickwork should be strengthened
with tie bars or bands.
12.7 to 50.8 50.8 to 101.6 Building damping Joints: Contacts between structural
movement Clear units should be avoided, or
Flexible flexible, waterproof material may
be inserted in the joints.
Walls: Walls or rectangular building
Flexible units should heave as a unit.
Unit construction
Steel frame
Foundations: Cellular foundations allow slight
Three point soil expansion to reduce swelling
Cellular pressure. Adjustable jacks can be
Jacks inconvenient to owners. Three-
point loading allows motion
without duress.
.50.8 .101.6 Building independent Foundation drilled Smallest-diameter and widely
of movement shaft: spaced shafts compatible with the
Straight shaft load should be placed.
Bell bottom Clearance should be allowed
under grade beams.
Suspended floor: Floor should be suspended on
grade beams 305 to 460 mm
above the soil.
a
Gromko, G. J., (1974). “Review of Expansive Soils,” Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, American
Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 100, No. GT6, pp. 667–687.

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 584 Chapter 11: Foundations on Difficult Soils

Void Void

Figure 11.25 Waffle slab

proposes the use of waffle slabs as an alternative in designing rigid buildings that are
capable of tolerating movement. Figure 11.25 shows a schematic diagram of a waffle slab.
In this type of construction, the ribs hold the structural load. The waffle voids allow the
expansion of soil.
Table 11.8 also suggests the use of a drilled shaft foundation with a suspended floor
slab when structures are constructed independently of movement of the soil. Figure 11.26
a shows a schematic diagram of such an arrangement. The bottom of the shafts should
be placed below the active zone of the expansive soil. For the design of the shafts, the
uplifting force, U, may be estimated (see Figure 11.26b) from the equation

U 5 'Ds Z"9sw tan (ps

9 (11.14)

where
Ds 5 diameter of the shaft
Z 5 depth of the active zone
(ps9 5 effective angle of plinth–soil friction
"9sw 5 pressure for zero swell (see Figures 11.14 and 11.15; "9sw 5 "9o 1 "9s 1 "91)

Dead load, D

Grade beam Ds
Ground surface Z U

Active
zone, Z

Drilled shafts
with bells Db
(a) (b)

Figure 11.26 (a) Construction of drilled shafts with bells and grade beam; (b) definition of
parameters in Eq. (11.14)

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 11.12 Construction on Expansive Soils 585

In most cases, the value of (9ps varies between 10 and 208. An average value of the zero
horizontal swell pressure must be determined in the laboratory. In the absence of labora-
tory results, "9sw tan (9ps may be considered equal to the undrained shear strength of clay,
cu , in the active zone.
The belled portion of the drilled shaft will act as an anchor to resist the uplifting
force. Ignoring the weight of the drilled shaft, we have
Qnet 5 U 2 D (11.15)
where
Qnet 5 net uplift load
D 5 dead load
Now,

12
cuNc '
Qnet < sD2b 2 D2s d (11.16)
FS 4
where
cu 5 undrained cohesion of the clay in which the bell is located
Nc 5 bearing capacity factor
FS 5 factor of safety
Db 5 diameter of the bell of the drilled shaft
Combining Eqs. (11.15) and (11.16) gives

12
cu Nc '
U2D5 sD2b 2 D2s d (11.17)
FS 4

Conservatively, from Tables 4.2 and 4.3,

Nq B
1 2 < 5.1411 1
5.14 2
1
Nc < NcsstripdFcs 5 Ncsstripd 1 1 5 6.14
NL c

A drilled-shaft design is examined in Example 11.3.

Example 11.3
Figure 11.27 shows a drilled shaft with a bell. The depth of the active zone is 5 m. The
zero swell pressure of the swelling clay ("9sw) is 450 kN/m2. For the drilled shaft, the
dead load (D) is 600 kN and the live load is 300 kN. Assume (9ps 5 128.
a. Determine the diameter of the bell, Db.
b. Check the bearing capacity of the drilled shaft assuming zero uplift force.
Solution
Part a: Determining the Bell Diameter,
The uplift force, Eq. (11.14), is
U 5 'Ds Z"9sw tan (9ps

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 586 Chapter 11: Foundations on Difficult Soils

Dead load 1 live load 1 900 kN

Active
zone
5m 800 mm

2m
cu 1 450 kN/m2
Db Figure 11.27 Drilled shaft in a swelling clay

Given: Z 5 5 m and "9sw 5 450 kN/m2. Then

U 5 's0.8ds5ds450dtan 128 5 1202 kN
Assume the dead load and live load to be zero, and FS in Eq. (11.17) to be 1.25. So,
from Eq. (11.17),

12
cuNc '
U5 sD2b 2 D2s d
FS 4

12
s450ds6.14d '
1202 5 sD2b 2 0.82d; Db 5 1.15 m
1.25 4

The factor of safety against uplift with the dead load also should be checked. A factor
of safety of at least 2 is desirable. So, from Eq. (11.17)

1 4 2sD 2 D d
' 2 2
cu Nc b s

FS 5
U2D

12
'
s450ds6.14d s1.152 2 0.82d
4
5 5 2.46 . 2—OK
1202 2 600

Part b: Check for Bearing Capacity

Assume that U 5 0. Then
Dead load 1 live load 5 600 1 300 5 900 kN
900 900
Downward load per unit area 5 5 5 866.5 kN/m2
12'
4
sD2bd
'
4
s1.152d 12
Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
 11.13 General Nature of Sanitary Landfills 587

Net bearing capacity of the soil under the bell 5 qusnetd 5 cu Nc

5 s450ds6.14d 5 2763 kN/m2

Hence, the factor of safety against bearing capacity failure is

2763
FS 5 5 3.19 . 3—OK ■
866.5

Sanitary Landfills
11.13 General Nature of Sanitary Landfills
Sanitary landfills provide a way to dispose of refuse on land without endangering public
health. Sanitary landfills are used in almost all countries, to varying degrees of suc-
cess. The refuse disposed of in sanitary landfills may contain organic, wood, paper, and
fibrous wastes, or demolition wastes such as bricks and stones. The refuse is dumped and
compacted at frequent intervals and is then covered with a layer of soil, as shown in
Figure 11.28. In the compacted state, the average unit weight of the refuse may vary
between 5 and 10 kN/m3 s32 to 64 lb/ft3d. A typical city in the United States, with a popu-
lation of 1 million, generates about 3.8 3 106 m3 s<135 3 106 ft3d of compacted landfill
material per year.
As property values continue to increase in densely populated areas, constructing
structures over sanitary landfills becomes more and more tempting. In some instances,
a visual site inspection may not be enough to detect an old sanitary landfill. However,
construction of foundations over sanitary landfills is generally problematic because
of poisonous gases (e.g., methane), excessive settlement, and low inherent bearing
capacity.

Soil cover

Landfill Excavation
for soil
cover

Original Figure 11.28 Schematic

ground diagram of a sanitary
surface landfill in progress

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.