Indirect Estimation of Swelling Clay

Soils Parameters
Abdelkader Djedid
Faculty of Technology,
Tlemcen University, Algeria
e-mail: a_djedid@yahoo.fr

Naouel Ouadah
Faculty of Technology,
Tlemcen University, Algeria
e-mail: mn_27_3@yahoo.fr

ABSTRACT
In this article, a literature review of statistical models giving the parameters of swelling clay
soils in relation to other geotechnical parameters whose determination is easily given. These
models were then applied to our database which consists of 35 free swelling tests performed
on reconstituted samples. This application has shown that it is difficult to generalize these
models to any type of soil. We also proposed specific models in our tests taking into account
the increasing of the factors number. The results have show that the pressure correlates better
than the amplitude and the inclusion of a higher numbers parameters in the model improving
the later performance.

KEYWORDS: Clays, swelling, statistical models, estimates, measurements.

INTRODUCTION
The determining parameter of swelling clay soils needs specific hardware complex
requirements and long procedures. To circumvent these difficulties, a number of researchers have
proposed formulas based on a statistical treatment of data. These formulas give the swelling
parameters based on other geotechnical parameters whose determination is simple. In this paper,
and the basic results of 35 tests performed on free swelling samples soil reconstituted (Djedid and
Ouadah, 2012), we will try to show that it is difficult to generalize these models to all soil types.
Then, we propose specific models to our samples.

- 661 -

Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. D

662

LITERATURE OF STATISTICAL MODELS

Among the statistical models reported in the literature, the oldest are those of Seed et al.
(Seed et al., 1962). These authors have proposed two. The first formula relates the magnitude of
to the plasticity index
, the second formula relates the amplitude to
the
the swelling
activity and the percentage of clay fraction. These formulas can be written as:
= 21.6.10 ( )

= 3.6 10 (

( )

The question amplitude is that which is obtained by the free swell of a sample laterally
confined in the presence of water under a load of 7 kPa and previously compacted in the optimum
moisture content and the maximum dry density of the AASHO compaction test.
Inspired by the work of Seed et al., Ranganatham and Satyanarayana (Ranganatham and
Satyanarayana, 1965) proposed a formula similar to Seed et al. and wherein the index of
withdrawal replaced the plasticity index:

= 21.6 10 ( )

Swelling given by this formula obeys the same conditions as Seed et al.
Working on undisturbed samples from Israel, Komornik and David (Komornik and David,
1969) have established models that relate linearly the amplitude of swelling plasticity index.
These models are written as follows:

For marl

= 6.7 + 2.4

For clays

= 0.9 + 2.1

(%), the dry

Occasionally, they linked swelling pressure (in kPa) to the liquid limit
(kg/m3) and the natural water content (%). The proposed formula is written as:
density
lg

= 0,0208

+ 0,000665

0,0269

+ 0,132

Nayak and Christensen (Nayak and Christensen, 1971) have proposed formulas that take into
account the plasticity index of the clay fraction and the natural water content. These formulas
are given as:
= 2.29 10

( )

= 3.6 10 ( )

+ 6.38
+ 3.8

In the above formulas, I , C and W are in percent (%).

Working on disturbed soils, Vijayvergiya and Ghazzaly (Vijayvergiya and Ghazzaly, 1973)
have shown that the amplitude and the swelling pressure can be written in similar forms. They
proposed the following two couples:

and

log

= 0.033

0.083

+ 0.458

log

= 0.033

0.083

+ 0.458

Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. D

663

log

= 0.033

0.00321

6.692

log

= 0.033

0.00321

5.154

In these formulas , w and w are in percent (%), is in kg/m and P is in kPa.

Didier et al. (Didier et al., 1973) believe that the swelling pressure depends only on the initial
dry density (ratio of initial dry density d0 to the weight density of water w). The proposed
relationship is:
log

1.705

In this relationship, the swelling pressure is in bar (105 Pa).

The proposal Schneider and Poor (1974) [Siboyabasore, 2006] involves only the plasticity
index and natural water content. It is written as:
log

= 0.9

1.19

Based on the results of 321 trials, Chen (1975) [Siboyabasore, 2006] linked the swelling
pressure only to the plasticity index. He proposes:
.

= 0.2558

Weston (1980) [Siboyabasore, 2006] presented a formula that takes into account the limited
liquidity in a corrected way. The formula is :
= 0.0004(
The initial water content
In the above relation,

and amplitude swelling

are in percent (%).

is given by:
=

1.705

is the liquid limit of the fringe of the ground with a diameter less than 0.425 mm, it is
expressed in %.
Working on compacted soil, Brackley (1983) [Bultel, 2001] determined a general relationship
(in%), the applied stress (MPa), the void ratio , the
between the amplitude of swelling
(in%). This relationship can be written :
plasticity index (in%) and the initial water content
= 5.3

147

log

(0.525

0.85

The swelling pressure is given to no swelling, that is to say

log

= 5.3

+ 4.1)
= 0. In this case, we have:

147

The first formula met that takes into account the consolidation stress is that of Nagaraj et al.
(1983) [Mrad, 2005]. The proposal is written:
= 17.86

100
4 log

Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. D

664

In the above equation,

and
represent the initial void ratio and one that corresponds to
the liquid limit. The consolidation stress is introduced in /
.
Komine and Ogata (1994) believe that it is the dry density which governs the initial swelling
clays. To this end, they propose to get the swelling amplitude of the following equation :
=( .
is the initial dry density introduced in /

1) 100
and K is a constant.

Guiras-Skandaji (1996) linearly connects the magnitude of swelling in the initial water
content. The proposed relationship is:
= 117.59 + 3.0501
The magnitude of swelling and the initial moisture content are in percent (%).
Yahia-Aissa (1999) [Mrad, 2005] proposes a rather complex relationship to the extent it is
necessary to determine some parameters under special tests. He proposes:
=

( )

In this relationship ,
and (0) are respectively the initial void index, the void index
which corresponds to a load of 1 MPa in a compression test and the slope of the curve of the
blank in compression logarithmic terms. is given in MPa.

APPLICATIONS OF STATISTICAL MODELS

The large number of statistical models reported in the literature shows that no model has
proved satisfactory. Moreover, some of these models require specific tests so they are difficult to
use. Moreover, we tried to apply the models described in this work to our samples; the predictions
are totally incomparable measures. As an illustration, we represent the cloud points obtained by
the Navak and Christenson model.

Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. D

665

Figure 1: Quality of predicting the amplitude for the Navak and Christenson model.

Figure 2: Quality of the pressure prediction for Navak and Christenson model.
The distribution of scatter from the line of slope 1 shows that the difference is important. A
calculation of the average difference between predictions and measurements is 214% for
amplitude and 389% for the pressure.
It should be noted that the Navak and Christensen model is the only one among the other
models that provides estimates which can be represented on a graph.

Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. D

666

SPECIFIC STATISTICAL MODELS

In fact, the performance of different models mentioned above are primarily dependent on the
size of the database and in order to propose formulas suitable for any soil types and in any
conditions, the database must integrate all varieties of soil. Second, the pressure and the
amplitude of swelling depend on the used measurement technique. But few models refer to
measurement techniques.
Based on the database established in this study and for the results of 35 tests performed on
seven free swelling (07) and consolidated reconstituted soils under different constraints (ranging
from 1 to 5 bar), we sought the best possible correlations. The number of parameters has been
expanded from 1 to 4. Variables were chosen as the dry density d (en kN/m3), the clay fraction C
(in%), the plasticity index IP (en %) and Ac activity (dimensionless). Models give the amplitude
as a percentage (%) and the pressure bar (105 Pa).
The proposed models are given in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1: Statistical models for the amplitude swelling

Mean deviation
(%)

Models
(1)

log

= 0.22

1.944

91

(2)

log

= 0.11

+ 0.047 2.587

38

(3)

log

= 0.109

+ 0.031 + 0.002

2.043

(4)

log

= 0.108

+ 0.134 0.084

+ 4.73

35
7.81

18

Table 2: Statistical models for the swelling pressure

Mean deviation
(%)

Models
(1)

log

= 0.109

1.167

13

(2)

log

= 0.097

+ 0.005 1.243

12

(3)

log

= 0.097

+ 0.004 + 0.0001

(4)

log

= 0.1

+ 0.018 0.0112

1.217

+ 0.592

13
1.928

10

Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. D

667

What emerges from this study is that the increase in the number of factors taken into account
in the models improves model performance but this improvement is sensitive to the amplitude for
which the average relative error between the measurement and prediction passes from 91% to
18%. For pressure, all models provide estimates with an average deviation between 10% and
13%. We give below the representations of models 1 and 4 for the amplitude and pressure. We
can see on these graphics an improvement for the amplitude model compared to the pressure
model.

Figure 3: Quality of the prediction of the amplitude for the model 1.

Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. D

Figure 4: Quality of the prediction of the amplitude for model 4.

Figure 5: Quality of the prediction of pressure for model 1.

668

Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. D

669

Figure 6: Quality of the prediction of pressure for model 4.

CONCLUSION
There are in the literature many statistical models for estimating the parameters of swelling clay
soils in relation to other geotechnical parameters whose determination is simple. Through this
study, we have shown that it is very difficult to generalize these models to all soil types. Indeed,
none of the models mentioned in this article and whose application has been made possible
provide acceptable estimates. Models that we have proposed are specific to our samples, it is
hardly possible to generalize to other types of samples for which the procedure (sample
preparation and measurement of parameters) was not the same. These models, of course, show
that increasing the number of parameters in the model improves the performance of the latter and
the swelling pressure correlates better than the amplitude.

REFERENCES
1. Djedid A., Ouadah N. (2012) Parameterized of the swelling reconstituted clays soils:
EJGE, Vol. 17, Bund F, pp. 671-683.
2. Seed, H. B., Woodward, R. J., Jr. and Lundgren, R. (1962) Prediction of swelling
potential for compacted clays: J. ASCE, Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division,
Vol. 88, No. SM-3, Part. I, pp. 53-87.
3. Ranganatham, B. V., Satyanarayan, B. (1965) A rational method of predicting
swelling potential for compacted expansive clays: Proc. 6th Inter. Conf. Soil
Mechanics Foundation Engng. Vol. 1, pp. 92-96.
4. Komornik A, David D., (1969) Prediction of swelling pressure of clays, Journal of
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering Division, ASCE 95 (1), pp. 209-225.
5. Nayak N.V., Christensen R.W., (1971) Swelling characteristics of compacted soils,
Clays and Clay Minerals, Vol. 19, pp. 251-261.

Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. D

670

6. Vijayvergiya V.N., Ghazzaly O.I., (1973) Prediction of swelling potential for natural
clays: 3rd Int. Conf. on Expansive Soils, Haifa, pp. 337-236.
7. Didier G., Laral P., Gielly J., (1973) Prvision du potentiel et de la pression de
gonflement des sols : Comptes rendus du 8ime Congrs International de mcanique
des sols et des travaux de fondations, Moscou, vol. 2.2, pp. 67-72.
8. Siboyabasore P.S., (2006) Beitrag zur Berechnung Von Hebungene quellfahiger
Boden : Bodenmechanik und Grundbau, Bergische Universitat Weppurtal, N 30,
march 2006.
9. Bultel F., (2001) Prise en compte du gonflement des terrains pour le
dimensionnement des revtements des tunnels : Thse de Doctorat, Ecole Nationale
des Ponts et Chausses, Paris (France), p. 290.
10. Mrad M., (2005) Modlisation du comportement hydrodynamique des sols gonflants
non saturs : Thse de Doctorat, Institut Polytechnique de Lorraine, Nancy (France),
p. 315.
11. Komine H., Ogata N., (1994) Experimental study on swelling characteristics of
compacted bentonite: Canadian geotechnical Journal, N31, pp. 478-490.
12. Guiras-Skandaji H., (1996) Dformabilit des sols argileux non saturs, tude
exprimentale et application la modlisation : Thse de Doctorat, Institut
Polytechnique de Lorraine, Nancy (France), p. 315.

2013, EJGE