Prediction of Swelling Characteristics of Remoulded and Compacted

Downloaded from http://qjegh.lyellcollection.
org/ at UQ Library on June 11, 2014
Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology
Prediction of swelling characteristics of remoulded and compacted

expansive soils using free swell index
A.S. Rao, B.R. Phanikumar and R.S. Sharma
Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology 2004, v.37; p217-226.
doi: 10.1144/1470-9236/03-052
Email alerting
service
click here to receive free e-mail alerts when new articles cite this article
Permission
request
click here to seek permission to re-use all or part of this article
Subscribe
click here to subscribe to Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and

Hydrogeology or the Lyell Collection
Notes
The Geological Society of London 2014
Downloaded from http://qjegh.lyellcollection.org/ at UQ Library on June 11, 2014
Prediction of swelling characteristics of remoulded and

compacted expansive soils using free swell index
A.S. Rao1, B.R. Phanikumar2 & R.S. Sharma2
1
Department of Civil Engineering, JNTU College of Engineering, Kakinada 533 003, India
Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011-3232,
USA (e-mail: rsharma@iastate.edu)
Abstract
easonal changes in moisture content result in
volume change in expansive soils, which may
damage structures founded on them. Evaluation of swelling characteristics of expansive
soils, namely, swell potential and swelling pressure, is
important for the design of foundations. Many relationships have been suggested for prediction of swell potential and swelling pressure from various index properties
such as liquid limit, plasticity index, shrinkage index,
activity, clay content, etc., and placement conditions
such as initial dry unit weight, initial water content and
initial surcharge pressure. Free swell index (FSI) indicates the potential expansiveness of a soil. FSI, being
determined on the soil fraction <425 m sieve like the
other index properties of clays, is also an index property
of an expansive soil. Hence, it can be used as a
parameter in the relationships for swell potential and
swelling pressure. This paper proposes relationships for
predicting swell potential and swelling pressure of
remoulded and compacted expansive soils using FSI and
placement conditions. The relationships are based on
experimental data for soil samples from 10 different
sources.
Keywords: expansive soil, swell potential, swelling pressure, free

swell index, placement conditions
Changes in moisture content result in volume changes in

expansive soils. Expansive soils swell during the wet
season by absorbing water and shrink during the dry
season as a result of loss of water by evaporation and
transpiration. Furthermore, upon wetting during a monsoon, expansive soils can exhibit swell or reduction in
volume depending upon the stress and suction history of
the soil (e.g. Sharma 1998; Sharma & Wheeler 2000;
Gallipoli et al. 2003; Wheeler et al. 2003). The alternating swelling and shrinkage may damage civil engineering
structures such as walls, light structures, pavements and
canals founded on such soils. Hence, successful design
and construction of foundations on expansive soils
requires a good understanding of the swelling characteristics. Expansive clays are identified directly by the
measurement of swelling characteristics, or indirectly
from index properties and clay mineralogy.
Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology, 37, 217226
Relationship of swelling characteristics with

index properties and placement conditions
In previous research Seed et al. (1962), Ranganatham &
Satyanarayana (1965) and Bandyopadhyay (1981) proposed relationships for swell potential of remoulded
natural expansive soils using index properties such as
plasticity index (numerical dierence between liquid and
plastic limits), clay content, activity and shrinkage index
(dierence between liquid and shrinkage limits), which
have only an indirect bearing on the degree of swelling.
Activity (Skempton 1953) is defined as the ratio of
plasticity index to the percentage of the soil fraction
<2 m. The definition of activity was later modified
(Seed et al. 1962) as
activity =
plasticity index
% clay fraction<2 m 5
(1)
Chen (1975) proposed a relationship for swell potential of undisturbed natural expansive soils in terms of
plasticity index. Swell potential and swelling pressure
depend not only on index properties and clay content
but also on placement conditions such as initial dry unit
weight, initial water content and initial surcharge pressure. The higher the initial dry unit weight, the greater
will be the swell potential and swelling pressure. Both
swell potential and swelling pressure decrease with increasing initial water content. Increase in surcharge
pressure obviously reduces the amount of swell potential. However, various opinions prevail about the
eect of surcharge pressure on swelling pressure.
According to Satyanarayana (1966), swelling pressure
is dependent on initial surcharge, but Chen (1973)
observed that it is independent of initial surcharge.
Having a direct influence on the values of swell
potential and swelling pressure, the placement conditions are important parameters for predicting swelling
characteristics.
Swell potential (S) of a soil is defined as the ratio of
increase in thickness (H) to the original thickness (H)
of the soil sample compacted at optimum moisture
content in a consolidation ring and soaked under a
token surcharge of 6.9 kPa (Seed et al. 1962). It is
expressed as
S = (H/H) 100.
(2)
1470-9236/04 $15.00 2004 Geological Society of London
218
RAO ET AL.
Table 1. Existing relationships for swelling characteristics.

Quantity
Swell potential, S (%)
Swell potential, S (%)
Source
Parameters used
Equation
Vijayvergiya &
Ghazzaly (1973)
Nayak & Christensen
(1974)
Liquid limit (%), wL

Dry unit weight (lb ft3), d
Plasticity index (%), IP
Initial water content (%), wi
Clay content
Dry unit weight (kg m3), d
log S = 1/19.5(d + 0.65wL 130.5)
Swelling pressure (kg cm2), ps
Komornik &
David (1969)
Swelling pressure (tons ft2), ps
Vijayvergiya &
Ghazzaly (1973)
Swelling pressure (lb inch2), ps
Nayak & Christensen

(1974)
Dry unit weight (lb ft3), d

Plasticity index (%), IP
S = 2.3 102(IP)1.45C/wi + 6.4

log ps = 2.1 + 0.021wL
+ 0.00067d 0.027wi
log ps = 1/19.5(d 0.65wL 139.5)
ps = 3.6 102(IP)1.12C2/wi2 + 3.8

Clay content
Swelling pressure (ps), as determined by the free swell

method, is defined as the pressure that is required to
recompress a completely swollen soil sample to its
original unloaded volume or volume under a small token
surcharge of about 10 kPa (Jennings 1963; ASTM 1996,
D4546A). It is obtained from elog p curve as the
pressure corresponding to the initial void ratio.
Some researchers (Komornik & David 1969;
Vijayvergiya & Ghazzaly 1973; Nayak & Christensen
1974), on the basis of experimental data, proposed
relationships for swell potential and swelling pressure
involving both placement conditions and index
properties. Some of these relationships are given in
Table 1.
and compacted expansive soils in terms of FSI and

placement conditions.
Experimental investigation
To propose relationships for swelling characteristics
with FSI and placement conditions, an experimental
investigation was carried out on 10 remoulded expansive
soil samples collected from 10 districts of the state of
Andhra Pradesh, India. All the soils were black cotton
soils. Table 2 shows the index properties of the soils
tested.
Quantities determined and variables studied

Importance of free swell index (FSI)
Free swell index (FSI) can be considered as an index
property of an expansive soil and it reflects the potential
for expansion of the soil. The FSI test is carried out on
oven-dried soil passing a 425 m sieve. It is defined as
the ratio of the dierence in volumes of soil in water and
kerosene to the volume of soil in kerosene (Holtz &
Gibbs 1956), expressed as
FSI =
[(final volume of soil in water

final volume of soil in kerosene) 100]
final volume of soil in kerosene
Swell potential and swelling pressure were determined

by the swell-consolidation method, which is a free
inundation method, at the following placement conditions:
(i) initial water content, wi (%): 0, 5, 10, 15 and 20;
(ii) initial dry unit weight, di (kN m3): 10, 12, 14,
16 and 18;
(iii) initial surcharge, qi (kPa): 5, 50, 100, 150 and 200.
In total 1250 swell-consolidation tests were performed.
(3)
Soils having FSI >200, FSI between 100 and 200, FSI
between 50 and 100 and FSI <50 are respectively
characterized as having a degree of expansion described
as very high, high, medium and low (Mohan, 1977).
It is considered here that swelling characteristics could
be predicted with the FSI as a parameter instead of other
index properties. This paper proposes relationships for
swell potential and swelling pressure of remoulded
Sample preparation and test procedure

The clay sample was air-dried and pulverized to pass
through a 4.75 mm sieve. It was then oven-dried at a
constant temperature of 105( C to reduce the water
content to 0% and to obtain the maximum value of swell
potential. The sample was allowed to cool to room
temperature. The required weight of the oven-dried
sample was mixed with the required amount of distilled
SWELLING OF EXPANSIVE SOILS
219
Table 2. Index properties of the soils investigated.

Soil source
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
Particle density
(ASTM D854-02)
Gravel (%)
(ASTM, 98 D422-63)
Sand (%)
(ASTM, 98 D422-63)
Silt (%)
(ASTM, 98 D422-63)
Clay (%)
(ASTM, 98 D422-63)
Liquid limit
(ASTM D4318-00)
Plastic limit
(ASTM D4318-00)
Plasticity index
(ASTM D4318-00)
Shrinkage limit
(ASTM D4318-00)
USCS Classification
(ASTM D2487-00)
Free swell index
(ASTM D5890-02)
Soil fraction <425 m (%)
(ASTM, 98 D422-63)
2.75
2.70
2.73
2.75
2.68
2.76
2.71
2.80
2.70
2.72
14
14
11
34
16
13
42
44
39.5
35
43
36
12
20
48
85
51
42
59.5
51
46
56
88
46
36
102
93
79
74.5
61.4
69
78.5
20
18
26
22
19.4
22
82
75
53
52.5
42
47
10
11
11.63
12
9.2
S10
121.5
60.5
148
25
23.5
24.5
17
53.5
98
36
131
11
12
16
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
200
170
190
173
120
110
165
161
140
254
49
49
50
50
48
49
49
49
44
43
Soil sources: S1, Waddilanka; S2, Kesawaram; S3, Amalapuram; S4, Bhimavaram; S5, Tanuku; S6, Munnaluru; S7, Guntur; S8, Ongole; S9, Wyra;
S10, Warangal.
water (based on the weight of the oven-dried soil) and

allowed to equilibrate for 6 h. After equlibration, the
sample was statically compacted in four layers, each of
5 mm thickness, in a consolidation ring of thickness
20 mm and diameter 60 mm, to the desired placement
water content and dry unit weight. A thin layer of silicon
grease was applied to the walls of oedometer to reduce
friction between the sample and the oedometer wall. A
filter paper and a porous stone were placed at each end
of the sample. This unit was placed in the oedometer and
the loading pad positioned centrally on the top porous
stone. The required initial surcharge pressure was
applied on the specimen after setting the dial gauge
reading (initial reading) to zero. Swell potential and
swelling pressure were determined by the free inundation
method, in which the sample is completely inundated
with water and allowed to swell freely under the applied
surcharge. Dial gauge readings were taken up to equilibrium swell (no further change in the dial gauge
reading). The swelling process took 34 days depending
upon the soil. The increase in the thickness (H) of the
sample was noted after equilibrium swell. No material
was lost over the sides of the oedometer ring. The
sample was consolidated under increased applied pressures until the dial gauge reading was less than the initial
reading. Swell potential (Seed et al. 1962) was determined as S = [(H/H) 100], and swelling pressure
from the elog p curve as the pressure corresponding to
the initial void ratio (Jennings 1963).
Results and discussion

Effect of placement conditions (initial
surcharge, initial dry unit weight and initial
water content) on swell potential
Figure 1 is a typical example of elog p curves for the
soil (source S1) compacted at an initial water content
(wi) of 10% and at a dry unit weight (di) of 16 kN m3
and subjected to various initial surcharge pressures (qi).
As the initial surcharge increased, swell potential
decreased as indicated by the decreasing void ratio.
However, the swelling pressure was not influenced by the
initial surcharge. This is in accordance with the observations of Chen (1988). The swelling pressure was about
the same for all the samples (Fig. 1) irrespective of the
initial surcharge, because swelling pressure is the pressure required to bring back a fully swollen soil sample to
its initial void ratio (as in the free inundation method).
Therefore, as long as the initial surcharge is less than the
swelling pressure, there is bound to be some swelling and
the total amount of pressure required to bring back the
swollen sample to the initial volume (or void ratio)
remains unchanged.
Figures 211 are typical summary plots for all the
soils showing the variation of swell potential with initial
dry unit weight for various initial water contents. The
plots are shown only for an initial surcharge pressure of
5 kPa, as a similar trend was observed for the other
220
RAO ET AL.
Fig. 3. Eect of initial dry unit weight on swell potential.
Fig. 1. Eect of surcharge on swell potential and swelling

pressure.
Fig. 2. Influence of initial dry unit weight on swell potential.
surcharge pressures. For a given water content, swell

potential increased with increasing dry unit weight. As
dry unit weight increases, the closer packing increases
the number of clay particles and their interactions,
resulting in greater potential swelling. The plots also
show that swell potential decreased with increasing
water content for a given initial dry unit weight. With an
increase in the initial water content, the initial degree of
saturation also increases for a given dry unit weight (or
void ratio). As the degree of saturation approaches
100%, the amount of uptake of water by the soil will be
less, and hence a lower swell potential results.
Figures 1221 summarize the eect of the initial water
content on swelling pressure for various dry unit weights
for all the soils. Swelling pressure decreased with increasing water content. As the amount of swelling
decreased with increasing water content, the pressure
required to nullify the amount of swelling would also
Fig. 5. Eect of dry unit weight on swell potential.
decrease. Figure 22 shows the variation of swell potential and swelling pressure, determined at the placement
conditions of di = 16 kN m3, wi = 10% and qi = 5 kPa,
for all the soils with their respective FSI. Both swell
potential and swelling pressure increased with FSI,
indicating that FSI is an important parameter for
expansive soils.
221
Fig. 7. Variation of swell potential with initial dry unit weight.
ment conditions and FSI by performing multiple linear

regression analysis on the entire experimental dataset,
with the following results:
S% = a1di b1wi c1qi + d1(FSI) K1
(4)
logps = a2di b2wi + d2(FSI) K2.
(5)
and
Relationships developed from the

experimental data
Relationships for swell potential (S%) and swelling
pressure (ps) have been developed in terms of the place-
The constants or the regression coecients for the above

equations are a1 = 4.24,, b1 = 0.47,, c1 = 0.14,, d1 = 0.06
and K1 = 55; and a2 = 0.30,, b2 = 0.02, d2 = 0.005 and
K2 = 3. Because the initial surcharge pressure (qi) had no
eect on the swelling pressure, as shown in Figure 1, it
was not included in the analysis.
The standard errors for the regression coecients a1,
b1, c1 and d1 are 9.69, 3.22, 1.76 and 1.15, respectively.
The standard deviation is 4.69. Similarly, the standard
errors for the regression coecients a2, b2 and d2 are
4.82, 1.24 and 0.62 respectively. The standard deviation
is 8.77. This means that most of the values of the
222
RAO ET AL.
Fig. 13. Influence of initial water content on swelling pressure.
Fig. 11. Variation of swell potential with initial dry unit weight.
Fig. 14. Eect of initial water content on swelling pressure.
predicted swell potential and swelling pressure do not

show much deviation from the mean of the measured
values. Hence, the linear model proposed for the prediction of swell potential and swelling pressure from FSI
and placement conditions is a successful model. The
statistical data obtained for swell potential and swelling
pressure are summarized in Tables 3 and 4.
Validation of the relationships developed

Figure 23 shows the measured values of swell potential
at water contents w of 5% and 10% for all the soils tested
in comparison with those predicted from the equation
proposed by the authors, as shown in series 1 and 3, and
by Nayak & Christensen (1974; Table 1), as shown in
series 2 and 4. Each series in the figure shows the
measured and predicted values for all 10 soils. The

measured swell potential tallied closely with the swell
potential predicted from the equation proposed in this
study (equation (3)). For other water contents also the
measured and predicted values tallied (not shown for
want of space). However, the equation proposed by
Nayak & Christensen (1974) shows significant dierence
between measured and predicted values of swell
potential (series 2 and 4). The predicted values are much
223
Fig. 18. Influence of initial water content on swelling pressure.

Fig. 16. Variation of swelling pressure with initial water
content.
higher than the measured ones. The values predicted

from the equation of Vijayvergiya & Ghazzaly (1973)
are too high to be plotted alongside those shown in
Figure 23. Figure 24 shows the measured values of
swelling pressure at w of 10% for all the soils tested in
comparison with those predicted from equation (3) of
the present study (series 1) and from the equations of
Nayak & Christensen (1974) and Komornik & David
(1969) (series 2 and 3). The values predicted from the
equation of Vijayvergiya & Ghazzaly (1973) are also too
high to be plotted alongside those shown in Figure 24.
The swelling pressure predicted from equation (4) in the
present study showed a good relationship with that
measured. The values predicted from the equation of
Nayak & Christensen were much higher than the
measured values for all the soils. The swelling pressure

predicted from the equation of Komornik & David
(1969) gave a good relationship only for two soils, S2
and S6. Komornik & David (1969) did not consider the
initial surcharge pressure, whereas Nayak & Christensen
(1974) considered only initial water content and
Vijayvergiya & Ghazzaly (1973) only dry unit weight
among the placement conditions. Apart from this inadequacy of not considering all the placement conditions
together, these expressions included plasticity index, clay
content and liquid limit, which do not directly reflect the
swelling nature of expansive soils. Hence, the existing
equations did not give good relationship between the
measured and predicted values of swelling characteristics. The equation proposed here, however, considers
the placement conditions together and also includes
FSI, which directly reflects the swelling characteristics.
Hence, the predicted values are close to the measured
ones. Figure 25 compares the measured and predicted
values of swelling pressure for soils from other sources
using the proposed equation. Measured values of swell
224
RAO ET AL.
Table 3. Regression coecients for swell potential.
Regression coecient
for swell potential
a1 = 4.24
b1 = 0.47
c1 = 0.14
d1 = 0.06
Standard error
9.69
3.22
1.76
1.15
Standard deviation
4.69
Table 4. Regression coecients for swelling pressure.

Regression coecient
for swelling pressure
a2 = 0.30
b2 = 0.02
d2 = 0.005
Standard error
Standard deviation
4.82
1.24
0.62
8.77
sources, the water content and dry unit weight at which

swelling pressure was measured, the FSI values of the
soils, and the measured and predicted values of swelling
pressure. From the close agreement between the measured and predicted values of swelling pressure of soils
from other sources also, it can be said that the proposed
equations could be used for the prediction of swell potential and swelling pressure for a wide range of remoulded
and compacted expansive soils all over the world.
Conclusions
Fig. 22. Variation of swell potential and swelling pressure

with FSI.
potential from other sources could not be obtained by

predicting with the new equation. The figure shows that
the new equation predicts the swelling pressure values
for the other soils very well. Table 5 summarizes the data
Experimental data obtained from 10 dierent expansive

soil samples were used to develop relationships for swell
potential and swelling pressure in terms of placement
conditions and free swell index (FSI). The following
conclusions are reached.
(1) Swell potential decreased with increasing surcharge. However, the swelling pressure is not aected by
the initial surcharge, consistent with previous research
(Chen 1975). Both swell potential and swelling pressure
increase with increase in the initial dry unit weight, and
decrease with increase in the initial water content.
(2) It is necessary to include in the relationships for
swell potential and swelling pressure all the placement
conditions and the free swell index (FSI), as these
parameters directly aect the values of swell potential
and swelling pressure. Other index properties, such as
plasticity, are not directly related to the swelling nature
and should be excluded.
(3) Based on the analysis of the experimental data
from the 10 soil samples, a general equation for swell
potential (S) may be given in terms of the initial water
content wi, the initial dry unit weight di, the initial
surcharge qi and FSI, in the form
S
(%) = a1di b1wi c1qi d1(FSI) K1.
Fig. 23. Swell potential values for w of 5% and 10% measured and predicted for all 10 soils tested.
Fig. 24. Swelling pressure values for w of 10% measured and predicted for all 10 soils tested.
225
226
RAO ET AL.
Table 5. Comparison of measured and predicted swelling pressure values for soils from other places (after Komornik & David 1969).
Source
Hadera
Ekron
Ramat Hasharon
Kiryat Gat
Hedera
Nesher
MMD
Kfar Jeruham
Water content (%)
Dry density (kN m3)
FSI (%)
Measured swelling
pressure (kPa)
Predicted swelling
pressure (kPa)
16
16
15.3
2.7
17.6
17
16.7
16.9
17
20
17.10
14.6
17.65
20
23.7
22.2
100
100
100
130
106
100
100
50
191
75
151
84
248
143
120
60
190
79
197
95
300
158
110
75
Fig. 25. Swelling pressure of soils from other sources predicted

by the proposed equation.
(4) Similarly, a general equation for swelling pressure

(ps) may be proposed in terms of the initial water content
wi, the initial dry unit weight di and FSI, as
logps = a2di b2wi + d2(FSI) K2.
(5) The equations proposed for swell potential and
swelling pressure gave a good relationship between the
predicted and measured values for the soils tested and
those for soils from other sources, whereas the existing
equations did not. Hence, it is proposed that FSI should
also be included in the relationships for swelling characteristics along with the three important placement conditions, namely, initial water content, initial dry unit
weight and initial surcharge pressure, so that the relationships could be used for predicting swelling characteristics of a wide range of remoulded, oven-dried and
compacted expansive soils all over the world.
References
B, S.S. 1981. Prediction of swelling potential
for natural soils. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, 107 No. GT 1, 658661.
C, F.H. 1988. Foundations on Expansive Soils. Elsevier,
Amsterdam.
G, D., G, A., S, R. & V, J. 2003. An
elasto-plastic model for unsaturated soil incorporating the
eects of suction and degree of saturation on mechanical

behaviour. Gotechnique, 53 (1), 123135.
H, W.G. & G, H.J. 1956. Engineering properties of
expansive clays. Transactions of the American Society of
Civil Engineers, 121, 641677.
J, J.E. 1963. Discussion on The heaving of buildings
and associated economic consequences with particular
reference to Orange Free State gold fields. Civil Engineers, South Africa, 5, 122.
K, J. & D, A. 1969. Prediction of swelling
potential for compacted clays. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering Division, American
Society of Civil Engineers, 95 (1), 209225.
M, D. 1977. Engineering of expansive soils. Inaugural
Address, Proceedings of the 1st National Symposium on
Expansive Soils. HBTI, Kanpur, India..
N, N.V. & C, R.W. 1974. Swelling characteristics of compacted expansive soils. Clays and Clay
Minerals, 19 (4), 251261.
R, B.V. & S, B. 1965. A rational
method of predicting swelling potential for compacted
expansive clays. In: Proceedings, 6th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Canada, 1, 9296.
S, B. 1966. Swelling pressure and related mechanical properties of black cotton soils. PhD thesis, Indian
Institute of Science, Bangalore.
S, H.B., W, R.J. & L, R. 1962. Prediction of swelling potential for compacted clays. Journal of
the Soil Mechanics & Foundation Engineering Division,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Part I, Proceedings
3169, 88(SM3), 5387.
S, R. S. 1998. Mechanical behaviour of unsaturated
highly expansive clays. DPhil thesis, University of Oxford.
S, R.S. & W, S.J. 2000. Behaviour of an unsaturated highly expansive clay during wetting/drying cycles.
In: R, H., T, D.G. & L, E.C. (eds)
Proceedings of the International Conference on Unsaturated Soils (UNSAT-ASIA), Singapore. Balkema,
Rotterdam, 721726.
S, A.W. 1953. The colloidal activity of clays. In:
Proceedings, 3rd International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Zurich, 1, 5761.
V, V.N. & G, O.I. 1973. Prediction of
swelling potential for natural clays. In: Proceedings of the
3rd International Conference on Expansive Soils, Haifa,
Israel, 1, 227236.
W, S.J., S, R.S. & B, M.S.R. 2003. Coupling of hydraulic hysteresis and stressstrain behaviour in
unsaturated soils. Gotechnique, 53 (1), 4154.
Received 10 October 2003; accepted 18 June 2004.

Prediction of Swelling Characteristics of Remoulded and Compacted

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Prediction of Swelling Characteristics of Remoulded and Compacted

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Downloaded from http://qjegh.lyellcollection.

org/ at UQ Library on June 11, 2014

Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology

Prediction of swelling characteristics of remoulded and compacted

click here to seek permission to re-use all or part of this article

click here to subscribe to Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and

The Geological Society of London 2014

Downloaded from http://qjegh.lyellcollection.org/ at UQ Library on June 11, 2014

Prediction of swelling characteristics of remoulded and

Keywords: expansive soil, swell potential, swelling pressure, free

Changes in moisture content result in volume changes in

Relationship of swelling characteristics with

1470-9236/04 $15.00  2004 Geological Society of London

Downloaded from http://qjegh.lyellcollection.org/ at UQ Library on June 11, 2014

Table 1. Existing relationships for swelling characteristics.

Liquid limit (%), wL

log S = 1/19.5(d + 0.65wL 130.5)

Swelling pressure (kg cm2), ps

Swelling pressure (tons ft2), ps

Swelling pressure (lb inch2), ps

Nayak & Christensen

Dry unit weight (lb ft3), d

S = 2.3 102(IP)1.45C/wi + 6.4

Initial water content (%), wi

Swelling pressure (ps), as determined by the free swell

and compacted expansive soils in terms of FSI and

Quantities determined and variables studied

[(final volume of soil in water

Swell potential and swelling pressure were determined

Sample preparation and test procedure

Downloaded from http://qjegh.lyellcollection.org/ at UQ Library on June 11, 2014

SWELLING OF EXPANSIVE SOILS

Table 2. Index properties of the soils investigated.

water (based on the weight of the oven-dried soil) and

Results and discussion

Downloaded from http://qjegh.lyellcollection.org/ at UQ Library on June 11, 2014

Fig. 3. Eect of initial dry unit weight on swell potential.

Fig. 1. Eect of surcharge on swell potential and swelling

Fig. 4. Eect of initial dry unit weight on swell potential.

Fig. 2. Influence of initial dry unit weight on swell potential.

surcharge pressures. For a given water content, swell

Fig. 5. Eect of dry unit weight on swell potential.

Downloaded from http://qjegh.lyellcollection.org/ at UQ Library on June 11, 2014

SWELLING OF EXPANSIVE SOILS

Fig. 6. Influence of initial dry unit weight on swell potential.

Fig. 9. Influence of initial dry unit weight on swell potential.

Fig. 7. Variation of swell potential with initial dry unit weight.

Fig. 10. Eect of initial dry unit weight on swell potential.

ment conditions and FSI by performing multiple linear

logps = a2di b2wi + d2(FSI) K2.

Fig. 8. Eect of initial dry unit weight on swell potential.

Relationships developed from the

The constants or the regression coecients for the above

Downloaded from http://qjegh.lyellcollection.org/ at UQ Library on June 11, 2014

Fig. 13. Influence of initial water content on swelling pressure.

Fig. 14. Eect of initial water content on swelling pressure.

Fig. 12. Eect of initial water content on swelling pressure.

predicted swell potential and swelling pressure do not

Validation of the relationships developed

Fig. 15. Eect of initial water content on swelling pressure.

measured and predicted values for all 10 soils. The

Downloaded from http://qjegh.lyellcollection.org/ at UQ Library on June 11, 2014

SWELLING OF EXPANSIVE SOILS

Fig. 18. Influence of initial water content on swelling pressure.

1470-9236/04 $15.00 2004 Geological Society of London