Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Critical Evaluation of Determining Swell PDF
Critical Evaluation of Determining Swell PDF
4
Paper ID GTJ102051
Available online at: www.astm.org
ABSTRACT: For any construction activity in expansive soils, determination of swelling pressure/heave is an essential step. Though many at-
tempts have been made to develop laboratory procedures by using the laboratory one-dimensional oedometer to determine swelling pressure of
expansive soils, they are reported to yield varying results. The main reason for these variations could be heterogeneous moisture distribution of the
sample over its thickness. To overcome this variation the experimental procedure should be such that the soil gets fully saturated. Attempts were made
to introduce vertical sand drains in addition to the top and bottom drains. In this study five and nine vertical sand drains were introduced to experi-
mentally find out the variations in the swell and swelling pressure. The variations in the moisture content at middle, top, and bottom of the sample in
the oedometer test are also reported. It is found that swell-load method is better as compared to zero-swell method. Further, five number of vertical
sand drains are found to be sufficient to obtain uniform moisture content distribution.
KEYWORDS: clays, expansive soils, heave, swelling pressure, vertical drains
Copyright © 2009 by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Fri Jul 17 04:00:46 EDT 2009
1
Downloaded/printed by
National Instiute of Technology Calicut pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
2 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Fri Jul 17 04:00:46 EDT 2009
Downloaded/printed by
National Instiute of Technology Calicut pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
NAGARAJ ET AL. ON SWELL-LOAD METHOD AND CONSTANT VOLUME METHOD 3
swelling nature of the soil (Sridharan 2005). The reason being that pattern of holes to be drilled for making vertical drains was placed
these properties are determined on remolded soil samples, and on top of the compacted soil specimen. Using a manually operated
hence, do not include in situ soil conditions such as natural dry drill fitted with a drill bit of diameter 2.8 mm, vertical holes were
density, soil fabric, and stress conditions. Thus a meaningful reflec- made over the thickness of the statically compacted soil specimen
tion of the swelling behavior is not possible other than possible ex- in the oedometer rings. Care was taken to drill holes for vertical
istence of problematic swelling soil conditions. drains without disturbing the sides as typically shown in Fig. 2(a)
and 2(b) for nine vertical drains in a compacted soil specimen. The
required number of vertical holes were drilled in the similar man-
Experimental Program ner. At this stage, an air-dried, smoothly ground porous stone was
positioned into the base of the oedometer in a dry condition. A filter
In order to experimentally reason out the cause for the variations of
paper was placed on top of the porous stone. The ring with the
the swelling pressure by two of the three popular methods (Method
1 and Method 2), an experimental program was devised taking into specimen having a requisite number of vertical holes was placed on
consideration the important factors influencing swelling of soils. top of the bottom porous stone and filter paper. The vertical holes
The swell and swelling pressure of an expansive soil is primarily were carefully filled with fine sand of particle size less than 425 µm
dependent on the initial dry unit weight or void ratio and also on the by using a paper cone with a small opening at the bottom (Fig. 2(c)
initial moisture content (El-Sohby and El-Sayed 1981; Sridharan et and 2(d). The sand density was found to vary between
al. 2006, Yevnin and Zaslavsky 1970). Further, the experimental 1.15 to 1.2 Mg/ m3. Sufficient care was taken to fill the sand into
system of conducting swell test should be such that the soil has the vertical drains without spilling around the top of the specimen.
access to imbibe water, so as to get fully saturated. In this study, an An air-dried filter paper was placed on top of the specimen with
attempt has been made to introduce varying numbers of vertical vertical sand drains, above which a porous stone in dry condition
sand drains for providing better drainage to ensure complete satu- and the loading pad were placed. The oedometer was secured to the
ration across the thickness of the specimen in the swell test. This base by means of screws. Thus the test specimen in the oedometer
would overcome the deficiency of the wetting sequence which is of was mounted and positioned on the loading frame with a vertical
major concern as reported in the literature (Dhowian 1990). Also, deflection dial gage with sensitivity of 0.01 mm, properly adjusted
an attempt has been made to study the effect of initial dry density and fixed in position to give the dial gage reading. A seating load of
on the swelling behavior and its associated parameters like swell- 6.25 kPa was applied on the hanger. The initial dial gage reading
time behavior and swelling pressure without and with five and nine was adjusted and recorded.
vertical drains, with two varying densities. Results obtained from
Method 1 and Method 2 are compared and discussed.
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Fri Jul 17 04:00:46 EDT 2009
Downloaded/printed by
National Instiute of Technology Calicut pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
4 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Fri Jul 17 04:00:46 EDT 2009
Downloaded/printed by
National Instiute of Technology Calicut pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
NAGARAJ ET AL. ON SWELL-LOAD METHOD AND CONSTANT VOLUME METHOD 5
FIG. 3—(a) Swell versus log time relationship for varying density with zero vertical drains. (b) Swell versus log time relationship for varying density with five vertical
drains. (c) Swell versus log time relationship for varying density with nine vertical drains.
same, as given in Table 2. At a particular density, introduction of 1.35 Mg/ m3, with and without vertical drains (Method 1). Figures
vertical drains has increased the swell values, being more signifi- 6(a) and 6(b) show typical plots of void ratio versus effective ver-
cant when the density is higher. When the density is less tical consolidation pressure (logarithmic scale) for the dry density
共1.35 Mg/ m3兲 the difference between five and nine drains is mar- 1.35 Mg/ m3 with five and nine vertical drains, respectively
ginal. (Method 2). Similar results have been obtained for the other density
of 1.5 Mg/ m3.
Table 3 summarizes the values of swelling pressure by Method 1
Results of Swell Pressure Test and Method 2 for all the placement conditions. It can be seen that
Figure 5 presents a typical plot of void ratio versus effective verti- by Method 1, and at a dry density of 1.35 Mg/ m3, with the intro-
cal consolidation pressure (logarithmic scale) for the dry density duction of vertical drains there is marked influence on the swelling
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Fri Jul 17 04:00:46 EDT 2009
Downloaded/printed by
National Instiute of Technology Calicut pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
6 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL
FIG. 4—(a) Swell versus log time relationship for same density 共=1.35 Mg/ m3兲 with varying vertical drains. (b) Swell versus log time relationship for same density
共=1.50 Mg/ m3兲 with varying vertical drain.
pressure. The swelling pressure has increased from 315.5 kPa for sure than Method 1 for all the cases and it varies from 15.5 % to
zero Vertical Drain (VD) to 380.7 kPa for five VDs (20.7 % higher) 32.3 %. Thus, it can be observed that there is only a marginal varia-
and to 391.1 kPa (24 % higher) for nine VDs. However, for Method tion in swell and swelling pressure between five and nine vertical
1, between five and nine VDs, the increase in swelling pressure is drains by Method 1 as compared to Method 2.
only 3 %. The reason for this observation may be that the increase The effect of density on swelling pressure by Method 1 and
in VDs from five to nine had a marginal influence on the water im- Method 2 can be more clearly seen from Table 3. For Method 1, the
bibed over the thickness of the compacted dry specimens, and swelling pressure has increased from 315.5 kPa to 939.3 kPa for
hence the resulting swell and swelling pressure. At the same den- zero VD and for an increase of density from
sity, a similar increase in swelling pressure by Method 2 is 24 % and 1.35 Mg/ m3 to 1.5 Mg/ m3, the increase being 2.98 times. For five
43 %. However, for Method 2, between five and nine VDs, the in- and nine VDs, respective values are 2.92 times and 2.97 times, re-
crease in swelling pressure is 15.6 %. This may be because of the spectively. For all three cases the variation in swelling pressure is on
increased water imbibed with the increase in VDs from five to nine. the order of around 2.95 times for an increase in density of
Similarly, at a dry density of 1.5 Mg/ m3, swell tests by Method 1.35 to1.5 Mg/ m3. Similar values for Method 2 are 2.75 times
1, the swelling pressure has found to increase significantly with the (zero VD), 2.89 times (five VDs), and 2.93 times (nine VDs). Sum-
introduction of vertical drains. The swelling pressure has increased marily, for Method 2 the increase in swelling pressure is on the
from 939.3 kPa for zero VD to 1113.4 kPa for five VDs (18.5 % order of 2.86 times, being not very much different as compared to
higher) and to 1162.9 kPa (24 % higher) for nine VDs. However, Method 1. Thus it can be seen that, irrespective of the presence or
between five and nine VDs, the increase in swelling pressure is only absence of drains, the density effect on swelling pressure is around
4.4 %. By Method 2, the increase in swelling pressure for an in- 2.9 times by both the methods for a density increase from
crease in VDs to five and nine are 30 % and 53 %, respectively. 1.35 to 1.5 Mg/ m3. Thus, the density effect is quite significant and
However, for Method 2, between five and nine VDs, the increase in uniform.
swelling pressure is 17.4 %. Method 2 gives a lesser swelling pres- Further, the authors feel it is better to discuss the role of sand
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Fri Jul 17 04:00:46 EDT 2009
Downloaded/printed by
National Instiute of Technology Calicut pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
NAGARAJ ET AL. ON SWELL-LOAD METHOD AND CONSTANT VOLUME METHOD 7
Swell Values—Method 1
Ratio of
Dry Density Percent
1.20 Mg/ m3 1.35 Mg/ m3 1.50 Mg/ m3 Swell for d
No. of =1.50 to
Vertical Swell Swell Swell Swell Swell Swell 1.35
Drains (divsa) (%) (divs) (%) (divs) (%) Mg/ m3
Zero 202 14.4 % 265 18.9 % 436 31.1 % 1.65
(Trial—1) (Trial—1)
188 13.4 %
(Trial—2) (Trial—2)
Five … … 310 22.1 % 482 34.4 % 1.54
(Trial—1) (Trial—1)
314 22.4 %
(Trial—2) (Trial—2)
Nine … … 316 22.6 % 508 36.3 % 1.61
(Trial—1) (Trial—1)
316 22.6 %
(Trial—2) (Trial—2)
a
1 division= 0.01 mm.
Note: All tests also include top and bottom drains.
drains not reinforcing the swollen soil and hence have no influence Moisture Content Variations over the Depth of
on the swelling pressure. The volume of sand used in VDs was
the Specimen
about 1.1 % (five VDs) and 1.98 % (nine VDs) of the total volume
of the compacted sample used. This is a very small fraction of the In order to verify the accessibility of water over the depth of the
total volume of compacted soil used in the tests. Also, the density of specimen for various testing conditions, the sample was removed
sand in VDs was in a loose state varying between from the oedometer ring after the completion of the swell pressure
1.15 to 1.2 Mg/ m3. Hence the presence of sand drains would not test. The soil sample was sliced into three portions, namely, top,
reinforce the soil, and hence have influence on the compressibility middle, and bottom and the water content of each portion was de-
and swelling pressure. This aspect is clear from Fig. 5. From the termined by the oven drying method.
figure it can be observed that the presence of sand drains does not From Table 4(a) which summarizes the water content over the
show any significant change in compressibility properties. Further, depth of the specimen for various placement conditions, it can be
the differences in swell magnitude observed between soil with and observed that for tests conducted without vertical drains, the mois-
without drains is due to the better drainage through the VDs as
ture content varied over the depth by both the methods of testing.
clearly brought out in the experimental work and not due to addi-
This variation is observed to be less in Method 1 as compared to
tional confinement/reinforcement. Hence, the observed increase in
Method 2. The variation of moisture content between the center of
the swell and swelling pressure is because of better saturation of the
the sample to the average of the top and bottom of the sample is
soil specimen with improved drainage and is further explained
summarized in Table 4(b). In Method 1, the variation of water con-
below.
tent is observed to be 2 % and 2.85 % at 1.35 Mg/ m3 and
1.50 Mg/ m3, respectively, when there is no drains. Similarly, for
Method 2, for zero VD, the variation of water content is observed to
be 4.1 % and 10.9 % at 1.35 Mg/ m3 and 1.50 Mg/ m3, respectively.
The variations are observed to be reduced significantly with the in-
troduction of the vertical drains. In Method 1, the variations in
water content over the depth was observed to be almost the same
with five and nine vertical drains. This may be the reason for both
swell and swelling pressure being nearly the same for tests con-
ducted by Method 1 with five and nine vertical drains. Whereas, in
Method 2, the variations in water content with the introduction of
vertical drains were found to be quite less as compared to that with-
out vertical drains, but the difference being still present, the varia-
tion being about 2 % and 5.1 % at 1.35 Mg/ m3 and 1.50 Mg/ m3,
respectively, for five vertical drains and about 1 % and 2 % at
1.35 Mg/ m3 and 1.50 Mg/ m3, respectively, for nine vertical
FIG. 5—Log pressure versus void ratio (Method 1) relationship for same den- drains. This difference in the water content explains the differences
sity 共=1.35 Mg/ m3兲 with varying vertical drains. in swelling pressure found in Method 2.
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Fri Jul 17 04:00:46 EDT 2009
Downloaded/printed by
National Instiute of Technology Calicut pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
8 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL
FIG. 6—(a) Log pressure versus void ratio (both Method 1 and Method 2) relationship for density 共=1.35 Mg/ m3兲 with five vertical drains. (b) Log pressure versus
void ratio (both Method 1 and Method 2) relationship for density 共=1.35 Mg/ m3兲 with nine vertical drains.
Concluding Remarks of swelling pressure than Method 2, and the difference in swelling
pressure determined using five or nine vertical drains is only mar-
From this experimental investigation done to determine swell and ginal, the reason being that in Method 1 the sample is allowed to
swelling pressure, it is evident that Method 1 (Swell-load method)
swell by imbibing water under seating load of 6.25 kPa, and later
and Method 2 (Constant volume method) give varied results of
loading the swollen sample to determine the swelling pressure. In
swelling pressures without vertical drains. Introduction of vertical
drains has not only improved the swell but also swelling pressure in this process, the number of five vertical drains was sufficient
Method 1 and swelling pressure in Method 2. Further, the differ- enough for the sample to imbibe water over the complete thickness
ences in the swelling pressure by the two methods have narrowed of the sample and has been reflected in the uniformity of the water
down. It can be further observed that Method 1 gives higher values content over the depth. In Method 2, introducing vertical drains has
TABLE 3—Values of swelling pressure by Method 1 and Method 2 at various dry densities.
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Fri Jul 17 04:00:46 EDT 2009
Downloaded/printed by
National Instiute of Technology Calicut pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
NAGARAJ ET AL. ON SWELL-LOAD METHOD AND CONSTANT VOLUME METHOD 9
TABLE 4(a)—Values of moisture content (%) determined over the depth of the specimen.
TABLE 4(b)—Variation of moisture content between center of the sample to average of top and bottom of the
sample.
helped to improve the swelling pressure, but has remained lower Azam, S. and Abduljauwad, S. N., 2000, “Influence of Gypsifica-
than Method 1 and also differs with the number of vertical drains. tion on Engineering Behavior of Expansive Clays,” J. Geotech.
This is evident by the variation in the water content over the thick- Geoenviron. Eng., 126, No. 6, pp. 538–542.
ness of the specimens. In Method 2, since the sample is not allowed Basma, A. A., Al-Homoud, A. S., and Husein, A., 1995, “Labora-
to swell by continuous loading, the presence of nine vertical drains tory Assessment of Swelling Pressure of Expansive Soils,” Appl.
has allowed to imbibe more water than five vertical drains and Clay Sci., Vol. 9, pp. 355–368.
hence increased swelling pressure and also less variation in the Brackley, J. J. A., 1973, “Swell Pressure and Free Swell in a Com-
water content over the thickness of the specimen. From the above pact Clay,” Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on
discussion it can be inferred that introducing vertical drains cer- Expansive Clays, Vol. 1, Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa,
tainly increases the swelling pressure, and that the soil sample in pp. 169–176.
the swell test by Method 1 reflects a completely swollen condition. De Bruijn, C. M. A., 1961, “Swelling Characteristics of a Trans-
Hence, the swelling pressure determined by Method 1 can be con- ported Soil Profile at Leeuhof Vereeniging (Transvaal),” Pro-
sidered better when compared to Method 2. The results bring out ceedings, 5th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
the fact that the existing procedure predicts lesser value of swell Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 43–49.
and swelling pressure by both the methods and is not conservative. Dhowian, A. W., 1990, “Heave Prediction Techniques and Design
Considerations on Expansive Soils,” Journal of King Saudi Uni-
versity, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 355–377.
References El-Sohby, M. A. and El-Sayed, A. R., 1981, “Some Factors Affect-
ing Swelling of Clayey Soils,” J. Geotech. Engrg., Vol. 12, pp.
Alanazy, A. S. and Edil, T. B., 1992, “Lateral swelling pressure,” 19–39.
Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Expansive Fredlund, D. G., Hasan, J. U., and Filson, H. L., 1980, “The Predic-
Soils, 3–5 Aug., Dallas, TX. tion of Total Heave,” Proceedings of 4th International Confer-
Al-Mhaidib, A., 1999, “Swelling Behavior of Expansive Shales ence on Expansive Soils,” ASCE and International Society for
from the Middle Region of Saudi Arabia,” Geotech. Geologic. Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Denver, pp. 1–17.
Eng., Vol. 16, pp. 291–307. Gibbs, H. J., 1973, “Use of a Consolidometer for Measuring Ex-
ASTM Standard D4546-90, 1995, “Standard Test Methods for pansion Potential of Soils,” Proceedings of Workshop on Expan-
One-Dimensional Swell or Settlement Potential of Cohesive sive Clays and Shales in Highway Design and Construction,
Soils,” Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 4, No. 8, ASTM University of Wyoming, Laramie, pp. 206–213.
International, West Conshohocken, PA, pp. 696–702. Jennings, J. E. B. and Knight, K., 1957, “The Prediction of Total
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Fri Jul 17 04:00:46 EDT 2009
Downloaded/printed by
National Instiute of Technology Calicut pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
10 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL
Heave from the Double Oedometer Test,” Transact. S. African Laramie, pp. 189–205.
Inst. Civil Eng., Vol. 7, pp. 285–291. Sridharan, A., 2005, “On Swelling Behaviour of Clays,” Proceed-
Jennings, J. E. B., Firtu, R. A., Ralph, T. K., and Nagar, N., 1973, ings of International Conference on Problematic Soils, Eastern
“An Improved Method for Predicting Heave Using the Oedom- Mediterranean University North Cyprus, Cyprus, pp. 499–516.
eter Test,” Proceedings on Vertical Rise, 3rd International Con- Sridharan, A., Rao, A. S., and Sivapullaiah, P. V., 1986, “Swelling
ference on Expansive Soils, Haifa, Israel, Vol. 2, pp. 149–154. Pressure of Clays,” Geotech. Test. J., Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 24–33.
Komornik, A., Wiseman, G., and Ben-Yaacob, Y., 1969, “Studies Sullivan, R. A. and McClelland, B., 1969, “Predicting Heave of
of In-Situ moisture and Swelling Potential Profiles,” Proceed- Buildings on Unsaturated Clay,” Proceedings, 2nd Interna-
ings, 2nd International Research and Engineering Conference tional Research and Engineering Conference on Expansive
on Expansive Soils, Texas A&M Univ. Press, College Station, Soils, Texas A&M Univ. Press, College Station, TX, pp. 404–
TX, pp. 348–361. 420.
Navy, Department of Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Teng, T. C. P. and Clisby, M. B., 1975, “Experimental Work for
1971, Design Manual—Soil Mechanics (DM 7.01), U.S. Depart- Active Clays in Mississippi,” Transp. Engrg. J., Vol. 101, pp.
ment of the Navy, Alexandria, VA, p. 256. 77–95.
Noble, C. A., 1966, “Swelling Measurements and Prediction of Teng, T. C. P., Mattox, R. M., and Clisby, M. B., 1972, “A Study of
Heave for a Lacustrine Clay,” J. Dev. Studies, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. Active Clays as Related to Highway Design,” Research and De-
32–41.
velopment Divisions, Mississippi’s State Highway Department,
Porter, A. A. and Nelson, J. D., 1980, “Strain Controlled Testing of
Engineering and Industrial Research Station, Mississippi State
Soils,” Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Expan-
University, MSHDRD-72-045, p. 134.
sive Soils, ASCE and International Society for Soil Mechanics
Teng, T. C. P., Mattox, R. M., and Clisby, M. B., 1973, “Mississip-
and Foundation Engineering, Denver, pp. 34–44.
pi’s Experimental Work on Active Clays,” Proceedings of the
Prakash, K., and Sridharan, A., 2004, “Free Swell Ratio and Clay
Mineralogy of Fine Grained Soils,” Geotech. Test. J., Vol. 27, Workshop on Expansive Clays and Shales in Highway Design
No. 2, pp. 220–225. and Construction, University of Wyoming, Laramie, pp. 1–17.
Rao, S. M., 2006, “Identification and Classification of Expansive Thompson, R. W., Perko, H. A., and Rethamel, W. D., 2006, “Com-
Soils,” Exapnsive Soils—Recent Advances in Characterization parison of Constant Volume Swell Pressure and Oedometer
and Treatment, Taylor & Francis, pp. 15–24. Load Back Pressure,” Proccedings of the 4th International Con-
Reyad, M. M., 1990, “Comparison between Two Methods for ference on Unsaturated Soils, Geotechnical Special Publication,
Swelling Pressure Determination,” Proceedings of the 1st Alex- ASCE, Reston, VA, No. 147, Vol. 2, pp. 1787–1798.
andria Conference on Structures and Geotechnical Engineer- Wong, H. Y. and Yong, R. M., 1973, “A Study of Swelling and
ing, Alexandria, Egypt, pp. 53–61. Swelling Force During Unsaturated Flow in Expansive Soils,”
Sampson, E., Schuster, R. L., and Budge, W. D., 1965, “A Method Proceedings, 3rd International Conference on Expansive Soils,
of Determining Swell Potential of an Expansive Clay,” Conclud- Haifa, Israel, Vol. 1, pp. 143–151.
ing Proceedings on Engineering Effects of Moisture Changes in Xin, J. Z. and Ling, Q. X., 1992, “A New Method for Calculating
Soils, International Research Engineering Conference on Ex- Lateral Swelling Pressure in Expansive Soil,” Proceedings of
pansive Clay Soils, Supplementing the Symposia in Print, Texas the 7th International Conference on Expansive Soils, 3–5 Aug.,
A&M Univ. Press, Collge Station, TX, pp. 255–275. Dallas, TX.
Smith, A. W., 1973, “Method for Determining the Potential Vertical Yevnin, A. and Zaslasvky, D., 1970, “Some Factors Affecting Com-
Rise,” Proceedings of Workshop on Expansive Clays and Shales pacted Clay Swelling,” Can. Geotech. J., Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 79–
in Highway Design and Construction, University of Wyoming, 89.
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Fri Jul 17 04:00:46 EDT 2009
Downloaded/printed by
National Instiute of Technology Calicut pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.