See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/283655472

Volumetric Swell and Shrinkage Movement of Stabilized Expansive Soils

Conference Paper · July 2003

CITATION READS

1 183

2 authors:

Anand Puppala Koonnamas Punthutaecha

Texas A&M University 49 PUBLICATIONS   309 CITATIONS   
471 PUBLICATIONS   6,159 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

UT Arlington RET Site on Hazard Mitigation (NSF - RET) View project

MRI: Development of advanced triaxial testing device for characterization of unsaturated soil behavior over wider range of soil suction states View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Koonnamas Punthutaecha on 11 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 An International on PROBLEMATIC SOILS: 29-30 July, 2003-Nothingham, United Kingdom

VOLUMETRIC SWELL AND SHRINKAGE MOVEMENTS OF

STABILIZED EXPANSIVE SOILS

A. J. Puppala, The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas, USA

K. Punthutaecha, Mahanakorn University of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand

Abstract

This paper presents a summary of test results from separated and combined
materials studies conducted on expansive soil stabilization using recycled waste
materials. Fly ash and nylon fibers were evaluated in these studies. A natural
expansive soil type from Dallas-Fort Worth International airport area was used as
control soils. Both methods decreased swell and shrinkage strains of raw expansive
soils. Fly ash method also increased strength and reduced plasticity characteristics.
Both stabilizers are recycled waste products and therefore their use in soil
stabilization will reduce land filling costs and enhance recycling efforts.
Keywords: Class F Fly ash, nylon fibers, swell strain, and shrinkage strain

1. Introduction

Natural expansive soils in the Southwestern, Western United States and several other parts of
the world exhibit high plasticity characteristics, low strength properties, and high swell and shrinkage
characteristics [1,2,3,4]. These soil properties often result in heave and shrinkage related structural
cracks in the building foundations including slab foundations, lightly loaded structures such as
residential buildings, buried utilities, highways and airfield pavements [5]. Maintenance and repair
costs of the distressed infrastructure are quite high and can run into several millions of dollars
annually. Many treatment methods are currently available for stabilizing natural expansive soils. These
include stabilizing with chemical additives, prewetting, soil replacement with compaction control,
moisture control, surcharge loading, and thermal methods. All these methods have certain limitations
such as not being suitable for certain soil types, leaching problems, construction quality control
problems and longer stabilization time periods. Moreover, calcium based chemical stabilization on
sulfate-rich soils often results in ettringite formation, which further compounds the heave distress
problems. Hence, new methods are still being researched in order to reduce swell and shrinkage
potential of natural and sulfate-rich expansive soils.
This paper presents both separate and combined recycled materials’ stabilization methods to
reduce volume change behavior and increase strength of expansive soils. Three types of ashes and
two types of fibers were studies in this research. Due to space restrictions, only class F fly and nylon
fibers’ treated soil results were covered in this paper. Main reasons for selecting the recycled
stabilizers are that these materials are cost effective and can be used on sulfate-rich soils. Both
stabilizers were used to treat expansive soils from North Texas. The effects of these treatment
methods are covered in this paper by first addressing physical characteristics (Atterberg limits and
standard Proctor compaction properties), torsional ring shear tests, three-dimensional shrinkage and
free swell tests were conducted on both controlled and treated soil samples. Results were used to
evaluate the effectiveness of the select stabilization methods. Both separate and combined materials
test results are compared in order to understand the effectiveness of using combination of these
stabilizers in achieving better results.

439
2. Background

Distress to infrastructure generally comes from the excessive movements of underlying

subsoils. In general, expansive soils can undergo large volume changes due to seasonal variations.
Scheider and Poor (1974) noted that the expansive soils located in the regions of prolonged hot dry
periods followed by cooler and wet periods cause the maximum distress to pavement structures.
Hence, when characterizing expansive subgrades, it is equally important to understand volumetric
shrinkage strain potentials along with volumetric swell strain potentials.
In the literature, problematic thresholds of volume changes and vertical swells of expansive
soils reported to vary from 10% to 30% [1,6,7,8,9]. This high variation is due to difference in test
methods and procedures used in the laboratory characterization methods.
Chen (1988) developed a characterization table, which used volumetric swell strains as a
indicator of level of problematic nature of the soil. According to Chen (1988), expansive soils located in
Colorado undergo volume changes of 1 to 10%. Above 5% be considered as high expansion.
Similarly, based on linear shrinkage and volumetric shrinkage tests, Punthutaecha (2002) developed
volumetric shrinkage strain levels to characterize the severity of the nature of soil. Altmeyer (1955)
characterization of volumetric shrinkage strain potentials was used as the basis for addressing the
shrinkage nature of soil. As per this method, a total volumetric shrinkage strain of 20% is considered
highly problematic and a shrinkage strain potential of 24% is considered very highly problematic. All
these characterizations are valid for low overburden structures including low rise buildings and
pavements.
Figure 1 presents characterization method developed based on volumetric strains in swell and
shrinkage environments. This characterization was used in this paper to address the severity nature of
expansive soils and stabilizer treated soils.
Volumetric Swell

10
Very High

High
0
Volumetric Shrinkage

-10 High Very High

-20

-30

Figure 1. Severity of Soil Characterization Based on Swell and Shrinkage Volume Changes (Chen,
1988; Punthutaecha, 2002).

440
3. Experimental Program

The experimental program was conducted in two phases. The first phase dealt with isolated
stabilizer studies, which involved the testing of soil from the Texas, class F fly ash, nylon fibers, and
four dosage levels of stabilizers. The soil was termed in this paper as DFW soil. Physical and
mechanical properties related to those that address expansive soil behavior, were first conducted on
both treated and untreated (control) soil specimens. Test results were analyzed to establish the
optimum dosage levels for both fly ash and nylon fiber stabilization studies. These dosages were used
in various combinations in the combined stabilizer investigations in the second phase of the research.
Similar physical and mechanical tests were performed on combined stabilizer treated soils. The
effectiveness of the combined stabilization methods were also comprehensively evaluated. The
following sections provide detailed descriptions of these steps.

3.1 Soil and stabilizers details

The expansive soil used in this program was a local heavy clay soil from Dallas – Fort Worth
metroplex and hence termed as DFW soil. This soil contains large amounts of heavy clay minerals
including Montomorillonite and is regarded as an expansive clay. The liquid and plastic limits of this
clay are 50% and 18%, respectively. The plasticity index or PI of this soil is 32%. As per unified soil
classification system, this soil was classified as CL. Two recycled materials, class F fly ash and nylon
fibers were used as additives in this investigation. Both chemical and mechanical properties of ash
and fibers are given in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1. Chemical of Class F Fly Ash

Chemical Composition Class F Fly Ash (%)

Silicon Dioxide (SiO2) 63.0

Aluminum Oxide (Al2O3) 19.7
Calcium Oxide (CaO) 7.4
Sulfur Trioxide (SO3) 0.1
Ferric Oxide (Fe2O3) 4.9
Magnesium Oxide (MgO) 1.6

Table 2. Mechanical Properties of Nylon Fibers

Properties Nylon Fibers

Tensile Strength 130-140 ksi

Young’s Modulus 750 ksi
Melt Point 435°F
Chemical Resistance Good
Alkali Resistant Excellent
Acid and Salt Resistance Good
Ultraviolet Resistance Excellent

3.2 Specimen preparation

Soil specimens were compacted at the optimum moisture content and maximum dry unit
weight conditions. Impact compaction method was followed by compacting treated soil mix in three
equal layers. Fly ash treated soil specimens were subjected to Atterberg limit tests, shrinkage strains
tests, free swell tests, pressure swell tests, and torsional ring shear tests. Fiber treated soils were
subjected to same test methods, except for Atterberg limit tests as these methods are not appropriate
on fiber treated soils. In the case of fly ash stabilization and combined ash and fibers stabilization, soil

441
samples were cured for fourteen days in a 100% relative humidity conditioned room. Since fibers
provide mechanical stabilization, curing period is not required for fiber treated soil samples.
Four levels of fly ash percentages were used: 0% (control), 10%, 15% and 20% by dry weight
of soil. Four levels of fiber dosages were investigated: 0% (control), 0.2%, 0.4%, and 0.6% by dry
weight of soil. Due to fiber size (19.05 mm long), three-dimensional soil specimens were compacted in
standard Proctor molds and were used in free swell and shrinkage tests. Traditional shrinkage test of
linear shrinkage bars are not appropriate for present fiber treated soils since fiber dimensions are
large compared to widths of linear shrinkage bar molds. Most of the testing procedures followed were
based on ASTM standard methods and are not covered here. The three dimensional shrinkage
specimen was subjected to drying in an oven for 24 hours. The drying process steps are similar to
linear shrinkage bar test method formulated by the Texas Department of Transportation test methods.

4. Analysis and Discussion of Test Results

4.1 Separate stabilizer treatment results

Table 3 presents results of Atterberg limit tests, free swell, shrinkage strain, pressure swell,
and torsional ring shear tests on fly ash treated soils at various dosage levels. Similar results for fiber
treated soils are shown in table 4. Results presented in tables are averages from triplicate samples.

Table 3. Fly Ash Treated Soils Test Results

Testing Program Dosage Levels (Class F Fly Ash)

0% 10 % 15 % 20 %
Atterberg Limit (PI) 32 29 24 21
3-D Free Swell (%) 9.8 5.0 4.4 3.3
3-D Shrinkage Strain (%) 33.4 19.1 18.7 15.0
Pressure Swell (kPa) 101.22 61.49 41.65 27.95
Shear Strength (kPa)
Peak 25.1 25.9 28.3 34.0
Residual 22.9 21.1 26.3 30.6

Table 4. Fiber Treated Soils Test Results

Testing Program Dosage Levels (Nylon Fibers)

0% 0.2 % 0.4 % 0.6 %
Atterberg Limit (PI) - - - -
3-D Free Swell (%) 9.8 10.1 8.2 7.7
3-D Shrinkage Strain (%) 33.4 30.4 29.7 29.6
Pressure Swell (kPa) 101.22 49.02 42.87 43.78
Shear Strength (kPa)
Peak 25.1 28.4 27.9 26.9
Residual 22.9 25.8 27.1 24.8

From both tables, the following observations can be noted. An increase in fly ash decreased
the plasticity index or PI values of control soil. This indicates that the fly ash has potential to reduce
the plasticity characteristics of control soil. Mechanisms that cause decrease in PI values are
attributed to cationic ion exchange, which lead to flocculation and a decrease in double layer thickness
around fine grained clay particles. Decrease in free swell strain, shrinkage strain, and swell pressure
were also observed with an increase in dosage levels of ash stabilizer. Decrease in swell and
shrinkage strains with ash stabilizer are attributed to reductions in plasticity nature of soils, which

442
reduces the expansive nature soils. Also, increased attraction forces between clayey particles due to
chemical binding will compensate dispersive forces generated during moisture hydration. This is also
known to result in low volume change properties. In the case of fiber treated soils, the improvements
in swell strains are minimal and this is due to no change in plasticity properties of soils from the
presence of mechanical fiber elements. The small decreases are attributed to an increase in tensile
strength of soils from inclusion of fibers.
Both peak and residual shear strengths are slightly increased with stabilizers and a small
increase was also noted with an increase in the dosage levels of stabilizers. The moderate strength
increase was attributed to chemical reactions among soil and ash constituents that lead to bonding
between particles.

4.2 Determination of optimum dosage levels for combined materials studies

In order to investigate combined materials treatments, optimum dosage levels of both ash and
fibers in soils are needed. To determine optimum dosage levels, average free swell, average
shrinkage strains, and average swell pressure results from previous section were first plotted against
dosage levels. The optimum dosage levels were determined based on those levels at which swell,
shrinkage, and swell pressure characteristics are close to non-critical conditions.
In this paper, a volumetric swell strain of 5%, a swell pressure of 47.88 kPa (1 ksf or 1000
lb/ft2), and a volumetric shrinkage strain of 17% of expansive soil properties were selected as targeted
properties for non-critical or non-problematic conditions. Expansive soils with these properties cause
less distress to infrastructures. Using these criteria, the recommended dosage levels for free
volumetric swell strain, volumetric shrinkage strain, and pressure swell properties of each stabilizer
were determined (Figures 2 to 4). Then, the final optimum dosage level can be calculated by using the
following Equation 1.
The recommended dosage levels are identified as the dosage level of stabilizer that met the
allowable limit or gave the minimum values. Table 5 presents the optimum dosage levels for each
swell and shrinkage test conditions along with the recommended dosage level for combined
stabilization studies. Further details on this simple linear optimization studies can be found in
Punthutaecha (2002).
Optimum Dosage (%) = a1Ffs + a2Fsh + a3Fps (1)

where:
Ffs = Recommended dosage of stabilizer from free swell test results,
Fsh = Recommended dosage of stabilizer from volumetric shrinkage test results,
Fps = Recommended dosage of stabilizer from pressure swell test,
a1, a2, a3 = Constants depend on the weightage factors for swell and shrinkage tests
(a1 and a2 were set to 0.4 and a3 was set to 0.2)

The weightage factors for swell and shrinkage strains are 0.4 and for swell pressure is 0.2,
implying that more weightage was given to swell and shrinkage strains. This is because these strains
are expected to induce more distress to low overburden structures. Moreover, swell pressures are
already influenced by the swell strains and hence low weightage factor was given to swell pressure
condition. The recommended dosage levels for fly ash and nylon fibers are 15 and 0.5% by dry weight
of soil, respectively.

Table 5. Optimum Dosage Levels

Class F Fly Ash Nylon Fibers

Ffs (%) 14.6 0.6

Fsh (%) 16.3 0.46
Fps (%) 14.0 0.25

Optimum Dosage Level 15 0.5

Recommended (%)

443
 Dosage Level of Nylon Fibers (%)
0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
12 12

Average Volumetric Swell Strain (%)

Average Volumetric Swell Strain (%)

8 8
Allowable
Swell Strain

4 4

D-F-100
D-N-100

0 0
0 5 10 15 20
Dosage Level of Fly Ash(%)

Figure 2. Recommended Dosage Levels from Volumetric Free Swell Strain

(D – DFW Soil; F – Fly Ash; N – Nylon Fibers; 100 – Optimum Moisture Content)

Dosage Level of Nylon Fibers (%)

0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
35 35
Average Volumetric Shrinkage Strain (%)
Average Volumetric Shrinkage Strain (%)

30 30

Allowable
25 25
Shrinkage Strain

20 20

15 15
D-F-100
D-N-100

10 10
0 5 10 15 20
Dosage Level of Fly Ash(%)
Figure 3. Recommended Dosage Levels from Average Volumetric Shrinkage Strain
(D – DFW Soil; F – Fly Ash; N – Nylon Fibers; 100 – Optimum Moisture Content)

444
 Dosage Level of Nylon Fibers (%)
0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
120 120

D-F-100
D-N-100

Average Swell Pressure (kPa)

Average Swell Pressure (kPa)

80 80

40 40

Allowable Swell
Pressure

0 0
0 5 10 15 20
Dosage Level of Fly Ash(%)
Figure 4. Recommended Dosage Levels from Swell Pressure
(D – DFW Soil; F – Fly Ash; N – Nylon Fibers; 100 – Optimum Moisture Content)

4.3 Combined stabilizer treatment results

Table 6 presents Atterberg limits, free swell, shrinkage strain, pressure swell test results, and
torsional ring shear test results of combined ash and nylon fiber treated soils, which were mixed with
the soil at optimum dosage levels (class F fly ash = 15% and nylon fibers = 0.5% by dry weight of soil)
and cured for fourteen days.

Table 6. Combined Materials Treated Soils Test Results

Testing Program Dosage Levels (Class F Fly Ash and Nylon Fibers)

Control (no treatment) 15% Ash and 0.5% Fiber

Atterberg Limit (PI) 32 24

3-D Free Swell (%) 9.8 3.0
3-D Shrinkage Strain (%) 33.4 16.6
Pressure Swell (kPa) 101.22 41.16
Shear Strength (kPa)
Peak 25.1 29.2
Residual 22.9 28.2

As shown in table 6, it can be noted that soil stabilized with combined stabilizer materials
exhibited low swell and shrinkage movements, low swell pressure, and moderate shear strengths. As
expected, the combined stabilizer treated soils showed better improvements than soils stabilized with
either ashes or fiber treatment methods. The improvements were caused by several mechanisms
including flocculation reactions and a few chemical strengthening reactions between soils and ash

445
 stabilizers. The presence of fibers also enhanced tensile strength and shear strength of soils and this
increased strength offers further resistance to disruptive dispersive forces generated during swell test
conditions. This resulted in less swell movements in treated soils. The increase in tensile strength in
soils offer resistance to tensile stresses generated in soils during shrinkage test conditions. As a
result, low shrinkage strains were recorded combined stabilizer treatment studies.

5. Summary and Conclusion

This paper presented results of isolated soil stabilization studies utilizing class F fly ash and
nylon fibers as additives and combined stabilization studies using optimum dosage levels of fly ash
and fibers. A natural expansive soil from Dallas, Texas, USA was used as the control soil. All test
methods showed that isolated stabilizer treatments decreased volumetric free swell and shrinkage
strains, and swell pressure of control soil. However, the fiber reinforcement resulted in a slight
increase of volumetric free swell at dosage level of 0.2% and a decrease of swell at other higher
dosages. Test results were analyzed to determine optimum dosage level for both ash and fiber
treatments. A combined stabilizer treatment study using the optimum dosages of ash and fibers
yielded significantly lower swell and shrinkage strains than those treated with isolated stabilizer
treatments. Overall, it can be summarized that the combined stabilizer treatment has potential to
reduce swell and shrinkage strains of expansive soils from problematic levels to non-problematic
levels.
Another advantage is that both fly ash and fibers are recycled materials. Hence, their use in
soil stabilization will have several environmental benefits, such as utilization of waste material in a
large scale recycling application for expansive soil stabilization and reduction of land-filling space
required for such wastes. This can also be realized as significant cost savings in pavement
construction projects since these stabilizer materials are generally inexpensive.

Acknowledgements

This study was partially supported by the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) of Texas
Higher Education Coordinating Board, Austin, Texas, under the grant No. 1407610-50. The authors
would like to acknowledge this support. Also, the authors would like to acknowledge Mr. David Chill,
P.E. of Synthetic Industries and Dr. Russell Hill and Dr. Karthik Obla of Boral Material Technologies
for providing the material support.

References

1. Hunter, D. (1988). “Lime-Induced Heave in Sulfate-Bearing Clay Soils,” Journal of Geotechnical

Engineering, ASCE, 114(2): 150-167.
2. Mitchell, J. K., (1986). “Practical Problems from Surprising Soil Behavior,” Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, Vol.112, No.3: 259-289.
3. Sherwood, P.T. (1962). “The Effect of Sulfates of Sulfates on Cement and Lime-Stabilized Soils,”
Highway Research Board Bulletin, No. 355: 98-107.
4. Sherwood, P. T. (1995). “Soil Stabilization with Cement and Lime,” HMSO Publications Center,
London, 1995.
5. Nelson, D. J. and Miller, J. D. (1992). Expansive Soils: Problems and Practice in Foundation and
Pavement Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 259 pages.
6. Schneider, G.L., and Poor, A.P. (1974), “The Prediction of Soil Heave and Swell Pressures
Developed by an Expansive Clay,” Research Rep. TR-9-74, Construction Research Center, The
Univ. of Texas, Arlington.
7. Chen, F.H. (1988), Foundations on Expansive Soils, American Elsevier Science Publ., New York.
8. Seed, H.B., Mitchell, J.K., and Chan, C.K. (1962a), “Studies of Swell and Swell Pressure
Characteristics of Compacted Clays,” Highway Research. Board Bulletin, No. 313: 12-39.
9. Seed, H.B., Woodward, R.J., Jr., and Lundgren, R. (1962b), “Prediction of Swelling Potential for
Compacted Clays,” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., Am. Soc. Civil Eng. 88 (SM3): 53-87.
10. Punthutaecha, K. (2002). “Volume Change Behavior of Expansive Soils Modified with Recycled
Waste Materials,” Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Texas at Arlington, TX, 261 pages.
11. Almeyer, W.T. (1955), “Discussion of Engineering Properties of Expansive Clays,” Proc. Am. Soc.
Civil Eng. 81 (Separate No. 658):17-19.

446

View publication stats