Published November, 2004
Reproduced from Soil Science Society of America Journal. Published by Soil Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved.
Vol. 68 NOVEMBER–DECEMBER 2004
DIVISION S-1—SOIL PHYSICS
An Approach for Estimating the Shrinkage Geometry Factor at a Moisture Content
V. Y. Chertkov,* I. Ravina, and V. Zadoenko
ABSTRACT
Soil shrinkage is characterized, along with the shrinkage curve, by
a partition of the volume change of the soil matrix between contribu-
tions of cracks and soil subsidence. This partition is determined by
the shrinkage geometry factor (rs). Knowledge of the value of rs is
important for the consideration of water and solute transport in swell-
ing and cracking soils. The rs concept was recently used for the general-
ization of flow equations in the case of the axially symmetric two-
dimensional deformation of shrink-swell soils. Sufficient accuracy of
the rs value is very essential for all these applications. However, the
theoretical definition and available measurement method of the rs
factor include some implicit assumptions that are disturbed in real
conditions. These disturbances, which are not accounted for in rs
measurements, can lead to distortion of the rs value. The objectives
of the work are: to explicitly formulate the assumptions; to introduce
a new presentation of the rs concept based on a comparison between
different shrinkage curves of a soil; to suggest an approach for estimat-
ing the rs values corrected by taking into account the disturbance of
one of the assumptions; and to experimentally illustrate the approach
using the simplest case of pure-clay paste samples when they dry,
shrink, and crack. The results show the necessity and practical possibil-
ity of considering the rs factor as a function of soil moisture and
introducing to the factor the multiplicative correction that is connected
with accounting for possible macrocracks in soil samples to be used
for experimental estimation of the rs factor.
T he shrinking-swelling of a soil matrix, accompa-
nied by vertical movements and cracking, essen-
tially influences soil structure, hydraulic properties, and
water flow, and their evolution with time. Two key de-
pendencies determine the effects of soil shrinking-swell-
ing. One of them, the so-called shrinkage curve, de-
scribes the soil volume change as a function of soil water
content (e.g., Hillel, 1998). Still another key dependence
determining effects of soil shrinking-swelling relates to
Agricultural Engineering Division, Faculty of Civil and Environmen-
tal Engineering, Technion, Haifa 32000, Israel. Received 10 June 2003.
*Corresponding author (agvictor@tx.technion.ac.il).
Published in Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 68:1807–1817 (2004).
 Soil Science Society of America
677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA
1807
No. 6
the partition of the volume change of a soil matrix (⌬V)
between cracks (⌬Vcr) and subsidence (⌬Vsub) contribu-
tions (Bronswijk, 1988). This partition is characterized
by the so-called shrinkage geometry factor (rs) (Brons-
wijk, 1988). Rijniersce (1983) introduced the rs concept
for cases of pure subsidence without cracking (rs ⫽ 1)
and the isotropic shrinkage (rs ⫽ 3) of so-called unrip-
ened soils. Bronswijk (1988, 1989, 1990, 1991a, 1991b)
generalized the rs concept to the case of an arbitrary
combination of the possible ⌬Vcr and ⌬Vsub contributions
at a given volume change of soil matrix, ⌬V (i.e., for
any combination of vertical and lateral soil deformations
that is possible at a given ⌬V). The total range of the
generalized rs factor is 1 ⱕ rs ⬍ ∞. Bronswijk (1990)
also suggested a measurement method for experimental
estimation of the rs value.
The rs concept is not only used for experimental esti-
mating of the crack volume (e.g., Baer and Anderson,
1997). Knowledge of the rs value is important for the
consideration of water and solute transport in swelling
and cracking soils. The rs concept was recently used to
generalize flow equations in the case of axially symmet-
ric two-dimensional deformation of shrink-swell soil
samples without cracks (Garnier et al., 1997a, 1997b).
These researchers remarked that sufficient accuracy of
the rs value is very essential for all these applications.
However, the theoretical definition and available mea-
surement method of the rs factor include some implicit
assumptions that are disturbed in real conditions. These
disturbances, which are not accounted for in rs measure-
ments, can lead to inaccuracy of the rs value.
The objectives of the work are (i) to explicitly formu-
late the assumptions of Bronswijk’s approach; (ii) to
introduce a new presentation and generalization of the
rs concept based on a comparison between different
shrinkage curves of a soil; (iii) to use the presentation
and available data to illustrate the disturbances of the
assumptions in real conditions; (iv) to suggest an ap-
proach (based on the new presentation and generaliza-
Abbreviations: CEC, cation exchange capacity.
 1808 SOIL SCI. SOC. AM. J., VOL. 68, NOVEMBER–DECEMBER 2004
tion of the rs concept) for estimating the corrected rs
values by taking into account the disturbance of one of
the assumptions; and (v) to experimentally illustrate
the approach using the simplest case of pure-clay paste
Reproduced from Soil Science Society of America Journal. Published by Soil Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved.
samples when they dry, shrink, and crack.
For the reader’s convenience, we start with a brief
summary of Bronswijk’s (1988, 1989, 1990, 1991a, 1991b)
approach and a remark of some different understanding
of the rs factor from Garnier et al. (1997a, 1997b). In
the experimental illustration of the approach to be sug-
gested for correcting the rs value, we used Chertkov’s
(2000, 2003) model for prediction of the shrinkage curve
of a clay matrix without cracks. For the reader’s conve-
nience, we give a brief summary of the model immedi-
ately before the description of the experimental part.
Notation is summarized in Appendix.
THEORY
Two Viewpoints of the Shrinkage Geometry Factor
A Summary of Bronswijk’s (1988, 1989, 1990, 1991a, 1991b)
Approach
What the indicated works have in common is a relation
between changes of the matrix volume and thickness of a soil
layer when it dries, shrinks, and cracks. In real modeling, the
soil matrix layer of thickness z in the water-saturated state is
replaced by a water-saturated cube whose initial side length
is z and volume V ⫽ z3 (Fig. 1a). After a water loss, the
cube volume and height decrease by ⌬V and ⌬z, respectively
(Fig. 1a). In general, the decrease in lateral directions can be
different, that is, x ⬆ y ⬆ z ⫺ ⌬z (Fig. 1a). Then the volume
decrease (⌬V ) of the initial soil matrix layer related to one
cube and the layer subsidence (⌬z ) are connected as
Fig. 1. Scheme explaining Bronswijk’s (1988, 1989, 1990, 1991a,
1991b) model of soil layer shrinkage and cracking. (a) Shrinkage
of elementary soil cube at initial layer thickness z and volume V ⫽ z3
as a result of subsidence ⌬z and lateral reduction of initial cube
sides to x and y; the volume supplementing the reduced cube [i.e.,
parallelepiped: x ⫻ y ⫻ (z ⫺ ⌬z )] in lateral directions up to volume
z ⫻ z ⫻ (z ⫺ ⌬z ) is interpreted as a crack volume per one initial
cube. (b) The initial soil layer composed from unconnected elemen-
tary cubes and the layer after shrinkage composed from corre-
sponding parallelepipeds and crack volumes; arrows symbolize the
continuation of the three shown cubes to the unlimited layer.
1⫺
⌬V
V
⫽ 1⫺ 冢
⌬z rs
z 冣 [1]
where rs is by definition the dimensionless shrinkage geometry
factor. Bronswijk borrowed the geometrical interpretation of
the right part of Fig. 1a from Aitchison and Holmes (1953)
and Fox (1964). The upper part of the initial dotted cube of
thickness ⌬z gives a contribution of subsidence (⌬Vsub) to the
volume decrease of soil matrix ⌬V. The lower part of the
initial cube of thickness z ⫺ ⌬z minus a current volume of
the small parallelepiped, shown by solid lines, gives the contri-
bution of the total crack volume (⌬Vcr) to ⌬V. According to
this interpretation, rs values in the three cases are obvious. In
the case of subsidence without cracking when ⌬V ⫽ z2⌬z, rs ⫽
1. In the case of isotropic shrinkage when x ⫽ y ⫽ z ⫺ ⌬z,
rs ⫽ 3. In the case of cracking without subsidence when ⌬z
→ 0, rs → ∞. At 1 ⬍ rs ⬍ 3, the subsidence contribution to
⌬V dominates the crack contribution. At 3 ⬍ rs ⬍ ∞, the
situation is opposite. Also, according to this interpretation
one can write
⌬Vsub ⫽ z2⌬z [2]
and
⌬Vcr ⫽ ⌬V ⫺ ⌬Vsub. [3]
Thus, if the rs factor is known, measurements of subsidence
⌬z give ⌬V, ⌬Vsub, and ⌬Vcr from Eq. [1] to [3]. These equations
were used in modeling the role of continuously changing
cracks in moisture transport in soil matrix and cracks (Brons-
wijk, 1988, 1989), estimating the changes of the soil matrix
volume by measurements of soil subsidence (Bronswijk,
1991a), and estimating the changes of the total crack volume by
soil subsidence measurements (Bronswijk, 1991b). All these
applications relate either to field conditions (Bronswijk, 1988,
1989, 1991a) or to the so-called large core (lysimeter) (Brons-
wijk, 1991b). Hence, an unlimited soil layer with cracks is, in
fact, meant as indicated in Bronswijk’s works.
Bronswijk (1990) also suggested an approach for the experi-
mental estimating of the rs factor by measurements of initial
volume and volume as well as the subsidence of cylindrical
soil samples after oven drying. Bronswijk (1988, 1989) noted
that the rs factor should depend, in particular, on moisture
content. However, the published measurements (Bronswijk,
1990) only relate to the rs factor after oven drying. The rs ⫽ 3
that was obtained for a clay soil of the central part of the
Netherlands with clay content from 52 to 69% was used in
other works of this researcher as well as in works of other
authors (e.g., Baer and Anderson, 1997).
The viewpoint from Garnier et al. (1997a, 1997b)
These researchers formally regard the same model of the
shrinking cube (Fig. 1a) and use the same definition of the rs
factor (Eq. [1]) as applied to another situation, the limited
soil sample that is considered as an anisotropically deformable
solid without cracks, but not to an unlimited soil layer with
developing cracks. The volume change of the limited sample
of soil matrix (⌬V ) also includes the subsidence or vertical
deformation contribution (⌬Vsub) (Fig. 1a and Eq. [2]), but
the volume ⌬Vcr (Fig. 1a and Eq. [3]) that was associated with
crack contribution in Bronswijk’s approach is now interpreted
as a contribution of lateral deformations (⌬Vlat). In the case
of a limited deformable sample, the values of rs ⫽ 1, 3, and
∞ mean only vertical, isotropic, and lateral axially symmetric
deformations, respectively. At 1 ⬍ rs ⬍ 3, the contribution of
vertical deformations to ⌬V dominates the contribution of
 CHERTKOV ET AL.: SHRINKAGE GEOMETRY FACTOR
lateral deformations. At 3 ⬍ rs ⬍ ∞, the situation is the oppo-
site. Garnier et al. (1997b) measured the evolution of the
height and diameter of cylindrical samples with water content
and noted a change in rs value. However, in modeling Garnier
Reproduced from Soil Science Society of America Journal. Published by Soil Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved.
et al. (1997a, 1997b) also used rs values constant with drying.
Specifications of the rs concept to be considered in this work
are different for the two above viewpoints.
Explicit Formulation of Bronswijk’s
Model Assumptions
A real soil layer is always connected, even if the layer
contains cracks. Because of this feature, lateral tensile stresses
and cracks develop in the layer at shrinkage. Except for that,
cracks in the layer are always distributed with an average
spacing between them (e.g., Zein el Abedine and Robinson,
1971). Thus, Bronswijk’s model in fact replaces the real con-
nected layer with distributed cracks by a layer that is composed
of contacting but unconnected water-saturated cubes (Fig. 1b,
dotted cubes) which shrink as isolated deformable solids with-
out cracks (Fig. 1b, parallelepipeds shown by solid lines). In
other words, the model replaces the cracks distributed in a
soil layer by boundaries of the cubes before drying and gaps
between the parallelepipeds in the course of drying (Fig. 1b).
That is, all actually distributed cracks are artificially concen-
trated as a crack volume ⌬Vcr per one initial cube (Fig. 1).
This replacement will be referred to below as Bronswijk’s
approximation for a shrinking and cracking soil layer. Such
replacement is physically suitable for the shrinkage of a cylin-
drical sample without cracks and with free boundaries—the
case from Garnier et al. (1997a, 1997b). Therefore, the ⌬Vlat
contribution of this case numerically coincides with the ⌬Vcr
contribution (Eq. [3]) for the layer shrinkage in Bronswijk’s
approximation, and values of ⌬z, ⌬Vsub, and rs are simply
identical. However, for the shrinkage of a real unlimited
cracked soil layer (field conditions) the replacement means
an assumption. We formulate the assumption in two different,
but equivalent forms.
Assumption 1. (i) At a given ⌬V, a link between ⌬z (or
⌬Vsub) and ⌬Vcr through the rs factor (Eq. [1]–[3]) is the same
in cases of a real connected layer with distributed cracks and
a composed modeled layer (Fig. 1b); that is, the rs value is
the same for these two cases; or (ii) in similar conditions the
subsidence of a real connected soil layer with distributed
cracks coincides with the subsidence of a modeled soil layer
composed of unconnected water-saturated cubes that shrink
with drying along the vertical and two lateral axes as isolated
deformable solids without cracks.
Only in Assumption 1 in any form, that is, in Bronswijk’s
approximation, shrinkage and cracking of an unlimited layer
(Bronswijk, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991a, 1991b) and the shrinkage
deformation of a limited sample (Garnier et al., 1997a, 1997b)
are formally described by the same Eq. [1] through [3] and
Fig. 1. Disturbance of this assumption qualitatively flows out
of the simple physical considerations. The thickness of any
connected layer decreases at tension because a lateral tensile
deformation leads to the vertical compressive one. In the sim-
plest case the ratio of the latter to the former is Poisson’s
ratio of a material (e.g., Landau and Lifshitz, 1986). Therefore,
at a given ⌬V, the thickness of a real stretched soil layer with
distributed cracks will be smaller than the thickness of a layer
that is composed of unconnected and hence unstretched paral-
lelepipeds and gaps of crack volume between them (Fig. 1b).
That is, the real subsidence of a cracked soil layer at a given
⌬V will be larger than the subsidence in Bronswijk’s approxi-
1809
mation. If one knows the corrected subsidence ⌬z at a given
⌬V for a real connected layer with distributed cracks Eq. [1]
to [3] give corrected values of rs, ⌬Vsub, and ⌬Vcr. Estimation
of the corrected values accounting for the disturbance of As-
sumption 1 is beyond the scope of this work and will be
addressed in the future.
Both the case of a composed layer (Bronswijk, 1988, 1989,
1990, 1991a, 1991b) and that of a limited sample (Garnier et
al., 1997a, 1997b) consider an elementary cube or parallelepi-
ped after deformation and the limited sample as a deformable
solid without cracks. The method of the experimental estima-
tion of rs values (Bronswijk, 1990) is based on measurements
of only the external dimensions of soil samples (remolded
or undisturbed) before and after oven drying. This available
measurement method also implies that soil samples contain
no cracks. Garnier et al. (1997a, 1997b) also used a similar
method of experimentally estimating the rs value. We formu-
late the corresponding implicit assumption of both Bronswijk’s
approximation and the viewpoint of Garnier et al. (1997a,
1997b) as Assumption 2.
Assumption 2. Cracks do not appear and develop in drying
soil samples.
Disturbance of this assumption in real conditions flows out
of many images of shrinking soil samples (e.g., Hallaire, 1984,
Fig. 4).
Finally, both Bronswijk (1988, 1989, 1990, 1991a, 1991b)
and Garnier et al. (1997a, 1997b) noted a possible value varia-
tion of the rs factor with drying. However, in practical model-
ing, these researchers in fact used Assumption 3.
Assumption 3. The rs factor does not depend on soil moisture.
New Presentation of the rs Concept
We account for V ⫽ z3 and replace the values that enter
Eq. [1] for the drying layer with cracks by the corresponding
specific volumes per unit weight of oven-dried soil. The initial
volume of the soil matrix (V ) is replaced by the initial value
of the specific volume of the soil matrix (Vo). The current
volume of drying soil matrix (V ⫺ ⌬V ) is replaced by the
current value of the specific volume of the soil matrix (V).
The summary volume of cracks and soil matrix (V ⫺ z2⌬z )
is replaced by the specific volume of the layer (Vl ⬅ V ⫹
Vcr.l), where Vcr.l is the specific volume of cracks in the layer.
Then Eq. [1] can be rewritten as
V/Vo ⫽ (Vl/Vo)rs. [4]
Here, V(w ) and Vl(w ) are the shrinkage curves of a soil
matrix without cracks and soil layer with cracks, respectively.
With that, rs ⫽ rs(w ), where w is soil moisture.
Equations [1] and [4] as such are exact. However, in Brons-
wijk’s approximation an exact value of Vcr.l entering Vl ⬅ V ⫹
Vcr.l in the right part of Eq. [4] is replaced by gaps (Fig. 1b)
based on (implicit) Assumption 1. Except for that, in the
practical application an exact value of V for soil matrix without
cracks entering the left part of Eq. [4] is replaced by the specific
volume of a cylindrical sample (Bronswijk, 1990), Vs ⬅ V ⫹
Vcr.s, neglecting by the specific volume Vcr.s of possible (mac-
ro)cracks in the sample based on (implicit) Assumption 2.
Here, Vs(w ) is the shrinkage curve of the sample with cracks.
Note that, in general, Vcr.s depends on a sample size. Therefore,
Vcr.s ⬆ Vcr.l. Approximations in the right and left parts of Eq.
[4] lead to an inaccuracy in rs because they imply the replace-
ment of exact Eq. [4] by
Vs /Vo ⫽ (Vl/Vo)r⬘s [5]
 1810 SOIL SCI. SOC. AM. J., VOL. 68, NOVEMBER–DECEMBER 2004
Reproduced from Soil Science Society of America Journal. Published by Soil Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved.
Fig. 2. Scheme of the different shrinkage curves of an aggregated clay
soil based on Hallaire’s (1984) Fig. 2. (1) Initial specific volume of
shrinking and cracking soil layer. (2) Shrinkage curve Vl(w ) of shrink-
ing soil layer with cracks; (3) shrinkage curve Vs(w ) of shrinking
soil sample with cracks. (4) Shrinkage curve V(w ) of soil matrix;
in general, Vz ⬍ Vsz, that is, oven-dried sample contains cracks.
(5) 1:1 theoretical line. AB, the specific volume of the layer subsi-
dence at a given w; BD, the specific volume of cracks in the soil
layer at a given w; CD, the specific volume of cracks in the soil
sample with free boundaries at a given w.
where Vl includes gaps (Fig. 1b) and r⬘s is an uncorrected value
of rs(w ).
In this work we only address correction of rs connected with
the disturbance of Assumption 2, that is, with the difference
between V and Vs entering the left parts of Eq. [4] and [5],
respectively. In this work we consider that the difference be-
tween Vcr.l entering Vl in Eq. [4] and gaps (Fig. 1b) entering
Vl in Eq. [5] is negligible according to Assumption 1. The
correction connected with the disturbance of Assumption 1
will be addressed in the future.
We could only find a data combination of shrinkage curves
Vl(w ), Vs(w ), and V(w ) as a void ratio against the gravimetric
water content in Hallaire’s (1984) Fig. 2. The data do not
embrace a total range of water content. They relate to an
aggregated clay soil with a clay fraction (52 to 56%) consisting
mainly of montmorillonite and chlorite. Schematic curves in
Fig. 2 qualitatively repeat these dependencies from Hallaire
(1984) as the specific volume against the gravimetric water
content. The difference between Curves 3 [Vs(w )] and 4 [V(w )]
in Fig. 2 shows that, in general, rs and rs⬘, as determined by
Eq. [4] and [5], respectively, do not coincide.
Generalization of the rs Concept
By analogy to Eq. [4] that relates to an unlimited layer with
developing cracks we can write the following relation for a
shrinking sample of an arbitrary, in particular cylindrical,
shape and with developing (macro)cracks as
V/Vo ⫽ (Vs /Vo)M [6]
where the M(w ) factor determines partition of the matrix
volume change, V(w) of the sample with possible (macro)cracks
between the contribution of sample boundary displacement,
Vs(w ) and the contribution of crack development, Vcr.s(w ). In
general, the introduced M factor can depend on the shape
and size of the sample. We mean here the cylindrical samples
of the usual laboratory heights and diameters of several centi-
meters. If cracks in the sample are absent, Vs ⫽ V and M ⫽
1. In the particular case of the sample with the shape of an
unlimited layer with cracks, Vs coincides with Vl, the M factor
coincides with the rs factor, and Eq. [6] coincides with Eq. [4].
Indeed, the contributions of subsidence and of the sample
boundary displacement for an unlimited layer with cracks
are identical.
It is worth emphasizing that unlike the partition of the
matrix volume change of the sample with (macro)cracks, in
particular, the cylindrical one to be described by Eq. [6], Bron-
swijk (1990) and Garnier et al. (1997a, 1997b) were interested
in the partition of the volume change of a cylindrical sample
without cracks between the contribution of height shortening
and that of diameter shortening or lateral deformation.
Factorization of the rs Value for a Soil Layer
Replacing in Eq. [6] V/Vo from Eq. [4] and Vs /Vo from Eq.
[5] we come to the factorization of the rs value as
rs(w) ⫽ M(w) ⫻ r⬘s (w). [7]
Thus, the factor M ⱖ 1 of cylindrical samples with cracks plays
the part of a multiplicative correction to the inexact estimate
of rs⬘ from Eq. [5]. If the (macro)cracks in the samples are
absent, then M ⫽ 1.
An Approach for Estimating the Corrected rs Value
The advantages of presenting the rs concept in terms of soil
subsidence (⌬z ) and the volume change of a soil matrix (⌬V )
(Bronswijk, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991a, 1991b) are connected
with the simplicity of measuring the external sample dimen-
sions. We believe that presentation of the rs concept in terms
of the different shrinkage curves of a soil using Eq. [4] through
[6] permits one, possibly with some complication of measure-
ments, to more exactly estimate the rs value as a function of
soil moisture, accounting for the cracks in a sample. Equation
[7] suggests an approach for estimating the corrected rs value,
accounting for the disturbance of Assumption 2. Along with
the experimental shrinkage curves Vl(w ) and Vs(w ), the ap-
proach implies a knowledge of the shrinkage curve of the soil
matrix [V(w )]. The use of a physically modeled soil matrix
shrinkage curve for estimating the multiplicative correction
[M(w )] is the most convenient to experimentally illustrate the
approach. For the present, the corresponding model is only
for a pure-clay matrix (Chertkov, 2000, 2003). Therefore, we
used the case of a pure-clay matrix to experimentally illustrate
the estimation of the corrected rs value. It will be shown that
the corresponding shrinkage curves are qualitatively similar
to the curves in Fig. 2.
Summary of Chertkov’s (2000, 2003) Model
of a Clay Matrix Shrinkage Curve
In the form v(␨), where ␨ is the relative water content of
the clay, that is, the ratio of the current value of the gravimetric
water content to the maximum possible value (the liquid limit),
and v is the relative volume of drying clay, the shrinkage curve
of a clay matrix is presented as (Fig. 3)
 CHERTKOV ET AL.: SHRINKAGE GEOMETRY FACTOR 1811

Table 1. Physicochemical characteristics of the clay of two layers

of soil in Sarid, Israel.
Exchangeable cations
Sampling depth pH CEC† Ca 2ⴙ
Mg2ⴙ Kⴙ Naⴙ
Reproduced from Soil Science Society of America Journal. Published by Soil Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved.

cm cmolⴙ kg⫺1
0–60 7.7 84.6 65.2 15.0 2.4 1.9
† Cation exchange capacity.

clay matrix and its specific volume in oven-dried state (Vz)

using Eq. [11] and [12] at v ⫽ vz and ␨ ⫽ 1, respectively.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Clays and Their Physicochemical Characteristics
All data relate to clay (⬎95% of montmorillonite) extracted
Fig. 3. The general form of the shrinkage curve of a clay matrix [Chert-
by standard methods (Day, 1965) from samples of 0- to 30-cm
kov’s (2000) Fig. 2]. and 30- to 60-cm layers of soil in Sarid, Israel. The samples
were taken in the spring seasons of 2000–2003. The average
clay content of the soil layers was 52%. The pH values, ex-
v(␨) ⫽ changeable cations, and cation exchange capacity (CEC) of
 the clay were measured by standard methods (Chapman, 1965;
 Peech, 1965). In the obtained values of pH, exchangeable
vz, 0 ⱕ ␨ ⱕ ␨z cations, and CEC (Table 1), there was no significant difference
 between the two layers. The unit of a last decimal sign in
vz ⫹ (1 ⫺ vs)2 Table 1 determines the accuracy of the averages.
(␨ ⫺ ␨z)2, ␨z ⬍ ␨ ⱕ ␨ n
 4(vz ⫺ vs)(1 ⫺ Fz)
 Samples, Measured Parameters, Methods,
vs ⫹ (1 ⫺ vs)␨, ␨n ⬍ ␨ ⱕ 1 [8] and Data Presentation
 The clay paste, water saturated nearly to the liquid limit,
where vz and vs are indicated in Fig. 3, was placed in small metal containers of ≈1.5-cm height, ≈3.5-cm
diam. The sample measurements for the clays of 0- to 30-cm
vz ⫺ vs and 30- to 60-cm soil layers were conducted using four and
␨z ⫽ Fz [9]
1 ⫺ vs eight samples, respectively.
We measured three parameters of the clay itself and three
is the shrinkage limit of the clay matrix, Fz is the pore volume parameters of each clay sample. The former include the clay
fraction occupied by water at a water content corresponding particle density (␳s), the specific volume of oven-dried clay
to the shrinkage limit (␨z), and matrix, (Vz), and the liquid limit (wL). The latter include diame-
ter (d ), height (h ), and weight (m ) of a sample. The sample
(vz ⫺ vs)(2 ⫺ Fz) measurements for the clays of the 0- to 30-cm and 30- to 60-cm
␨n ⫽ [10]
1 ⫺ vs range were conducted for each sample once a day for 8 d with
subsequent oven drying, and twice a day for 13 d plus once
is the minimum water content in the normal shrinkage area for the 14th day with subsequent oven drying, respectively.
(air-entry point). Using an approach from Chertkov (2003), The ␳s density was measured by the standard pycnometer
one can estimate from vz and vs values the Fz and ␨z parameters method (Blake and Hartge, 1986). The liquid limit wL was
of the pure clay, and thereby express the shrinkage curve of measured by the ASTM method (American Society for Test-
v(␨) (Eq. [8]⫺[10]) through parameters vs and vz only. Then, ing and Materials, 1993). Observations showed that, after oven
one can recalculate the dependence v(␨) as the shrinkage curve drying, the clay samples contained no cracks that could be seen
of the clay matrix in the form V(w ) using the V ↔ v correspon- by the naked eye. On the basis of these observations for the
dency as clay under consideration, we took that the specific volume of
oven-dried clay matrix (Vz) coincides with that of the oven-dried
V ⫽ v/(vs␳s), [11]
sample (Vsz) (see Fig. 2, case Vz ⫽ Vsz). Therefore, the specific
and the w ↔ ␨ correspondency as volume Vz was determined as Vsz averaged by samples, that
is, using the oven-dried volumes and weights of all clay samples
(1 ⫺ vs) ␳w (see below). Table 2 shows the experimental values of ␳s, Vz,
w⫽ ␨ [12]
vs ␳s and wL, as well as the sample number (n1) and the number of
experimental points (n2) for each clay sample of both soil
where ␳w is the density of water, and ␳s is the density of depths. The standard deviation of the ␳s value is 0.05 g cm⫺3.
the solid phase. The ␳s, vs, and vz parameters can be found The unit of a last decimal sign determines the accuracy of
irrespective of the shrinkage curve. The density of clay parti- other values.
cles, ␳s, is measured by standard methods (Blake and Hartge, The clay samples in small metal containers slowly lost mois-
1986). For a clay, the minimum relative volume vz and the ture at 23⬚C and at ≈60% of the relative air humidity. The
relative volume vs of clay particles at the liquid limit, can be loss of water was measured by weighing the samples. In our
calculated from measured values of the liquid limit (wL) of the illustrative experiments we used the simplest means to mea-
 1812 SOIL SCI. SOC. AM. J., VOL. 68, NOVEMBER–DECEMBER 2004

Table 2. Experimental values of ␳s, Vz, and wL, the sample number (n1) and number of experimental points (n2) for each sample, and
the vs, vz, Fz, and ␨z values calculated based on Chertkov’s (2000, 2003) model for the clays of the 0- to 30-cm and 30- to 60-cm layers
of soil in Sarid, Israel, using experimental values of ␳s, Vz, and wL.
Experimental values Calculated values
Reproduced from Soil Science Society of America Journal. Published by Soil Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved.

Depth range ␳s Vz wL n1 n2 vs vz Fz ␨z
cm g cm⫺3 cm3
g⫺1 g g⫺ 1
0–30 2.70 0.5 0.89 4 9 0.29 0.40 0.84 0.14
30–60 2.70 0.5 0.91 8 28 0.28 0.39 0.83 0.14

sure clay sample dimensions. Slide calipers measured the sam- calculated from Eq. [8] through [12] the shrinkage curve of
ple diameter and height during drying. Except for that, the the clay matrix [V(w )] for two clays. In particular, we calcu-
loss of the sample volume after an initial shrinkage for 5 to lated the specific volume values of the clay matrix (V), at
6 d was sometimes for control determined by the displacement averaged w values (by four or eight samples) corresponding
of mercury as at shrinkage limit measurements (Das, 1979, p. to all nine or 28 consecutive measurements for clay from the
36–37). The data on diameter (d ), height (h ), and weight (m ) upper and lower soil layers, respectively.
of each sample at each measurement are presented in Table 3 The (9 or 28) V values found, together with corresponding
for the clay of the 0- to 30-cm soil layer, and Tables 4 and 5 Vl values from Eq. [14] gave the corrected value of the rs
for the clay of the 30- to 60-cm soil layer. As in Tables 1 and factor defined by Eq. [4] for a separate clay sample at a mea-
2, the unit of a last decimal sign determines the accuracy. surement as
Data Analysis rs ⫽ log(V/Vo)/log(Vl /Vo), [16]
Data from Tables 3, 4, and 5 on current diameter (d ), height where Vo ⫽ Vso/md. Similarly, the V values found, together
(h ), and weight (m ) of a sample were used for determining with corresponding Vs values from Eq. [15] gave the multiplica-
the gravimetric water content (w ) and specific volumes Vl tive correction M defined by Eq. [6] for a separate clay sample
and Vs (corresponding to Curves 2 and 3 in Fig. 2) for each
at a measurement as
sample and each measurement. The gravimetric water content
of each separate clay sample at measurements was deter- M ⫽ log(V/Vo)/log(Vs /Vo). [17]
mined by
Finally, the uncorrected r⬘s factor defined by Eq. [5] and
w ⫽ m/md ⫺ 1, [13]
used in Bronswijk’s approximation instead of the corrected rs
where m is the current sample weight and md is the oven-dried factor, corresponding to a separate clay sample at a measure-
weight of the sample. The specific volume of an unlimited clay ment, was determined as
layer with cracks (field conditions, Bronswijk’s approxima-
tion) (Vl) corresponding to a separate clay sample at a mea- r⬘s ⫽ log(Vs/Vso)/log(h/ho)
surement was determined as
⫽ log(d2h/d2oho)/log(h/ho). [18]
Vl ⫽ (Vso ⫺ ⌬h ⫻ ␲d /4)/md ⫽ ␲d h/(4md),
2
o
2
o [14]
where Vso is an initial sample volume; do is an initial sample
diameter; and ⌬h is a sample height decrease at the measure- RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
ment compared with initial height (ho). The specific volume of
clay samples with internal cracks (Vs) corresponding to a sepa- Table 2 shows the calculated values of clay matrix
rate clay sample at a measurement was determined by parameters vs, vz, Fz, and ␨z using the above data on ␳s,
Vs ⫽ Vs /md ⫽ ␲d2h/(4md), [15] wL, and Vz. The accuracy of the estimates is determined
by the unit of a last decimal sign (e.g., 0.01 for 0.83).
where Vs is a current sample volume for drying. Clay matrix shrinkage curves without cracks that were
The data from Table 2 on ␳s, Vz, and wL properties of the
clays of the two layers were used to find vs and vz parameters
predicted from Chertkov’s (2000, 2003) model (V and
of the clay matrix that determine its shrinkage curve from w values from Eq. [8]⫺[12]) using values vs, vz, ␳s, and
Chertkov’s (2000, 2003) model. Then, using the model and vs Fz from Table 2 are shown in Fig. 4 and 5 by solid lines.
and vz values, we found the Fz and ␨z values and eventually Fig. 4 and 5 also present the experimental points of
Table 3. Diameter, height values (measured by slide calipers), and weight values of the four clay-paste samples for the clay of the 0- to
30-cm layer of Sarid soil.
Sample diameter Sample height Sample weight
Measurement no.
(in a day) 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
cm g
1 (1st day) 3.22 3.38 3.20 3.32 1.37 1.19 1.42 1.21 18.27 17.15 18.69 15.93
2 (2nd day) 3.19 3.21 3.12 3.14 1.25 1.08 1.24 1.08 15.46 14.12 15.82 13.27
3 (3rd day) 2.94 2.89 2.84 2.82 1.15 0.95 1.19 0.98 13.48 11.88 13.66 11.12
4 (4th day) 2.71 2.67 2.69 2.67 1.05 0.89 1.09 0.91 11.98 10.77 12.16 10.05
5 (5th day) 2.65 2.66 2.62 2.66 1.04 0.89 1.09 0.90 11.44 10.58 11.67 9.85
6 (6th day) 2.64 2.66 2.60 2.66 1.03 0.89 1.08 0.90 11.40 10.57 11.63 9.82
7 (7th day) 2.61 2.65 2.59 2.64 1.02 0.88 1.06 0.89 11.31 10.52 11.55 9.81
8 (8th day) 2.61 2.65 2.58 2.64 1.02 0.88 1.06 0.89 11.30 10.51 11.55 9.81
9 (after oven) 2.52 2.59 2.48 2.55 1.01 0.88 1.05 0.88 9.88 9.19 10.12 8.59
 CHERTKOV ET AL.: SHRINKAGE GEOMETRY FACTOR 1813

Table 4. Diameter and height values (measured by slide calipers) of the eight clay-paste samples for the clay of the 30- to 60-cm layer
of Sarid soil.
Sample diameter Sample height
Measurement no.
(in a half day) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Reproduced from Soil Science Society of America Journal. Published by Soil Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved.

cm
1 (1st day) 3.24 3.32 3.12 3.17 3.03 3.38 3.29 3.96 1.31 1.14 1.35 1.14 1.14 1.33 1.31 1.39
2 3.23 3.29 3.11 3.15 3.00 3.35 3.28 3.94 1.21 1.05 1.24 1.01 1.03 1.22 1.18 1.25
3 (2nd day) 3.17 3.22 3.07 3.06 2.90 3.23 3.24 3.83 1.17 0.98 1.18 0.98 0.98 1.17 1.14 1.21
4 2.97 2.96 2.91 2.81 2.60 2.97 2.99 3.58 1.08 0.93 1.14 0.89 0.89 1.09 1.05 1.12
5 (3rd day) 2.89 2.83 2.79 2.72 2.53 2.87 2.89 3.44 1.06 0.88 1.09 0.86 0.86 1.03 1.01 1.07
6 2.74 2.72 2.63 2.58 2.48 2.73 2.75 3.22 1.00 0.84 1.03 0.83 0.81 0.95 0.97 1.02
7 (4th day) 2.65 2.67 2.58 2.56 2.47 2.67 2.72 3.16 0.99 0.83 1.01 0.81 0.81 0.93 0.95 1.01
8 2.63 2.66 2.56 2.55 2.46 2.66 2.70 3.13 0.96 0.82 0.99 0.80 0.81 0.92 0.94 0.98
9 (5th day) 2.62 2.65 2.57 2.55 2.45 2.66 2.70 3.12 0.96 0.82 0.99 0.80 0.81 0.92 0.94 0.98
10 2.61 2.64 2.55 2.54 2.44 2.65 2.69 3.11 0.95 0.81 0.98 0.79 0.80 0.92 0.94 0.98
11 (6th day) 2.61 2.64 2.55 2.54 2.44 2.65 2.69 3.10 0.95 0.81 0.98 0.79 0.80 0.91 0.93 0.98
12 2.60 2.65 2.54 2.54 2.44 2.65 2.69 3.10 0.95 0.80 0.98 0.79 0.80 0.91 0.93 0.97
13 (7th day) 2.59 2.64 2.53 2.53 2.43 2.64 2.69 3.09 0.93 0.80 0.97 0.79 0.79 0.91 0.92 0.96
14 2.57 2.63 2.53 2.52 2.43 2.63 2.67 3.07 0.92 0.79 0.96 0.79 0.79 0.91 0.92 0.96
15 (8th day) 2.57 2.63 2.53 2.52 2.43 2.63 2.67 3.07 0.92 0.79 0.96 0.79 0.79 0.91 0.92 0.96
16 2.56 2.62 2.52 2.51 2.42 2.62 2.66 3.06 0.91 0.79 0.96 0.78 0.79 0.91 0.91 0.96
17 (9th day) 2.55 2.62 2.51 2.50 2.42 2.61 2.65 3.04 0.91 0.79 0.96 0.77 0.78 0.91 0.91 0.96
18 2.54 2.61 2.50 2.50 2.41 2.61 2.64 3.04 0.90 0.79 0.96 0.76 0.78 0.91 0.91 0.96
19 (10th day) 2.53 2.60 2.50 2.50 2.40 2.61 2.64 3.04 0.90 0.78 0.95 0.76 0.78 0.91 0.91 0.95
20 2.52 2.60 2.49 2.50 2.40 2.61 2.63 3.04 0.90 0.77 0.95 0.76 0.77 0.91 0.91 0.94
21 (11th day) 2.52 2.60 2.48 2.50 2.39 2.60 2.63 3.02 0.90 0.77 0.95 0.76 0.77 0.91 0.91 0.94
22 2.51 2.60 2.47 2.50 2.39 2.59 2.62 3.02 0.90 0.77 0.95 0.75 0.77 0.91 0.91 0.94
23 (12th day) 2.51 2.60 2.46 2.50 2.39 2.59 2.62 3.02 0.89 0.77 0.95 0.75 0.77 0.91 0.91 0.94
24 2.51 2.60 2.46 2.49 2.39 2.59 2.62 3.02 0.89 0.76 0.95 0.75 0.77 0.90 0.90 0.94
25 (13th day) 2.51 2.60 2.46 2.49 2.39 2.59 2.62 3.02 0.89 0.76 0.95 0.75 0.77 0.90 0.90 0.94
26 2.51 2.60 2.46 2.49 2.39 2.59 2.62 3.02 0.89 0.76 0.94 0.75 0.77 0.90 0.90 0.94
27 (14th day) 2.50 2.59 2.44 2.47 2.39 2.59 2.62 3.01 0.88 0.76 0.94 0.75 0.77 0.90 0.90 0.93
28 (after oven) 2.48 2.56 2.44 2.46 2.37 2.57 2.61 2.99 0.88 0.76 0.93 0.75 0.75 0.88 0.89 0.92

the shrinkage curves of the unlimited clay layer with
cracks in Bronswijk’s approximation (asterisks) and lim-
ited clay samples with cracks (circles). The points corre-
spond to values of Vl from Eq. [14] (asterisks) and Vs
from Eq. [15] (circles) averaged at a given measurement
number, drying duration, and corresponding average
clay moisture, w, by four or eight samples for the clay
of 0- to 30-cm and 30- to 60-cm depths of the Sarid
soil, respectively.
Tables 6 and 7 give the values and standard deviations
for the averages by four or eight samples of w ⫾ ␦w
(Eq. [13]), Vl ⫾ ␦Vl (Eq. [14]), Vs ⫾ ␦Vs (Eq. [15]), V
(Eq. [8]–[12]), r⬘s ⫾ ␦r⬘s (Eq. [18]), M ⫾ ␦M (Eq. [17]),
and rs ⫾ ␦rs (Eq. [16]) at all measurements (9 or 28) for

Table 5. Weight values of the eight clay-paste samples for the clay of the 30- to 60-cm layer of Sarid soil.
Sample weight
Measurement no.
(in a half day) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
g
1 (1st day) 16.17 14.98 16.38 13.97 12.67 17.57 17.32 25.63
2 15.05 13.72 15.12 12.67 11.40 16.07 15.79 23.70
3 (2nd day) 14.24 12.86 14.27 11.85 10.55 15.10 14.79 22.37
4 12.76 11.12 12.68 10.16 8.81 13.16 12.83 19.68
5 (3rd day) 12.45 10.44 12.07 9.58 8.33 12.39 12.07 18.64
6 10.89 9.46 10.83 8.74 7.91 11.19 10.97 16.72
7 (4th day) 10.55 9.32 10.53 8.62 7.89 10.98 10.81 16.32
8 10.02 9.27 10.15 8.59 7.87 10.86 10.73 15.86
9 (5th day) 9.86 9.25 10.08 8.57 7.87 10.84 10.72 15.74
10 9.81 9.24 10.04 8.56 7.87 10.83 10.71 15.71
11 (6th day) 9.79 9.24 10.02 8.56 7.87 10.82 10.70 15.70
12 9.77 9.24 9.99 8.56 7.85 10.82 10.70 15.69
13 (7th day) 9.73 9.21 9.98 8.54 7.85 10.79 10.66 15.63
14 9.68 9.16 9.91 8.49 7.85 10.72 10.60 15.52
15 (8th day) 9.67 9.15 9.91 8.49 7.84 10.71 10.58 15.51
16 9.66 9.15 9.91 8.48 7.83 10.70 10.57 15.49
17 (9th day) 9.65 9.15 9.90 8.48 7.83 10.69 10.56 15.48
18 9.61 9.11 9.86 8.44 7.80 10.65 10.53 15.43
19 (10th day) 9.58 9.08 9.82 8.42 7.78 10.61 10.49 15.38
20 9.56 9.05 9.79 8.39 7.76 10.58 10.46 15.33
21 (11th day) 9.53 9.03 9.77 8.37 7.74 10.56 10.44 15.29
22 9.46 8.97 9.71 8.31 7.68 10.49 10.37 15.20
23 (12th day) 9.43 8.95 9.68 8.30 7.66 10.47 10.34 15.16
24 9.41 8.90 9.66 8.28 7.65 10.45 10.31 15.13
25 (13th day) 9.39 8.89 9.64 8.26 7.64 10.43 10.30 15.10
26 9.37 8.89 9.63 8.25 7.63 10.41 10.29 15.08
27 (14th day) 9.35 8.85 9.59 8.20 7.59 10.37 10.25 15.01
28 (after oven) 8.33 7.89 8.54 7.32 6.78 9.23 9.14 13.40
 1814 SOIL SCI. SOC. AM. J., VOL. 68, NOVEMBER–DECEMBER 2004
points are worth noting in connection with the results
presented in Fig. 4 and 5 and Tables 6 and 7.
Reproduced from Soil Science Society of America Journal. Published by Soil Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved.
Fig. 5. As in Fig. 4 for the 30- to 60-cm depths, asterisks denote
the experimental specific volume of an unlimited clay layer in
Bronswijk’s approximation, circles denote the experimental spe-
cific volume of clay samples with cracks, and the solid line repre-
sents the predicted specific volume of a clay matrix without cracks.
Figures near experimental points correspond to the measurement
numbers in Tables 4, 5, and 7.
the clay of the two layers of Sarid soil. Here ␦w, ␦Vl,
and so on mean corresponding standard deviations.
Note that the number of significant figures of the pre-
dicted V values in Tables 6 and 7 changes in connection
with that of the experimental Vl and Vs values and their
standard deviations. Note also that within the limits of
the standard deviations the relation rs ⫽ M ⫻ rs⬘ (Eq. [7])
is fulfilled for values of rs, M, and rs⬘ averaged by four
(Table 6) and eight (Table 7) samples. A number of
Fig. 4. The experimental specific volume of an unlimited clay layer
(asterisks) including cracks, Vl (field conditions, Bronswijk’s ap-
proximation when the layer before drying is composed of unconnec-
ted anisotropically shrinking cubes), and clay samples (circles) in-
cluding cracks, Vs, and the specific volume of a clay matrix without
cracks (solid line), V predicted from Chertkov (2000, 2003) using
data on ␳s, Vz, and wL (Table 2) for the clay of 0- to 30-cm depths
of soil in Sarid, Israel. The inclined straight line is a 1:1 theoretical.
Figures near experimental points correspond to the measurement
numbers in Tables 3 and 6.
(i) Experimentally obtained and predicted shrinkage
curves (Fig. 4 and 5) for a clay layer with cracks
(asterisks, Vl), clay samples with cracks (circles,
Vs), and a clay matrix without cracks (solid curve,
V), are qualitatively similar to corresponding ex-
perimental curves from Hallaire’s (1984) Fig. 2
for an aggregated clay soil (clay fraction is 52 to
56%) and to the general schematic presentation
of similar curves in Fig. 2 (in our experiments,
cracks in clay paste samples closed at w ⫽ 0; that
is, Vsz ⫽ Vz in Fig. 2).
(ii) Results for the clay samples presented in Tables
6 and 7 show that the above-suggested approach
allows one to experimentally estimate the shrink-
age geometry factor before correction (r⬘s ) at a
given soil moisture (w) as well as the correspond-
ing multiplicative correction (M) of the clay layer
with developing cracking. Qualitative similarity
between experimental and predicted curves in
Fig. 4 and 5, on the one hand, and experimental
curves in Hallaire’s (1984) Fig. 2 for an aggregated
clay soil, on the other hand, permits one to assume
a real possibility of using the approach for a gen-
eral case of aggregated soil as well.
(iii) Results for the clay samples presented in Tables
6 and 7 show that, unlike in Assumption 3, the
variation of the shrinkage geometry factor before
and after correction, r⬘s and rs, respectively, with
water content (w) is out of the limits of the stan-
dard deviations ␦r⬘s and ␦rs, that is, statistically
significant in the essential part of the water con-
tent range (0.15–0.2 g g⫺1 ⱕ w ⱕ wL ≈ 0.85–0.9 g
g⫺1). Qualitative similarity between experimental
and predicted curves in Fig. 4 and 5, on the one
hand, and experimental curves in Hallaire’s (1984)
Fig. 2 for an aggregated clay soil, on the other
hand, permit one to assume that the effect of r⬘s
and rs variation with water content will also take
place for aggregated soils, although they already
contain interaggregate cracks before drying.
(iv) Results for the clay samples presented in Tables
6 and 7 show that, unlike in Assumption 2, a differ-
ence between the multiplicative correction (M)
to the uncorrected shrinkage geometry factor (rs⬘)
and unity is out of the limits of the standard devia-
tions (␦M), that is, statistically significant. Except
for that, the difference varies in practically the
total range of water content. The qualitative simi-
larity that was used in the above points (ii) and
(iii) also permit us to assume here that the effects
of M ⬎ 1 and M ⫽ M(w) will also take place for
aggregated soils. With that, interaggregate cracks
and pores should increase these effects for aggre-
gated soils.
(v) Thus, the results presented in Tables 6 and 7 and
Fig. 4 and 5 show the necessity and practical possi-
bility of considering the rs factor as a function of
soil moisture and introducing to the factor the
 CHERTKOV ET AL.: SHRINKAGE GEOMETRY FACTOR 1815

Table 6. Experimental estimates averaged by the four samples and standard deviations of the gravimetric water content (w ), specific
volumes of unlimited cracked clay-paste layer in Bronswijk’s approximation (Vl) and cracked clay paste samples (Vs), and rⴕs , M, and
rs factors, as well as the model-predicted specific volume of the clay matrix (V) for the drying clay of the 0- to 30-cm layer of Sarid soil.
Measurement no.
Reproduced from Soil Science Society of America Journal. Published by Soil Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved.

(in a day) w Vl Vs V rⴕs factor M factor rs factor

g g⫺ 1 cm3 g⫺1
1 (1st day) 0.854 ⫾ 0.004 1.16 ⫾ 0.02 1.16 ⫾ 0.02 1.18 1 1 1
2 (2nd day) 0.552 ⫾ 0.007 1.04 ⫾ 0.02 0.97 ⫾ 0.02 0.90 1.7 ⫾ 0.2 1.4 ⫾ 0.2 2.3 ⫾ 0.2
3 (3rd day) 0.32 ⫾ 0.02 0.95 ⫾ 0.01 0.73 ⫾ 0.02 0.68 2.3 ⫾ 0.1 1.2 ⫾ 0.1 2.7 ⫾ 0.1
4 (4th day) 0.19 ⫾ 0.01 0.88 ⫾ 0.01 0.59 ⫾ 0.02 0.54 2.24 ⫾ 0.08 1.14 ⫾ 0.05 2.76 ⫾ 0.05
5 (5th day) 0.152 ⫾ 0.002 0.87 ⫾ 0.01 0.57 ⫾ 0.01 0.51 2.52 ⫾ 0.05 1.17 ⫾ 0.03 2.93 ⫾ 0.04
6 (6th day) 0.149 ⫾ 0.002 0.87 ⫾ 0.01 0.564 ⫾ 0.009 0.506 2.51 ⫾ 0.05 1.15 ⫾ 0.02 2.90 ⫾ 0.04
7 (7th day) 0.1435 ⫾ 0.0008 0.86 ⫾ 0.01 0.549 ⫾ 0.008 0.503 2.50 ⫾ 0.04 1.12 ⫾ 0.02 2.79 ⫾ 0.03
8 (8th day) 0.1427 ⫾ 0.0006 0.86 ⫾ 0.01 0.550 ⫾ 0.008 0.503 2.49 ⫾ 0.04 1.12 ⫾ 0.02 2.79 ⫾ 0.03
9 (after oven) 0 0.85 ⫾ 0.01 0.510 ⫾ 0.005 0.500 2.68 ⫾ 0.03 1.02 ⫾ 0.01 2.74 ⫾ 0.03

multiplicative correction M that is connected with uted cracks coincides with the subsidence of a modeled
accounting for possible (macro)cracks in soil sam- soil layer composed of unconnected water-saturated
ples to be used for experimental estimation of the cubes that shrink with drying along the vertical and two
rs factor. lateral axes as isolated deformable solids without cracks;
(ii) cracks do not appear and develop in drying soil sam-
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ples; and (iii) the rs factor does not depend on soil
moisture.
The shrinkage geometry factor (rs) (Bronswijk, 1990)
Then we introduce a new presentation and generaliza-
determines the relation between variations of soil subsi-
dence and the total crack volume in field conditions tion of the rs factor, using the different shrinkage curves
with water content, or the relation between the vertical of a soil for unlimited cracked layer (field conditions)
and lateral shrinkage of cylindrical soil samples without and for the limited sample with cracks. The use of the
(macro)cracks. Both of these aspects of the rs factor presentation, together with available data, shows that
have applications (Baer and Anderson, 1997; Garnier the above assumptions implicitly introduced in the theo-
et al., 1997a, 1997b). retical and experimental determination of the rs factor
Bronswijk’s (1988, 1989, 1990, 1991a, 1991b) model cannot be exactly fulfilled in real conditions. Using the
and measurement method are in fact based on three new presentation and generalization of the rs factor, we
implicit assumptions. We formulate these assumptions suggest an approach for correcting the approximated
explicitly. They are as follows: (i) In similar conditions, r⬘s values in connection with the disturbance of the sec-
the subsidence of a real connected soil layer with distrib- ond assumption. Addressing a correction of the approxi-
Table 7. Experimental estimates averaged by the eight samples and standard deviations of the gravimetric water content (w ), specific
volumes of unlimited cracked clay-paste layer in Bronswijk’s approximation (Vl) and cracked clay paste samples (Vs), and rⴕs , M, and
rs factors, as well as the model predicted specific volume of the clay matrix (V) for the drying clay of the 30- to 60-cm layer of Sarid soil.
Measurement no.
(in a half day) w Vl Vs V rⴕs factor M factor rs factor
g g⫺ 1 cm3 g⫺1
1 (1st day) 0.906 ⫾ 0.007 1.25 ⫾ 0.01 1.25 ⫾ 0.01 1.26 1 1 1
2 0.75 ⫾ 0.01 1.13 ⫾ 0.02 1.12 ⫾ 0.02 1.10 1.13 ⫾ 0.02 1.2 ⫾ 0.1 1.4 ⫾ 0.2
3 (2nd day) 0.64 ⫾ 0.02 1.09 ⫾ 0.02 1.02 ⫾ 0.02 0.99 1.44 ⫾ 0.06 1.20 ⫾ 0.09 1.7 ⫾ 0.1
4 0.43 ⫾ 0.02 1.01 ⫾ 0.02 0.81 ⫾ 0.02 0.78 2.02 ⫾ 0.06 1.13 ⫾ 0.07 2.3 ⫾ 0.1
5 (3rd day) 0.35 ⫾ 0.03 0.97 ⫾ 0.02 0.73 ⫾ 0.02 0.70 2.13 ⫾ 0.04 1.08 ⫾ 0.06 2.3 ⫾ 0.1
6 0.22 ⫾ 0.02 0.92 ⫾ 0.01 0.63 ⫾ 0.01 0.57 2.26 ⫾ 0.02 1.13 ⫾ 0.04 2.54 ⫾ 0.09
7 (4th day) 0.20 ⫾ 0.01 0.90 ⫾ 0.01 0.60 ⫾ 0.01 0.55 2.31 ⫾ 0.03 1.11 ⫾ 0.03 2.56 ⫾ 0.09
8 0.179 ⫾ 0.004 0.89 ⫾ 0.01 0.579 ⫾ 0.008 0.53 2.28 ⫾ 0.02 1.12 ⫾ 0.02 2.55 ⫾ 0.06
9 (5th day) 0.174 ⫾ 0.002 0.89 ⫾ 0.01 0.577 ⫾ 0.009 0.52 2.29 ⫾ 0.02 1.13 ⫾ 0.02 2.58 ⫾ 0.06
10 0.172 ⫾ 0.002 0.88 ⫾ 0.01 0.568 ⫾ 0.008 0.52 2.29 ⫾ 0.02 1.11 ⫾ 0.02 2.54 ⫾ 0.05
11 (6th day) 0.171 ⫾ 0.002 0.88 ⫾ 0.01 0.566 ⫾ 0.008 0.52 2.28 ⫾ 0.03 1.11 ⫾ 0.02 2.52 ⫾ 0.06
12 0.169 ⫾ 0.002 0.88 ⫾ 0.01 0.564 ⫾ 0.008 0.52 2.27 ⫾ 0.02 1.10 ⫾ 0.02 2.51 ⫾ 0.06
13 (7th day) 0.166 ⫾ 0.001 0.873 ⫾ 0.009 0.556 ⫾ 0.007 0.517 2.26 ⫾ 0.02 1.09 ⫾ 0.02 2.46 ⫾ 0.04
14 0.1597 ⫾ 0.0005 0.869 ⫾ 0.008 0.549 ⫾ 0.006 0.512 2.27 ⫾ 0.02 1.09 ⫾ 0.01 2.46 ⫾ 0.03
15 (8th day) 0.1589 ⫾ 0.0006 0.869 ⫾ 0.008 0.549 ⫾ 0.006 0.512 2.27 ⫾ 0.02 1.09 ⫾ 0.01 2.46 ⫾ 0.03
16 0.1585 ⫾ 0.0009 0.865 ⫾ 0.008 0.542 ⫾ 0.005 0.511 2.27 ⫾ 0.02 1.07 ⫾ 0.01 2.44 ⫾ 0.03
17 (9th day) 0.1576 ⫾ 0.0007 0.862 ⫾ 0.009 0.537 ⫾ 0.006 0.511 2.28 ⫾ 0.03 1.06 ⫾ 0.01 2.42 ⫾ 0.04
18 0.1530 ⫾ 0.0005 0.860 ⫾ 0.009 0.533 ⫾ 0.005 0.508 2.29 ⫾ 0.03 1.06 ⫾ 0.01 2.42 ⫾ 0.04
19 (10th day) 0.1492 ⫾ 0.0005 0.856 ⫾ 0.009 0.529 ⫾ 0.005 0.506 2.28 ⫾ 0.03 1.05 ⫾ 0.01 2.40 ⫾ 0.04
20 0.1458 ⫾ 0.0005 0.852 ⫾ 0.009 0.525 ⫾ 0.005 0.504 2.27 ⫾ 0.03 1.05 ⫾ 0.01 2.38 ⫾ 0.04
21 (11th day) 0.1431 ⫾ 0.0005 0.852 ⫾ 0.009 0.523 ⫾ 0.005 0.503 2.28 ⫾ 0.03 1.04 ⫾ 0.01 2.38 ⫾ 0.04
22 0.1354 ⫾ 0.0005 0.85 ⫾ 0.01 0.520 ⫾ 0.005 0.50 2.29 ⫾ 0.03 1.04 ⫾ 0.01 2.39 ⫾ 0.04
23 (12th day) 0.1326 ⫾ 0.0006 0.85 ⫾ 0.01 0.518 ⫾ 0.004 0.50 2.29 ⫾ 0.03 1.04 ⫾ 0.01 2.38 ⫾ 0.05
24 0.1297 ⫾ 0.0006 0.846 ⫾ 0.009 0.516 ⫾ 0.004 0.500 2.28 ⫾ 0.03 1.04 ⫾ 0.01 2.36 ⫾ 0.04
25 (13th day) 0.1277 ⫾ 0.0004 0.846 ⫾ 0.009 0.516 ⫾ 0.004 0.500 2.28 ⫾ 0.03 1.04 ⫾ 0.01 2.36 ⫾ 0.04
26 0.1263 ⫾ 0.0004 0.845 ⫾ 0.009 0.515 ⫾ 0.004 0.500 2.27 ⫾ 0.03 1.03 ⫾ 0.01 2.35 ⫾ 0.04
27 (14th day) 0.1215 ⫾ 0.0005 0.843 ⫾ 0.008 0.510 ⫾ 0.005 0.500 2.28 ⫾ 0.03 1.02 ⫾ 0.01 2.33 ⫾ 0.04
28 (after oven) 0 0.834 ⫾ 0.008 0.498 ⫾ 0.005 0.500 2.28 ⫾ 0.03 1.00 ⫹ 0.01 2.27 ⫾ 0.03
 1816 SOIL SCI. SOC. AM. J., VOL. 68, NOVEMBER–DECEMBER 2004
mated r⬘s values in connection with the disturbance of
the first assumption is beyond the scope of this work.
Finally, we consider an experimental example relating
to clay samples to illustrate the approach for finding
Reproduced from Soil Science Society of America Journal. Published by Soil Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved.
the corrected rs values and variation of the latter with
water content. This example is the simplest and most
convenient because of the absence of interaggregate
pores in the pure-clay matrix and the possibility to use
an available model for the shrinkage curve of a clay
matrix without cracks. At the same time, the qualitative
similarity between the different shrinkage curves that
we obtained for clay samples and the shrinkage curves
that are available for an aggregated clay soil enable one
to assume that effects of the rs factor observed on clay
samples in connection with disturbing the second and
third assumptions should also be statistically significant
for the general case of an aggregated soil. That is, for
an aggregated soil the rs value should, even if weakly
but statistically significantly, depend on the soil mois-
ture, and the suggested approach for finding the cor-
rected rs values should be applicable.
The more precise definition and determination of the
shrinkage geometry factor are important for the model-
ing hydraulic properties of swelling soils in the light of
results from Garnier et al. (1997a, 1997b). We continue
this research to address the finding of corrected rs values
in connection with the disturbance of the first assumption.
APPENDIX
Notation
d clay sample diameter, cm
do initial diameter of the clay paste sample, cm
Fz saturation degree of a clay matrix at ␨ ⫽ ␨z, dimen-
sionless
h clay sample height, cm
ho initial height of the clay paste sample, cm
M multiplicative correction to the r⬘s value, dimensionless
m weight of the clay paste sample, g
md oven-dried weight of the clay paste sample, g
rs shrinkage geometry factor, dimensionless
rs⬘ approximated or uncorrected value of rs, dimensionless
V initial layer volume in Bronswijk’s model, cm3
Vs current sample volume for drying, cm3
Vso initial volume of the clay paste sample, cm3
V specific volume of a soil matrix without cracks, cm3 g⫺1
Vo initial specific volume of a soil matrix, cm3 g⫺1
Vcr.l specific crack volume in a soil layer, cm3 g⫺1
Vcr.s specific volume of (macro)cracks in a soil sample, cm3
g⫺1
Vl specific volume of the soil layer with cracks, cm3 g⫺1
Vlz specific volume of the soil layer with cracks at w ⫽ 0,
cm3 g⫺1
Vs specific volume of soil sample with cracks, cm3 g⫺1
Vsz specific volume of the oven-dried soil sample with
cracks, cm3 g⫺1
Vz specific volume of the oven-dried soil matrix without
cracks, cm3 g⫺1
v relative volume of drying clay without cracks, dimen-
sionless
vs relative volume of clay particles at the liquid limit,
dimensionless
vz relative clay volume in the oven-dried state,
dimensionless
w soil water content, g g⫺1
wo initial water content of a clay sample close to the liquid
limit, g g⫺1
liquid limit of the clay paste, g g⫺1
wL
x lateral size of a cube of initial z3 volume in Bronswijk’s
model, cm
y lateral size of a cube of initial z3 volume in Bronswijk’s
model, cm
z initial soil layer thickness in Bronswijk’s model, cm
⌬h height decrease of the clay sample at drying, cm
⌬V layer volume decrease for drying in Bronswijk’s model,
cm3
⌬Vcr contribution of the total crack volume to ⌬V, cm3
⌬Vlat contribution of the lateral deformation of the solid
sample to ⌬V, cm3
⌬Vsub contribution of the layer subsidence to ⌬V, cm3
⌬z decrease in z for drying in Bronswijk’s model, cm⫺3
␦M standard deviation of the averaged M value,
dimensionless
␦rs standard deviation of the averaged rs value,
dimensionless
␦r⬘s standard deviation of the averaged r⬘s value,
dimensionless
␦Vl standard deviation of the averaged Vl value, cm3 g⫺1
␦Vs standard deviation of the averaged Vs value, cm3 g⫺1
␦w standard deviation of the averaged w value, g g⫺1
␨ relative water content of the clay (w/wL), dimensionless
␨n minimum clay water content in the normal shrinkage
area, dimensionless
␨z shrinkage limit of the clay in terms of ␨, dimensionless
␳s clay particle density, g cm⫺3
␳w density of water, g cm⫺3
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research was supported in part by the Technion Water
Research Institute. The constructive criticism of the reviewers
is gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
Aitchison, G.D., and J.W. Holmes. 1953. Aspects of swelling in the
soil profile. Aust. J. Appl. Sci. 4:244–259.
American Society for Testing and Materials. 1993. Standard test
method for liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index for soils
(D4318). p. 554–563. In 1993 Annual Book of ASTM Standards.
Vol. 4, Sect. 08. ASTM, Philadelphia.
Baer, J.U., and S.H. Anderson. 1997. Landscape effects on desiccation
cracking in an aqualf. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 61:1497–1502.
Blake, G.R., and K.H. Hartge. 1986. Particle density. p. 377–382. In
A. Klute (ed.) Methods of soil analysis. Part 1. 2nd ed. Agron.
Monogr. 9. ASA and SSSA, Madison, WI.
Bronswijk, J.J.B. 1988. Modeling of water balance, cracking and subsi-
dence of clay soils. J. Hydrol. (Amsterdam) 97:199–212.
Bronswijk, J.J.B. 1989. Prediction of actual cracking and subsidence
in clay soils. Soil Sci. 148:87–93.
Bronswijk, J.J.B. 1990. Shrinkage geometry of a heavy clay soil at
various stresses. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 54:1500–1502.
Bronswijk, J.J.B. 1991a. Relation between vertical soil movements
and water-content changes in cracking clays. Soil Sci. Soc. Am.
J. 55:1220–1226.
Bronswijk, J.J.B. 1991b. Drying, cracking, and subsidence of a clay
soil in a lysimeter. Soil Sci. 152(2):92–99.
Chapman, H.D. 1965. Cation-exchange capacity. p. 891–901. In C.A.
Black et al. (ed.) Methods of soil analysis. Part 2. Agron. Monogr.
9. ASA, Madison, WI.
Chertkov, V.Y. 2000. Modeling the pore structure and shrinkage curve
of soil clay matrix. Geoderma 95:215–246.
Chertkov, V.Y. 2003. Modelling the shrinkage curve of a soil clay
pastes. Geoderma 112(1–2):71–95.
 CHERTKOV ET AL.: SHRINKAGE GEOMETRY FACTOR
Das, B.M. 1979. Introduction to soil mechanics. Iowa State University
Press, Ames.
Day, P.B. 1965. Particle fractionation and particle-size analysis. p.
545–567. In C.A. Black et al. (ed.) Methods of soil analysis. Part
1—Physical and mineralogical properties. Agron. Monogr. 9. ASA,
Reproduced from Soil Science Society of America Journal. Published by Soil Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved.
Madison, WI.
Fox, W.E. 1964. A study of bulk density and water in a swelling soil.
Soil Sci. 98:307–316.
Garnier, P., E. Perrier, R. Angulo-Jaramillo, and P. Baveye. 1997a.
Numerical model of 3-dimensional anisotropic deformation and
1-dimensional water flow in swelling soils. Soil Sci. 162(6):410–420.
Garnier, P., M. Rieu, P. Boivin, M. Vauclin, and P. Baveye. 1997b.
Determining the hydraulic properties of a swelling soil from a
transient evaporation experiment. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 61:1555–
1563.
Hallaire, V. 1984. Evolution of crack networks during shrinkage of
1817
a clay soil under grass and winter wheat crops. p. 49–53. In J.
Bouma and P.A.C. Raats (ed.) Proc. ISSS Symp. on water and
solute movement in heavy clay soils. ILRI, Wageningen, the Neth-
erlands.
Hillel, D. 1998. Environmental soil physics. Academic Press, New
York.
Landau, L.D., and E.M. Lifshitz. 1986. Theory of elasticity. Perga-
mon, Oxford.
Peech, M. 1965. Hydrogen-ion activity. p. 914–926. In C.A. Black et
al. (ed.) Methods of soil analysis. Part 2. Agron. Monogr. 9. ASA,
Madison, WI.
Rijniersce, K. 1983. A simulation model for physical soil ripening
in the Ijsselmeerpolders. Rijksdienst Voor de Ijsselmeerpolders.
Lelystad, the Netherlands.
Zein el Abedine, A., and G.H. Robinson. 1971. A study on cracking
in some vertisols of the Sudan. Geoderma 5:229–241.