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

net/publication/269195415

Evolution of Foundation Design for Expansive Soils

Conference Paper · November 2006

DOI: 10.1061/40890(219)4

CITATIONS READS
4 200

3 authors, including:

John D. Nelson Kuo Chieh Chao

Colorado State University Asian Institute of Technology
96 PUBLICATIONS 788 CITATIONS 73 PUBLICATIONS 378 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Foundation failure on Collapsible Soil View project

Expansive Soils View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kuo Chieh Chao on 11 December 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Evolution of Foundation Design for Expansive Soils

John D. Nelson, Ph.D., P.E. F.ASCE 1

Daniel D. Overton, P.E. M.ASCE 2
Kuo-Chieh Chao, P.E. M.ASCE 3
1
Professor, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521; and Corporate
Consultant, Tetra Tech/MFG, Inc., 3801 Automation Way, Suite 100, Fort Collins,
Colorado 80525; PH (970) 223-9600; FAX (970) 223-7171; email:
clovrblm@ezlink.com
2
Senior Geotechnical Engineer, Tetra Tech/MFG, Inc., 3801 Automation Way, Suite
100, Fort Collins, Colorado 80525; PH (970) 223-9600; FAX (970) 223-7171;
email: dan.overton@mfgenv.com
3
Senior Geotechnical Engineer, Tetra Tech/MFG, Inc., 3801 Automation Way, Suite
100, Fort Collins, Colorado 80525; PH (970) 223-9600; FAX (970) 223-7171;
email: geoff.chao@mfgenv.com

Abstract

Over 200 geotechnical reports that provided recommendations for design of

foundations on expansive soils were reviewed and pertinent data was compiled into a
database. These reports were prepared for single family residences from the years of
1978 to 2005. This database was used to evaluate the depth of exploratory borings,
maximum depth of testing of laboratory samples, pier length, and floor type versus
time. This data represents the standard of practice based on reports from a wide
range of different geotechnical engineers. It was used to quantify the changes in
foundation design practices on expansive soils over the last 27 years.

The depth of exploratory borings has not increased significantly from 1978 to 2005.
However, the maximum depth of testing of laboratory samples has generally
increased from 10 ft (3.0 m) in 1995 to 28 ft (8.5 m) in 2005. The length of piers has
generally increased from 10 ft (3.0 m) in 1979 to 36 ft (11.0 m) in 2005. The floor
types were nearly all slab-on-grade from 1979 to 1988. However, since 1988, there
has been an increase in the use of structural floors and slab-on-grade floors with over-
excavation. In 2000, about 20% of the floors were slab-on-grade floors with over-
excavation and about 70% of the floors were structural floors.

1
The data of the evolution of foundation design on expansive soils is presented in the
paper and the reasons for the changing foundations systems are discussed.

Introduction

The design of foundations on expansive soils in the Front Range area of Colorado has
evolved greatly in the past 30 years. In the 1970s, it was common practice to use pier
and grade beam foundations with slab-on-grade floors. Seldom were structural floors
recommended or constructed. Pier lengths were generally determined in accordance
with the depth of “active zone.” Engineers have attempted to determine the active
zone depth using different definitions. The active zone is defined by Nelson, Overton
and Durkee in 2001 as zone of soil that is contributing to heave due to soil expansion
at any particular time (Nelson, et. al., 2001). Colorado Association of Geotechnical
Engineers (CAGE) indicated that the active zone was considered to be about 5 ft (1.5
m) in the 1970s (CAGE, 1999). This generally resulted in piers on the order of 10 ft
(3.0 m) in length. There were very few computations performed for design of slabs
or pier length.

In the 1980s, a methodology was published for prediction of slab heave (Fredlund
1980, 1983) and a methodology was published for predicting pier lengths by Fu Hua
Chen (Hon. M., ASCE) (Chen, 1988). The active zone was considered to be about 6
ft (1.8 m) to 10 ft (3.0 m) in the 1980s (CAGE, 1999). Even then, there were few
computations actually performed for design but pier lengths increased somewhat.
Little evaluation occurred in the general design of foundations on expansive soil to
this point in time.

In the 1990s, a methodology for slab and pier heave prediction was published. Also,
soil suction methods were being introduced. The depth of active zone was increased
to be on the order of 20 ft (6.1 m) in the late 1990s (CAGE, 1999). A large litigation
case in Highlands Ranch, Colorado brought forth a magnitude of public awareness
and changes in foundation design. As a result, structural wood floors in basements
became commonplace and pier lengths increased significantly.

Now in the 21st century, we are finding that pier lengths of 25 ft (7.6 m) or more are
commonplace. The depth of potential heave and depth of wetting are being debated.
Review of soils reports indicate that structural floors have evolved from wood to steel
and concrete. Innovative alternative foundation systems are being introduced.

Heave Prediction Methodology Using the Oedometer Method

Heave prediction methodologies were first developed in the late 1950s, and
originated as an extension of methods used to estimate volume changes due to
settlement in saturated soils using results of one-dimensional oedometer
(consolidation) tests. Heave prediction methodologies have been refined
continuously as knowledge and understanding of unsaturated soil behavior has

2
increased. Taylor (1948) proposed a mathematical model describing settlement of a
layer of saturated soil. Jennings and Knight (1957) first proposed the extension of
settlement theory to heave prediction using oedometer tests. Salas and Serratosa
(1957) presented the oedometer heave prediction model in terms of the logarithmic
pressure, and incorporated the “swelling pressure” of a soil into the equation. Their
equation was of the same form as that presented by Taylor (1948). The “swelling
pressure” of a soil was first defined by Palit (1953), as the pressure in an oedometer
test required to prevent a soil sample from swelling after being saturated. Fredlund
(1980) set forth the theoretical framework to include soil suction in the prediction of
heave. In 1983, Fredlund proposed the modern form of the heave prediction equation
for oedometer tests. Fredlund and Rahardjo (1993) also published a heave prediction
methodology based on Fredlund (1983). Chen (1988), a prominent practicing
geotechnical engineer in Denver, Colorado, referenced the method presented in
Fredlund (1983) and presented an example of its use to predict heave. The evolution
of heave prediction methodologies using oedometer tests has been largely related to
determination of the index parameter used in the heave equation. Burland (1962) first
proposed using the slope of the rebound portion of the consolidation-swell curve.
Fredlund and Rahardjo (1993) indicated that the slope of the unloading curve from
consolidation-swell tests is approximately the same as the slope of the rebound curve
determined from constant-volume tests. Porter and Nelson (1980) compared the test
results of the constant volume (controlled strain) test to those of the consolidation-
swell test. Fredlund’s method (Fredlund, 1983; Chen, 1988; Fredlund and Rahardjo,
1993) and the method presented in Nelson and Miller (1992) used test results from
both the consolidation-swell test and the constant volume test to determine the index
parameter. The method presented in Nelson and Miller (1992) uses the same
equation as Fredlund (1983). Feng, Gan, and Fredlund (1998) presented a thorough
comparison of swell pressure as determined by different oedometer test methods.
Nelson et al. (1998) and Bonner (1998) presented a method of estimating the index
parameter using test results from commercial soil testing laboratories when data for
the rebound curve and constant volume data is not available. Bonner (1998)
presented observations based on measurements taken in over one hundred homes to
investigate the accuracy of the method. This methodology was expanded on by
Nelson, Reichler, and Cumbers (2006).

Exploration and Testing

The depth of exploration for geotechnical borings on expansive soil sites was
reviewed to determine if any trend existed for the depth of borings versus time. The
depth of boring versus time is shown in Figure 1, and indicates that the depth of
borings ranges from 10 ft (3.0 m) to 45 ft (13.7 m) from 1978 to 2005. However, the
data presented in Figure 1 does not appear to show an obvious trend. The data was
replotted with an average depth of exploration for each year and a trend line based on
moving average for a three year period as shown in Figure 2. Figure 2 indicates that
in general the depth of borings decreased from 1979 to 1992 and then increased from
1992 to 2005. This general decrease in boring depth from 1984 to 1992 correlates
with the time period that the geotechnical practice changed to include drilling of

3
every lot of a subdivision in response to Senate Bill 13 (C.R.S. 6-6.5-101) that was
adopted in 1984.

The data of maximum depth from which samples were tested versus time are
presented in Figure 3. This data also does not appear to show an obvious trend, but
when the data is plotted with a three year moving average as shown in Figure 4, the
data indicates an obvious increase in the depth from which samples were tested from
1994 to 2005. Prior to 1994 many samples were tested from a depth of less than 10 ft
(3.0 m), which is above the elevation of the footings in a residence with a full
basement. The value of these tests for foundation design on expansive soils is
limited. However, since 1994 the average maximum depth of testing of laboratory
samples has increased from 10 ft (3.0 m) to 28 ft (8.5 m) in 2005. The depth that
samples were tested began to increase starting in 1994 possibly due to the publication
of additional methodologies for prediction of heave that recognized the contribution
of heave from deeper soils (Nelson and Miller, 1992; Thompson, 1992a, 1992b;
Fredlund, 1993; Colorado Association of Geotechnical Engineers, 1996).

50

45
Depth of Exploratory Boring (ft)

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Year
Figure 1. Depth of Exploration versus Time

4
 50

45 Avg. Depth of Exploratory Boring

Avg. Depth of Exploratory Boring (ft)
40 Mov. Avg. Trendline for Avg. Depth of Exploratory Boring

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005
Year

Figure 2. Moving Average of Depth of Exploration versus Time

50

45
Max. Depth of Sample Tested (ft)

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Year
Figure 3. Maximum Depth of Sample Tested versus Time

5
 50

Avg. Max. Depth of Sample Tested (ft) 45

Avg. Max. Depth of Sample Tested
40
Mov. Avg. Trendline for Max. Depth of Sample Tested
35

30

25

20

15

10

0
1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005
Year
Figure 4. Moving Average of Maximum Depth of Sample Tested versus Time

Floor Types

In the 1960s it was recognized that slab-on-grade floors in basements were heaving
and designs began to incorporate a structural floor over a crawl space. However,
during this time period basement floors were most commonly used for storage and
mechanical rooms and thus, slab-on-grade floors were typically designed and
constructed. With the popularity of walkout and garden level basements, basements
were more commonly finished for living space in the 1980s. Heave of slab-on-grade
floors in the living spaces was more problematic than if the space was not finished.

Almost all of the soils reports in our data base from 1979 to 1988 recommend slab-
on-grade floors that are isolated from the structure. However, the soils reports also
included language regarding the risk of movement of the slab-on-grade floor, and
provide recommendations for construction of the floor providing the owner is willing
to accept the anticipated movement of the floor. Unfortunately, the soils reports
generally do not quantify the risk of movement and most builders took that language
as approval to use a slab-on-grade floor.

Figure 5 shows the percentage of different floor types that were constructed versus
time, and compares structural floors to slab-on-grade floors. Figure 5 shows that
prior to 1990 there were very few structural floors constructed in basements, even
though the soils reports recommended them. According to Figure 5, structural floors
began to be used in the timeframe of 1989 to 1990, and after 1994 the use of

6
structural floors increased greatly. It is believed that this trend was due in large part
to the Highlands Ranch lawsuit and litigation that has followed. This homeowner
class-action lawsuit included 981 houses in Highlands Ranch and was filed in 1994
against Mission Viejo regarding the use of slab-on-grade floors in areas intended for
living space. While nearly all structural floors were originally wood, it is the authors’
observation that in the 2000s a large percentage of structural floors are constructed of
steel and concrete.

120 Slab-On-Grade

100
Percentage of As-Built Floor Type (%)

Structural Floor

Slab-On-Grade
80 with Over-
Excavation

Mov. Avg.
60 Trendline for
Slab-on-Grade

Mov. Avg.
40 Trendline for
Structural Floor

Mov. Avg.
Trendline for
20 Slab-on-Grade
w/ Over-Ex.

0
1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Year
Figure 5. Percentage of As-Built Floor Type versus Time

Foundation Types

Pier and Grade Beam Systems

Pier and grade beam foundation systems have been used for many years prior to 1970
for foundations on expansive soil. In the earlier years of pier and grade beam
foundation construction there were very few if any calculations performed for pier
lengths. Chen (1988) presented a design methodology to design rigid piers for no
movement. Nelson and Miller (1992) presented a similar methodology for rigid
piers, and also presented a methodology for computation of pier heave.

The length of piers specified in soils reports versus time is presented in Figure 6. A
similar study regarding the pier length evolution from 1967 to 1998 was performed
by Colorado Association of Geotechnical Engineers in 1999 (CAGE, 1999). The
range of the pier length obtained from CAGE’s study is also shown in Figure 6. It is
interesting to note that both of the ranges fell in the same magnitude and exhibit an

7
increasing trend of the pier length over time. Figure 7 shows the average pier length
for a given year and a moving average for a three year period and a trend line based
on that average. Piers as short as 10 ft (3.0 m) were specified in the late 1970s.
Before 1993 all pier lengths were 20 ft (6.1 m) or less. This reflects the fact that prior
to that time very few foundation auger rigs were prepared to drill deeper than 20 ft
(6.1 m). Pier lengths were generally specified on the basis of the engineers’
experience and few design calculations were performed.

As construction took place on more expansive sites, piers of 20 ft (6.1 m) or less were
deemed to be too short. It is shown on Figure 6 that piers as long as 50 ft (15.2 m)
have recently been specified.

50

45 Authors' Data

40
Max. Pier Length from
CAGE (1999)
35
Min. Pier Length from
Pier Length (ft)

30 CAGE (1999)

25

20

15

10

0
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Year
Figure 6. Pier Length versus Time

8
 50

45

40
Average Pier Length (ft)

35

30

25 Moving Average Trendline

20

15

10

0
1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005
Year
Figure 7. Moving Average of Pier Length versus Time

Removal and Replacement (Over-Excavation)

The practice of removal of the upper zone of expansive soil and replacement with a
non-expansive soil (also termed “over-excavation”) was used as early as the 1960s.
However, up until the 1990s the economical and practical depth of over-excavation
was considered to be about 4 ft (1.2 m), (Chen, 1980). Depths as shallow as 4 ft (1.2
m), however, were found to be ineffective, and the practice was not used much in the
Denver area.

In 1992, R.W. Thompson presented two landmark papers at the 7th International
Conference on Expansive Soils (Thompson, 1992a, 1992b). Thompson showed that
houses constructed on the steeply dipping bedrock west of Denver had a much higher
probability of foundation distress than houses constructed on the more flat lying
bedrock to the east. Thompson also showed that if 10 ft (3.0 m) or more of non-
expansive soil existed below the footings, the probability of distress was much lower.
These papers, along with concerns raised by warranty companies about the steeply
dipping bedrock, and the designation of a Designated Dipping Bedrock Area (DDBA)
by Jefferson County, led to revival of the over-excavation method for foundation
construction. At that time, based on Thompson’s papers, depths of over-excavation
of 10 ft (3.0 m) or more were typically used. In some cases the upper 20 ft (6.1 m) of
soil across an entire subdivision was excavated, moisture conditioned, and re-
compacted in place. In many instances, depths of over-excavated soil as deep as 12 ft
(3.7 m) or more existed below footings even if full basements were used. Problems

9
have been seen in subdivisions where this method was employed, in cases where the
replaced and re-compacted soil still exhibits some expansion potential.

It is anticipated that the use of the over-excavation method will increase in the future,
but care will need to be taken to ensure that the replaced soil has little or no
expansion material. Depths of over-excavation may need to be increased and perhaps
stiffer foundation systems should be used with this method.

Post-Tensioned Slabs-on-Grade

Post-tensioned slabs-on-grade have been used in the southwestern United States since
before the 1960s. However, the use of post-tensioned slabs-on-grade in the Front
Range area was minimal until the late 1990s. The use of post-tensioned slabs-on-
grade has continued to increase in the Front Range area since the late 1990s.

One major problem that exists with this foundation system for expansive soils sites in
the Front Range area is the design procedure. The methodology outlined in the Post
Tensioning Institute manual has frequently been used (PTI, 1996 and 2004). The
methodology in the PTI manual was developed primarily based on a semi-empirical
soil suction-based approach utilizing data obtained largely in the southwestern United
States area. Nelson, Chao, and Overton (2006) indicate that use of that methodology
for determination of design parameters in more highly expansive soils may be
unconservative. In general, it is not applicable for Front Range conditions and should
not be used in the Front Range area.

Another problem that the authors have observed with the post-tensioned slabs-on-
grade foundation system is that where the post-tensioned slabs are designed with
relatively deep stiffening beams, those beams are not post-tensioned. Without post-
tensioning of the beams, the slab is not very stiff and is subject to large deformations.
Thus, even though the slab itself may not fail, the structure constructed on it will
undergo intolerable differential movement.

It is believed that with proper design of the stiffened slab-on-grade, perhaps used in
conjunction with over-excavation, this could prove to be an effective foundation
system.

Helical Piers

Helical piers derived their origin as anchors for structures such as power poles or
transmission lines. They began to be used fairly frequently for foundation systems in
the early 1990s. Helical piers, at present, are used frequently for remediation of
foundations systems on expansive soils that have undergone intolerable movement.
In the early 1990s there was primarily only one helical pier system. In recent years
there have been several other helical pier systems introduced. The original helical
pier system had little resistance to lateral loads. However, there are helical pier
systems now available that have a large diameter for the upper portion of the helical

10
pier, and these systems have the advantage that they provide some resistance to
lateral force. With a helical pier system used in expansive soils, it is important that
no “slack” or looseness exists in the connections between rod sections in the helical
pier system.

Discussion

Heave prediction methodologies were first developed in the late 1950s and were
expanded on by numerous researchers in the 1980s and 1990s. These methodologies
are well known within the geotechnical engineering community and are being used in
practice. While some debate still occurs about the methodology, and the
methodologies are still being refined, the major differences in the geotechnical
engineering community with regards to heave prediction methodology is with regards
to the assumptions used in the analyses and in particular the depth of wetting.

The depth of borings drilled for foundation investigations of sites with expansive
soils in the Front Range are of Colorado decreased from 1979 to 1992 and then
increased from 1992 to 2005, as shown in Figure 2. Senate Bill (C.R.S. 6-6.5-101)
adopted in 1984 requires geotechnical practice to drill every lot within a subdivision.
The general decrease in depth of borings from 1984 to 1992 is believed to be in
response to Senate Bill (C.R.S. 6-6.5-101).

The moving average of maximum depth from which samples were tested versus time
is presented in Figure 4. Prior to 1994, many samples were tested with a depth of less
than 10 ft (3.0 m). However, since 1994 the average maximum depth of testing of
laboratory samples has increased from 10 ft (3.0 m) to 28 ft (8.5 m) in 2005. The
depth that samples were tested began to increase starting in 1994 possibly due to the
publication of additional methodologies for prediction of heave that recognized the
contribution of heave from deeper soils.

Figure 5 indicates that slab-on-grade floors were generally constructed prior to 1988.
The use of structural floors began to increase in 1989 and the use of slab-on-grade
with over-excavation began to increase in 1992. After 1994, the use of structural
floors greatly increased. This may be due to impacts from the Mission Viejo lawsuit.
In 2000, about 20% of the floors were slab-on-grade with over-excavation, and about
70% of the floors were structural floors, as shown in Figure 5. The use of slab-on-
grade floors is seldom used on sites with moderate to highly expansive soils.

Pier and grade beam foundations have historically been used for sites with highly
expansive soils. The pier lengths have increased with time as shown on Figure 7.
Pier lengths of approximately 10 ft (3.0 m) are documented in 1979. Prior to 1993
pier lengths seldom exceeded 20 ft (6.1 m) as few foundation auger rigs were
equipped to drill deeper. The average pier lengths shown in Figure 7 are 17 ft (5.2 m)
in 1993, 25 ft (7.6 m) in 2000, and 36 ft (11.0 m) in 2005.

11
Alternate ground treatment and foundation types such as over-excavation, post-
tensioned slabs-on-grade, and helical piers are being used for foundations on
expansive soils. These innovative methods as well as others that are being introduced
are helping to provide cost effective foundations for construction on expansive soils
sites.

Even with the substantial changes that have occurred during the past 27 years with
regards to design of foundations on expansive soils, numerous structures have shown
unacceptable performance resulting in distress to the structures. Better foundations
systems are anticipated to be designed and constructed on sites with expansive soils
in the future with increased awareness of: 1) the procedures for the design of
foundations on expansive soils, 2) the impacts of site development on expansive soils,
3) unsaturated flow of water, 4) expansive soils behavior, and 5) advances in
computing capabilities.

References

Bonner, J.P. (1998). “Comparison of Predicted Heave Using Oedometer Test Data to
Actual Heave.” Master’s Thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.

Burland, J.B. (1962). “The Estimation of Field Effective Stresses and the Prediction
of Total Heave Using a Revised Method of Analyzing the Double Oedometer
Test.” The Civil Engineer in South Africa. Tran. South African Institute of Civil
Engineering. July.

Chen, F.H. (1980). Personnel Communications with John D. Nelson

Chen, F.H. (1988). “Foundations on Expansive Soils.” Elsevier. pp. 63-65 and pp.
92, 98.

Colorado Association of Geotechnical Engineers. (1996). “Guidelines for Slab

Performance Risk Evaluation and Residential Basement Floor System
Recommendations (Denver Metropolitan Area)”. December.

Colorado Association of Geotechnical Engineers. (1999). “Commentary on

geotechnical Practices, Drilled Pier Design Criteria for Lightly Loaded Structures
in the Denver Metropolitan Area”. December.

Feng, M., Gan, K.M, and Fredlund, D.G. (1998). “A Laboratory Study of Swelling
Pressure Using Various Test Methods.” Proc. International Conference on
Unsaturated Soils, Beijing, China, International Academic Publishers, VI: 350-
355. August 27-30.

Fredlund, D.G., Hasan, J.U., and Filson, H. (1980). “The Prediction of Total Heave.”
Proceedings 4th International Conference on Expansive Soils. Denver, CO. pp 1-
11.

12
Fredlund, D.G. (1983). “Prediction of Ground Movements in Swelling Clays.” 31st
Annual Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering Conference. University of
Minnesota, MN. February.

Fredlund, D.G. and Rahardjo, H. (1993). “Soil Mechanics for Unsaturated Soils.”
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.

Jennings, J.E.B. and Knight, K. (1957). “The Prediction of Total Heave from the
Double Oedometer Test.” Proc. Symposium on Expansive Clays, S. African Inst.
Civil Eng., Johannesburg. Vol. 7, 9:13-19.

Nelson, J.D. and Miller, D.J. (1992). Expansive Soils: Problems and Practice in
Foundation and Pavement Engineering. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.

Nelson, J.D., Durkee, D.B., and Bonner, J.P. (1998). “Prediction of Free Field Heave
Using Oedometer Test Data.” Proc. 46th Annual Geotechnical Engineering
Conference, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN. February 2.

Nelson, J.D., Overton, D.D., and Durkee, D.B. (2001). “Depth of wetting and the
Active Zone.” Proceedings of the Geo-Institute Shallow Foundation and Soil
Properties Committee Sessions at the ASCE 2001 Civil Engineering Conference,
Houston, Texas, October 10 – 13.

Nelson, J.D., Chao, K.C., and Overton, D.D. (2006). “Design Parameters for Slab-on-
Grade Foundations.” Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on
Unsaturated Soils. Carefree, Arizona.

Nelson, J.D., Reichler, D.K., and Cumbers, J.M. (2006). “Parameters for Heave
Prediction by Oedometer Tests.” Proceedings of the Fourth International
Conference on Unsaturated Soils. Carefree, Arizona.

Palit, R.M. (1953). “Determination of Swelling Pressure of Black Cotton Soil.”

Proc. 3rd International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering. V:p.170.

Porter, A.A. and Nelson, J.D. (1980). “Strain Controlled Testing of Expansive
Soils”. Proc. 4th International Conference on Expansive Soils. pp. 34-44.

Post-Tensioning Institute (1996). “Design and Construction of Post-Tensioned Slabs-

On-Ground.” 2nd Edition. Phoenix, Arizona.

Post-Tensioning Institute (2004). “Design of Post-Tensioned Slabs-on-Ground.” 3rd

Edition. Phoenix, Arizona.

Salas, J.A.J. and Serratosa, J.M. (1957). “Foundations on Swelling Clays.” Proc. 4th
International Conference on Soils Mechanics and Foundation Engineering.
London, England. 1:424-428.

13
 Taylor, D.W. (1948). “Fundamentals of Soil Mechanics.” John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
New York.

Thompson, R.W. (1992a). “Swell Testing as a Predictor of Structural Performance.”

Proc. 7th International Conference on Expansive Soils, Volume 1, p.84.

Thompson, R.W. (1992b). “Performance of Foundations on Steeply Dipping

Claystone.” Proc. 7th International Conference on Expansive Soils, Volume 1,
p.438.

14

View publication stats