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

net/publication/286160558

Swelling pressure and uplift of piles in expansive soils

Conference Paper · November 2012

CITATIONS READS
3 844

1 author:

Soundara Balu
Saveetha University
59 PUBLICATIONS 253 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

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

Waste Management View project

Shallow and deep stabilization of expansive soils View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Soundara Balu on 12 April 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Swelling Pressure and Uplift of Piles in
Expansive Soils

B. Soundara and R.G. Robinson1

SKR Engineering College, Chennai
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai
E-mail: robinson@iitm.ac.in

ABSTRACT
Pile foundations are widely used in swelling soils in order to anchor the structure down at a deeper depth (Stable
zone) where the uplift pressure on the pile is negligible. Estimates of depth of stable zone, also called as active
zone, is very important for the design of piles in expansive soils. The depth of active zones is usually estimated
from a measure of water content or suction profiles with depth for different seasons. This paper attempts to
estimate the depth of active zone from the swelling pressure of soils. The stress level that is adequate to prevent
swell is nothing but the swelling pressure of the soil. Hence the uplift pressure on the pile will be negligible at the
depth corresponding to swelling pressure of the soil. This in turn is confirmed via laboratory model pile uplift
tests and oedometer swelling pressure tests for a natural soil. From the laboratory results it is observed that
the surcharge pressure, at which the uplift pressure on the pile is zero, is same as that of the swelling pressure
of soil.

1. INTRODUCTION integration of the uplift skin friction over the area

of the pier within the active zone. This uplift force
Soils that have potential for shrinkage or is resisted by the skin friction in the anchorage
swelling under changing moisture conditions zone beneath the active zone, uplift resistance of
are called expansive soils. Due to climatic the bell (in the case of belled pier) and the applied
changes, these soils undergo significant volume load. This is depicted in Fig. 1.
changes. In India, the area covered by expansive
soils is nearly 20 percent of the total area. The
problem is generally dealt with soil treatment
or foundation alternatives. The lightly loaded
structures are more susceptible to damage by the
differential movements caused by the swelling
and shrinkage of expansive soils. Piles have been
used extensively for foundations in swelling soils
in order to anchor the structure down at a depth
where changes in moisture content are negligible.
The anchorage may be effectively done by
providing enlarged base or bulbs (Under reamed
piles). Figure 1: Forces acting on a pile in
Chen (1988) and O’Neill (1988) presented expansive soil
analysis of rigid piers in expansive soil. They The depth of active zone is defined as the
considered that the total uplift force is the thickness of the soil layer in which moisture
220 Proceedings of the First Asian Workshop on Physical Modelling in Geotechnics
deficiency exists. Thus the soil within the active
zone will be subjected to seasonal moisture
changes and cause differential movements. The
depth of active zone is influenced by the soil type,
soil structure, topography and climate. The actual
measurement of moisture or the suction values in
the site may be used to determine the active zone
depth. Fig. 2 shows the actual variation of moisture
measured at a site (Komornik and Zeitlen, 1961).
Figure 2: Moisture content profiles for
different seasons
The depth of active zone can be also
calculated by knowing the heave profile of the
soil with depth. The depth at which the heave is
zero is taken as the depth of active zone. Gupta
et al., (1983) revealed that the heave reduced to
a negligible value at about 5 m depth. The rate
of reduction could be defined by the exponential
curve. At a depth of 3.75 m (3/4 of that to zero
heave), heave was only about 10% of the surface
value, which seems to be acceptable. Hence Gupta
et al., recommended that the under reamed piles
should be taken at least to a depth at which 10% of
maximum heave occurred.
The recommendation by Indian standards (IS:
2911- Part-III) regarding the minimum founding
depth for under reamed pile in deep deposits of
expansive soil is about 3.5 m based on the field
measurements of ground movements, carried out
in the fifties. Prakash et al., (1988) carried out field
study on full scale instrumented piles of 3.5 m
deep in expansive soil deposit having active zone
thickness of more than 3.5 m. They suggested that
in most cases 3.5 m deep underreamed piles may
provide a safe foundation system.
Bhandari et al., (1987) measured the pile head
displacements and uplift loads on the instrumented
3.5 m deep uniform diameter, single and double
under reamed piles in the expansive clay layer
extending to a depth of 4.5 m. Based on the field
monitoring, variation in moisture content between
dry and wet seasons was inappreciable below 4.5
m, indicating depth of active zone of about 4.5 m.
The results from the instrumented piles clearly
show that all piles uplifted by almost similar
amounts of about 20 mm. This is contrary to the
belief that 3.5 m deep underreamed piles are not
susceptible to the influence of ground movement
irrespective of the depth of active zone.
From the literature review, it is observed that
in most cases, the depth of active zone is evaluated
based on moisture content variation with the
seasons. The monitoring of moisture variation and
creating the profiles for different seasons is time
consuming task. Therefore, alternate methods of
evaluation of depth of active zones are necessary.
In the present investigation, the active depth
evaluation based on swelling pressure of the soil
is discussed.
Swelling pressure is the pressure required
to hold the soil at constant volume when water
is added. Knowledge of swelling pressure is
essential for the design of a variety of geotechnical
structures on expansive soils. The swelling
pressure is evaluated in the laboratory by a number
of testing methods which include oedometer
method, suction measurements, triaxial methods,
etc. (Brackley,1973; Abduljauwad and Al-
Sulaimani, 1993; Al-Shamrani and Al-Mhaidib,
2000; Thompson et al., 2006).
Out of all the methods, laboratory oedometer
testing method is extensively used to determine
the swelling pressure due to its simplicity and
operational ease. Brackley (1973) lists three
different oedometer methods for the determination
of swelling pressure as explained below (Soundara
and Robinson, 2009).
• Method A – The sample is inundated and
allowed to swell vertically at a small seating
pressure until primary swell is completed. The
sample is then loaded in intervals similar to
the procedure of conventional consolidation
Swelling Pressure and Uplift of Piles in Expansive Soils
testing until the specimen reaches its initial
thickness. The pressure required to bring back
the sample to its initial thickness is regarded
as the swelling pressure. This method is also
often termed as Swell-consolidation method.
• Method B – Three identical samples are
loaded with different pressures near the
expected swelling pressure and submerged in
water. The vertical movements were plotted
against the applied pressure and the pressure
corresponding to zero volume change is taken
as swelling pressure. While only one sample
is enough to determine the swelling pressure
in method A, at least three identical samples
are needed in method B. This method is also
often called as Different pressure method.
• Method C – In this method, also called as
Constant volume method, a specimen is
maintained at constant height by adjusting
the vertical pressure after the specimen is
inundated in free water. The pressure required
to maintain constant volume is the swelling
pressure. The details of the test methods are
given in Fig. 3.
Each of the methods is equally sensible, but
gives entirely different swelling pressure values
for the same placement conditions of the soil. A
number of investigators have attempted to study
the cause for the variation of the swelling pressure
values by these methods.
Figure 3: Determination of swelling pressure
(Brackley 1973)
Johnson and Snethen (1978) compared the
swelling pressure values by different oedometer
221
methods and found that the magnitude of swelling
pressure depends on the degree of confinement.
Ali and Elturabi (1984) conducted methods A and C
for the measurement of swelling pressure of expansive
soils. Results obtained show that method A gives higher
swelling pressure values than method C.
Sridharan et al. (1986) compared the results
from the three oedometer methods (Methods A,
B and C) to determine the swelling pressure and
concluded that method A gives an upper bound
value, method B gives the least value and method
C gives intermediate values. As shown in Table 1,
they also found no definite relation between the
three methods.
Table 1: Typical Swelling Pressure Values
(Sridharan et al. 1986)
Soil Initial Conditions Swelling Pressure
Sample (kPa) by Method
ei w (%) A B C
BC1 0.893 0 300 160 190
BC4 1.002 0 390 160 220
BC5 0.742 0 510 140 310
BC8 0.656 20.8 150 – 70
Soundara and Robinson (2009) discussed
the influence of test method on swelling pressure
measurements in the laboratory. An attempt was
made to find out the reasons for different swelling
pressure values for the same soil, with identical
test specimens, when different test methods are
adopted. The possible reason for difference in
the swelling pressure values was attributed to the
fabric change that occurs in the sample, which
depends on the test method. The fabric change was
evaluated through permeability measurements and
Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM). Typical
SEM pictures of samples after testing by Method
A and Method C are shown in Fig. 4 (a) and (b),
respectively.
The SEM pictures clearly show that
the structure of the clay gets changed from a
flocculated fabric to a dispersed fabric when
method A is adopted for measuring the swelling
pressure. This change is expected to occur when
the soil undergoes large swelling. But, in the case
of method B and C, volume change is not permitted
during the saturation process and the fabric change
222 Proceedings of the First Asian Workshop on Physical Modelling in Geotechnics

is minimum. Therefore, the difference in swelling 2. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME

pressure value between methods is a direct
consequence of fabric change that occurs during
the test.
2.1 Properties of Soil Used
A natural expansive soil from Siruseri (Tamil
Nadu, India) was collected from a depth of 1.5
m from ground level and air dried. The air dried
natural soil was pulverized and sieved through
1mm sieve. The index properties and compaction
test results of the soil were arrived based on IS
code of practices. The compaction curve obtained
is shown in Fig. 5. The other properties are listed
in Table 2. The soil is classified as Clay of High
compressibility (CH). From shrinkage limit and
differential free swell values, the soil is further
classified as soil of high swelling potential.

(a)

Figure 5: Standard Proctor Compaction Curve

Table 2: Properties of Soil Used

Item Values
Atterberg Limits
Liquid Limit (%) 70
(b) Plastic Limit (%) 30
Figure 4: SEM pictures of samples in Shrinkage Limit (%) 8
(a) Method A and (b) Method C Specific gravity 2.60
(Soundara and Robinson, 2009) Grain size distribution
As the values of swelling pressure strongly Clay sixe (%) 69.5
depend on the method of testing, it is essential Silt size (%) 24.0
to adopt appropriate values depending on the Sand (%) 6.5
field situations. In the present study, the swelling Compaction test characteristics
pressure for the soil is determined by all the three (a) Maximum dry unit weight (kN/m3) 14.96
methods. The method that can be used to evaluate (b) Optimum moisture content (%) 24
the depth of active zone correctly is identified
Differential free swell (%) 80
through an apparatus developed for the study.
Swelling Pressure and Uplift of Piles in Expansive Soils
2.2 Swelling Pressure Test
In order to achieve larger swelling it was decided
to prepare the samples in the dry side of optimum
moisture content. The water content and dry
unit weight adopted are 20% and 14.2 kN/m3,
respectively.
The soil was mixed with the required quantity
of water and kept for 12 hours in an airtight bag
for moisture equilibrium. Required quantity of wet
sample was then pressed, in a static compaction
device to a thickness of 14 mm by placing a
spacer directly into the oedometer ring of 60 mm
diameter and 20 mm height so as to achieve the
required unit weight. The inner sides of the rings
were smeared with silicon grease to reduce side
friction before preparing the soil sample by static
compaction. The swelling pressure of the soil was
determined by all the three methods discussed
earlier using the conventional one-dimensional
consolidation apparatus.
• Method A – The sample was inundated
and allowed to swell vertically at a seating
pressure of 6.25 kPa until primary swell
is completed. The sample was then loaded
in intervals similar to the procedure of
conventional one-dimensional consolidation
testing until the specimen reaches its initial
thickness. Sufficient time was allowed under
each pressure increment till the consolidation
was over. The pressure required to bring back
the sample to its initial thickness is regarded
as the swelling pressure.
• Method B – Four identical samples were
loaded under different pressures of 6.25,
100, 200 and 400 kPa and inundated with
water. If the pressure is less than the swelling
pressure, the sample exhibit swelling where
as the sample consolidates if the pressure is
more than the swelling pressure. Under each
pressure, the volume change of the sample
is recorded upon inundation. The pressure
corresponding to zero volume change in a
plot of vertical movement versus applied
pressure is regarded as the swelling pressure.
• Method C – In this method, also called as
Constant volume method, the specimen was
maintained at constant height by adjusting the
223
vertical pressure after inundating with water.
The pressure required to maintain constant
volume is the swelling pressure.
The results of the swelling pressure test for
the soil sample are shown in Fig. 6. Clearly, the
results are different as expected. The swelling
pressure values obtained by methods A, B and C
are 195 kPa, 140 kPa and 115 kPa, respectively.
The swelling pressure by method A is the highest
and that obtained by method C is the lowest,
similar to that reported in the literature.
Figure 6: Results of the swelling pressure test by
the three methods
2.3 Test Apparatus for Pile Tests
Gadre and Chandrasekaran (1994) carried out
centrifuge model tests on an expansive soil to
simulate a prototype soil deposit of 1.875 m
thickness. Tests were conducted on a model clay
bed of 12.5 mm thickness at 150 g. The magnitude
of swelling observed in the centrifuge model
was compared by integrating the 1g swelling
experiments in the oedometer at different
surcharge pressures as shown in Fig. 5.1. The
results show that it is possible to compute the
magnitude of swell of soil deposits by integrating
the resuts of 1g swelling experiments on models
subjected to different surcharge pressures. Guided
by this, the pile uplift tests were conducted in
the laboratory using a CBR mould of 150 mm
internal diameter and 180 mm height and cement
mortar pile of 30 mm diameter. The tests were
carried out for different surcharge pressures to
simulate different depths in the field.
224 Proceedings of the First Asian Workshop on Physical Modelling in Geotechnics

Figure 8: (a) Reinforcement for pile welded on

MS rod (b) Casting in PVC casing and
(c) Casted cement mortar pile
Figure 7: Variation of percent swell
with layer thickness (Gadre and 2.3.2 Sample Preparation
Chandrsekaran, 1994) A cylindrical mould (CBR mould) of 150 mm
The uplift force acting on the shaft of the pile internal diameter and 180 mm height was used for
is due to the relative movement of pile and soil. the study. The soil was mixed with the required
If the pile is restrained at the top, then the force quantity of water and kept in a desiccator for
on the pile will act on the restrained end. Hence about 12 hours for moisture equilibrium. The
in the model tests, a load cell was fixed at the cement mortar pile of 30 mm diameter was placed
restrained end and the uplift force on the pile is at the centre of the CBR mould. The bottom of
monitored using this load cell. The materials and the pile rests on an acrylic plate with a hole, so
methodology for the tests are explained in the that the uplift of the pile at the tip is eliminated.
following sections. Therefore, the uplift is only due to the shaft. The
soil was statically compacted around the pile in
2.3.1 Model Pile
The model pile was made of cement mortar with
a mix proportion of one part of cement and two
parts of sand with water cement ratio of 0.45.
The diameter of the pile is 30 mm. The cement
mortar pile was reinforced with a central rod of 5
mm diameter, that in turn was welded with metal
strips so as to obtain proper bonding between the
mortar and the pile. The central rod was welded
to a mild steel rod of 30 mm diameter and 100
mm long as shown in Fig. 8a. The rod was placed
inside a PVC pipe and the mortar is poured
around the reinforcement (Fig. 8b) and tamped
appropriately so as to remove the air voids. After
24 hours of curing, the PVC pipe was cut from
the cement mortar pile and the pile was soaked
in water for further curing. The curing was done
for 28 days, before the tests. The casted cement
mortar pile, which was used for the pile uplift
tests is shown in Fig. 8c. The mild steel rod has
appropriate threads for connecting to the load
cell. Figure 9: Photographic view of the apparatus
Swelling Pressure and Uplift of Piles in Expansive Soils 225

layers at moisture content of 20% and a dry unit sample for the same placement condition of the
weight of 14.2 kN/m3. A sample thickness of 100 soil sample. This indicates that the variation of
mm was achieved using suitable spacers. The interface shear stress on the pile with depth is not
photographic view of the test set-up is shown in constant but follows a trend as shown in Fig. 11.
Fig. 9.
The required surcharge was applied over the
soil sample through the lever arm arrangement
similar to that in the conventional consolidation
set up (as shown in Fig. 10). After reaching
equilibrium under the applied surcharge, the
sample was inundated with water. The laboratory
pile uplift experiments were conducted for
different surcharge pressures of 1, 6.25, 20, 35,
70, 105 and 140 kPa for Soil B and 6.25, 20, 50,
70 and 105 kPa for bentonite, to simulate different
depths in the field. For all tests, the soil movement
and total uplift force on the pile were monitored at
different time intervals. The vertical movement of
soil was monitored using dial gauges and the uplift
force on the pile by a load cell which is connected
to the pile and restrained by a fixed frame. The
pile derives the uplift force only from the shaft Figure 10: Photographic view of
since the pile base is not in contact with the soil. the complete set-up
Sufficient time was allowed for the swelling to
take place. A swelling pressure of about 150 kPa
was obtained from the tests.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

3.1 Effect of Surcharge on Interface

Shear on Pile
When the expansive soil swells on addition
of water, shear stress develops at the interface
between the soil and the pile material. If the pile
is restrained, the shear stress generates uplift
force on the piles. The interface shear stress
developed along the shaft of the pile due to the
relative movement of pile and soil was monitored Figure 11: Effect of surcharge on interface
with time using the load cell fixed at the top of shear stress on pile
the pile.
The variation of interface shear stress, 3.2 Estimation of Depth of Active
defined as the ratio of the uplift force on the pile Zone
to the circumference area of pile, with surcharge When the surcharge pressure on the soil is less,
pressure is shown in Fig. 11. The results show soil heave is large leading to a higher relative
that the interface shear stress initially increases movement between pile and soil. This results
to reach a maximum value and then decreases in full mobilisation of the interface shear stress
with the increase in the surcharge pressure on the between the soil and the pile. However, the
226 Proceedings of the First Asian Workshop on Physical Modelling in Geotechnics
mobilised interface shear stress also depends
on the normal stress on the pile. At smaller
surcharge pressures (representing shallow
depth), the normal stress on the pile is also less.
Therefore, even though the shaft friction is fully
mobilised, the magnitude is relatively less. As
the surcharge pressure on the soil increases,
the normal stress on the pile also increases
resulting in higher interface shear stress on the
pile. However, the soil movement gets reduced
with increase in surcharge pressure. Though the
available shaft friction is much higher at higher
surcharge pressures, the soil movement is not
sufficient for the full mobilisation of the shaft
friction. This results in lesser interface shear
stress on the pile. Therefore, near the soil surface
the soil movement is large but the available shaft
friction is less leading to a smaller interface shear
stress. At deeper depths, the soil movement is not
sufficient for mobilising the shaft friction. This
results in an uplift pressure distribution shown in
Fig. 11
In the field, the surcharge pressure is related
to the depth of the soil bed. The surcharge pressure
(sv) is given by Eq. (1) as:
σv = γ ×d
(1)
g – bulk unit weight of soil;
d – depth of soil
The bulk unit weight for the soil is 17 kN/m3.
Typically, the overburden pressure is converted
into depth of soil and plotted the variation of uplift
pressure distribution with depth in Fig. 12.
Figure 12: Variation of interface shear
stress with depth
It may be noted from Fig. 12 that the depth at
which the uplift pressure is close to zero is about
8.5 m. The swelling pressures determined by
methods A, B and C are 195 kPa, 140 kPa and 115
kPa. The depths required to induce these pressures
are 11.5 m, 8.2 m and 6.8 m. The swelling pressure
value by the different pressure method (method B)
matches well with the surcharge pressure required
to reduce the uplift on the pile close to zero.
4. CONCLUSIONS
Based on the experimental investigation, it is
observed that the variation of interface shear stress
on the piles in expansive soil during swelling with
depth is not constant. The interface shear stress
initially increases to reach a maximum value and
then decreases with the increase in normal stress
on the soil and become zero when the overburden
pressure on the soil is equal to the swelling
pressure of the soil, determined by Method B.
The value of swelling pressure determined by
method B may be used to estimate the depth of
active zone in the swelling soil. The depth of
active zone is the depth at which the overburden
pressure equals the swelling pressure of the soil.
REFERENCES
Abduljauwad, S. N., and Al-Sulaimani, G. J. (1993)
“Determination of swell potential of Al-Qatif
clay”. Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, 16,
Issue 4, pp 469-484.
Ali, E. F. M., and Elturabi, M. A. D. (1984) “Comparison
of two methods for the measurement of swelling
pressure.” Proceedings of the 5th Int. Conerence
on Expansive soils, Adelaide, Australia, 21-23
May, pp 72-74.
Al-Shamrani, M. A., and Al-Mhaidib, A. I. (2000)
“Swelling behavior under oedometric and triaxial
loading conditions”. Proceedings of Sessions of
Geo-Denver 2000 - Advances in Unsaturated
Geotechnics, Geotechnical Special publication
99, Volume 287, pp 344-360.
American Standards for Testing Materials (2003)
Standard Test methods for One-dimensional
swell or settlement potential of cohesive soils,
ASTM D4546.
Bhandari, R. K., Prakash, C., Balodhi, G. R. and
 Swelling Pressure and Uplift of Piles in Expansive Soils
Chandra, R. (1987) “Behaviour of short bored
piles in expansive soils during the stage of
swelling”, Proceedings of the 6th International
Conference on Expansive soils, New Delhi,
India, pp 295-300.
Brackley, J. J. A. (1973) “Swell pressure and free
swell in compacted clay.” Proceedings of the
3rd International Conference on Expansive soils,
Haifa, 1, pp 169-176.
Chen, F.H (1975) Foundations on expansive soils,
Amsterdam, New York, Elsevier Scientific
Publishing Company.
Gadre, A.D. and Chandrasekaran, V.S. (1994)
“Swelling of black cotton soil using Centrifuge
modeling”. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
ASCE, 121, Issue 5, pp 914-919.
IS: 2911(PART-III)-1980: Indian Standard code of
practice for design and construction of under-
reamed piles, BIS.
Komornik, A. and Zeitlen, J. G. (1961) “Deformation
and moisture movements in expansive clays”,
Proceedings of the 5th International Conference
on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Paris, 1, pp 873-879.
View publication stats
227
O’Neill, M.W. and Poormoayed, N. (1980) “Metho-
dology for foundations on expansive clay”.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, 106, Issue GT 12, pp 1345-
1367.
Prakash, C., Wardle, I.F, Chandra, R., Balodhi, G.R.,
and Price, G (1988) “Performance of instrumented
under-reamed pile foundation supporting a
single storey structure in expansive soil”. Indian
Geotechnical Journal, 18, Issue 4, pp 340-355.
Soundara, B. and Robinson, R.G. (2009) “Testing
method and swelling pressure of clays”.
International Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, USA, 3, Issue 3, pp 439-444.
Sridharan, A., Rao, S.A. and Sivapullaiah, V. (1986)
“Swelling pressure of clays”. Geotechnical
Testing Journal, ASTM, 9, Issue 1, pp 24-33.
Thompson, R. W., Perko, H. A. and Rethamel, W. D.
(2006) “Comparison of constant volume swell
pressure and oedometer load-back pressure”.
Proceedings of the 4th International Conference
on Unsaturated Soils, Carefree, AZ, United
States, pp 1787-1798.