Improvement the Bearing Capacity of Shallow

Foundations on Expansive Clay Soil by using a Shear

Resistance Wall
Dr. Saad F. A. Al-Wakel
Assistant Professor (Academic Staff), Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Technology – Iraq, Baghdad, Iraq (Orcid:0000-0002-2304-
0924) (corresponding author: saad.f.abbas@uotechnology.edu.iq;
saadfaik231@gmail.com)

Dr. Ahmed S. Abdulrasool

Lecturer, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Technology – Iraq,
Baghdad, Iraq (Orcid:0000-0003-1837-4513) (corresponding author: ahmed.s.abdulrasool@uotechnology.edu.iq)

Fatima H. Abd Ali

assistant lecturer at Ashur University College
fatima.h.abd@au.edu.iq

Marvin M. Yousif

Abstract. In the present study, a new technique is used to increase the bearing capacity of
axially loaded circular footings through resists the shear stresses evolving in the soil by a
structural system of shear resistance wall. This system can be used as an alternative to deep
foundations to increases the bearing capacity of shallow foundations. Experimental
models are performed to investigate the bearing capacity and settlement of a circular
footing on expansive clay soil with and without shear resistance walls. This study is
evaluated the efficacy of the different ratios of the shear resistance wall depth, width of the
wall, cement percentage, and curing time of wall stabilized by cement. In addition, the
influence of using a shear resistance wall on swelling of expansive clay is researched.
The analysis of the results indicated that using a sand-cement wall (shear resistance wall)
around a circular foundation has a significant effect on the bearing capacity. The optimum
effect of the shear resistance wall on the bearing capacity of the foundation is when the
value of the shear resistance wall depth to the width of footing (d/D) is between 0.5 - 1.
The presence of shear resistance walls causes great improvement in the settlement ratio by
about 76% at curing 7 days. On the other hand, the results observed that the performance
of the wall leads to reduce the influence of swelling of soil by about 32% to 36% at d/D
equal 0.5, 1 respectively.

Keywords: shear resistance wall, expansive clay, bearing capacity.

1. Introduction
Expansive soil is considered one of the problematic
soils. The structure of the soil is accompanied by a
volumetric change when changing moisture content (Al-
Ani et al., 2021). The mechanism of swelling of soil can
be considered as a result of the interaction of two parts.
The first part is the mechanical effects and the second is
the physicochemical phenomena (Estabragh et al., 2014).
The expansive soils have been reported from many world
areas including the United States of America, Australia,
Iraq, India, South America, and Africa. As a result of the
evolution of construction expected in the world, soil
improvement becomes a major task.
Many methods have been used by several researchers
to reduce the swelling of soil. The most common
method by which expansive soils may be improved can
be divided into mechanical and chemical methods.
Mechanical stabilization covers the rearrangement of
soil particles and the addition or removal of soil particles
(Fattah and Al-Lami, 2016).
Chemical stabilization of expansive soils involves the
use of additives materials such as cement, lime, fly ash,
bitumen, gypsum, rice husk to improve the soil
properties as mentioned Dash and Hussain, 2012; Al-
Mukhtar et al., 2012; Nayak and Sarvade, 2012; Brooks,
2009. If the soil cannot be made stable simply by
mechanical and chemical methods, the shear resistance
wall can be used.
The mechanism of the shear resistance wall work is
similar to the work of the skirted foundation. But the
shear resistance wall works to confining soil under the
foundation and sand drain. since the component
materials of the shear resistance wall are sand and have
higher permeability, the wall could also accelerate the
consolidation settlements.
After a thorough review of many papers, the sand
wall some literature is found. Abdulrasool (2017)
observed that the bearing capacity was significantly
changed when using sand-lime walls around the
foundation and 11% lime content has given the 52%
improvement on bearing capacity at wall depth to
foundation diameter (H/D) ratio of 2.
The present article aims to evaluate the improvement
in the bearing capacity of foundations surrounded by
shear resistance walls (sand-cement walls).
2. Mechanism of Resistant Shear Wall
The bearing capacity of the foundation on clay can
be improved considerably by creating technology from
smart foundations by means of a wall of a mixture of
cement - sand surrounding the foundation. This wall
works in two stages: The first stage: the materials of the
wall are mixed in specific proportions when it's dried
then they are placed in a trench with a specified density.
At this stage, the wall is working and because of the
presence of sand as a drain, where the radial drainage of
2 ENGINEERING JOURNAL Volume # Issue #, ISSN 0125-8281 (https://engj.org/)
water occurs in the soil under the foundation towards the
wall in the case of saturated soil, but in the case of the
partially saturated soil, the wall absorbs the moisture
present in the soil.
Meanwhile, in conjunction with the first stage, the
second stage will begin, which ensures the curing process
of the wall material, and with the increase in the transfer
of water or moisture, the hydration process begins in
cement with the presence of sand that contains a high
percentage of silica mineral, the cementitious product
will be formed. As shown in equation 2, with the passage
of time that the strength of the wall of cement-treated
sand is expected to increase.
C 3 S+ H 2 O→ C 3 S2 H X +C a ( OH )2 (2)
C a ( OH )2 +Si O2 ( sand soil silica ) →CSH (3)
C a ( OH )2 + Al 2 O3 ( sand soil alumina ) →CAH (4)
Where: C 3 S is tricalcium silicate, C 3 S2 H X is
primary cementitious products, CSH is calcium silicate
hydrates, CAH is calcium aluminate hydrate.CSH and
CAH are secondary cementitious product and they are
responsible for developing the strength in the treated
sand wall
The wall at this stage will be resistant to shear
stresses that occur in the soil below the foundation. As it
works to restrict the movement of the soil mass in the
horizontal direction during the application of vertical
loads on the foundation, and therefore the bearing
capacity of the soil to the loads imposed on it will
increase and the settlement that induces the foundation
will decrease. In addition, the cost of cement-sand wall is
cheaper than other deep foundation methods.
3. Main Material and Sample Preparation
The expansive clay soil is prepared in the laboratory
by mixing the bentonite with clay (60:40 bentonite:clay)%
of dry weight. The expansive clay is classified as low
plasticity clay (CH) per unified classification (USCS) and
the liquid limit is 75%, plastic limit 28%, and plasticity
index is 47%. The specific gravity is 2.8. The swelling
pressure is 198 kPa. The clay grain size distribution is
presented in Fig 1.
Fig 2 presents sand grain size distribution. The sand
properties results observed that the gravel is 11.5%, sand
is 87%, and Fines is 1.5%, D 60 is 1.79, D50 is 1.1, D30 is
0.71, D10 is 0.281, Coeff. of Uniformity (Cu), 6.37, and
Coeff. of Curvature (Cc) is 1.0. According to these
properties, the sand is classified as an SW (well-graded
sand) per USCS. The Specific Gravity (Gs) is 2.65. The
suitability number for rating backfill (SN) is 7.5 (SN is
proposed by Brown,1977 as cited by Das, 2011).
To obtain a value comparable to the site's undrained
shear strength (47 kPa) , several attempts of the
remolded clay are tested with different water content by
vane shear test. The relationship of undrained shear
strength with water content is shown in Fig 3. The bed
of remolded clay soil has placed by layers in the box with
 DOI:10.4186/ej.year.vol.issue.pp

(600 mm length, 300 mm width, and 350 mm depth) mm

dimensions. Each layer is tamped gently with a wooden
tamper 75 mm×75 mm to get rid of an entrapped air. Fig. 4. Preparation steps of the wall.
Passing (%)

100
80
60
40
20
0
1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Diameter (mm)

Fig. 1. The grain size distribution for the clay soil

Passing (%)

100
80
60
40
20
0
10 1 0.1
Diameter (mm)

Fig. 2. The grain size distribution for the sand wall

Undrained shear strengthCu

Fig. 5. The frame of loading, the steel tank, expansive

clay soil, and shear resistance wall.

4. Criteria of Small Scale Model

(kPa)

60

30 The small-scale experiments are considered easy to

0 cheaper than full Scale.
20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38
Water content(%)
Fig. 3. Variation of the undrained shear strength per
water content after 24 hours.
The wall is excavated in clay soil with a 30 mm width
and backfilled with clean well-graded sand mixed with a
specific percentage of cement. After pouring all the
specific amounts of the mixture, the full depth of the
wall is filled at a dry unit weight of 15.3 kN/m3as shown
Fig 4. The wall is cured for 7 days and some testing 28
days.
The circular footing from 60 mm in diameter was
positioned on expansive soil. The loading frame was
used to apply vertical static load as shown in Fig 5. The
increments of loads of each test are carried out according
to ASTM D1194, 1994. Two dial gauges with accuracy
(0.01 mm/division) are used to measuring settlements on
the footing.
control the conditions of test and the cost of equipment
The deficiencies of small-scale are related to the
assumed shear zone forming in the active zone under the
foundation due to particles size of soil. Where there may
be a few hundred sand soils under the foundation but
compared to clay soil, there may be thousands of
individual particles of clay under the same foundation
Hight and Leroueil (2002).
Ovesen 1975; Yamaguchi et al. 1977; Bolton and Lau
1989; Herle and Tejchman 1997 mentioned that the
values of B/D50 greater than 50 for sand soil, the effect
of particle size becomes insignificant.
Kusakabe (1995) recommended to avoid the effect
of sand particle size, should be used B/D50 ratio ranging
from 50 to100.
In this study for clay soil, it is considered fulfilling
the condition due to the small particle size, on other
hand the B/D50 for the sand- cement wall is 54.
5. Results of Test
Prior to the discussion that the test results, it is important
to clarify that the failure is considered as the load
corresponding to settlement 10 % of the footing
diameter as proposed by (Terzaghi, 1947) as cited by cementing material as presented in equations 2, 3, and 4.
(Brand, 1981). For that reason, when with about 7 % addition of
cement and a curing period of 7 days the bearing capacity
5.1. Effect of Cement Percentages in Shear may increase by 32%.
Resistance Wall On the other hand, the shear resistance wall reduces
the settlement in the foundation due to confinement the
In this section, five percentages (1, 3, 5, 7, and 9) of soil in active zone under foundation. In other words the
cement are carried out to assess the effective shear presence of the wall beside the foundation prevents the
resistance wall. The d/D (Wall depth to foundation movement of particles under the active zone on both
diameter) ratio is constant in this test and equal 0.5. sides of the foundation trend the slab shear surface, and
Fig 6 is shown the bearing ratio (q/cu) vs. settlement therefore the settlement will be decreased and shearing
ratio (S/D foundation) for different percentage of cement. will be localized.
The improvement settlement ratio (S wall /S without wall) vs.
bearing ratio (q/cu) is shown in Fig 7. Fig 8 is present the 5.2. Effect of Shear Resistance Wall Depth
bearing capacity of foundation versus cement
percentages of shear resistance wall. In this part, the effect of changing of wall depth on
the bearing capacity and settlement of the foundation
was investigated. The study includes different d/D ratio
Bearing Ratio (q/Cu) (shear resistance wall depth to diameter of foundation)
Settlemenrt Ratio (S/

ranged between (0 -1.5). In all tests, the wall is stabilized

D Foundation)

-0.1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 by approximately 7% cement by weight. This percentage
-2.77555756156289E-17 is the most efficient and economically.
Without
0.1 wall The bearing ratio (q/cu) vs. settlement ratio (S/D
Cement
1% foundation) for different wall depth as outlined in Fig 9. Fig
0.2
Cement
3%
10 is present the improvement settlement ratio (S wall /S
0.3
without wall) vs. bearing ratio (q/c u). Fig 11 explains the

Fig. 6. Bearing ratio (q/cu) vs. settlement ratio (S/D bearing capacity of foundation versus depth of shear
resistance wall.
foundation).
Settlemenrt Ratio (S/

Bearing Ratio (q/Cu) Bearing Ratio (q/Cu) %

D Foundation) %

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Improvement Set-

0
(Swall/ Swithout)
tlemenrt Ratio

0.5
0.1
1
Without
Ce- 0.2 Wall
1.5 ment 1 d \ D=
% 0.5
2 0.3

Fig. 7. Improvement settlement ratio vs. bearing ratio for Fig. 9. Bearing ratio (q/cu) vs. settlement ratio (S/D
different percentage of cement. foundation) at different wall depth.
Bearing capacity

Bearing Ratio (q/Cu) %

30
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
(kPa)

menrt Ratio (Swall/

0
Iprovement Settle-

Swithout) %

15
0.5

1 d \ D = 0.5
0
0 3 6 9 12 d \ D= 1
d \ D = 1.5
Cement percentages % 1.5

Fig. 8. Bearing capacity of foundation versus cement Fig. 10. Improvement settlement ratio vs. bearing ratio
percentages of shear resistance wall. for different wall depth.

The results indicate that the addition of cement

substantially influences the stiffness and the property of
the wall. Where the pozzolanic reaction worked between
sand wall and cement involves a reaction between
cement and the silica and alumina of the soil to form

4 ENGINEERING JOURNAL Volume # Issue #, ISSN 0125-8281 (https://engj.org/)


30
Stress (kPa)
15
0 10
0 0.5 1 1.5
Depth of wall × D Foundation
Fig. 11. Bearing capacity of foundation versus shear
resistance wall depth.
From above results, it can be observed that the
increase of d/D lead to increasing in results of bearing
capacity and decreasing in settlement ratio. The reason
behind that the soil confines by wall was increased.
Under the influence of the application load, the soil
to the below of foundation tends to be pushed the shear
resistance wall, inducing active earth pressure on soil
surrounded by wall. On the other side of the wall, the
soil to be tends to get compressed, thus offering passive
earth resistance against the active pressure.
Theoretically, soil failure can never occur provided it
is laterally confined as the stress circle is always within
the strength envelope, no matter what the value of σ 1
(Smith and pole, 1981). Failure can only occur if the wall
breaks due to shearing on wall.
5.3. Effect of Curing of Shear Resistance Wall on
Bearing Capacity
To evaluate the strength characteristics of the shear
resistance wall with time, two tests were conducted with
different curing (7, 28 days). The wall was stabilized by
approximately 7% cement by weight.
Figs 12 and 13 provide the effect of curing of wall
on bearing capacity. According to the results, the bearing
capacity increased with increasing time of curing due to
strength of wall developed by CSH and CAH. Thus,
increases the strength of the wall to resist lateral
movement of slab shear surface.
Settlemenrt Ratio (S/
Bearing Ratio (q/Cu)
D Foundation)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
0 Figs 15 and 16 are illustrated that the bearing
0.1
0.2
Without wall
Sand wall without
0.3 cement
0.4
Curing 7 days
Fig. 12. Bearing ratio (q/cu) vs. settlement ratio (S/D
foundation) at different curing.
DOI:10.4186/ej.year.vol.issue.pp
30
Stress (kPa)
20
0
Without wall 7 days 28 days
Fig. 13. Bearing capacity of foundation versus curing
time of wall.
Fig 14 provides the improvement settlement ratio (S
wall /S without wall) vs. bearing ratio (q/c u). According to the
investigation, each curing of wall has its effect on
settlement ratio, in a way that the problem of settlement
will be minimized about 76% at curing 7 days.
According to the results, the increase in settlement
ratio at 0.17 bearing ratio at 7 days curing followed by a
slow decrease with increasing bearing ratio. But at 28
days curing, the settlement ratio increase with increasing
bearing ratio followed by a drop decrease in settlement
ratio.
Bearing Ratio (q/Cu)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Improvement Set-
(Swall/ Swithout)
0
tlemenrt Ratio
0.5
1 Sand wall without
cemen
1.5
Curing 7 days
Fig. 14. Improvement settlement ratio vs. bearing ratio
for different curing.
5.4. Effect of Width of Shear Resistance Wall on
Bearing Capacity
The objective of this set of tests is to explore the
effect of width of wall on bearing capacity and
settlement. Three different width of wall (20, 30, 40mm)
are used and the stabilized wall by 7 % cement was cured
for 7 days.
capacity increases with increasing width of wall due to
the increase stability of wall and the propagation of the
shear zone may not be fully developed because the
geometry of the active zone is changed.
Fig 17 illustrates the variation of improvement
settlement ratio (S wall /S without wall) vs. bearing ratio (q/c u)
for different width of wall.
 lateral restriction leads to a decrease the total swell of
expansive soil.

Heaving of Expansive
Settlemenrt Ratio (S/
D Foundation)
Bearing Ratio (q/Cu)

-0.05 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

Soil %
-4.16333634234434E-17
15
0.05
0.1
0.15 Without wall 10
0.2 20 mm width
30 mm width
0.25 40 mm width 5
0.3
0
Without wall d/D = 0.5 d/D = 1
Fig. 15. Bearing ratio (q/cu) vs. settlement ratio (S/D
foundation) at different width of wall.
Fig. 18. The heaving of expansive soil with and without
shear resistance wall
Stress (kPa)

40 6. Conclusion
30
As a result of the testing program conducted in this
20 study, the conclusions could be drawn as follows:
10 1. The shear resistance wall can be considered as a
0 reliable new technique to increase the bearing
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 capacity and decrease both settlement of shallow
Width of Wall (mm) foundation and heaving of expansive soil.
2. The results suggested that the increasing d/D
Fig. 16. Bearing capacity of foundation versus width of might be higher sensitive to the bearing capacity
wall. when d/D between 0.5 to 1 and it had a
significant effect on the settlement ratio.
3. The shear strength of the wall increases very fast
Bearing Ratio (q/Cu)
with an increase in cement percentage. Thus, this
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
0 will lead to a noticeable improvement in the
Improvement Set-

(Swall/ Swithout)

load-carrying capacity of the foundation. The

tlemenrt Ratio

0.5 optimum cement content in the shear resistance

wall is 7%.
1
20 mm 4. The stiffness of the shear resistance wall
width increases with an increase in curing time. This
1.5
leads to an improvement in the performance of
the wall to prevent the movement of particles.
Fig. 17. Improvement settlement ratio vs. bearing ratio 5. The results indicate that the improvement of the
for different width of wall. bearing ratio is influenced by the width of the
shear resistance wall. The maximum
5.5. Performance of Shear Resistance Wall on improvement (about 50 %) occurred at 40 mm
Heaving of Expansive Soil width of the wall.
6. The heaving of expansive soil gradually
In this part, three models are carried out with and decreases with increasing depth of shear
without wall to study the effect of shear resistance wall resistance, where it reaches from 32% to 36% at
on heaving of expansive soil. d/D equal 0.5, 1 respectively.
Fig 18 shows the heaving of expansive soil with and 7. The degree of improvement in settlement to be
without shear resistance wall. According to the results, it obtained from the soil confinement depends on
can be seen that the heaving of expansive soil is gradually the depth of the wall, strength of the wall,
decreases with increasing depth of shear resistance wall width of the wall, and curing time of the sand-
due to increase soil confinement as well as the wall acts cement wall.
as a drain, where the radial drainage of water occurs in
the soil under the foundation towards the wall, where the References
wall absorbs the moisture present in the soil.
This result agrees with the findings of Dhowian and [1] S. M. A. AL-Ani, M. O. Karkush, A.
Al-Saadan (2009), they mentioned that the lateral swell Zhussupbekov, and A. A. Al-Hity, “Influence of
makes up about a third of the total swell. Thus, the Magnetized Water on the Geotechnical Properties
of Expansive Soil,” Modern Applications of
6 ENGINEERING JOURNAL Volume # Issue #, ISSN 0125-8281 (https://engj.org/)

Geotechnical Engineering and Construction, 112.
Singapore: Springer Singapore, 2021, ch. 4, pp. 39–
50.
[2] A. R. Estabragh, H. Rafatjo, A. A. Javadi,
“Treatment of an expansive soil by mechanical and
chemical techniques,” Geosynth Int., vol. 21, no. 2,
pp. 233-243, 2014.
[3] M. Y. Fattah, A. H. Al-Lami, “Behavior and
characteristics of compacted expansive unsaturated
bentonite-sand mixture,” J Rock Mech Geotech Eng,
vol. 8, pp. 629-639, 2016.
[4] S. K. Dash, M. Hussain, “Lime stabilization of soils:
reappraisal.,” J. Mater. Civil Eng. vol. 22, pp. 533-
538, 2012.
[5] M. Al-Mukhtar, S. Khattab, J. F. Alcover,
“Microstructure and geotechnical properties of
lime-treated expansive clayey soil,” Eng. Geol., vol.
139, pp. 17-27, 2012.
[6] S. Nayak, , P. G. Sarvade, “Effect of cement and
quarry dust on shear strength and hydraulic
characteristics of lithomargic clay,” Geotech. & Geol.
Engrg, vol. 30, pp.419-430, 2012.
[7] R.. M. Brooks, “Soil stabilization with fly ash and
rice husk ash,” Int. J. Res. Rev. Appl. Sci., vol. 1, pp.
209-217, 2009.
[8] A. S. Abdulrasool, “Effect of Sand Wall Stabilized
with Different Percentages of Lime on Bearing
Capacity of Foundation,” Proceedings of 19th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering, Paris, France, 2017, pp.
2709- 2712.
[9] R. E. Brown. “Vibroflotation Compaction of
Cohesionless Soils,” Journal of the Geotechnical
Engineering Division, American Society of Civil Engineers,
vol. 103, no. GT12, pp. 1437-1451, 1977.
[10] B. M. Das, “Principles of Foundation Engineering,”
7th ed., CENGAGE Learning, 2011, pp. 734-794.
DOI:10.4186/ej.year.vol.issue.pp
[11] D.W. Hight, and S. Leroueil, “Characterisation of
soils for engineering purposes,” Proceedings of
Workshop on Characterisation and Engineering Properties
of Natural Soils, Singapore, 2002.
[12] N. K. Ovesen, “Centrifuge testing applied to
bearing capacity problems of footings on sand,” Ge
´otechnique, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 394- 401, 1975, doi:
10.1680/geot.1975.25.2.394.
[13] H. Yamaguchi, T. Kimura, and N. Fuji-i, “On the
scale effect of footings in dense sand,” Proceedings of
9th. International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation. Engineering, Tokyo, Japan, 1977, pp. 759-
798.
[14] M.D. Bolton, C.K. Lau, “Scale effects in the bearing
capacity of granular soils,” Proceedings of the 12th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering,, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1989, pp. 895–
898.
[15] I. Herle, and J. Tejcllman, “Effects of grain size and
pressure level on bearing capacity of footings on
sand,” Deformation and Progressive Failure in
Geomechanics, Elsevier Science, 1997, pp. 781-786.
[16] O. Kusakabe, “Foundations’, In Geotechnical
Centrifuge Technology,” Taylor R.N. (Editor),
Blackie Academic & Professional, Glasgow, UK,
1995, pp. 118- 167.
[17] K. Terzaghi, “Theoretical Soil Mechanics,” John
Wiley and Sons, New York, 1947.
[18] E. W. Brand and R. P, Brenner, “Soft Clay
Engineering,” Elsevier Scientific Publishing
Company, Amsterdam, 1981.
[19] G. N. Smith, E. L. Pole, “Elements of Foundation
Design,” Garland STPM Press, NYC, 1980.
[20] A. W. Dhowian, T. A. Al-Saadan, “Swell Behavior
of Expansive Soil with Free Lateral Movements,” J
King Saud Univ., vo!. 22, no. 2, pp. 51-64, 2009.