rica

*D A076 551 ARMY ENGINEER WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION VICKSBURG— ETC F/S 13/13
OVERVIE W FOR DESIGN OF FOUNDATIONS ON EXPANSIVE SOILS. (U)
SEP 79 I. D JOHNSON
“ un £CCTflV
wcq.G( 7Q..21

_
_ _ _ _ _

U
_ _
_ _ _

_ususin I L IU _
_ _ _ _ _

I.’

p
_ _

E
 ___ %ï~
LEVEV
MISCELLANEOUS PAPER GL-79-21

OVERVIEW FOR DESIGN OF FOUNDATIONS

ON EXPANSIVE SOILS
by

Lawrence D. Johnson
Geotechnical Laboratory
~~~
U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station
P. 0. Box 631,Vicksburg, Miss. 39180

D D C
~~~ September 1979
F~~L~r~naJ1Efl
Final Report NOV 14 1979
1A1 00 For Public Release; Distribution UnI]
~~~~~
~ ~
B

It. -
—..
...

. .
-- - ~~~~ - -

‘~ ~~~~ .
.
~~ . .
. . ~~~~~ ~~~~~~
.- .

Prepared for Office,Chief of Enginee ,U. S. Army

~
Washington,D. C. 20314
L.&!I Under RDT&..E Work Unit AT4O EO 004

‘1 9 Li’ i
i 150

—. -~ -
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ V _ _ _ _ _

Destroy this report when no longer needed. Do not return

it to the ori ginator.

The findings in this report ore not to be construed as an off ic ial

Department of the Army position unless so designated
by other authorized documents.
 tine lass i f i e d
SECURI TY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When 0.1. EnI.t.d)
’_ O A IU E READ INSTR UCTIONS
DE
~ ” ~~I
rs ,- cj rt, uU ’.~. UIR
~~~~~~~~ EI ~ I’M I~IU
”~~
~
I B E FOR E COMPLETIN G FO R M
I. REPORT NUMBER 2. G O V T ACCESSION NO. 3. R EC i P I EN T ’ S C A T A L O G I~ WM BE R
/
Miscellaneous Paper CtL T9—2 i
4. T ITLE ( _ b ~~~~~~
/
L -
~~
5. TYPE OF R E P O R T & PERIOD
‘
COVERED
,_: ‘!
—

OVEBVIEW FOR DESIGN OF FOUNDATIONS ON

EXPANSIVE SOILS ,
/ F i n a l rep .rt .
6. PERFOR MING ORG. R E P O R T N U M B E R

7. AtJ T HOR(.) 6. C O N T R A C T OR G R A N T NUMB ER(.)

Lawrence D. , Johnson I

9. PERFORMING O R G A N I Z A T I O N NAM E AND ADDRESS t O. PROGRAM ELEMENT , PROJECT , TASK

AREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS
U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station
Geotechnical Laboratory RDT&E Work Unit AT 14O E OO2.~
P. 0. Box 631 , Vicksbur g, Miss. 39180 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

II . C O N T R O L L I N G OFFICE N A M E A N D ADDRESS 12. REPORT DAT e

O f f i c e , Chief of Engineers , U. S. Army /~ Ser tei ’ 1979
Washington , D. C. 203114 13. NUM B E RO F PA GES

~ 4. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDR ESS(It dIlior.o, Ito., Con froW ng Offi ce) IS. S E C U R I T Y CLASS. (of (hi. reporl)

I Unclassified
/ / ,
IS. . O E C L A S S I F I CA T IO N/ O OW N G R A D IN G
SCHEDULE

16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of title Repor t)

Approved for public release ; distr ibution unlimited.

I?. DISTRIBUTION S T A T E M E N T (of th. .b.t,.ct ent.,’.d In Block 20 , If differ en t Ito., Repo rt )

16. S U P P L E M E N T A R Y N O T E S

lB. KEY WORDS (Contin.t. on r.,.r.. .id. if n.c*a..,~’ end id en tify by block n~mrber)

Clay s F o u n d a tio n deni ~’n

Expansive clay s Soil swelling
Expansive soils Structural desi gn

20. A 5T RA CT’ (CentfWtl. p eer.. ef

~ ~~
If end identify by block ntenb.r)

Numero ’.is~ structures constructed on expansive clay soil have’experienced

.-~
,

and sustained significant damage from differential heave and settlement . The
types of structures most often damaged from heaving soil include highway s , foun-
dations and walls of residential and light commercial buildings , canal and res-
ervoir linings , and retaining walls. The leading cause of foundation heave or
settlement is change in soil moisture attributed to change in the f i 1
~~
(Continued )

DO 473 ED~T~OI$ OF 1 NOV 6S~ S O ~ SOLETE

Unclassified
1 JAN 73
~ ~
SECURITY CLA SS IFICATION OF ThIS PACE (When Dee. Ente,ed)

7
 _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ --V -~~~~~~

tJnclas~ j fied
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(When Data Enteted)

20. ABSTRACT ( C o n t i n u e d ) .

evaporation beneath covered

~environment (e.~’., c l i m a t i c changes , prevention of
areas , improper drainage following construction and from usage requirements of
the structure?.
The design process for structures on expansive clay should consist of a
feasibility study , preliminary design phase to establi sh the overall concept ,
and a detailed design phase to complete the engineering descrip t i o n of t h e
project. -This report provides background information for establishing the
preliminary design of structures in swelling soil areas based on field studies
t
conducted by the U. ~ . Army Eng ineer Waterways Experiment Station ~ WE&)’and
experiences of numerous investigators. The overview includes analyses of site
and soil investi gations , topograp hy and landscaping including drainage and
soil s t a b i l i z a t i o n t e c h n i q u e s , and selection of the foundation and super-
structure. General suggestions for remedial repair of existing structures are
in
~also prov ided. Analyses of the movement of cast—in—place concrete piers
swelling soil are included to provide a basis for desipn of these foundations.
Appendix A presents a’~determination of soil suction by thermocouple
psychrometers ., Suggestions for repair of structures (remedial measures ) are
presented in ~ p ndi~ B. ).Prediction of pier movement 4 is discussed in Ap-
pendix C. Appendix D is a notation of symbols used id~’t h e report .

Vt

Unclassified
SECURITY C L A S S I F I C A T I O N OF T H I S PA G E ( W h e n D.C. Ente,ed )
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

~1

THE CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT ARE NOT TO BE

USED FOR ADVERTISING , PUBLICATION , OR
PROMOTIONAL PURPOSES . CITATION OF TRAD E
NAME S DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN OFFICIAL EN-
DORS~~IENT OR APPROVAL OF THE USE OF SUCH
CO~ dP.RCIAL PRODUCTS .

NT on
~
I~~: ... t~~n
~
t:i
j~~1~ ‘C~~~\ - _____

Th.~~Ll1Y C JES
Di . ~
:. ,. Or SPECIAL
‘ V

1 _ _
- . ~,.. -r---—--.--.— ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .-~ -, -

PREFACE

This overview for design of foundat ions on expansive soils is one

phase in a cont i nu ing study of Research , Developm ent , Test and Evalua-
tion for Work Unit AT14O EO O 0!
~ “Foundations on Swelling Soils ” sponsored
by the Office , Chief of Engineers , U. S. Army . The report “Pred ictin g
Potential Heave and Heave with Time in Swelling Foundation Soils ,” Tech-
nical Report S—78—7 , was completed July 1978 as part of this work unit.
The report was prepared by Dr. L . D. Johnson , Research Group (BG),
Soil Mechanics Division (SMD), Geotechnical Laboratory (GL), U. S. Army
Eng ineer Waterway s Experiment Station (WES), CE , under the general
supervision of Mr. C. L. McAnear , Chief , SMD , and Mr. J. P. Sale , Chief ,
GL. Messrs. W . R . Stroman , Foundations and Mater ials Branch , U. S . Army
Engin eer District , Fort Worth ; F. H. Ch en , President , Chen & Associates ,
Denver; Dr. John E. Holland , Principal Lecturer , Swinburne College of
Technology , Melbourne , Australia ; Messrs. 0. 3. Mitchell , Chief , Engi-
neer i ng Studies Branch , SMD ; W . C. Sherman , Dr. E. B. Perry , and
Dr. D. R . Snethen , RG , SMD , reviewed the report and contr ibuted many
help ful comments.
COL J. L. Cannon , CE , and CDL N. P. Conover , CE , were Commanders
and Directors of WES during the preparation of this report . ‘jr. F . B.
Brown was Technical Director.

V. ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-I- — ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--V
 CONTENTS
Page

PREFACE 2
PART I: INTRODUCTION 5
Background 5
Purpose and Scope 7
PART II: SITE AND SOTL INVESTIGATIONS 12
Surface Featu res 12
Subsurface Investi gations 12
Field explorations 13
Time of sampling 114
Groundwat er 1!4
Laboratory Soil Tests 15
Swell tests 15
Strength tests 16
Movement Analyses 17
Pred ic t i o n of potential total heave 18
P r e d i c t i o n of potential di f f e r e n t ial heav e 22
Pred ict ion of heav e w ith time 22
PART III: TOF RAPHY AND LANDSCAPING 2~4
Drainage Techniques 214
Stabilization Techni ques 26
Compaction control 26
Moisture barriers 27
Prewetting 30
Lime treatment 31
PART IV: SELECTION OF THE SUPERSTRUCTURE AND FOUNDATION . . . . 33
Superstructure Systems 33
First floor 314
Frames 314
Walls 314
Foundation Systems 35
Shallow individual and continuous footings 35
Beiriforced mat slab 36
Beam—on—drilled pier 39
REFERENCES 50
TABLES 1-8
APPENDIX A: DETERMINATION OF SOIL SUCTION BY
THERMOCOUPLE PSYCHROMETERS Al
Theory Al
Procedure A2
Characterization of Swell Behavior A5
Matrix suction A5

3
 — p —
~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

CONTENTS
Page
Suction index A6
V

V
Compressibility factor A7
S u c t i o n swell p r e s s u r e A8
TABLE Al
APPENDIX B: REMEDIAL MEASURES Bi
TABLE Bl
APPENDIX C : PREDICTION OF PIER MOVEMENT Cl
Theory Cl
Computer Prog ram C3
Organ i zation C3
Input data C3
Output data C14
Application c14
Parametr ic analysis
Field tests C6
TABLES Cl— C9
APPENDIX D : NOTATION Dl
- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .
~~~~~~~~~ .. .- V - -- -.

VFhV I V P ) i ~ hi- . N OF FOUNDATIO NS

AiJSI VE SOILS

PART I: lh’ I J Cl [

Backgrouri .l

1. E x p a n s i v e c l ay f ~ u r i d a t i ~~r~ s o i l s are L c a ~..ei in rm’j Larts of

t h e world , i n c l u J i r ~c mu ch of’ t h e w e st e r n , c e n t r a l , an i so ut h e r n areas of
2
t h e Uoited S t a t e s . ’’ E x p a n s i v e soils , w h i c h swell ~ r s h r in k c s L s t o n —
t i all y j oe to c h a n g e s I r v o te r c: u n t e ot , are ch t i r a c t € r i s t i co l i hi qh l y
p l a s t i c clays and clay shales t h a t o f t e n c on t a i n c olloi m l clay m i n e r a l s
such as t h e : son tm o r il lo n i t e s . IIui ~e r i u s st r i c t u r e s c o n s t r u c t e d on t h e c e
s o i l s , i r ~ct u J in ~ many m i l i t a r y f a c i l i t i e s, have e x p e r i e n c e d an ~ su : t a~ nei
s i g n i f i c a n t damage from d i f f e r e n t i a l heave and s e t t l e m e n t . Differ-
e n t i a l movements r e d i s t r i b u t e loads of t h e s t r u c t u r e on the e l em e n t s of
the fu o n i o t i o n and can cause large changes in moment s and s h e a r s not
6
a c c o un t e d f o r in t h e d e s io,n . These changes may also f u r t h e r aq rr a v a t e
o i f f e r e n t ia i movement and w o r s en I t s o~ es to t h e s t r u c t u r e . The t ’rnes of
s t r u c t u r e s most o f t e n damaged from h e a v in g soil include f o u n d a t i o n s and
walls of r e s i d e n t i a l and l i g h t commercial b u i l d i n g s , highways , canal and
reservoir linings , and r e t a i n i n g w a l l s .
2. The l e a d i n - cause of foundation heave or s e tt l e m ~ rit is change
in soil m o i s t u r e , w h i c h is a t t r i b u t e d to c h a n g e s in t h e f i e l d environ-
ment from t i m e of c o n s t r u c t i o n and usage r e q u i r e m e n t s of t h e s t r i c —
118
tu r e . ~ ~ Oth er causes of so il volum e c h a nr e s are fr ~~st heave 9 an i
10 11 12
chemical r e a c t i o n s in the s o i l ( e . g . , o x i d a t i o n of p y r i t e ) . ’ ’
S t r u c t u r e s on expansive Coun i at i on so i l s o f t e n heave because covered
areas reduce t h e n a t u r a l evaporation of m o i s t u r e from t h e ground and
red uc e t r a n s p iration of m o i s t u r e from v e g e t a t i o n . Cc- ~s t r u c t ion on a
s i t e where a large t r e e was removed , for example , r oy lead to a b u i ldu p
of m o i s t u r e because of p r i o r d e p l e t i o n of soil mo i sture by t h e e x t e n s i v e
13
root system of the tree . Additional changes in soil moist ure are

1
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
______________
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
--
-

it tr ibut ~~ to 5l;~fl1 Si cant var j0 t ions in cliaot - , such us lon~ o r au~ h t s

~~~ j heavy rain s , w’t~ r i n~c of lawn s , d e p t h to t h~- wat -r tab 1- • and m ale—

o drainage S surface w i t er f r a th e St r i c t - i i’ . ~h i st u r e char i ~’e,:

also may be introduced into foundation soils thr iqh excavations m u l e
f o r b a s em ent s or tr i l l e d p ier f o u n d a t i o n s .
3 . Differential heave can b e c aus ed by nonun iform chang e s in so i l
m o i s t u r ~ and variations in thickness and comn ;oit ion of the expansive
founjution soil. Nonuniform moisture changes occur from local. c~~n o e n—
trations of water f r o m mr S-ice p o n d i n g, b r ok e n w a t L o and sewe r l ines ,
leaky faucets , defe c tiv e r a in ~u t t o r s and c wo.oo ito , Local transpira-
tion of mo isture from nearby trees , and :iffusion of moi stuio. away from
heat sources such as furnaces.
14. Heaving of foundations is o f t e n e r r a t i c and a s s o c i a t el w I t h
uvwarj , long—term movement s of four or more years. Movement that occurs
from a relucti on of natural evapotranspiration is commonly associate l
with a lone—shaped pattern of greatest movement towaru the center of the
1 —1 9
structur e , as documented in South Africa. L o c a l ise d h e a v i nq can
be i n t r o d u c e d at p o i n t s where w a t e r leaks occur . In a structure und er—
q c i n g g e n e r a l i z e d , widespread movement , a c y c l i c e x p a n s i o n — c o r t r a c t i c n
related to drainage and the frequency and ojn~ unt of rainfall and eva :—
transp iration is superimposed on lonc—t eom heave near the perimeter of
the structure. Damaging end lift of foundations has been observed
relati vely soon after constructio n , which was associated with precco-
20
s tr u c t io n v e g e t a t i o n and less t o p o g r a p h i c r e l i e f . i i o w n w a r m i n V from
soil shri nk age may occ ur beneath the perim ete r dur ing ho t , dry periods
or from the desiccating effect of trees and vegetation adjacent to the
20 ,21
Edge effects extend inward as much as 8 ft (2.5 m) anu
.
structure.

become less si gnificant on well—dr4ained land .~~~~~S

5. A dish—shaped pattern can also occur beneath foundations due

to con solidati on , drying out of sur fac e soil from a h eat sour ce , or
26 27
lowering o f the wat er table . ~ Damages are generally less in settl-
ing soil with the dish—shape d pattern because the foundation is usually
2
bett er able to resist tension forces than the walls. The semiar i d ,

V ~~~~ -V V V ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ -V -V~~~

_ _
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -
 V.• -V. -
-V V ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ V.— ~~~~ ~~

hot and dry c l i m a t e s tend to cause t h e most severe an ~ p r ot~r e u s i v ’c

29
f ou n d a t ion soil heaves.
6. Types of 1:una ~ e s u s ta i n e d by s t r u c t u r e s due to d i f f e r en t i a l
v er t i c a l heave ot ’ f o u n d a t i o n soil in c i u l e d i s to r t i o n and c r a ck i n c of

~1vemerI t S and o ;i— ~ r u l e fLoor slabs; c ra c k : ; in grade beam s , w a i l . : , an

p i e r s h a f t s ; Ui mmcd or m i s a l i g n e d doors and windows ; and f a i l u r e of
6 ,7,2 5,30 ,31
c o n c r e t e p l i nt h s . Lateral f o r c e s may lead to Lu c ~~lin ~r of
.

basement and r e t a i n i n g walls , particularly in overconsolidated and non—

fissured soils. Fi gure 1 schema t ically illustrates some common ly
served exterior wall cracks from doming or elqe iown natterns of heat .
b—
V
Typ ical fractures caused by movement of swelling soil beneath an at-en—
done d struc ture ne ar Cl inton , Miss ., are illustrated in Figure 2. The
pattern of heave generally causes the external walls in the superstru:—
t u re to lean outward , resulting in hor izon tal , vertical , and diuqonat
f r a c t u r e s with larger crooks near the top . The roof tends to restrain
the rotation from vertical differential movements leading to a d u i t i 2 , n o ~
i6 ‘ 3n_ ~ 1 Vt
h o r i z o n t a l f r a c t u r e s near t h e r o o f l i n e at t h e top of t h e wall .
These damages can lead to difficult and costly long— term m a i n t e n a n c e
problems ; e .q., th e ma intenan c e exp en se of a single , military s t ru :tm ’ e
has exceeded ~.?5O ,OOO .~

Purpose and Sco p e

1. Damages in structures founded on expansive soils occur because

uni form and reliable design procedures are not -en er ’illy available. Un-
suitable desi gn approaches that do not con si de r t he po t ent ial of so i l
214 314
swell are of ten u sed . ~ Design s of rel atively smal l st ruc tu r e s such
as residences and lightly loaded buildings , for ex am pl e , are often bared
on local experience without adequate investi g a t i o n of soil
c haracteristics.
8. The design process sometime s o m i t s but should consist of a
fe as i b i l i t y stud y to establ ish the need and provide economic justificu—
t i o n , preliminary design ph ase to e st a b l i s h t h e ove rall conc ept , and a
ictai led desi gn phase to compl ete the eng in eer i ng descri p t i o n of ’ t h e

_ _ _— - V~~~~~ V
__ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _ . V ~~~~~~~~~~ . . V . V .~4
 V
~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~V.~V~~ ~~ VV.VVVV

HORIZON TAL CRACK

VERTICAL CRACKS

VI
~
HORIZONTAL
SR A C K

DIAGONAL
SHEAR CRACKS

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Fi,qure 1. Examples of wall fractures from swellino

foundation soils (after References 6 , 30 , 31)

-— -
— ~~~~~~~~~~~
 1
- ‘V . . _ - -. -- — - - - -V -.
~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ -~~~~~ --_ - . - .- - — , _ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_

_
-
-s
~
S -
-

~ ~~

a. Vertical c r a c k s

_ _ _
_ _ _
S

b. B:- L
~
n ,i
~ ~~~~
-- :cu

Fi~ ~r° 2 . E:-.am; Les of c - -ho in - n ex ~ ~-.r i -e

.—— —~~—— -.--.~~~

-~~~ —
~~~~~~ ~
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ —.--
~~~~~ - . ~~~~~
-.-- - -~~ - --- — - ----

-
5
pro ject. This report prov ides background in f o rma t i on for est u b i i s h in~
t h e pr eli mina ry des i gn o f stru c ture s in swelling soil areas w it h the
intent to impart a basic understanding of successful procedures for
design of structures on swelling soil and to present methods for antici-
pati ng and minimizing problems that may occur.
9. The decision process , Figure 3 , il lustrat es interrelati on ships
between var ious phases during prelimina ry desi gn to properly select the
foundation and superstructure. Figure 3 is a simpl if i e d ve rsion of th e
5
pattern methodology design concept proposed by Prendergast et al. The
pattern methodology concept shows that the design process includes site
an d soil invest igatons , a study of topography and landscap ing , and the
select ion of the foundation and superstructure . The decision concept
is proposed partly to help determi ne during the preliminary desit-n phase
potent ial problems that could eventually affect the performance of t h e
struc tur e . Comprom ises can t h e n be made betw een t h e str u c t ur al , archi-
te c t u r a l, and mechanical aspects of the d e sign w itho ut d is rupt i ng th e
des ign process. Changes during the detailed design phase or during c:;.-
str uct i o n are much more likely to delay con st ruct i o n and pose econ om i c
disadvan tages.
10. The scope of this report includes analyses of site an d soil
invest igat ion s , topog raphy and landscaping incl ud i n g d ra inage and soil
s t a b i l i z a t i o n t e c h n i ques , and selection of the superstructure aol foun-
dation . Methods for remedial repairs of existing structures are also
provide d for reference (Appendix B). An analysis of the movement of
cast— in—place pier foundations (Appendix C) is included as part of the
procedure for select ion of pier foundati ons to su pp lement the rather
sket chy informat i on available on th e behav io r of pie r s in sw ellin f soil .
Th e report does not specif i cally include procedures for desi gn of h igh—
ways , canal or r e s e r v o i r li ning s , or retainini~ walls.

10

-. - — -- - --- -~~~~~~~. V - - -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ —~~~~~~~~-~~--.

__________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FUNCTIONAL
RE QUIREMENTS
I

DEVELOPED SUCCESSF UL
~~~~~~~~~
F~~~ ~
H

____________ I LARGE , HEAVY] ____________

STRUCTURES F—”—I SUBSURFACE

I
__

EXPERIENCE _____________ I GEOLOGICAL DRAI NAGE

LIGHT ....II T IGA T I0NS
l~ ~~~~~
[
STRUCTURES
I
r~I~ B O R A T O R Y SOIL
STABILIZATION
TESTING

MOVEMENT

1
ANALYSIS

_ _ _ _
_ __

SELECT AND DESIGN

STRUCTURE

FIRST FLOOR FOUNDATION FRAME ______

WALL
SELECTION SELECTION SELECTION SELECTION

S H A L L O W , SPOT
~~1
ON T IN U OUS
~~~~~

—H DRILLED PIERS

MAT SLAB

Figure 3. Dec ision process of design

11

L
 —-V
~~
V~~ V ~V~~ VV -. ~ -V ‘- V -.
~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ -V ‘- -V_ -V ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PART II : SITE AND SOIL INVESTIGATIONS

11. Site and soil investigations determine the presence , e x t e n t ,

and nature of expansive soil and groundwater conditions from wh ich a
judgnent of the best type of foundation can be made. A study of avail-
able l i t era tu re , previ ous cl ima t e , surface feat ures , and site history
can provide much info rmation about the presence of expansive soil and
notential for heave . Local geological records and publications and
federal , state , and institutional surveys are a good source of informa-
tion on subsurface soil features. Meteorological records indicate
Inc ur, in I f’rc-:~uericy of rainfall , which are useful esti;’ -i~
tin a ’ 1’ conditions .

S u r f a c e Features

12. .urSc ce features such as wooded areas , bushe s , and other deep-
r . - ted ‘.‘ ef - ? t O t l O f l in expansive soil areas indicate po tent ial heave from
ac -um u~, at : o n of m oisture followinq elimination of these sources of evapo—
t raris tira tion. The growth of mesquite and small trees may indicate sub-
surface soil with a high affinity for moisture , a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of
5
expa nsive soil . Po nds and depr es s i o n s are o f t e n f i l l e d wit h clayey ,
expansive sed ime nts accumulated from the drainage of rainwater. 3 The
site should be examined for the presence of gilgaies. The existence of
earlier structure: on the c::r:s + suction site has probably modified the
soil moisture ;rofile and will influence the potential for future heave
beneath new t ru - ’tures.
id . “ ru:~ i r s in the vi~ inity of the site should be ins ect ., t for
cracks - m i :t.h or c i r n i s 5 iistress. The condition of on—sit e ~t u c 5 o
f’0.j ,~o int s of’ bri ck an-I stone structures , and interior Ilaster wa ils
is a f a i r in l icut ion of’ sub sur face expansive clay and relative potential
for h--u -i :- . The m o -st successful t y p e s of local f o u n d a t i o n s and design s
l b - r i o ’ S it ly n o t e d .

i_
_
V _
_c t u v e s t i gat i o n s

it . . ‘ ;b s ir face invest iqations are especially impo ;’tan ’ in

j 12

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
expansive soil areas because the effects of swelling soil on the O t i S - —

ture should be evaluated as well as the effects of the str uc t-ire -~ r~ ‘ne
5
b e h a v i o r of t h e f o u n d a t i o n s o i l . The subsurface exploration prorram
should d e t e r m i n e t h e e x t e n t and n a t u r e of e x p a n s i v e soil un i prcun Iwuter
conditions.
15. The design of residences and light ::tr;ctures can often be
made with minimal additional subsur face investi 5ations arid s,il testin €-’
if the site is developed , subsurface feat u re s are gener ally k r~ow’r:, an i
local practice has provided consistently successful designs for struc-
tures. Unsuccessful local practice should be investigated to determine
the reasons for failure. New sites and the design of large , heavy b ui l l—
ings require subsurface investigations and soil testin o pro~ rams as part
o f the desi gn process.

F ield expl orations

16. Field explorations should include investigation of soils be-
tween ground surface and bottom of the footing as well as m aterial s be-
neath the proposed depth of footing. The swelling of expansive soil ,
fo r example , causes lateral th rust on foundation wal l s an d uplift fo rc es
on pier shaft s and differential movement between the foundation and
under’c-roun d utilities such as water and sewer lines , storm drains , and
elec trical connections.
17. Sampling to depths greater than for normal i n v e s t i gations is
often useful in expans ive soil areas . The depth of sampling should be
at least as deep as the probable depth to which moisture changes will
occur ; i.e., the depth of the a c t i v e zone X * for heave . The depth
a
X is often d i fficult to predict wit hout field measur emen ts of heave
or moisture changes , and Xhas also not b een established for many
a
practical cases . The active zone usually extends down about 1D-i3 ft
(3— 14 in) in depth or to the depth of a shallow water table , bu t can go
18 l9 35_3B
deeper . ~ ~ The entire thickness of intensely jointed clay
shales should be drille d and sam ple d unt il the groundw ater leve l i s
encountered because the entire zone could swell when fiven access to

* Symbols are listed an d def in ed in t he Notat i on , Appendix D.

13

- ~~~ —~~~~~~ -—--V _ --- --

 5
moisture. The depth of such desiccated and stiff , Sis: ;ueI o~ ay :;liuies
at Lackland Air Force Base exceeds 50 f t (15 m ) . 19’~~°~
18. A competent inspector or engineer should accurately and visu—
a1iy classify materials as they are recovered from the bon n;- . Adequate
classification ensures proper selection of samples for lab rutory tests.
A ua1if ie- I engineering ~eologist or foundation engineer should closely
~
;n- nitor the drill crew so that timely adjustment s can be made during
drilling to obtain the best and most representative samples.
19. Undisturbed samples should be obtai ned at intervals of not
greater than 5 ft (1.5 m) of depth . The outer 0.14 in. (1 cm) of material
should be removed from the p e r i m e t e r of t h e core sample i f t h e sample
was exposed to drilli ng fluid. A coating of wax should be brushed on
the sample be fore wrapp ing wi t h foil , plastic wrap , che esecloth , etc.
The initial brush ed c oating o f wax reduces sub sequent pene t ration of
molten wax into fissures during the sample sealing procedure . The temp—
er at u re of the mo lt en wax , a 1— to—i mixture of paraffin and microcrystal-
l in e wax , should be as low as poss ible to avoid dr iving moisture from
the sample. The outer perimeter of the sample should be trimmed during
preparat i o n o f specimens for laboratory te sts , leaving the more indis—
turbed inn er core . Further details on undisturbed sampling may be found
in Reference 140.
Time of sampling
20. Moisture in soil samples should be similar to moisture condi-
tions of th e foundation soil at the time of construction to best simu-
late the swelling behavior of expansive soil from laboratory tests.
Un di sturbed samp les preferably should be taken when so il mo is tur e is
expected to be similar during construct i on , or samples may be t a k e n
during the dry season when potential heave will be maximum , thus pro-
vid ing a more conservative design . Heave of foundation soil tends to
be less if the structure is constructed immediately following the rainy
season .
Groundwater
21. Knowledge of groundwater conditions is important in evaluating
the behavior of a foundation . The active zone for moisture change often

114

-V —~~
, --
——— —— —
~~~
—— — —
~~~~~
.
—
~~~~~—
 V-VV.~ _ V~~V~~ V. ~ V
V—V- V— V.
~ -V -VV - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - .r - - --- -.. _ _ F -V_V. V~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ -V~ ~~V.~-V ‘ _ - V_~
~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~

VV
-
extends down to the depth of shallow water tables. A shallow perched
water table may provide a source o f m oist ure in to deeper desiccated
zones if open boreholes or foundation elements penetrate through the
perched water table . Footings bottomed below a perched table may heave
i f measures are not taken to inhibit the migration of moisture into
soils beneath the footings . A rising water table may also contribute
V to heave if footings are bottomed above the groundwater level.
22. The distr ibution of pore pressures in normal and perched water
tables i s determined by piezometric installation s at diffe rent depths .
Casagrande (ceramic porous tube ) piezo meters w i t h small diameter (3/8 in .
or 10 mm) risers are usually adequate , and they are relat i vely simple ,
1
inexpensive , and good for soils of low permeability. All bor eholes
should be filled and sealed with a low permeable grout , such as 12 per-
cent bentonite and 88 percent cement by weight , to mini mi z e pen et ra t i o n
of surface water or water from perched tables down into deeper strata
that may include desiccated expansive clays.

Laboratory So il Tests

23. The purpose of laboratory tests is to determine physical prop-

erties that provide input parameters for evaluatin g foundation perfor-
mance. Results of classification tests permit a rating of relative
expansive c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s, but the actual f i e l d environment is o f t e n not
reflected and estimates of field heaves from these t e s t s may be mislead-
ing. Commonly used classification tests include specific gravity,
Atterberg limits , natural water content , g r a d a t i o n , and hydrometer
2
tests. Predictions of total and differential m ovem en t from re sults of
swell t e s t s have provided more acceptable data to help determine the
best type of foundation and depth of footing to support the structure .
Swell test s
214. Recommended swell tests include consolidometer swell and soil
suc t i on tests . Consolidometer swell tests ten d to predict minimal levels
of heave , whereas soil suction tests tend to predict max i mum or upper
l9 143
levels of heave compared with those measured in the field . ~ Soil

15

--.---
~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~
 -V — - V V-V-V _
~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

suction tests have been more economical , less time—consumi ng , and simple r
than consolidometer swell tests.
25. The procedure )f’ten used for consolidometer swell tests is
described in Technical Manual TM 5—~ l b — J , 15 Aug 61 , “ E n g i n e e r i n g and
Desi gn — Procedures for Foundation Design of Buildings and Other Struc-
1414
tures (Except Hydraulic Structures). ” An appropriate test when little
is known about swell behavior or groundwater cen iltions is the cuni sot ido—
142
meter test described in Engineer Manual EM lllO_2_ 1906 , except t tat
distilled water should be added at the seat i ng or t west possible load
rather than at 0.25 tsf (214 kPa). The specimen is allowe d to exI u;, i at
the seating load until primary swell is complete be fore a p r i y i n g the
consolidati on pressures. A loading pressure simulating field initial
conditions should be applied at the start of the test to -ieterm ine ‘he
initial void ratio , then removed to the seating load prior to a -d iinr the
145
water. This procedure , s i m i l ar to t h a t p roposed by Jenni ngs et at . ,
can help to avoid the need for additional unscheduled tests when swell—
ing behavior is different than antici pated (e.g., the spec imen consoli—
- dates rather than swells following addition of water at si gn ificant load-
ing pressures). The void ratio log pressure curve for final effective
pressures from the seating to maximum applied load can be used to deter—
mine settlement or heave with respect to the initial void ratio. The
rebound curve is not needed.
26. Soil suction is a quantity that can be used to characterize
the ef fect o f moistur e on volume an d str ength and , therefore , to deter—
mine the phys i cal behav ior of ~~~~~~~ It is a m easur e o f the en er gy~ 8
that holds the soil water in the pores or a meas ure of the pullin g force
exerted on the pore water . Characterizing swell behavior from soil s ic-
tion tests , as described in A ppend ix A , is analogous to t he pro c edure
for characterizing swell from consolidometer swell tests.
Strength tests
27. Strength tests are required to estimate the bearing capacity
of f o u n d a t i o n soils at t h e f i n a l -~r e q u i l i b r i u m w a t e r c o n t e n t . A mea—
sure of shear strength with depth is also needed to evaluate soil sup-
port from adhesion along the shaft of pier foundations. Bearing capacity,

-V

__________
__
-

_ _
~~~~~~~~~~
_y -—--V — -—- V ‘-V-V -—---.— -— -V- - ---V-V ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

howeve r , is usually not a problem in swelling soil because footings are

o ften placed at d epths below the activ e zone wh er e moistur e condi t ions
are not expected to change and b e a r i n g p r e s s u r e s are u s u a l l y less than
the swelling pressure.
28. The most common strength tests performed on undisturbed speci-
mens are u n c o n f i n e d compression , unconsolidated—undrained ( Q) ,
142
consolidated—undrained (B) , and the drained (s) direct shear . The
unconfined compression test may indicate strengths that are too low
because the effect of confinement is not considered. The Q and B
test s should be p erfo rmed at conf i nin g pressures equal to the calculated
in situ overburden pressure . The 0. and R tests are considere d
appropriate because rapid shear associated with failure allows lit t le
time for dra inage in the relatively low permeable swelling soils.
An alyse s us ing total stresses are also often pre ferre d because problems
in determining pore and lateral pressures are avoided. The lower limit
in the scatter of results of undrained triaxial tests has been recom-
14
mended when estimating in situ shear strength of stiff fissured clays . ~
The mean undrained strength may be used when scatter is small.

Mov em ent Analy ses

29. Analyses of foundation movement are necessary to design a

structure that can accommodate the pred i cted movement w ithout undue
d istress. Table 1 illustrates important factors that influence the nag—
nitu d e and rate of found ati on movement . The difficul ty o f predic ti ng
potential heave is complicated further by the effect of the typ e of
fo undat ion , depth of foundation , and load exerted by the footings on
swelling of expansive soil. Additional problems inc lude estimating the
location and amount of avai lable moisture and the final or equil ibr ium
mo i sture profile .
30. Accurate heave predictions are fortunately not always neces—
sary to determine a rational foundation design . Heave predictions
wi thin 20—50 percent have usually been adeouate .5° Observations of
ex ist i n g s t r u c ture s or use of emp ir ical me th ods can also gi ve a good

17

-V - - -~~~~~~~~ . - -V ---V -
-V ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - V - — ~~~~~
 _ _ -V_
_ _ _ _ _ _

first estimate of t h e probable m a g n i t u d e of heave . Heave p r e d ict i o n s

may be needed f o r p i l e or p i er foundations ext ending b e i w trio activ e
zone to aid e s t i m a t e s of upward drag on p o r t i on s of t h e pier within the
zone of m o i s t u r e change .
31. Lateral movement may also a f f e c t the i n t e g r i t y of the struc-
ture. Lateral t h r u s t of expansive soil w i t h a horizontal force up to
t h e passive e a r t h pressur e can cause b u l g i n g and f r a c t u r e of basement
walls. S t r u c t u r e s c o n s t r u c t e d on slopes t h a t c o n t a i n s w e l l i n g soil may
e x p e r i e n c e some l a t e r a l movement as the soil creeps d own h i l l . Seasonal
downhill creep is characterized by a slow movement of the soil from
51
cyclic expansion and shrinkage aided by gravity. Creep displacements
of 0.14 in./year (1 cm/year ) were observed on an undisturbed slope of
12—1 14 percent (1 vertical on 7 horizontal ) in an expansive silty clay
soil 5 ft (1.5 i n) thick near Stanford University in central
52
California.
Prediction of potential total heave
The proportion of volumetric swell that occur s as vertica .~
32.
heave depends p r i m a r i l y on t h e soil f a b r i c . V e r t i c a l heave of i n t a c t
so i l w i th few fissu res may equal all of the volumetr ic swell , while ver-
t ical heave of heavily fissured soil may be as low as one third of the
volumetric swell. The following methods for predicting potential
total ver tical heave assume that all of th e vo lumet r ic swell o ccurs in
the ve r t ical direction . Predi c tions of lateral move m ent are beyond the
’
14
scope of this report .
~ ~~
33. Most methods of p r e d i c t i n g pot ent i a l total heave beneath a
cove r ed area assume the following final or equilibrium pore—water pres—
8 ,19,23 ,142 56
sure p r o f i l e s i l l u s t r at e d in Figure
.
14:

Saturated: U 0 (1)
w

Hydrostatic : u = u + ‘y (x — X ) (2)
W wa ~w a

U = pore—water pressure at depth X , tsf

18

V.

’
~i - -~~-iV ’t’i -~~~~~~~ - -
.
V _, _ -VV _ V
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - .
~~ V_ - VV ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
 - V- V- V V - -V - , - -. -V — V
—‘--V.- ‘-V — ---.--—-V -V-V— -—-- V- - .’. ~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ .-,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ :; :- : :
~~~
~~~
~~~~
U~~~~ O
UW ,DRY PROFILE

uw ,WET PROFILE \ \\

P O R E — W A T E R PRESSURE

a. Saturated profile

I~ F O U N D A T I O N SLAB ‘
~~~

\ U~~~~WET PROFI LE

u ,DRY PROFILE
~~

Y ,,(X
~~~~
\
\ /
~~ 0 ’~ ~
—

u wo 0
—
+
P O R E — W A T E R PRESSURE

b . Hydrostati c pr of il e

Fi gure ii . Assumed e q u i l i b r i u m pore w a t e r p r e s s u r e

profiles beneath foundation slabs

19
~ ___ • ___ _

1 = Sr c—water pressure it depth - o f the a - t vu :0ui _- A , ‘0 5

y = aol t wel ght of wa1 Vo ~’, t u no /

The s at - u i - u t e l profile may be more realistic beneath rosi ic-r~ :en and b u i l d —
j u g s exp o s e d to w a t e r in g of p e r i m e t e r v e g e t a t i o n and p o o c i b l e l e a k i n g un—
.ler—rea n 1 water and sewer lines. The hydrostatic profile may be more re— —

a l i st i c l e n e a t i i hi d;wayo and pa -zcmc-nts if drainage is r o o d and ponding of

s u r f a c e water is avoided . If’ the depth to the water table is less t h a n
20 f t (6 m ) in clay soil , t h e n u can be set equal to 0 and X
a
becomes
wa 8 r~~6
e lual to t h e depth of t h e water table. ‘ For d e p t h s t o li -our i-iwater ex-
ceeding 20 ft beneath the foundation , the depth of the active zone can
sonet toes be ass roe-I between 10 (for moist profiles) to 20 ft (for dry pro-
f i l e s ) below the bottom of t h e f o u n d a t i o n . For shallow foundations , A
a
can be e s t i m a t e l as the depth loclow which the w a t e r c o n t e n t / p l ast i c l im i t
or soil s u c t i o n is c o n s t a n t ( i . e . , not varying w i t h t h e s e a s o n ) .
314 . F r e - l i c t i o n s of seasonal v a r i a t i o n s i n heave f r om changes in
moisture between cx’ ~-em ~: wet an-I Iry moi store conditions , F i g - i r e Lb , are
a :rorriate fo r perimeter regions of the f ou n d a t i o n . These edge e f f e c t s
a r e i mp o r t a n t in m an y cases ; e.r . , a structure constructed on a wet
site foIl i-we by a long iro icht or gro ’~rth of a large tree n e a r the struc-
ture teals t~ iownwarp ing at the edges. Calculation of seasonal hea-,-e
between w et ar I
lrv extremes requires a measure or estimate of both
S O tO nal. v t -no d Iry pore—water pressure or suction profiles.
35. i-d:otri oa i m et ll -o ls . Table 2 describes empirical meth- :ds t h at
gave the b e st a,’-reeirent with field data from the U. S. Army E n g i n e e r
Wa t er w a y s Experiment Station (WES ) expansive soil study from results of
19
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n t e s t s. These m e t h o d s assume t h a t f i n a l t or e pressures
are zero (Equation 1), an assumpt ion that should result in r e n e ra l ly -
-

m a x i m u m pre lictions of potential heave from a given initial con di ti on .

The volumetr ic swell from Mc Dowell’ s method 57 correlated better w ith

19
f i e l d measurements -of vertical heave of the WES s t u d y and should be
aid of t h e p o t e n t i a l v e r t i c a l r i s e ( ‘PVR ) or one third of the
i n s t e ad
8
volum etr Ic swell. i- -:t h M-~Dowell and McKee ;i~ methods require graphs.
dO 19
Van Per I~e rwu , Mche~ ri , and Johnson methods t e n d t o give maximum
v a l ue : of heave , whereas t h e r e m a i n iar methods t e n d t o give m i n i m u m

20

- - -- - - V . -V - V . -- _ _
r—
~

~~

1)
levels expec ’ el -it the -, r - io I c u r f i ,~~ These m - ’ li-ol :: nt - riot s o - , .
- lic- -k e i fu r I i n i ~~s f -u n i 1 ii ili y . r ss ch .- - r’c: of c a lL :10 ’ 1 no o f
no ’ en t i a h e av e Sc- to ve r al S these 0 - t i 1:: r ay r -i o- a c -a.: no r ie

but r ~~:i~~ii e s t i m a te of the c-n . ~ of po ’ or ti ril ho~~’.r’ -x : ~t ‘ Ic -

~~~
md ii 11 S i -

VU. :‘ n o t ,h en , -
-
do:- ii , -ao l Patrick rate 1 the n-- — lirrm - n s i ni -

- I i I m ct - r ow , 11 f r o m n at u r a l w a t e r c o nt e n t ~ u sot uro ’ ion

= 0) at(
w
the in situ o ve r t - :r len ores :ur of’ 20 iii ii:’ c t - cloy .: -no: ci -~~~~ s h a l e : ,
d a bl e 3. T he s e rat i nn s ca m a re I reasonably w e l l v I ’
h e av e s mea s o r e
l9 63
at t h e ,~‘iu ’ field t~~5~ s e ct i o n s . ~ The c la ss I f l o o r i o n s ‘ay .~~~ . I

withour -:n~ w ir ,- - t h e so’ oral soil sucti -n -r , Lot ‘ t~ - r t c ,’ or.: c ~~ —

~ V

cccv ttism of the system ore reduced. n :~~l 11 u- ’ er -or sol . so-otion

tests should be p e r f o r m e I a s tils tb -it cl- ~::lf as margi r.al or ni~ h.

Soils t h a t r a t e i w o - a : ’ ~~ need a I I l t n u t tests , l o ’ ic o-~r ,’ i f the
± i - ~ _ i-J l i m i~ is less ‘ han 140 a c c en t an h p u .: t I ri ~ y in l 0 x is l e s s
than 15 :. ~ r - V e n - V

3• ?-mr ~: - r , Amo s , and h a : t~~r rated t h e ‘ n o t i o t .-~~~o:-.u t r i c

cw e.l u = —15 a t m ( l L - . O kPa )
Sr -::. wet -in c at t o —1/ 3 a~ u ( d 2 kPa )
w
of 32 hod .- -n 50115 scm: t - e 1 at a c u n f r i n , - pre. :oure .25 p s i
(1. °’2 k F a ) . The .- -a in g s of t h e c om p a c t e d
soil t e a l t ~~ - se: - ym:-n l a r —~ r
inc chan -e s han t h e r a t i o — : f the un :isa :rbe : so-il ,
~
Table 3. I- ~-:t o~ial :t h a t are ri ot n ar Ia t- i r l y ex r a n s i v- -V - in ~ he om:: 115 —
t orh-o I 5 t ’i te :o~ t I r n--c- S -:
~~
- be use I as backfill w i t h ~m n . o t
ceo s It s . h owever , c -o;i lion and - r sp a c t in o heavily fissure r soil may
s to o l f ’I c a n t l y
l e o r e n s e the mass r o r r e - o b i l i ty and r e d :c~ t o n e r ration of
:urfrice ~ oi~ t i re in ~ o the 1 ~t ck fi I I , 1 e -i l i nr to less heave , : o r t ic s l a r ly
if ’ the backS~~~ is via .

C- iis ~ lidomeLec ‘sn:

38. i so-f ion met:.~ lo. A simpl e h a n d
of nredi cti ng potential t t-o l v~ r t i ~~-t ~ heave f r : : : consolilome ter swell
tes s , assuming a oa~ :ra~ e 1 e :u i l i h r i u m moi s ore p r o f i l e , I s gi ven in
T e c h n i c a l ‘-‘arm-sa c P11
-
— ll
Pro ir~ I onr if potential total heave r
— . .
~
a l cm e n t car so be ma 1 Sr ro or -input u-c or .,-~c rmri s such as U L TR O T . 1°
This rrogram considers eff’e : t c of 1 ci i l i I f and so il ~verl- :mr n n pr-~ s :u r ~ - :
v ol -inc changes , he~ ’~r n or : - ui sud s , and saturate l r hylro s~ -~~ic

21

-V - - V -V - -
--- --~~~~~~~~~~ ---
 .—, -V—-V
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ — -V - -V

o- oi1ibrium rmo i t ;rur ta s- files ( l-I- ~ ~- : tj n~ 1 -or 2). [r oar . h a i n c l u d e s

~

-
r-oom l- t s of e i t h e r col ic- i i l o m e ’- r ow--l i or soIl susti n O s ; : - r e a c h

~O)~ .i’- tscnri l heave bt — t we -n , -x ’

wet an I -ir ’~ mo i ::t ar e r r ~SiIe: :
car -i be nsf imat e-i from ULTRAT b r tok r; oh ’- d 1 f er o u i ’- be~ wan hooves
c o m p u t e d f or both ex 1 Vr e m -
~ we ’ Oli n :ry p r o f i l e .; , Figur e -a , a:’ :or. of

~—
t im e .;ettlement for t h e w et p r o fIle arm- I heave -of t h e -or y pr.fi ie , 7i

~ r’~ 14b. It :oiioul -d be noted fr -u Figure 14b that 1-er irrte te r ro- ~-veme r~ f r o m
51 i m a t i c c han g e s can exceed the 1:-rig—term heave beneato he r I S er -of a
covered are-i .

P r e di c t i nf l 0 1’ p o ten~
t i a l - d i f : °- :- - - :.o 1:1
14 0 . Li f f er e r o t i a i heave r e s u l t s Sc;::: ed ge effects far a finite
c o v e r e d area , lr ’i i n a g e n a t t e r n s , 1- : te r - ~i variati on: in thickness 5 th e
expansive fcun -d -iti-a soil , and e f f e c t s of o c c u p a n c y . Examt- le : of
effects of occuPancy include broken -or leakin o - vn t - -r an-i :oawer- lines ,
watering of vegetation , and p or id ing adjacent t-o tb-a s’.rsc ure . O th e r
~
c a u s e s of differential heave focI ode d i f f e r e n c e s ir. l a l i n g p r e s sur e
and sic-c of f o o t i n g s .
Li. Reliable nre -ii ct ion s of act :at -of oI: ’ .~ al Ii f f e r ; - r i t i a l h e a v e
are probably not possible because of too rio-an:- - on foreseen -s ar i attes ,
iro -olu-l in g future availability of m o i s t u r e Sr ri. the climate rin i effe o r
of human occupancy. E m p i r i c a l estimates of p :termtia i difi ’~-ren ’ .ia l e a v e
L - , 65 t
sometimes a s su m e one h a l f of the t o t a l p ;t-~cr;t lal h e a v e . ~~ ~ Di S fr:—

e n t i a l heave up to t h r e e q u a r t e r s of t h e p o t e nt i a l total vertical h ear-a

18 l9 65
has been measureã , ~ ~ bu t can var y from zero t o as ro -u ch as the
t o t a l heave . Differential heave is often the tota l heave for so ca s to r ’ ;- .;
suppo rted on isolated spot footings or drilled piers and will l i k e l y
approach the total heave eventually Sn;:- most prac~-ic ’cl cases.
P r e d i c t i on of heave wi th t ime
P2.
Heave with time is nearly impossible to predict f~ r eich iidi -
vidual case because the location and time w:m en w a ter is a v a i l a b l e t o th e
soil cannot be foreseen. Local experience had shown tb -i f mn:~ heave
15,16,19
occurs w:thin 5 to 8 years f e i lowing sonr ~’ r u s t i-ui . If
- . . -

22

-- V ~~~~V . V . - V
~~ V. V~~~~~ -V ~~
_____ —~ -—
-V - -
~~~~~~~~~~~~
- - - - -
~~~
-V’

19
rr’ eli ct ions of heave with time must be made , an analysis sLew:: t h u ’.
di f fi i : : I - ‘ri flow sari b e a p p r o x I r:na’orI by an equat m c i si rr,ilar t o the
ierzagh i consolilatiun equation assuming single drainage at t h e ici~~o 5

the fo un dat ion and a t riangul ar s t r e s s d i s tr i b u t i o n :’T

3
0.9F X
= ( )
~
where
t = t ime , days
F = fraction of potent ial heave at t ime t
X = depth of t h e a c t i v e zone , f t
a
2
c = average effective co effic i ent of swell , ft /day
143.
Time for heave is given in terms of the average effective
19
coef f i c i e n t of p e r m e a b i l i t y in s a t u r a t e d soil k ( f t / d a y ) by

o.oo86F3x 1.73
( 14 )

Coefficients and k include the effect of the actual availability

c
vs s
of wat er , whether interm ittent or ponded , and are t h e r e f o r e usually not
known . and permeability Ic
Effective coefficients of swell from c
vs s
r e s u l t s of covered areas on Yazoo , Upper Midw ay , and P i e r r e shale were
2 2
all on the order of 0.02 ft /day (2 x l0~~ cm /sec) and 0.001 ft/ d a y
( 14 x 10 cm/sec), respectively .

23

- ~~~~~~ - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ V~~~~ -

 PAR T I I I : TOPOGRAPHY AND LANDSCAPING

1414. Topography and landscaping may :tffeci s u r f a c e and subsurface

oralic ~go . Both v e r t i c a l heave of f o u n d a t i o n soil and l a t e r a l foundat i on

m o v e m e n t from downhill creep of soil on even fairly flat slopes (1 vert i-
68
cal to 7 horizontal ) can be aggravated by i n a d e q u a t e d r a i n a g e and pond—
ing of s u r f a c e w a t e r . Grading and drainage should be provided to d r a i n
all s u r f a c e water away from the s tr u c t u r e . Trees should be located a
d i s t a n c e away from t h e s t r u c t u r e of about 1 to 1—1/2 t i m e s t h e h e i , -ht
27 69
of t h e mature t r e e. ~ The f o u n d a t i o n soil n a y also be t r e a t e d to
reduce the e f f e c t s of swelling clay s and m i n i m i z e migration of moisture
i n t o t h e soil . Construction in fresh excavations , w i t h o u t repl acement
of a surcharge pressure equal to the ori g inal soil overbur d en pressure ,
should be avoided where possible because the reduction i n effectiv e
stres s leads to rebound and heave .

Drainage Techn iques

145 . Sloping the ground away from t h e s t r u c t u r e w i l l prevent un-

desirable accumulation of surface water . Drain trenches constructed
aroun d t h e perimeter of the foundation , Fi gures 5 oral 6, can help min i—
.
m -iz e accumulation od . m o i s t u r e
. 21 ,70
and reduce s e a s o n a l edge movements.
D r a i n s should be placed in catch areas that are l i k e l y to collect ponded
vol-er . 5 Subsurfac e int erc eptor dra in s should be i n s t a il e -em r o tt i n g
of f o u n d a t i o n soil may occur from gr a v i t y flow of f r e e w a t e r in :;ul : u:- —
face -r - ervicus soil layers. Interceptor
I r a i n : are also effective along
71
t h e toe of slopes to improve slope s t a b i l i t y an-I reve-rit landslides .
S u b s u r f a c e d r a i n s around t h e p e r i m e t e r of oow irm:i rig po ol :are al so h e i r —
ful for stabilizing soil moisture .
68,72
146. Drains should be c o n s t r u c t e d with w a t er t b -h t and f l e x i b l e
j o i n t s and should p r e f e r a b l y not be r laced in highly do-;-iccated -ocil.
I m p e r v i o u s m o i st u r e barriers should be ; iaced b e n e a t h t h e d r a i n s I -c—

- - cause drains and culverts can be sources of water to foundation s o i l.

- V _ i l
exaroç le:: of s u c c e s s f u l swiriur :i tm, - peel cncn ::truction ~ocluds a

214

-V-V --V-V ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -V - - J

 - - -V —.-V — —-V
~~~~
—.---r--— -—----.- -- -.
-
~~~ __,__ -V— -V--V—
’ — —-V—-V -

— GRANULAR MATERIAL

, .e
0.-

-~i ; .•
.. ,

• ~~~~~ 9.,
o 0 -~~~
WATERTIGHT SEAL

IMPERVIOUS MOISTURE BARRIE R

Figur e 5. Dr ainage t rench

I
FOUNDATION W A L L •
-

~~~~~~

:
~
-

PROT ECTIVE EARTH WITH SLOPE •~~ .4.

.
V
~~ .-
.
~~~ - . .

A
- . .
‘ -
,., —, -, - 0 O~~ ~~

~ IMP ERVIOUS SEAL

-
-

“° °

IM PERVIOUS MOISTU RE
-
0 BA RRIER WITH SLOPE
_
_o ~~ ø

‘
. DRAIN TR ENCH WITH
-
a - a • GRANULAR MATERIAL
a

a
a

PERFORAT ED PIPE

Figure 6. Vertical and horizontal

m o i s t u r e barri er s

25

~~~i—-V-
_ _

-— - V - - -
— - - -~~~~~~ -~~~~ - - - -~~~~~~
 ~~~~~— - V
_ _ _ _ _
-~~ --- - - -V.-— -~~~~~ - --—,- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-V
pervious san d—gravel and subdrain system constructed between t ii c - J irol
and an impervious
-
membrane.
68,73
147. Dr ains shoul d collect all wat er from downspout s , ex ternal
f a u c e t s , and other runoff and carry lal sur f ace water aw ay from t h e
structure. Sewer and water lines near the structure should be con-
st ru c t e d with w a t e r t ight and flexible joints and located in foundation
so il w ith least potential for swell , where feasible . All connection:
w i t h t h e s t r u c t u r e should also be watert ight and provided w ith f l e x i b l e
joints.

S t a b i l i z a t i o n Techni ques

148. The c h o i c e of stabilization techniques depends on the economy

of t h e t e c h n i que , availability of materials and con stru c t i on e quipment ,
and applicability to the construction site. The roost common and success-
ful metho ds include compaction control (removal and replacement of soil),
moisture b a r r i e r s , p r e w e t t i n g , and chemical stabilization with l i m e .
Compact ion cont rol
149. Co m paction control mi nimizes swell of c ompacted subgrade soil
and backfilled excavations. Removal of about 14—8 ft (1—3 m) of surface
swell ing soil and replacement w i t h nonexpansive , impervious backfl il
1 2 ’71
also helps reduce heave. ’ Pervious , nonexpansive b a c k f i l l equi pped
wit h dr ains to carr y of f infiltrated wate r can also be used with
e~~
care .~~~’ Impervious moisture barriers should be placed beneath th e
drains.
50. Swelling pressures on f o u n d a t i o n walls can be reduced to
within safe limits by placement of impervious , nonexpansive backfill.
N onexpansive mat e r i a l m i n i m i z e s the forces exerted on w alls , w h i l e im-
pervious backfill prevents i nf iltr at ion of surface wat er through the
71 ’75
backfill into the foundation soil. I
m perv ious , non expansive back—
fills can also be placed on level areas to raise the elevation ci’ the
f o u n d a t i o n and i m p r o v e drainage from the structure.

51. The potential heave of expansive soil can be reduced by coo-

r- - m-c t i ri to low d e n s i t y at h i g h water c o n t e n t . Dry d e n : i ty — w a t e r content

V
~~~~~~~~ - — - ~~~~~~~~~ - - - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

relationships including ::uper inr: ro: :eni plots of : 0 l’ - ti,

~ ’I or v -il inig r’— —
lat i n;-nships sari i-n nh-vn - lo 1 n-I from I nii- ( n o t t n ;r y iril ni .
P — -
~~~~~
11111 n- - Itr i lar
to F i g u rt - 7 sari li ~- 1j d - t n -rr r:inm e th e o p t i m u m sc -n ip-a ct i c-ri d e n s i t y ar -I v u
c o n t e n t to m i n i m iz e owed ~~~~~~~~ However , c o n t r o l l i ng vi - l anrim- s n i n r ~~ ”- I S -n —
tial by compact in ig itt low densit Ic:; and h i g h w a ter n - c -n t - n t : may be I t O —
ficuit. An e x a m i n a ti o n of Fi gure 7 shows that m a t e r i a l f r - ro I- rI lar .

Houston has an t-x 1-rui ::ion pressure equal to 1.5 t~~f (iLL Ii a) at 90 c-er—
cent of optimum dry d e n s i t y ( 100 p c f ) and + -
~~ p e r c e n t opt i oui - . va t -c -- n—
tent (21 percent). A :ao,-ll of a p p r o x i m a t e l y 10 p e r c e n t u n d e r a load S
0.75 tsf (72 kPa) can be computed . The soil will also i rs-I-rifl e dc 0-V
wet to work in tie; field at this water c o n t e n t . C c r : o e - i u e r i t l , - , c;o 1 . rs-—
~
placement w i t h n o n e x p a n s i v e soil or lime s t a b i l i z a t io n are I r ( - v e r a t r e at -

ments f o r fill in ex i -a nm: -V iv e soil areas.

Kneading compaction ri- -laces
0
heave on wet t ing c om par ed with static co m paction . Settlement shoul d
be checked if’ the fill supports foundation footings .
Moisture harriers
52. Per imeter barriers. Moisture barriers or impervious membranes
8 ft (2.5 m) or more in width placed around the perimeter of structures
and on shoulder s o f ro ads have ef fec t ively reduced v ar iatio n s in moi sture
6 ,8 ,21 ,28 ,35 ,36 ,73 ,714 ,81
changes and reduced d i f f e r e n t i a l heave. Soil
mo i stu re will pro bably co n t i nue to increase , al t h ough more u n i f o r m l y ,
beneath the membrane. For example , impervious membranes are not effec-
tive in controlling the swell of soil from capil l a r y r i s e or from a
rising water table. Membranes could be detrimental to the performance
of some foundations w here per imet er back fi
ll so ils are more perv icus
and expansive than undisturbed soil beneath the foundation . Trees ,
shrub s , and all deep— rooted vegetation should be p l a n t e d beyond t h e
outer p er imete r of t h e memb ran e .
53. Membranes are usually made of impervious plastic materials
suc h a s po lyv iny l chl o r i de ( P V C ) , poly ethylene , asphaltic fiberglas :
s h e e t s , c o n c r e t e , cat alyti cally blown asphalt , or 3/8—in . (10 mm ) sprayed
bitumen . Seams , overlaps , and punc tu re s in plastic mem b ranes should be
completely sealed to provide an effective vapor barrier. The joint
between the membrane and foundation should be impervious . The membrane

27

- - -.-- ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~

 - —~~~~-- - V~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - - -V — - - - - V~~~~ - --V-V

I I I N

— —- ..
.
-. \
t~J

/
— ‘

I /
‘
~~~ \\
“1 D
W 1~ -~~~~~

\I
/ / N

//
o I I—

cr 1— /
/ k
f_ —
~~~~~~~~~~~

~~ ’- \ ! ~ O F-
° wz azjo
0
/ /i_ —_..~
~ ~
I jo~~ e
~ ‘
~~
i
~~~ i p
, ~ ~,a wo ~
~u / / \ ‘I
~
1 I on —
o I’ I I
I I
—

\
N
~ II \ .
~
ma ’
on

\ \‘
I-

\\ \
~~~~~~~~~~~ -

\ ‘I \ \~ \
\
-
\\ V
çr~

“~1‘I \ \
~~

“I \% “
‘~
\ ‘ ‘ F- c .
~~‘ ~
—
\~ -~~~~~~~ O

t~~I ~ ,
~~
‘
I
\ \
\
~
I
~
I I ~ I” ~
‘
S
~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~ \ \\ \ ~~
\ \ ~
\ ~~~~~ ~~~~

\~~ \ \ \
\\
-

\~ \
\
\
\ \ ‘U~ ‘\
IJ~ ‘S U. F-
I— . N
-
t~

~~~ F- F - N I- C~ tiD
N N N N N

-c or
—

I I I
U, 0 or 0 or 0
2 5
A J c S N J G Ae a 0 3 0 1 0 v 1
- ~
-

28

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 _ _ _ _ _
_
-
_ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-

seal at the foundation should also be flexible t o allow :;c-rr~e mover-nen t ,

5lm ; by placing folds in t h e nr .en;;Li-ar me
~~ ~ !~

-
514. V e r t i c a l membranes around t h e p e r i m e t e r , Figure (1 , are u s e f u l
in m i n i m i z i n g seasonal edge n n o v n - r o c - r i t s , although m o i s t u r e tr ay b u i l d un o
beneath the foundation froni capillary rise or migrati on of moisture - be-
neath the bottom edge of the men°brane. The v e r t i c a l b a r r i e r is f iaced
about 3 ft (1 m) from the foundation to simplify construction and avoid
disturbance of foundation soil. The depth of vertical barrier should ex—
tend to the bottom of the active zone of moisture changes. Plastic
horizonta lmembranes shoul d be pr otect ed by a laye r of eart h and car e
should be taken du ring plac em ent an d when ve getat i o n is p lanted arouri a
72
the structure to avoid puncturing the membrane.
55. Area barriers. Impervious vapor barriers are sometimes r iaced
beneath c o n c r e t e slab s or on t h e ground s u r f a c e in v e n t i l a t e d c r a wl w a y :.
V a l o r bar r iers beneath t h e c o n c r e t e slab in h e a t e d areas s u c h as f u r n ac e -

rooms should help m i n i m i z e loss of m o i s t u r e fron t h e f o u n d a ti cr ; soil

due to the h i g h e r vapor pr essur es in t h e soil a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s na i l in—
creases in t e m p e r a t u r e . The vapor b a r r i e r also hel ps r e t a i n m o i s t u r e
in t h e c o n c r e t e needed for c u r e ; excess water not needed for - c u r e s h o u l d
be avoided. An imr ;e r v i o u s membrane on t h e ground s u r f a c e Ir a a crawl
space may help red uc e s h r i n k a g e in clayey fo undation soils where th e
water table is deep. Settlement of foundation soils often occurs be-
cause the v ent ilate d crawl space prev ent s precipitat ion from en te ring
the soi lunder the house , although moisture continues to evaporate from
t h e ~~~~~~~ A vapor barrier , however , should not be placed on a sub-
stantial layer of pe rmeable top soil whe re a shallow water tab le ex i sts
or site drainage is such that drying is not significant ; otherwise ,
he ave may be aggravated.
56. Mois ture and insulation b a r r i e r s help m i n i m i z e d i f f e r e n t i a l
heave from t h e r m a l e f f e c t s due to t e m p e r a t u r e g r a d i e n t s and f r e e z i n g
81 ,83
soil Steep the~~ al gr adients , part ic ularly in cold are as , cause
h o r i z o n t a l mi g r a t i o n of m o i s t u r e from hot to cold areas . In Canada , a
2- i n . — ( _ c r r _ ) t h i c k p o l y s t y r e n e insulative horizontal moisture barrier
around t h e p e r i m e t e r of t h e e x t e r n a l walls e l i m i n a t e d cold spots and

29

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
 - — -- -~~~~— --- - —. --V — --—,—, —— V--V--—--— ’——— -- - V-- V- — ~~~~~~~~~~~~ — V.~~~~~~ - -V —-V -— —
—

transfer of moisture from the foundation soil to t h e Cut er - ~-

e r ; r r .c - t e r and
m i n i m i z e d nr ovem -n ~ s between t h e f o u n d a t i o n soil and buildings. Insula-
t i o n m i n i m i z e s t e m p e r a t u r e g r a d i e n t s b e n e a th t h e p i -r i r - a - t e r , t h e r eb y re-
duc ing horizontal diffusion of moisture. Insulation also rarotects from
f r e e z i n g , w h i c h can cause s e t t l e m e n t and heave f o l l o w i n g thaw in s w el l i n c
soils. This mechan ism is opposed to that of frost heave , w h i c h occurs
from formation of ice lenses in silty soils and lean clays.
57. M o i s t u r e c an accumulate beneath asph altic pavemen t s fro m
814
temperature g r a d i e n t s and can lead to pavement heave. The dark i-ave-
ment cools by long wavelength r a d i a t i o n at n i g h t to t e m p e r a t u r e s less
than at the shoulders. Moistur e tends to mov e laterally f rom the edge s
toward the c e n t e r of the pavement and may also seep t h r o u g h the top
seal . Some m o i s t u r e may d i f f u s e v e r t i c a l l y downward d u r i n g t h e day , but
not enoug h to prevent accumulation ben eath t h e pavement w i t h o u t spec ial
des ign provisions. Placement of reflective materials on the surface ,
such as r e f l e c t i v e aggregates , zinc oxide or w h i t e lead p a i n t s , and a
laye r of thermal insul ation beneath t h e pavement , should reduce long
wavelength radiation and minimize temperature gradients. Vertical mois—
ture barriers at the shoulders should aid in minimizing heave from hori-
zontal diffusion of moisture .
58. Moisture barriers can also be useful in minimizing foundation
soil heave from chemical r e a c t i o n s between s u l f a t e and carbonates in the
soil and water and oxygen d i f f u s i n g from e x t e r n a l sources i n t o t h e
10 ,11 . . . .
soil. A coating of bitumen has given satisfactory protection in
12
an excavation near Lake Erie. Sin ce vapor b a r r i e r s ben eath c o n c r e t e
slabs tend to elim inate the transmission of moisture from so i lt hr ough
the slab , deposition of dissolved s ulf a t e s in the c o n c r e t e from soils
c o n t a i n i n g s u l f a t e s should also be m i n i m i o n d , thu s protecting conc rete
slabs from sulfate attack .
Prewetting
59. P r e w e t t i n g by ponding or submerging an area in water allows
desiccated foundation soil to swell and reach a more nearly e q u i l i b r i u m
water c o n t e n t p r i o r to c o n s t r u c t i o n . Pr e w e t t i n g can be e f f e c t i v e , but-
may r e q u i r e many months unless t h e f o u n d a t i o n soil c o n t a i n s an exteno ivo-
 - .

t ’L ooure ;y.— t em . !r-vsrt tin g about 2 —3 p e r c e n t above the p l a st i c l i m i t

has c r ~~ V i 1 -1 :1 na il Sican t improvem ent of the performance of s~ al _ na -n—
a-
-n o . ~~ I~x cc-ooive p r e w e t t i n g , h ow e ver , has t e e n detri-
m en t a l to foundat I nn;; where moisture in wetted soil can mi g r a t e down
i n t o dry n1ecpt ~r soil and cause very h i g h swells.

~~~. installation of a grid of vertical sand wells prior to flood—

8
ing n -an ; reduce t h e t i m e ne c- li d for pond i ng to w It h i n a few m o n th s .
~
Lime mixed w i t h the ponded water helps to i n c r e a s e the m i g r a t i o n of
water , :ippr -irently through an i n c r e a s e in soil p e r m e a b i l i t y .
2,88 Lime
m i xed w it h th e to p cl ay laye r follow ing pond ing c an r educ e plast i c ity
and i n c r e a s e i ts f i r m n e s s as a w o r k i n g p l a t f o r m .
Lime t r e a t m e n t
61. Lime c o n t i n u e s to be the most widely used and most e f f e c t i v e
additive for stabilization of expansive clays , although lime treatm ent
is not always s u c c e s s f u l .
2 . .. .
Lime s t a b i l i z a t i o n develops primarily i ron
base exchange and cementation processes. During base exchange , the
++
positive Ca ions from the lime are adsorbed by t h e clay particles ,
+
displacing some Na ions , as a result of the negative surfac e char ge
of the clay particles. The ions become hydrated and restrict water
a d s o r p t i o n on the p a r t i c l e s u r f a c e s . The +2 valence l imi t s t h e di st a n c e
of p e n e t r a t i o n of the n e g a t i v e charge from t h e clay par t icles into the
pore wat er. Cementation is a long—term chemical or pozzolanic reaction
i n w h i c h lime reacts with clay mineral c o n s t i t u e n t s to form compounds
such as o-alcium silicate hydrates and calcium aluminum hydrates that
probably interlock with the clay particles to form permanent bonds .
62. Small additions of lime from 2—8 percent usually decrea se the
p l a s t i c i t y index and swell and increase the permeability and shear
s t r e n g t h of expansive clays .
1,2 ,88 In some cases , lime may worsen t h e
swelling characteristics , depending on the structure and compos i tion of
88
t h e expansive soil. A d d i t i o n s of 2— 6 percent cement w i t h lime should
1
f u r t h er - improve the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of lime t r e a t m e n t . ’71 Cement s t ab i l i -

zation alone is usually adequate with some kaolinitic and illitic soils.
(53 .
The effectiveness of lime treatment depends on the thoroughness
of mixing. 9° Pressure in jection of lime may be effective in soils

31
 -
~~~ r
—-V— --. -
- - - -- -- -
~~~~ ~~

con ta inin g extensive fissures and cracks into wh i ch the s lurry c an b e

84 9l
i n j e c t e d. ~~ The i n j e c t e d slurry d e p o s i t e d in f i s s u r e s appears to
provide an e f f e c t i v e lime b a r r i e r against m o i s t u r e flow as well as pre—
wet the soil from sorption of the s l u r r y .

32

_ _
~~~~ _~~~__ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_ _
- - V - - ~~~~~~~~~~
 - -- -
rr
‘ l
~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~

PART IV : SELECTION OF THE SUP STRUC JRE

~~ ~
AND li ;I JN J ) A j ION

h 14 . The d e sig n of the superstructure and foundation should be

c h os e n to satisfy most economically the functional requirements of the
structure , m in imize soil differential movement , and m i n i m i z e dam ages
t h a t may occur to the structure from soil movement . The functional
r e ~uir a- n r: -nit s may r e q u i r e , for example , a structure tha t l
w il lim it the
deflection/length ratio to less t h a n a c e r t a i n amount. The f o u n d a t i o n
should be desi gned to transmit no more than the maximum tolerable dis—
t o r t i o n to t h e s u p e r s t r u c t u r e, as demanded by usage r e q u i r e m e n t s , avoid—
ing I- -xce ssive overdesign . The superstructure should tolerate movements
transm itted by the foundation such that the structure continues to con—
tr i b u t e aesthet ically to t h e env ir onment and ma int enanc e w i l l remain on
a minor level.
65. Table 14 i1lu~Y r a t e s t h e i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p of v a r i o u s founda-
t i o n and s u p e r s t r u c t u r e systems t h a t may be desi gned to min imi ze or
r e s i st the - reniicted differential heave avoiding unacceptable structural
~
d i st r e s s . The i— r e i i c t e d differential heaves , Table 14 , re f e r to heave
ben eath lightly loaded , flexible covered areas. Sti ffening beam s signif-
ican tly reduces the differential distortion of concrete slabs. A beam—
on—p ier foundation will tend to eliminate effects of heaving ; however ,
possible soil movement beneath the footings of deep foundations such
as I-le n’: should be checked.

Superstructure Systems

66. The superstructure should flex or deform compatibly with the

foundation . Frame construction , open floor plans , and truss roo fs tend
100
to minimize damages from differential movements . Th e cho i ce o f the
t y p e of f i r s t f l o o r , frame , and wall should depen d on t h e c h o i c e of
Soundation. Table 5 d e s c r i b e s t h e various s u p e r s t r u c t u r e systems g iven
in Table 14.

33

_ _ _ _ _ ~~~~~~~ - -
~ -- - -- -- -V
~~~

Fir st floor
to 7 . The d e s i g n of the fin-ct floor should i-c : v le c t e d tu m a i n t a i n
di f f e r n - n t ial rru v c -n ra -n i t w i t h i n pen nr i i :;: ii le 11 nil t s . C ert .nt in t yp e s of
s t r u c t u r e s , such as warehouses , shops , a n d l u n g e r ; -
~ i S-u internal
w a l l: and p a r t i t i o n s , can t o l e r a t e f a i rl y b r -g e differ ent. ial he niwn -: u -h
t h at a slab—on—grade i s o l a t e d from ex t e r i o r w a l l s may be : ;u f f i c i e r ; t .
i-r - i ck w alls , Table 5, can t o l e r a t e larger’ d e fl e c t i o n/ l en i g t ; . r a t i o s than
8
1/500 if t im- r a t e of d i s t o r t i o n is s u f f i c i e n t l y ::icw. ~ I n t e r i o r w r l l s ,
partitions , doors , and service equipment s;;culn ~r be de s i g n e d ‘ -~~ tale -rat :
the a n t i c it - a t e d f l o o r movements . R e i n f o r c e - -I and : t i i fer -a d m at sl a t s or
suspended f i r s t f l o o r s on grade beam s and p i e r s may ra e nae:~-ssa ry to n ;i fl—
im ize differential heave to within acceptable levels in re :idn-nces and
single or multi—story bui ldings .
Frames
68. The frame should be selected to tolerate the maximum differen-
tial movement transmitted by the foundation. The type of framing system

should not ord inar ily be l i m i t e d w i t h pr operly desi gned shallow , contin-
uous footings and beam—on—pier foundations . Shallow footings should be
miaced in sands , gravels , or soils w i t h low p o t e n t i a l heave . Bean—or—
n i e r foundations can avoid effects of swelling soil by passing the
shafts t h r o u g h the unstable s t r a t a . In some cases , f o o t in g s are re—
luired to be placed in nonideal locations where swell or consolidation
beneath the footings may i re-sent a problem. The frrir - .c- s h o u l d t h e n be
sufficiently flexible to tolerate the anticipated differential m ovem ent
between footings. Frames can be fairly e~ sily adapted to accommodate
the d e f l e c t i o n o f mat slab s , which can be designed to Iemmi t various
amounts of distortion. Reinforced and stiffened mat slabs are usually
desi gned not to exceed a deflection/length ratio cn ~ l/5O 0
53 ,85 92 , (
~
Walls
-~~~ . Walls should tolerate t h e maximum differential movement trans-
mit ted by the foundation and framing system. Crack: detract aestheti-
c ally from th e appea rance of th e structure , weaken s~ ructural walls ,
and reduce insulation from the outside environment . Control joints may
be used to i n c r e a s e flexibil i ty of r i gid or semiri gid walls. Walls can

314

-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -. -- --
~~~~ - -
 —.———---,-— -V— ’— -- _-V -• --V-V--V --V - — — —.—~ --— ----.--- - - V- V.
-~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~

i-c attached to the f : : u r i r g ;oyct cn: ; wI raP flexib ft s- or n r - s - t i - ~ n . s . i - xr Q: ~ les

of t r u s s ;trn ;i w :nl 1 c o i .t r u c t ion - tre gIv en ; in H :

~-ferenrce;; 7 ar c 71

Foun ida n. Ion ; 2y;; tern:

72. Var-ious possible foundation sy s t e m s that are c on s i s t e n t w i t h

the f u n c t i o n a l and a r c h i t e c t u r a l r e q u i r e m e n t s of t h e t o t a l s t r u c t u re anal
a d a p t ab l e to t he local t op o g r a p h y and s u b s u r f a c e f e a t u re s sh o u l d b e- con—

pared to determin e- c -d ative performance. O i t i n n i u r :. i n-r f r m ;i r o ’ : can be

ic - scribe -al as t he ability to ni n ;irr; ize or re;;ist tn; e maximun . antici pated
di no r’ential movement to wit i~in acceptable limits whil e r rs-vi- :lirag the
n;c: . t e c on o m y . A pnna- n di x B d e s c r i b e s r’emr --i al measure: fe- s Suunc-atiofls
t b :athave not been edequately -designed and orig inally t roedded with
. - 16 ,71 ,105,106
ade l u a r e l a n d s c a p i n g or sna il starailization.
- - .

-hallc,w individual
and c on t i n u o u s f o o t i n g s
71. 2t r -u ct u r e s supported by shallow indiv idua l or continuous wall
S oot in s : are susceptible to damage .: from l a t e r a l and vertical m a - c e m E n t

of foundation soil , Table 14. Dishing or substantial settlement may

ncc- ;r in clay :, especially in initially wet soil , where a well v e n t i -
82
l a t e d cr - a w l space is constructed under f1e flee :. The c raw l space

- ra ts precipitation Sr om entering the soil , but evaporation of moi:—

tar-- f r o m the soil continues. f t n t c - V r heave , Fig ure 1, can occur if the

top layer of soil is p er m e a b l e and site drainage is p-oe~~. f tno rO TO : f ra n .

differential heave c- ’ s~ t t l - m ’ .t i r n o i m - b e door j ancoin i - , c r a c k i ng of ir. —
ternal partition :, - r i d ; :e r ;ir at i ;; of in t er n a l a r t i t i o n s from t h e floor
an-u cs--a .
82 n’ , :
nay apr -:-ar in walls after deflection/1en g~ :.
:-r u ct
. . -

n -atios exceed about 1/1000 or di fS~ rat ial mo -7ement exceeds about 0 .5 i n .
102
( 13 to m ).
72. Shallow footir~~: m at- i - c u -:- -l where e x p a n s i v e st r a t a are suf-
f i c i e n t l y t h i n to locate t h e ‘sot i n , - i n a S o t : ~ t -rn: iv i - :-traturi below
Placing se-r;v~v i on i c on t h e s e
w h i c h di ff e r e n t i al m o v n - m er 2 , Is n egl i g ib le .
footings may not be effective in-. -- - s t e - r i n g b i n s w e l l p r e ssu r e : becau se-
-

of the relative small w dth of t h e f o o t~~ni~- :. The stress f t ;t - o : e d crc

35
-

-
 - -- -~~~~~~~ -- - —~~~~~~~~~~ — - - -V- --- — ~~ -
-V - - -~~~~~~~~~~~~

th e soil is v i - r v low b e - ] ow a ni ~~ j-t2 of at - ou t . t w 1 c- the t -5-r t~ rig width ;tr ; -~

c c - n i t r i i-ut cc l i t t l e - to n - u u n t e - r t h e swell pressure unless to: e x t o~~~ive

soil lay -r is t h i n .
3. ii ;t ~j ,~rr;L .~on t w a l l s at r e i n f o r c e d c o n c r et e can - c-o1 ; ~t r u a t - - - i Ii —

r e c t l y cnn t h e foundation soil ~- r o v i -b - - f f c u n ; d n t t i u r . pressures are less

71
than ; t h e allowable b e a r i n g c a p a c i t y . ft e e l r e i n f or c e m e n t cani ~ r o v i d e

-
the nec c:sar’y r e :;t n ’a ~nt to h o r i z o r ;t a d e a r t h p r e s s u r e s . U n r e i n f o r - n e - -or
masonry 3-r ick a n d o n n n ; n o r - t e blocks s h o u l d not be us - a-I t on c - o n s t r u c -t base—
meri t i11:
B ej n f -j r c e cj mat slab
714 . The r e -i n f o r c e d mat slab is often :r;itable for small and
l i g h t l y loaded s t r u c t u r e s , e s p e c i a l l y i f the ex ~ an s i v e or unstable soil
e x t e n ds nearly c o n t i n u o u s l y from t h e ground s u r f ac e to de th :- t h a t ex-
c l u d e - economical deep p i e r f o u n d a t i o r n s . The nat slab has been to-os -i
mor ’ a economical in Australia for placement on uncontrolled fills t;. n ,s
82
pier and beam foundations . A t h i c k reinforced mat is suitable f o r
large , heavy struct ;r-e:. The rigidity of t h e s e mats minimizes i i :’ a —
t i o n of t h e sur cu-structure from both h o r i :.cnnt al and v e r t i c a l mat’ -

of t h e foundation soil. I n c r e a s i n g the s t i f f n e s s of t h e slab- and

superstructur’c- also reduces differential heave . Su1 p ortin g press-u :- -
a th stiffened slabs can become very nonuniform and cause local iz - r
c o n s o l i d a t i o n of t h e f o u n d a t i o n s o i l . Con cr et e slab s w i t l i o u d int n- : :al
s t i f f e n i ng beams are much more susceptible t o doming from hea vina n 5:- ::.
Edge s t i f f e n i n g beams b e n e a t h r e i n f o r c e d c o n c r e t e slat - : have ~- ce-:en ~t e d
si gn i f i c a n t moistur e loss and have reduced d i f f e r e n t i a l movements be—
21 ,25,85
nea th the slab .
75. The reinforced waffle concrete mat u su al l ; : consists of a
4 in .— ( 105- — mm —) t h i c k slat- s t i f f e n ed w i t h u n d e r l y i ng crossbean s ,
~
F i su r e 8. Ti:e - - — i n . slab ‘- r a r ; s m i t s t h e l o a d i ng f o r c e s to t h e beams ,
crud ; r e s i s t t h e nor s’ s and shears due to d i f f e r e n t i a l heave of tIre
e x p a n s i v’- s o il . i-ear spacings s h o u l d be limited to 20 ft (6 m) or less.
Beam w i d t h s shoul d be 8—12 i n . (2 :p— 3 00 m m ) . ‘ -
‘ -
flonstr -u c i on :

joint:; s h o u l d lu: P laced nit i n t e r v a l s of l’-ss t h a n 150 f t ( 1~5 m ) and

6
cold j o i n t s l e s s t h a n 65 ft (20 m) .~~ Concr ete :t r - en g t i i sho uld be

_ _ _ _ _ _ - —~~
_: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 ----V-V -V _ - -.- --- - -- --V. --- - -
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

8 2 N
3 A 5 STEEL I— F T CENTERS F A~ AA
2 Nn - 6 A_ IS tTE E L -.

I _

- _ -

Figure 8. Reinforced w a f f l e mat slab

3000 psi ( 2 0 . 7 1-IN /nij w i t h about 0.5 percent reinforcing ste-i-I . me - m a t

may be inverted ( s t i f f e n i n g beams on top of t h e s l a b ) in cases w h e r e
b e a r i n g c a p a c i t y of t h e s u r f a c e soil is inadequate or a cu r -p o r t e d first
5
floor is required.
107
7o . Support index. Table o , reprinted from Holland et al .,
-

compares four rat i onal methods tha t have prov i ded succe ss ful de s igns of
reinforced waffle slabs. All of these methods have in common a sutal: -ort
index C , t h e r a t i o of area supported by t h e f o u n d a t i o n soil t o t h e
total are a of the slab , or a s i m i l a r parameter denoted as the edge lift-
off distance The edge lift—off distance may be directly related to
e .

214 85
the support index . ~ The signi ficant limitation of all of these
methods is t h a t reasonable values for t h e support i n d e x C or edge l i f t -
off distance e may Ire difficult to evaluate.
77. The Bui ld ing Research Advisory Board ( BRAB ) 97 method evaluates
the support index as a function of a climatic rating system and plastic-
ity indices. This method is too conservative in some cases , p-articu—
2~ ,25,85,109
larly for long slab s grea t er tha n 6~

(5)

where
= relative s t i f f n e s s length , ft
E = cr eep modulus o f elasticity of concrete , t s f
I = gross moment of i n e r t i a of t h e slab s e c t i o n , f t
B = modulus of e l a s t i c i t y of soil , t s f
5

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .
L _
 - - - -~~~ - --
_ _ _ _ - -
~~~
V. —r ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

i’Pe n r i nini Saul t of t h e BRA B trie t bi nn - j is t h at ti ; - nruor ; . - - nut, ~ f i r ;e r ’ in n~~ r~

srack n -ni in s-an n ; se c t . ion is a s su m e d . 107 The BRAB -u ; in ;d c- x also i g n ; o r ’ :;:
~~~~
u r ~ t ;tnt ar’an - . - r: t h a t sh oal -t i n f l u - - n u c e a r i-u I i ; : t i n : C , such as
m l ’ . ial soil m o i s t .ur e , a v a l b a l - i l i t y of cat -c , and thu ] c kn e s s and t y p e of

swi lling soil; i.e. , t h e BRAB C j o -;; not ad - ~ uatc-1y account for d i f —
f e r i - ;u t i a l heave .
78. Th e meth ods of i y t t o n ,~~ Walsh , 95 ar ~i F r a s e r and

are e sse n t i a l l y e x t e n s i o n .: of t h e BRA B method and attempt to niet - n rrruiue

~1 tr uc e- r a t i o n a l support in ;n i ~--x . These l a t t e r a t t e mp t s result is; the

need to detennine t h e mound s h a p e of the expansive soil t o n i - a t ; : ti ;.: slab
-J et ’incd in terms of the edge l i f t — o f f d i s t a n c e e and max i mum differen-
tial swell y . However , the mound shape is as di f ficult to -. Ii-term ine
for p r a c t i c a l desi gn cases as is the BRAB support index. The BRAB ,
Lyttor; , and Walsh methods can be f a i r l y eas i ly a p p l i e d to t h e design of
reinforced mat slabs after the support index or mound shape I: deter-
m ined . Both Lyt t o n and Wals h des ign me thods gave close st agr eement w ith
f ield data , bracketing measured field deflection/length ratios for con—
. . . . . 107
struction on an initially dry site in Australia.
0
79. The Post—Tensioning Institute (PTI)~~ has -d e ve l op e d a new ,
but untested , d e s i g n p rocedure w I th t he in t e n t to improve t h e r a t i o n a l
b a s i s for d e t e r m i n i n g t h e moun d shape and e f f i c i e n c y of desi gn. This
method shows t h a t t h e edge lift—off distance is simil ar- to the relative
stiffness length B and that all maximum differential slab deflections
occur w ithin a distanc e of 68 for slabs longer than 68 . Maximum
shear was developed at or near t h e p e r i m e t e r of the slab and w i t h i n one
B length of the p e r i m e t e r .
80. Preliminary desi gn. Three designs for reinforced waffle slabs
described in Table 14 d i f f e r in t h e beam depth and spac in g , depending on
the predicted maximum differential heave and effective plasticity index.
The deeper beam depths and smaller beam s p a c i n g s for each of t h e l i g h t ,
medium , and heavy slabs , Table 14 , tend to provide conservat ive desi gns .
These desi gns are c oo se rvativ e in view of still undet ermined fully
accepta b le or finalized un i for m desi gn criteria and relatively h i gh
r e p a i r cost of f r a c t u r e d r e i n f o r c e d and s t i f f e n e d s l a b s . The h€ -rr v i- st

38

i _ _ _V . _ _--
_ _
~~~~~~~~~~~ . -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -
 - -- —, - - ---- V — .-- _— .-- -
V. - - - —
~~~~~~~~~~ -‘ ~~~ ~ -‘

mats with 3 _ j ~~. — (75 0— mm— ) deep h -an;;; we-re- obs erv ed to do WE-i l in hig h
::ua vn :-rna rI t ; t s n - - t: , :- uoh a-s ian OS t - O l i O , ‘I X. , Montenor ’n ri , A] a . , and 01

111
ioni c
- -
-:0 at

81. Modifications to t h e t h r e e t yp e : of standard mats it; ‘Jud e 14

can be made during the detailed engineering desi gn pha se us i ng -:curuv ’nn—
92 ’m or the n ew PTI
t ional practice pro cedure 11° to help ensure adequate
res i stance to mome nt , d e f l e c t ion , and sri-oar resulting from str uctu ral
load ing forces and to minimize overdesigri . Beam spacing s shoul d be
adjusted to support column , wall , or concentrated loads . The slabs are
usually designed for deflection/length ratios of 1/1480. The PTI proce-
dure dc-si gns the slab for a deflection/length ratio of 1/1480 with center
lift and 1/800 with edge lift .
82. Post—tensioned r e i n f o r c e d mat slabs may be s l i g h t ly s t r o n g e r
than sri equivalent section of a conventionally reinforced mat slab , but
t r a i n e d personnel and c a r e f u l i n s p e c t i o n are r e q u i r e d to properly apply
the post—tensioning procedure. Tendons should be stressed 3— 10 days
follow i ng the concrete pour s uch that the mi nimum comp re ss i ve stress in
the concrete exceeds 50 psi (3145 kPa). Stressing within the 10—day
limit eliminates much of the shrinkage cracking. Stressing should also
be €ompleted before structural loads are applied to the slabs .
83. Placement of a pervious 6— in. (15—cm ) granular layer on top
of the o r i g i n a l ground s u r f a c e b e f o r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of the slab may h e lp
reduce differential heave due to the additional surcharge load. The
granular layer on top of the ori ginal ground s u r f a c e also helps to pro-
vi d e a slope le ading down and away from t he s t ruc tur e , improving drain-
age and min imizing the possibil ity that the granul ar layer could p rov i de
a source of moisture to desiccated foundation soils. Drainage and soil
stabiliz ation t echniques for minimizing di fferent ial h eave described i n
Part III should Ire used with slab foundations to incre ase the perfor-
manc e of reinforced mat slabs.
Beam—on—drilled Jn he- e-

814. The drilled pier foundation provides an economical method for

t r a n s f e r of s t r u c t u r a l loads from unstable (weak , expansive ) to deeper
stable ( f i r m , incompressible ) s t r a t a , and it is generally more

39

L _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
 _ _ _ _ _ - _
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
.-—— .. - - - -
- —

. . . 112
economical t h a n o t h e r forms of p i- l i n g i f t h e hole can be b o r e d .
Occas ionally when the firm bearing stratum is too deep for the :;taft to
bear d i r e c t l y on a stable s t r a t u m , the d r i l l e d p ier is designed as a
f r ic t ion or f l o a t i n g s ha f t , securing its supj-or- t entirely from adhesion
with the surrounding clay . Detailed applications including a d v a n t a g e ;- :
and dis advantag es of drilled pi er foun d at i on s ar e d e s c r i b e d in - u Table- 7.
The pier foun dat ion m ay be econom i cal compared w ith tradi t ional strip
footings ,
99, 1114 p a r t i c u l a r l y in open c o n s t r u c t i o n areas and w i t h p i e r
-

l e n g t h s less t h a n l O— l d f t ( 3—Li m) or if the active zone is deep , such

. 105
as areas i n f l u e n c e d by t r e e roots. Beam—on—p ier foundations , in fact ,
have been pre f e r r e d in the e x p a n s i v e soils of the Denver area r a t h e r than
-V
’0
rei nforced waffle slab s , which have been too uneconomical to construct. ~’
85. The design and construction of beams—on—drilled p iers must be
-

clo sely controlled to avoid failures. Most failures have been caused
by d e f e c t s in c o n s t r u c t i o n and by effects of swelling soils , Ta b le 8.
Pe fects attributed to construction techniques include discontinuities
in the s haf t , caving of soils , and distortion of the steel reinforce—
113’115
ment . Failures from effects of swelling soils include wetting
19, 82 . 101
of subsoils beneath t h e base , uplift , lack of air gap beneath
6
g r ad e beams ,~~ and lateral movement from do~~ hi 1l creep of exp ans i v e
111
-clay . The rise of pier foundations from soils swelling beneath the
82 flT
base has caused many failures. ~
sE. D e s i g n s of beam—on—pier f o u n d a t i o n s have usually been based
on empirical procedures , lim ited load test dat a , and the b e h a v i o r of
existIng structures. Consequently , t h e desi gner needs much expe ri en ce
118
and expertise. Designs have usually been satisfactory where sub-
su rfa c e con di tions are well es tablis h ed an d relat i vely uni form and th e
7l ,1l5 ,iiE
performance of past construction is well documented. ih u e
de sign of drilled piers should con s ider bearing capacity , skin resis—
tan ce , u p l i f t forces , con struct io n techn iques , and inspection .
87. Bearing capacity . Shear failure of the bearing stratum and
structural loads exceed ing the strength of the concrete shaft are nor-
mally not problems . Heave or settlement of the foundation usually con-
t r o l s t h e d e s ig n and should not exceed s p e c i f i e d l i m i t s set by U s - a g e

~~~~~~~

..
L

_ _ _
- -— -V
 requirements and tolerances of the structure. Present theoretical con--
cepts and emp iric al c orrelations perm i t reasonably r eli abl e predic t io ns
of u l t i m a t e bear i n g cap ac it y , but not those of heave or settlement .
Co nsequently , f a c t o r s of saf ety a p p l i e d to t he u l t i m a t e bear in g capac ity
119
are most commonly used to determine safe working loads . Experience~~ 3 ’
shows t h a t w o r k i n g loads of one—half to o n e — t h i r d of t h e u l t i m a t e bear-
ing capacity including skin resistance (factor of safety 2—3) adequately
protect aga inst a bearing f a i l ure and usually mai nt a i n s e t t l e m e n t s , but
not heave , w ithin tolerable limits of about 0.5 in. (13 mm ).
88. The load—carrying capacity of a pier depends on both end bear-
ing and skin friction from side shear . The interaction of stresses be-
tw een end bearing and skin friction is commonly assumed ne gligi b le s uch
t h a t th e u l t imat e 1~ ad is calculated as the

Q = O ~~ + Q = q A +fA (6)

whe re
= ul t imate base load , tons
= ultimate shaft load , tons
= ultimate base resistance , t s f
2
A = bearing area of pier base , f t
f = ultimate shaft resistance , tsf
F 2
A pe r i m eter area of p i e r sh a f t , f t
118
89. The bas e resistance is conv enti onally g iven as

q
-p cN +~~~~N (7)
c vq

where
c = strength intercept (cohesion ) of the assumed straight—
l i n e Mohr envelope , t s f
N N = d i m e n s i o n l e s s b ea r i n g c ap a c i t y f actors evalua t ed by
,
q
metho ds g iven in Reference 118
= effective vertical stress in the ground at the founda—
V
tion level , tsf

141

- V.—— - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--V -V—- -----—- - —--- -.- —-V - - V. V.-_ - -VV. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~
j
 —— --V -- - - —— — - - -
~~~~ ~~
V.
- — - --V -- .-—- - -— - — ----V.- -

~~~~ -

The cohesion c is normally d e t e r m i n e d from u n d r a i n e d Q or R t e - st s .

N is approximately 9 in cohesive soil ( = 0) for delntli;: greater than
~
Li or 5 shaft diameters. N
is 1 fo r cohes ive soil and usually i gnored ,
q
b eing approximate ly compen sated by th e wei ght of the concrete s ha ft .
Development of full end bearing requires settlements from 10— 30 percent
113 ,118
of the shaft diameter.
90. Skin resistance. Skin resistance develops from small relative
displacements between the shaft and adjacent soil. Positive skin fric—
t i o n , which helps to support structural loads , dev e lops when th e shaft
moves down relat ive to the soil. Negative skin friction , w h i c h add s to
the structural loads and increases the end bearing force , develops when
119
the surrounding soil move s down relative to the shaft . The capacity
of drilled and underreamed p iers cast in expansive soil has generall y
been desi gned in the past for end bearing only without side f r i c t i o n . 7
Soil was assumed to shrink away from the sides of the shaft during
drought s at the perimeter of covered areas to some depth X below t h e
a
ground surface . Excluding skin friction in the desi gn capacity may be
grossly over—conservative for many cases because numerous load t e s t s
have shown that a large proportion of the total shaft load is usually
taken by positive skin friction . Shrinkage effects have only been oh—
113 ,118
served 1 to 2 shaft diameters below the ground surface.
11
91. The skin friction f may be evaluated by th e equation

C + q tantj (8)
a

where
c = adhesion , tsf
= no rmal stress acting on the p ier shaft Kc tsf
K = r a t i o of h o r i z o n t a l to v e r t i c a l e f f e c t i v e s t r e s s
= vertical e f f e c t i v e stress , tsf
v
= angle of friction between the soil and pier shaft , degrees
The angle ~ is very close to the ef fec t ive a ng le of internal fr i ction
118
~~
‘ for remolded cohesive soil . Skin re sistance is usu ally full y
mobilized with a downward displacement of 0.5 in. (13 mm) or -less or

142

V.- ~~~~~~~~~~~~
- -
~~~~~~~~~ - - - --- - -V— ~~ -- - - --- --V -
 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _
- -
~~~~~~

113 ,118
about 2 percent of the shaft diameter. These displacements are
much less than those required to f u l l y m o b i l i z e end bearing.
9. Because observations taken after sufficient time have indi-
ca ted that ski n f r ict ion become s approximately equ al to t h e undr ained
u n d i s t u r b e d shear s t r e n g t h C skin r e s i s t a n c e has been compared w i t h H
u
17,118 - -
o for all clay s :
U

= I = ti C
a f

in wh ich is a reduction coefficient that varies between 0.2 and

1.5, depending on type of pier and soil c o n d i t i o n s . The r e d u c t i o n
coef ficient is about I for soft clay s and decreases as the strength of
the clay increases. appears to be about 0.5-0.6 for
The average
-irilled piers in overconsolidated ciay .1l3~ fl8 An ct of 0.3 is recom-
f
mended if little is known about the soil. The reduction factor approaches
zero near the top and bottom of t he p i e r s , reaching a maximum near t h e
c e n t e r of t h e s h a f t . The r e d u c t i o n of at t h e top is a t t r i b u t e d to
soil shrinkage and low lateral pressure , while the reduc tion at the bottom
is attributed to interaction of stress between end bearing and skin resis-
tance. The reduction coe fficient does not exceed 1.0 when taken as the
r a t i o of the mobilized shear s t r e s s to the actual shear s t re n g t h of t h e
soil adjacent to the shaft following installation. Construction causes
some remolding of adj acent soil , p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r d r i v e n p i l e s .
9:. Skin r esi sta n ce may also be ev aluated in ter ms of ef fe ctive
stress.
118 .
Experience
7,66 ,69,120 i. n d i c a t e s that skin
. .
f r i c t i o n may be
calculated from r e s u l t s of drained ( s) di rect shear t e s t s

f c’ + Ko tan q’ ( 10)
5 V

where c’ is the effective cohes ion and ~~~

‘ is t h e e f f e c t i v e angle of
internal friction . Satisfactory values for were 1—1 .5 in swelling K
120 ,121
co : .’-slve soils for p i e r s sub ,ject to upl i f t f o r c e s .
U p l i f t forces.
9 14. Up l i f t f o r c e s , which are a d i r e c t f u n c t i o n of
71
swelling pressure s , will develop against surfac~ s of p ier foundations

143

-V .— — - — ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 — - - V - -V--

when w e t t i n g of s u r r o u n d i n g expansive soil o c c u r s . Side f r i c t i o n; re-

s u l t i n g in ~ uplift forces should be assumed to act along the ‘ - r u t i r e - n- ;
of t h e a ct i v e zone s i n c e w e t t i n g of ; ;w e l l in g ~;o i l cau.-:es v o l u m e t r i c -x—
p a s si o n and i n c r e a s e d p r e s s u r e against t h e p i e r s ha f t .
~s The J - i e r t n
to be pulled upward inducing tensile stresses and possible fracture- of
c o n c r e t e in t h e sh a f t , as well as p o s s i b l e upward d i s p l a c e m e n t of t h i :
entire shaft . M o i s t u r e may also seep bene ath th e base of t h e r~ier ,
perhaps by m o i s t u r e mi g r a t i n g down t h e s o i l —p i e r i n t e r f a c e or t hr ou , -h
t h e c o n c r e t e in t h e pier s h a f t wetting desiccated swelling soil beneath
39 122
the base and c o n t r i b u t i n g to t h e upward displacement .
95. The p ier f o u n d a t i o n should be of proper d i a m e t e r , l e n g t h , and
underreaming, adequately loaded , and contain sufficient reinforcing
steel to avoid both t e n s i l e f r a c t u r e s and upward displacement of t h e
shaft . Simply loading a r e l a t i v e l y small diameter f o o t i n g such as a
p ier , even near t h e s w e l l i n g p r e s s u r e , is not alway s e f f e c t i v e in elimi-
70 123
nating swell of expansive soil beneath the base. ’ The shaft can
somet imes be lengthened to elimin ate the need for an enlarged ba se ,
p a r t i c u l a r l y i n soils where enlarg ed bases are very d if ficult to
construct.
9h . Several rational approaches for estimation of uplift forces
-

7,71,120,1214 ,125
in s w e l l i n g soil are available. Appendix C describes a
new approach for a n a l y s i s of u p l i f t f o r c e s , i n c l u d i n g a n a l y s i s of p ier
movements and r e s t r a i n i n g f o r c e s . Comparison of l i m i t e d f i e l d dat a
from two i n s t r u m e n t e d test piers with results of t h i s new approach is
considered s a t i s f a c t o r y. Empirical equations were derived as an example
application of t h i s approach for estimating pier dimensions and required
percent r e i n f o r c i n g steel to counter tension f o r c e s that may develop in
the s h a f t , provi ded that the base i s placed in nonexpansive or stable
soil.
97. The most conservative estimate of pier l e n g t h needed to pre—
vent p i e r u p l i f t in a homogeneous soil is to assume u n d r a i n e d s t r e n g t h
behavior ( = 0) and zero loading on the s h af t (P = 0) based on emp i r -
~
cal Equations C7 and c8 of the example a n a l y s i s in Appendix C:
-

1414
-

—V . V. - - -- --.- - -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~
_ _ _ _ - - .- — — - ~~~ - -- -- -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2 .5
ID \
P
p
= 1.5 Vt: L = 2X
a
- 1.142 ~~~~~~~~~~
( l la)

~~~ 3
D = 2.5 f t : L = 2X - 1.76 ( ll b)
( )

where
P = shaft diameter , ft
L = pier length , ft
D = base - 1 i ;m e t e r , ft
b
If t h e s h a f t s are ot r a i g ht w i t h no underream (D /D = 1) , t Ie l e n g t h
b
should be t w i c e - t4ie Ier :t}i of t h e a c t i v e zone X . If t h e p i e r s are
underreamed w i t h D /D = 2 . 5 , X can extend down to t h e base of t h e
b a
f o o t i n g (X = L) for pier lengths up to 15 ft (14 .5 m) and 25 f t (7.6 m )
a
w i t h diameters of 1.5 f t ( 0 . 1 4 5 m) and 2 . 5 ft (0.76 m), respectively ,
w i t h no danger of uplift from skin friction . These equations are valid
for swell p r e s s u r e s exceeding 1 t s f (96 kPa ) and soil a d h e s i o n s c
less than 1 tsf . Smaller swell pressures increase the conservat i sm of
the above equations .
98. The amoun t of r e i n f o r c i n g steel must be adequat e to take all
of the t e n s i o n stress t h a t is expected to develop in the concr ete shaft .
The t e n s i o n f o r c e T (a negative quantity ) is conventionally estimated
71 12°
by ’

T = P - rDfX (12)
p s a

where P is the loading f o r ce . Based on a l i m i t e d p a r a m e t r i c study

using t h e new approach (Appendix C ) , the percent steel A0 may be
e s t i m a t e d by

2
L Ktan ~
A = 0 . 0914 + 0.00275 — 0.03 (13)
3
p p p

145

_ _
. -- --~~~~ - - - - --- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

whue -ce c is t h e soil adhesion ( i n t s f ) an-i F is t b - loading fe-r i-c

( i n t- -r ~~ ) . The allo wab l e s t r e s s in t h e steel r e i r ; i ( - r c i n u g was assur:;e-1
Eo ,000 psi (14~~ ~-Ta ) or AS’i’r- l A6l5 Grade 60 . Equation l~ :h-:~w;; that t h e
rt- j- 0i r e d p e r cen t steel is generally lax -gc - r in s mal ler n e -m e t e r p i e - c s .
The r e i n ~ f e - r c I n g steel should be continuous along the i u i l l cr ;gtu ; ~-1 the
s hr i ft aru ~h extend b ite- the underream . Standard h- - :c-k c are sorretir .es used
in ; the v e r t i c a l r e i n f u s i c i r ;g steel of the underreari to develop t h e r °—
q u i r e d bond. The amount of r e i n f o r c i n g is t y p i c a l ly 1 r e r c e n t , but can
71
be as h ;i ;th as 1 p e r c e n t .
99. P r e l i m i n a r y design. The base of t h e p i e r s should be l o c a t e d
below the d e p t h of the a c t i v e zone , p r e f e r a b l y w i t h i n a f r e e — w a t e r zone
-o r nonexpansive soil to reduce heave beneath the p i e r . Footings may be
placed beneath swelling soil near the top of a granular stratum to avoid
“ f a l l — i n ” of m a t e r i a l while underreaming a bell. Standard s h a f t and
bell diameters should be used and variations in pier d i a m e t e r s m i n i m i z e d
to s i m p l i f y c o n s t r u c t i o n , reduce c o n t r a ct o r equi pmen t on the site , and
reduce cost.
100. Und erream s are often used to increase anchorage to resist
uplift forces. Underream s may be bor ed in dry or cased h oles o f at
least 1.5 ft (1450 mm) diameter and preferably 2.5 ft (767 mm) where

inspect ions are possible to ensure cleanliness of the bottom . The

belled diameter should not exceed 3 times the shaft diameter and may be
constructed with either 145— or 60—de g bells. The 1-45—d eg bell causes
larger stress concentrations than the 6O— deg bell , but the 145—deg bell
l2 6
requires less concrete and less c u t t i n g time .
101. Straight shafts may be more economical than underream s i f
the bearing stratum is hard or if subsoils are fissured and friable.
Belled piers have not been extensively used in the Denver area because
the underream reduces the contact pressure bearing on potentially expan-
sive soil and restricts the minimum diameter that may be used. 7’ If
bells ar e not f e a s i b l e , uplift forces can be controlled by extending the
s h a f t length f u r t h e r i n t o stable , nonswelling s o i l .
102 . Uplift forces may be further controlled by constructing
widely spaced p iers with small shaft diameters and loading forces

146

.
__________
_____________
 -VV. V.-V -V • V . _
~~~ V.-V_ •~ -V-V~ ~ -V ~-V ~~~~~~~~ - VV. V. ~~ V.V. ~ V ._V.~ V.~~~~~~~ -
- -
~ -V_ -V-V__ -V-V _•-VV.~•V. -
~ ~

consistent with the soil bearing capacity . Wide spans betweer; piers re-
duce angular rotation of the structural members. The mi ni mu m ; spacing of
71 11
piers should be about 12 ft ( 14 m) or 8 t ime s the sh a f t d ia me t e r - ~ to
m in imi ze ef fect of adjac ent s h a f t s . Underre am ed piers with s h a ft diame-
t er s less than 1 to 1.5 ft (300 to 1457 mm ) can be d i f f i c u l t to construct.
113
Reese and Wri ght recommend a minimum diameter of 1.5 ft (1457 mm)
except for very special circumstances . The upper portion of the pier
should be kept vertically plumb (maximum variation of 1 in . in 6 ft
(2.5 cm in 1.8 m)) and smooth to reduce adhesion between the swelling
soil and pier shaft . Friction reducing material such as roofing f e l t ,
b i tumen slip layer s , PVC , or polyethylene sleev es may also be placed
aroun d the uppe r sh af t to r educe both upl ift and downdra g
105,127
forces .75,
.
Vermiculite , p ea gravel , or other pervious
materials should be avoided.
103. Construction techniques. Three methods of drilled pier con-
struction are available : dry , cas in g , and slurry displacement meth-
113 .
ods . The dry method is applicable to soil above the water table
that does not cave—in or slump when the hole is drilled to its full
depth. The casing method is used when excessive caving or slumping
occurs in one or more strata. Slurry displacement may be used instead
of the casing method and may be preferable for deep caving soils. Care
shoul d be ex erc i sed to ensure that conc ret e does not mix w i t h wat er
wh en placing concret e in areas where groundwater i s a probl em or when
using the slurry displacement method.
1014. Concrete strength of at least 3000 psi (20.7 MFa) should be
used and poured as soon as possible and on th e same day as d r i l l ing
the hole. Care should be exercised while pouring the concrete to (a) en-
sure continuity while pulling the casing , (b) ensure tip of tremie is
alway s below the column of freshly poured concrete , and (c) ensure
adequate st r ength of the rebar cage to minimize distortion and buckling .
Vibration of concrete helps eliminate voids in the pier. 7 High concrete
slumps of 14—6 in. (10—15 cm) and limited aggregate size (one third of
113
the rebar spacing ) are recommended to facilitate the flow of concrete
through the reinforcement cage and to eliminate cav i ties in the p ier.

1i7

~~ -~~~~~~ - - V- — - - -- -. — ~~~~~~~~ -- ~~~~~~~~ - - -V --V-V - --V --- ., -

- - -
j
~ _ _ ___-V_____ -V__ _
‘.-.-.---— -,-,-,-V,-..v ,--V--V,.,._ •__ _____ ’___
— ----— ——-- - — -- — -
-V .-_ ——- .-V __—-—— _ — — —- -— --—~~~—— —V. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~
-

105 . Mushrooming at the top of the pier from excessive placement

70
of concrete should be avoided . ’~~ The mushroomed area is s-sLiect to
upli ft forces from underlying swelling soil and could cause the pier to
uplift . The use of sonotubes or cardboard cylinder forms is one we- ; of
elim inating mushrooms .
10°. Grade beams. Grade beams spanning between piers are desi gn ed
to support wall loads im posed v e r t i c a l ly downwa rd , but are not d e s i gn e d
to resist loads imposed vertically upward on the bottom of t ;ue gr a d e
beam by heave of expansive soil. Steel is recommended in both tie to;
and the bot tom of t he grade beam . 7 ’57 Grade beams are isolated from
u n d e r l y i n g swelling soil w i t h an air gap of about 6—12 i n . (l -t U cm) .
A conveni en t method i s the use o f cardboar d fo rms known as “Vert i cel ,”
w h i c h are wrap ed inn plastic and will support the concrete , but wi ll
71
deteriorate after the plastic is punctured . The cardboard forms will
c ollapse before swell pressures in und erly ing so i l ca n d eflect or damage
the grade beams . Styrofoam forms are not recommended because these may
have high crush ing pressures and may transm it s ignificant upward pres-
s u r e to the grade be ams .
101. Installation of grade beans and cardboard bc- m is may require
overexcavation of soil in the bottom of the grade beam trench between
tiers . Retainer forms may otherwise be necessary . Interior and exte—
n o r walls and concentrated loads should be mounted on the grade beams .
Floors may be suspende d from grade beams at least 6 in. (15 cm) above
the grou nd surface or placed directly on—grade if the slab is isolated
from the walls. Support of grade beams , wails , and suspended f l o o r s
from sleeper pi ers or supports other than the pier foundation should be
avoided.
108. Inspection. The foundation engineer should visit the con-
struction site during drilling of the first pier holes to verify the
foundation design and p e r i o d i c a l l y t h e r e a f t e r to check the need for
modifications in the desi gn . The purpose of l o c a t i n g the f o o t i n g s at
the selected depth should be emphasized during this first visit and the
inspector cautioned to ensure that the intent of the desi gn is accom-
pli shed during construction . The structural engineer should also visit

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
 _ -V
~ V . - V .- -_ - - -- . — — -..,--—._—— ------- _V.—--V——V.—---.--

design to
the construction site to en;;i Fuau ize important details of t . ~
- -

the inspect or who otherwise may not rigorously enforce such details. 5’7
Addi tional details on inspection can be found in Reference 115. -
 i FEK1-INCES

1. Johns -e- , L. : . , “Review of Literature e-n Expan sive C ;ay S oi l s , ’

Si scel ~an;eou:- h one -c J — e 9 — 54 , Jun i9(-9, S. S. Army Kni t -i neer Water—
ways F x ; e r - i m - n i t -ition , CE , Vicksburg, Si cc .
.. .ne -th en , D. R. et al. , “ C Review of i - ; ug n~ - r i n s Ex : o r i e n c e s w i t h
Expansive Sc i~1 in Hi ghway S ;bgra-h-s ,“ !-e n-e rt So .
I n t e r i m Re-to rt , Jun 1975, p r en a r e d f o r F e d e r a l H i d w o p A - brini :tra—
tie-n , C t’V i ck- - if R e s e a r c h aru h Development , W a s h i ;;c ~~o :i , . C.
i. Ho 1~ :, V . ~1 . ;i;;-I Gibbs , ii. J . , “Engineering Pr or e r ti le : of K x nan u—
sive Clayu;~ ” in- - Ii r ugs American S o c i e t y of C i v i l E n c i n e e r :~~
. -~- u- --t r - : - - 55. eu , -.
V- il 5 g , Oc t 19514 , pp i— SI .
-

Jo nes , . . , El ., J r . an - i H o lt z , V . ~1., “ Expansive Soils — Thc- Hi I - len

Disaster ,” C i v i l Eri ~~i nn eeri ~ g, V- -u I 143, ~~~~ 8, Au g 1913, pp 149—51.
5. i - r e n ; l er g a s t , J. D. et :1. , “ C’~ u~ e i t Ce-y e L u p m e r ;t for r 4ntu re s s-n
E x c a n s i v e Soil: by the P a t t e r n L a n g : n a e- Desi gn 1-berhodo logy , ”
T e c h n i c a l Report S— h 5l . Oct 1975, C o n s t r u c t i o n E n i s i n e e r i n g R e s e a r c h
4 l ab s r~it :- ;-c , Ch a m : ai gnu , I ll .

C. ~:- ~~~ e-~~ ~ , A. , Knt - : . n-s A f f e c t i ng C-nc~ntg e Cd u :- to - 1-uv es ;ents of :xnan—

1- “
4 sive Ct-nv: in the Field ,” Second i n t e c r . o i :r ;al Ke ~ ee-r- -h and
Engineer-inc Conference or ; E x p a n s iv e Clay S o il s, Au g 18— 50 , 1969,
College S tr i t i e n . T h x .
-V

I. Jobes , 2. 9. rim —I St r e -m a n , V. R . , “ C-tcsctures en: E x p a n s i v e C-oil: , ”

Ce- - s h ni c ~a1 R e t o r t 1- 1—91 , Ar-;’ 19 7 - , C on s t r u c t ion E n d r a e e r i n r R e s e a r ch
rib - - c o t - -r y , toin i p a 1 sn , Ill.

. Si- -b a r is , B. 1 . , ‘ - l ; i s t e i - e F l e w and E~~si li b r i a in U n : u t e r o r e i S o i l s

hs- r C h a l l s w i u-uointt ic -m ; s , ” P er m e a b i l i t y an - I ~ ap i 11arity of S o i l s,
Am er i c a n b-c:i - e- ,- of T e s t i n u c 1- l at er i a l s Sp e c -j u l T e c h n i c a l P u b l i c - ;—
t i — r u So. 1411 , ~ h Arsu-na I -1-d e ti ng A m : si n-u n So c i e ~ ;.- of Test in g
‘ t - i ~~~~~i 1 5 , Jun -51 11 1 , 1906 , pp Li- -Li .
9. Ka ~ t ar , C . V . , “ Fl e -:1- ~ n :; and Sec hun ;is nnn of F r o st Heav i ng ,” i-lioN—
, : 11-e S I. R e c o r d jI , Highway R e s e a r c h b-: -~ ; ur , N at i onal R e s e a r c h
- ~~~~~~~~ i-’~~~h 1 e - -~ o , 1- . C. . 1 9 - 0 , 5D 1—i - .

10. .isigley, R . 1-b . tri P Vogan , R. V . , “ i- l o c k S h a l e I I e av i ; ; g at ~~ t own ,

lanai-a ,” i’-a r -H i a n - ie o t e c hn i c a i J o u rn a l , V-n i 7 , Sc. 2, Va ; - 1910 ,
pp i-Do— la S .
11. Penner , E . , G il lo tt , J. F . , and Fee -n , V . J . , “ Inve : ’ cat ion of’
Heave in Billings Shale b y 1 - bi n e ra l ogi ca l a n d B i o g e sc i ; e mi c a l 1-be:
ods ,” Canadian G e o t e c h n i c a l ,To n ;r - nci i, V- - l 7, No. 3, A ug 1910 .
pp 33 3— 33 8.
1. 2. E d i t o r , “ S t r u c t u r e s Don ’ t S e t t l e in This Shale; h i t W i t c h ; Out f c c
Heave ,” Fn ~~i n e e r i r o bl ew: la-c n d , Vol l 6~u , l a. 5, Feb 1960 ,
-
pp -~-0—-- - - .

13. C o o l i n g , L. F. ~nn Ward , -1 . H. , “ Se-tue - Examples of F - on l a ti in ;

L 50
 -V - _ — - -.- - - - - - - _- - - -- - -
-
_- .- - - V - V
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~

Movement s Due to Causes O t h e r Than S t r u c t u r a l Loads , ” P r o c e e d i n ~ ’::

i f t h e Second I n t e r n n a t i e -n n u l flc n ferer;ce on Soil M e c h a n i c s ne -u -i
Fe ;; 1;it ion Fn g inec- r ing , C - i n . 1 — -;O , 1.9148, pp l60- -L6 7 .
114 . K a n t e y , B. A. and i-aeria l Is ~~ri , 0 . W ., “ P r e l I ni l r ;ar y Report or Levr ~
Ob s e r v a t i o n s of Lecuhof , Vereeniging ,” Council fo r Sci e n t i f ic
an-.i Industrial Research , National Build ing Research Institute
i 3 u ll e t i n N o . 9, i cc’ 1952 , P r e t o r i a , South A f r i c a , pp 7~ 2i~ .

15. Donaldson , 0. V . , “ A Study of Level O b s e r v a t i o r u s on B u i l d i ng s a:

I n d i c a t i o n s of Pc- i s t u r e Movements in the U n d e r ly i n g C-oil , ” 1-b- la uS.
E q u i l i b r i a and M o i s t u r e Changes in Soils Beneat h Covered Areas ,
0. D. A i t c h i s o n , ci., Butterwo rths & Co., Austral i a , 1965 ,
pp 156-16 1 .
16. Jennings , J. E. ar id K e r r i c h , J. E., “The Heav ing of B u i l d i n g s and
t h e A s s o c i a t e d Economic Consequences W i t h Particular Reference
to t h e Orange Free Sta te Goldf ields ,” The C iv i l Eng ineer in South
A f c i e a , Vol 14 , No. 11, Nov 1962 , nr 221—2 148.

17. J e n n i n g s , J. F . , “The Theory an -I P r a c t i c e of C o n s t r u c t i o n en

Partly Saturated Soils As Applied to South African C o n d i t i o n s , ”
First International Research ane .h Eng ine - - n- in- Conference on Expan-
sive Clay Soils, Aug 30— Sc-n -1 , 1.965, -XtS 1324 University, College
S t a t i o n , Tex.
18. Collins , L. E . , “ Some O b s e r v a t i o n s on t o e - b-1-evement of Irsillings
nn Expansive Soil in V e r e e n i g in -.c and -Ienu l a a ls r u s , ” The Trans-
-
a c t i o n s of the i-b-~ -~th A f r i c a n 1n s-t i ~~ ;t l a n of C i v i l Engineers , Vol 7,
No . 9, Sep 1957 , pp i—l i - .
19. Johnson , L. D., “Pre d ic t in g Potential Heave and Heave W i t h Tim-c in
Swelling Foundation So i l s , ” Technical Report 5— 18—7 , Jul 1979 ,
U. S. Army Engineer Wa t erways Experiment Stat i on , CE , Vi cksbu rg ,
Miss.
20. 1-Iatl-iewcon . C. C., Castleberry , J . P . II , and Lytton , R. L .,
“ A n a l y s i s and Modeling of the Performance of Home F o n i n n i a t i e n s on
Exp ansive Soils in Central Texas ,” Bulletin of the Association of
Fncimeening Geolog ists, Vol 12 , No. 14 , Pall 1975, pp 275—302 .
21. -i s d u ar d — C l y d e — S h e r a n d & A s s o c i a t e s , “ Final Report of Field Survey,
Sens e -i l -a l Methods Applied to Houses Damaged by H i g h Vo lnms e— Ch ance
Soils , ” FHA C o n t r a c t H— 799 , Jan 1968 , Oakland , C a l i f .
sO . : 1 ~ sam , K . , “An I n v e s t i g a t i o n Into The Soil Mo i st ure C o n d i t i o n s
Inn ier Roads In Trinida , B. W . I.,” Geo techni que, Vol VIII , No . 2 ,
Jun 1958 , pp 57— 71 .
2i. Ait ~’h is-oni , 0. 9. and R i c h a r d s , B. G . , “ A Broad Scale Study of
M o i s t u r e Conditions in Pavement Subgrades Throughout Australia:
F i e ld S t u d i e s , ” M o i s t u r e E q u i l i b r i a and M o i s t u r e Changes in Soils
Beneath Covered Areas , C. D. A i t c h i s o n , e d . , B u t t e rwn r t ,h & Co. ,
A u s t r a l i a , 1965, pp 205—22 5 .
2 14. Holland , J . E., Washus en , J ., -tn-ni Cameron , D . , “ Seminar Resider ;—
t i a l Raft Slabs ,” Swinburne College of Technology N t- I f o r t h e

51

- -V . - - a
 — - —-- .- - -— -— -V. -. -V - - - -
-V- -V-- -~~ - - V .
- - - - -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
— ~~~~~~~~ ’ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~

Australian and B u i l d i n g I n d u s t r i R e s e a r c h Assoc -~’ i - ,n ; It : ,

Sep lJ (5, Melbourne , Austral ia .
25. Wa shus en , J. A. , “The Behavior of Experimental 1 :- c ’ . Slabs On ix: c.-
sive Cl a y Soils in t h e Melbourne Area , ” Research 9 - ; ”. lie . FCC ,
Jun 1977, Department of C i v i l E n g i ne e r i ng , .b w i : ~ b Ac ;; - Ce: i - ~~~ n of
Te ch nology , Melbourne , A u stral ia .
26 . Wallac e , 0. B. and Otto , V . C., ‘ Differential Settlement at :c;f-
r i d g e Air Force Base , ” Journal, Se-il Mechanics and Foundation;:
Division , Proceedings, American Society of Civil Engineers , Vol 91 ,
No. SM5 , Sep 19614 , pp 197—220.
2 1. Jenn in gs , J. E. and Evans , G. A . , “ P r a c t i c a l P r o c e d u r e s f o r B u l l : -
i n g in Expansive Soil Areas , ” The South African Builder , Vol 140 ,
No. 10 , Oct 1962 , pp 15—23.
28. Parry , B. H. G. , “C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Tes t f o r Sh rink ing an d Swelli n g
Soils ,” Civil Engineering and Public Works Review , London , Vol 61 ,
No. 719, Jun 1966 , pp 2— 14.

29 . William s , A. A. B . , “ D i s c u s s i o n of Some Observations on the 1-1-eve—

ment of Buildi n gs on Expans ive Soils in Veree ni gin g and
Odendaalsrus by L. E. Collins ,” T he Transactions of th e Sout h
African Institution of Civil Engineers , Vol 8, No. 6, Dec 1957,
pp 5—8.
30. Means , R . E., “Buil di ngs on Expans ive Clay ,” Quarterly of the
Colorado School of Mines , Vol 514 , No. 14 , Oct 1959, pp 1—31 .
31. Salas , J. A. J . , “ C a l c u l a t i o n Methods of t h e Stre sses Pr oduce d by
Swelling Clays ,” International Research and Engineering Conference
on Expansive Clay Soils, Aug 30—Sep 3, 1965, Texas A&M Unive rsity,
College Sta t i o n , Tex. , (Unpublished).
32. Means , R. E ., Ha ll , W. H. , and Parcher , J. V., “ Foundat i ons on
Pe rmian Red C l a y , ” May 1950, En g i n e eri ng Exp er im ent S t a t i o n Publi—
cation No. 76, Oklahoma A&M College , S t i l l w a t e r , Okia .
33 . Redus , J. F., “Experiences With Expansive Clay in Jackson (Miss.)
Area , ” Moistur e, D e n s i t y , Swelling and Swell Pressure Relati-nnsh ips ,
Highway Research Board Bulletin 313, N at ional Resea rch C o u n c il ,
Washi n gton , D. C., pp 10—146.
314. Johnson , L . D. and Stroman , W . R . , “Analysis of Behavior of Expan—
s i ve So il Found ations ,” Technical Report -~— 76— 8 , Jun 1976 , U. S.
Army Eng i neer Wat erways Exp erime nt St a tio n , CE , Vicksburg , Miss .
-

35. K a ts i r , M. and David , D . , “ Foundations In E x p a n s i v e Marl , ” Second

I n t e r n a t i o n a l Research and E n g i n e e r i n g C o n f e r e n c e on Expansive
Cl ay Soils, Aug 18—20 , 1969, Texas A&M University, College Station ,
Tex.
36. Lee , L . J. and Kocherhans , J. G ., “Soil Stabilization by Use of
Moisture Barriers ,” Proce edings o f the Thir d Intern at i o n a l Con-
ference on Expansive Soils, Jul 30—Aug 1 , 1973 , Haifa. Israel ,
pp 295—300 .

52

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ --
_-- - -— . - -V— ’-V .-V- -
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

la. Shraga , S . , Amir , I ) . , and K a s s i f f , 0 . , “ R e v i e w o h ’ n - ! ~n ;-1 - 1’ -ni Prac-

t i c e For A K i b b u t z D w e l l i n g in E x p a n s i - i e Clay , ” h : - -- - - e- : i r g n : of
t h e T h i r d I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n f e r e n c e er; i - x !- r i n s i Ic S - i ! : , 1- - ; 1 ,
Jul 30—Aug 1, 191 ; , M ain e , I s r ael , pp 33t— -:1:
38. Komornik , A., “Discussion of Some Observations on the b-i- -~v~-rsi-r u ’ -~la
Buildings on Expansive Soils in V e r e e n ig i ng and (11ler;GaaDsrunu by
L. E. C o l l i n s , ” The T r a n s a n : t i ~~r i s - f t h e South A f r i c a n Iru n ; t i ’ u t i o n
of ’ C i v i l E n g i n e e r s, Vol 8, No. 6, Dec 1957 , pp 9 — l i .
39. U. S. Army Fr ;gi :ueer D i s t r i c t , i-n r-t Wort h , CE , “ I nv e s t i g a . V - r u : f o r
Building Fl un-lat , ions In Expansive ~ayu ,
“
Vol 1, A pr- 19637 , ~ort
W o r t h , Tex.
1 40 . lie L i-1- ;ar te cc , De;nartmen;t -cC t h e Army , “ Soil Sampi i rig, ” Fnig i r ices
M-ar;eai El-I lllO— C—i 9O 7 , 31 14-a r 1972 , W a s h i n g ton , S. C.
141. Net - ; ~u ar en~s , i-tn; a n ’ t n n l e r l t . of th~ Arn;y , “ i :stcu ~:;e:utatce:. of i-barn -ne
and Rock— fill Dan;s (Green. Iw-ater and Pore Pressure D-b servat i on s ) , “
Fng i:~c- c- r- bI annu al . El-I I LII— —190~~, Par t 1, 31 Aug 197_ , Won - Pla n -n- ru ,
D. C.

12. Headquarters , Department of’ the Army , “ E r ;g i r ;- : e l an u c ore-i le s ion . —

L a b o r a tor y Soil;; T e s t in g , ” E n g i n e e r bi ann ua l EM 1110—2—1906 , 30 Nov
1970 , Washington , S. C.
13. Joh nson , L . P . , “ Fva l ;-ation of l a b o rat o r y S u c t i o n T e st s C r-- —
d i c t i o n of Heave in F e u n ; I a t i o n Soil s ,” Technical Rcp i
Aug 1977 , U. S. Army Engineer Waterw ays F:’:permns:n1 ’ I t o ’ ice , CF .
Vicksburg, Miss.
114. i i e a i q un ; n ’tec s , D e p a r t m e n t of t h e Army , “ E n g i n e e r i ng an-i I r e s i g n —
~
Procedures For Foundation Design -5f Cu il— iino s an-u -i 0-t na- r .-tn ’scs.r ’-es
(Except H y d r a u l i c C t r ; i - c t n ;r e s ) , ” T e c h n i c a l b-Iane.;n l Tb-b ~~~~~~~~
~
15 Au g 1961 , Washi ngton; , D. C.
145. J e n n i ng s , J. E. et al., “An Improved b-len-hod for Pr ~~ : i c t l n g Heave
Using the Oedometer Test , ” P r o c e e d i n g s, Third International Con-
ference on Expansive Clay Soils, Jul 30—Aug 1, 1973 , Haif a , Israel ,
Vol 2 , pp 119— 151 .
16. Johnson , L. P ., “ Swell Behavior of NA Y—Il Sigonella F o un d a t i o n
So il ,” Miscellaneous Paper S— 77—l3, Sep 1977 , U. .3. Army Engineer
Wat erways Experiment S t a t i o n , CE , Vicksbu ;’u - , bl iss.
147. Snethen , D. B . , Johnson , L. D . , and P a t r i ck , D. S• , “Ann Investi-
gation of the Natural Microscale 1-beinluanisms That Cause V cl im e
Change in Expansive Clays ,” Report No. FHWA—RD—T7—T5, Jan 1977 ,
Interim Report , prepare d fo r Fede r al H i ghway Administrat ion .
Washington , D . C.
148. Statement of the Review Panel , “ E n g i n e e r i n g Conce n- t e , ” 1-boistur e
Equi libria and Moisture Changes in Soils Beneath C -n v sn ’e l Ar e a s ,
Symposium in Print , G. D. A i t c h i s o n , e d . , Butterwort hLn a o l C o . ,
Australia , 1965 , pp 7—21 .

53
________________________ —--V— ---
~~
- -V - - -V—--.- .----- - - -V

1-1 . B’ u’1 m d , J . . , B u t l e r , i- ~. -0 . , and Du n ic ani , i -~. , ‘‘On ; luek;asior ar;uI

i l e u n I go of Large Diameter Re-red P i l e s in S t i f f n I l ay ,“ Large Dore d
P i V - u :, ir ;c ’itut i :u of C i v i l En gi rue -rs , Ion-i- u; , i 916 , pp 5 11—71.
50. J e n n i ng s , J. E. • ~ rI P; : Engineering Problems oi’ Expansive S o i l s , ”
Second I n t e r n a t ion a l R e s e a r c h and Eng i n e e r i ng C o n f e r e n c e On l-Ix roi nu —
sive Clay Soils, Aug 18—20 , 1969, College Stat ion , Tex.
(Unpubl ished).
51. Taylor , D. W ., Fundarn ;er ;tal s of Soil Mechanics , John W i l e y & Sons ,
blew York , 19148 , p 1408.
52. F i c - n e i n g , B . W . , and Johnson , A. M . , “R ates of Seasonal Creep of
S i l t y Cla b -oil , ” Q u a r t e r l y of t h e J o u r n a l of E n g i n e e r i n g Geology,
~~~~
Ireland , Vol 8, 1975, pp 1—2 9.
53. Lytton , B. L. and Meyer , K. T ., “ Stiffened Mat s On F;-:~ -ans is-e C l a y , ”
Journal, Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division , Procee-eir.gs,
American Society of C i v i l E ngi n e e r s, Vol 97, No. SMI , Jul 197 1 ,
pp 999— 1019.
51 . S c h olt e s , R . M . , “ An I n v e s t i g a t i o n of the Swelling Mechanism of
Yazoo Clay , ” P h . D . T h e s i s , Georgia I n s t i t u t e of Technology ,
A t l a n t a , G a . , 19614 .
55. Snethen , D. B., “Lateral Pressure Relationshmn -n s for Two Oklahoma
Clays , ” Ph.D . Thesis , Ok lah oma St at e Univ ers it y , St illwat er , Okla .,
1972.
56. Russam , K . , “The Effect of Environment on the Pore Water Tension
Un der Seal ed Surf ace s ,” Proceedin gs of the Sixth Internat ional
C o n f e r e n c e on Soil Mechanics , 1965, Canada , pp 1814— 181.
57. McDow ell , C., ‘~The Relation of Laboratory Testing to Design for
Pavements and Struct ure s o n Exp ansive Soils ,” Qua rte rly of the
Colorado Schoo l of Mines, Vol 514, No. 14 , Oct 1959 , pp 127— 153 .
58. McKeen , R. G ., “Cha racter i zing Expans ive Soils Fo r Desi gn ,” pre-
se nted at the Jo int M eeting of the Texas , New Mexico , and Mexi co
Sect ions of the American Society of Civil Engineers , Oct 6—8 ,
1977, Albuquerque , N. Mex .
59. Schneider , G. L. and Poor , A. R . , “ The P r e d i c t i o n of Soil Heave
and Swell Pressures Developed by an Expansive Clay ,” Research
Report TR— 9—7 14 , Nov 19714, Construction Resea rch Center , Universi ty
of Texas , Arlington , Tex.

60. Van Der Merwe , D. H . , “The P r e d i c t i o n of Heave from t h e P l a s t i c i t y

Index and Percentage Fraction of Soils ,” C ivil En g ineer in Sou t h
Afr ica, Vol 6, No. 6, Jim 19614 , pp 103—105.
61. Vi jay-vergiya , V. N. and Ghazzaly , 0. I . , “Prediction of Swelling
P o t e n t i a l for Natural Clays ,” Proceedings of t h e I b i r d Interna—
t i o n a l C o n f e r e n c e On Expansive Clay Soils, Vol 1, Jul 30—Au g 1 ,
1973 , H a i f a , Israel , pp 227—23 14 .
62. Snethen , D. B . , Johnson , L. D. , and Patrick , P. M .. “An Evaluatic-n

514

_________
_
- ---

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

of’ Expedient Methodology For Identification of Potentially Exp ar —

sive Soils ,” Report No. FH WA— RD — 77—9 l4 , I n t e ri m ilep- rt , Jun 19( 1 ,
pr- -nn-ir’ed for Federal Highway A d m i n i s t r a t ion , O f f i c e of Research
arid Ito -el o nrner;t , Wa sh ington , D. C.
o3. Johnson , L. D. and lire - t h o r ; , D. B . , “ P r e d i c t i o n of P o t e n t i a l Heave
of S w e l l i n g Soil ,” Geotechnical Testing Jourr;al, Vol 1 , No . 3 ,
Sep 1978 , pp 117—12 11.
61. Parker , J . C . , Amo s , D. F . , and Kaster , D. L . , “An Evaluation of
Several Methods of Estimating Soil Volume Change ,” So i l Sc i ence
Society of America Journal, Vol 1-t l , No. 6, Nov—Dec 19 17,
pp 1059—10614.
65. Donaldson , G. W . , “The P r e d i c t i o n of D i f f e r e n t i a l Movement on
Expansive Soils , ” ProceedinE s of t h e Third I n t e r n a t i o n a l Confer —
ence on Expansive Soils, Jul 30—Aug 1 , 1973 , Haifa , Israel ,
pp 289—293.
66. Baikoff , E. M. A. and Burke , T. J . , “ P r a c t i c a l D e t e r m i n a t i o n of
Ty-pe of Foundation to be Used in Areas Where Heaving Soils
Oc cur ,” Transactions of the C ivil Engineer in South Africa, Aug
1965, pp 189—195 .
67. Leonards , G . A . , Foundation E n g ineering, McG raw—H ill , New Yor k ,
1962, p 576.
68. Meehan , B. L . , Dukes , M . T ., and Shires , P. 0., “A Case History of
Expansive Claystone Damage ,” Journal, Geotechnical Division, Pro—
ceedings, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol 101 , No . GT9 ,
Sep 1975, pp 933—9148.
69. Donaldson , G. W. and Blight , G. E ., “Disc uss ion of t h e P r a c t i c a l
Dete rminat ion of T ype of Foundations to be Used in Areas Where
Heaving So ils Occur by Baikoff and Burke ,” Transactions of the
Civil Engineer in South Africa, Feb 1966, pp 75—76.
70. Sealy, C. 0., “The Current Practice of Building Lightly Loaded
Structures On Expansive Soils in the Denver Metropolitan Area ,”
Proceedings of the Workshop on Expansive Clays and Shales in Hi gh-
way Design and Construction, Vol 1, May 1973 , prepa red for t h e
Federal Highway Administ ration , Off ice of Research and Development ,
Washington , D. C., pp 295_3l14.
71. Chen , F. H. , Foundations on Expansive Soils, Elsevier Scient ific
Publishing Company, N ew York , 1975.
72. Germanis , E. and Luca s , A. H. , “Some Foundation Problem s in Expan-
sive Soils: Testing and Me thods of Imp rov ing Performance ,”
Proceeding s of t h e Symposium on Soils and Earth S t r u c t u r e s in Arid
Climates, May 1970, A delaide , Austral i a , pp 25— 28.
13. Benson , J . R . , “Discussion of Expansive Clays Properties and —

Problems by W . G . Holtz ,” Quarterly of t h e Col ora d o S c hoo l of

Mines , Vol 51 , No. 1, Oct 1959, pp 117—1214.

55

--V -
- -V ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ -— ~ ‘.
— .~~
‘ —— -~~ --V--V

114. “Canadian Manual on Foundation Engineering,” Draft for Public

Comment Issued by t h e A s s o c i a t e Committee on the National Building
Co de , Nat ional Research Council of Canada , Ottawa , 1975.
75. Kass i ff , G. et al. , “Studies arid Desi gn C r i t e r i a For Stru c ture s on
Expan sive Clay,” International Research and Engineering Conference
on Expansive Clay Soils, Aug 30—Sep 3, 1965, Colle ge Stat ion , Tex.
(Unpublished).
16. Holtz , W . G . , “Exp ansive Clays — Pr opert ies and Proble m s ,” Quar-
terly of the Colorado School of Mines , Vol 514 , No. 14 , Oct 1959,
pp 89—125.
77. DuBose , L. A., “Compact ion Control Solve s Heaving Clay Pr ob lems ,”
Civil Engineeri flg, Vol 25, Apr 1955 , pp 232—233.
78. Jones , D. Earl , J r . , “Expansive Soils and Housing Development ,”
Proceedings of Workshop on Expansive Clays and Shales in Hi ghwa y
Desi gn and C o n s t r u c t i o n, Vol 1, May 1973 , prepared for Federal
Highway Admi n i s t r a tion , Off ice of Research and Development ,
Washi n gton , D. C., pp 16— 143.
79. Southwestern Division Laboratory, U . S. Army Corps of En gineers ,
“Results of Tests of Expansive Soils for Possible Use as Fill
Materials Under Warehouse Floors Port Sam Houston and Kelly AFB ,
Galve ston D i s t r i c t ,” SWDGL Report No. 1050, 21-t November 1953 ,
Dallas , Tex.
80. Seed , H. B. and Chen , C. K. , “Structure and Strength Characteris-
t i c s of Compacted C lays ,” Journal, Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Eng ineering , Proceed ings, American Society of Civil Engineers,
Vol 85, No. SM5 , Oct 1959, pp 87—128 .
81. Najder , J. and Werno , M . , “Prote ct i on o f B u i l d i n g s O n Expansive
Clays ,” Proceedings of the Third International Conference On
Expansive Soils, Vol 1 , Jul 30—Aug 1 , 1973 , Hai fa , Israel ,
pp 325—33 14 .
-92. Holland , J . E . , “Residential Slab Research — Recent Findings ,”
Swinburme College Press , Aug 1978 , Melbourne , Austral ia.
83. Hamilton , J . J . , “Effects of Environment on the Performance of
Shallow Foundations , ” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol 6, No. 1,
Feb 1969, pp 65—80.
814. Rau lkivi , A. J. and Nguyen Van U’u , “ Soil Moi sture Movement By
Temp er a t u r e Grad ient ,” Journal, Geotechnical Divisi- -r;, Procee-iin~ s,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol 102 , No. GT12 , Dec 1976,
pp 1225— 12111.
85. Cameron , D. A., “The Desi gn of Residential Slabs and Strip Foot-
ing s ,” Research Report EC5, Sep 1977, Swinburne College of Tech—
no logy , Melbourne , Australia.
86. Poo r , A. R ., “Experimental Residential Foundation Designs on Expan-
sive Clay Soil s ,” F inal Report , Jun 1978, Departme n t of Housing

56

- -— --
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 -V - ~~_ -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ---V--——-- —--_ — - - , , - - ‘—--

and Urban Development , Office of Policy Development an-i Research ,

Con trac t H22140R , Washington , D. C.
87. Bl ight , :7~ E. and DeWet , J. A., “The Acceleratio n of Heave by
Flooding ,” Moisture Equilibria and Moist ure Chan ges in Soils Be-
neath Covered Areas , G . D. Aitchison , ed. , Butterwarths and Co. ,
Australia , l9~ 5 , pp 89—92.
88. Snethen , D. B., “An Evaluat ion of Methodology for Prediction and
Minim ization of Detrimental Volume Change of Expansive Soils in
Highway Subgrades ,” Report No. FHWA— RD— 79— 149, Final Report , Mar 1979,
p repared for Federal Highway Administration , O ffice of Research and
Development , Washington , D. C.
89. Gr im , B. E . , Clay ~4ineralogy, McGraw—Hill , New York , 1953 ,
—
pp 126—159.
90. Transportation Research Board Committee On Lime and Lime— Fly Ash
Stabilization ,” State— of—the—Art : Lime Stabilization ,” Transpor-
tation Research Circular , No. 180 , Sep 1916, Transportation
Research Board , National Acade m y o f Sciences , Washingtc-n , D. C.
91. Blacklock , J. B . and Lawson , C. H. , “Handbook For Rai lroa -i Track
Stabilization Using Lime Slurry Pressure I nje ction ,” Re’u;ort N - .
FRA—ORD—77— 3 0, Jun 1971, prepared for U. S. Department of Tra;;s-
porta tion , Federal Railroad Administration , Office of Research
and Devel opmen t , Washington , 0. C.
92. Snowden , W. L . , “Des ign of Light Foundations on Expansive Soils ,”
Desi gn and Construction of Light Foundations on Expansive Soils,
Apr 1976 , Texa s Secti on , Ame rican So c i ety of Civ i l En g ineers ,
Fort Worth , Tex . (Unpublished).
93. Holland , J . E . , Wa shusen , J ., and C ri chton , A . , “Re c ent Res earch
Into The Behavior and Design of Residential Raft Slabs ,” ~ymp os i um
on Recent Developments in the Analysis of Soil Behavior and Their
Application to Geotechnical Structures, Jul 1975, The Univ e r s i t y
of New South Wales , Kensingt on , N. S . W . , Australia , pp 113-7 27 .
91 . Lytton , R. L ., “Design Methods for Concrete Mats on Unstable Soils ,”
Proceedings, Third Inter—American Conference on Materials Tech—
nology, 1912 , Rio—de—Janeiro , Brazil , pp 171—177.
95 . Wal sh , P. F . , “The Ana I ’çsis of Stiffened Raft s on Exno;us ive Clays ,”
Technical Paper No. 23 (2nd Series), 1978, C .S .I .E.O., Division o f
Building Research , Australia.
96. “Tenat ive Recommendations for Prestressed Slabs—on—Ground Used
on Expansive or Compressible Soils ,” Ad Hoc Committee of the
PCI Post—Tensionin g Committee , Sep 1975, Chicago , Ill.
97. B u i l d i n g Research Advisory h ard , “Criteria For Selection and
Desi gn of R e s i d en t ial Slab— on—Groun d ,” Publication No . 1571 ,
-
‘

1969 , Nat i- ;i~ü Ac~ 1emy of Sciencen—National Research Council ,

-

Was hi n g t o n , 0. C .

57

—
— ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ —
- - ~~~~ - - ~~~~~~~~~~~
— ,.,-V—--—-V ’—.:--- —-- —-—-—‘ ~—-—- -.--‘—-—. — — - V — --.-,-,-,,—,.--— —. ——-~~~~ ..,-----.—--— -~~ --—. .--—— —.——--——--— - -
——.-— -—-—-_ -- ~~ - --.
- -,.-- V——----.- __ _-V_
- ~~ —~~~ ,,-———,~~~ —-——.--_ - -. —.-.-.---, — —-- - — ——— -——--_,-V — — --— —

-
98. DeS imone , S. V . , “ Suggested Design P r o c e d u r e s For Combined Foot-
i ng s and Mat s ,” Journal of the America n ; Concrete Institute, Vol 63 ,
No. 10 , Oct 1966, pp l014 l_ l0 56 .
99. Lan ge , C. P., “Methods Used to Overcome Founmniation Difficulties in
Heavi ng Cl ays ,” Symposium on Expansive Clays, The South African
Institution of Civil Engineers , 1957—1958 , pp 33—37 .
100. Hamilton , J. J ., “Shall ow Foun dation s on S w e l l i n g Clays in Wes tern
Canada ,” Proceed i ng s of the In t er n at ional Resear c h and Eng ineering
Conference on Expansive Clay Soils, Vol 2 , Aug 30—Sep 3 , 1965,
Texas A&M University, College Sta t i on , T ex.
101 . Komornik , A. and Zeitlen , J. G. , “Damage to Str uctures on Precon—
sol idate d Clay ,” Proceedings of the Seventh International Confer-
ence on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Eng ineering , Vol 2 , Mexico ,
1969, pp 1141— 1148.
102 . Jen n ings , J. E ., “Discussion of Some O bserva ti ons on the Move me nt
of Bu ildings on Expansive Soils in V e r e e n i g i n g and Odenda alsrus
by L . E. Collins ,” The Transactions of the South African Institu-
tion of Civil Engineers , Vol 8, No. 6, Dec 1957, p 14 .
103. Z e i t l e n , J . 0 . , “D e f o r m a t i o n s and M o i s t u r e Movement in Expansiv e
Clays ,” Proceedings of the Fifth I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n f e r e n c e on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering , Vol 1, France , 1961 ,
pp 873—879.

1014 . Boardinan , V. R . , “Reinforcement of Brick Walls to Reduce Crackiog

on Heaving Foundations ,” Bulletin No. 11 , National L u i l d i n g
Research I nsti t u t e , Sou th A f r i c a , Mar 1956 , pp 17—81 .
105. P a t e y , D r . , e d . , “Building on Clay ,” Groun d Engineering, E n gl a : : i ,
Vol 10 , No. 8, Nov 1977, pp 15—22.
106 . Hamilton , J. J ., “Swell ing and Shr i n k i n g Sub s o i l s ,” Canadia n Build —
ing Digest, No. 814, Dec 1966 , D i v i s i o n of Building Research ,
National Res ea r c h Council , Canada , pp 1—14.
107. Holland , J. E. et al., “Behavior of Exper imental Ho ising Slabs
Expa nsive Clay s ,” 7th Asian Regional Conference on Soil Mechanics
and F o u n d a t i o n Eng i n e e r i n g , Singapore , Jul 1979.
108. Fraser , B . A. and Wardle , L . J . , “The Analysis of Stiffened Raft
Foundat ions On Expansive Soil ,” Symp osium on Recent Developments
in the Analysis of Soil Behavior and Their Application n--c Seotech—
nical Str uctures , Vol 2 , Jul 1975 , Department of Civil i-bnrineering
M a t e r i a l s , U n i v e r s i t y of New South Wales , K e n s i n g t o n , N . S . W . ,
Au s t r a l i a , pp 99—99- .
109. B r ay , 1. K . , “ Di-velopment of a Design Procedure f-o r R e s i d e n t i a l and
Light Commercial Slabs—on—Ground Constructed Over Expansive Soils ,”
Dissertation Presented to Texas A&M U n i v e r sit , Coh er e S t a t i o n ,
Tex . , Ph.D. Thes is , 1978.
110. “ Design and C o n s t r u c t i o n of P o s t — t e n s i o n e d Slab::— - n , — -1 r - ~ni -h ,
“
F-cst—
Terin-nioning Institute , Phoenix , AR , Oct l-T(8.

58

-- - -V ~~~
-V ‘-- - - V
 —-- — — -V- -V-----V—--,- --—--
— -
~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~

111. Meyer , K. T. arid Lytton , B . L ., “ V un dnit io n Des igr ; in Sw o l l i n g

Clays ,” Meeting of Texas Section , American Society of Civil i-~ngi—
neers , 1966, A u s t i n , Tex., pp 1— 35.
112. Reed , R . L . , “ Cost Comparison f o r D r i l l e d Shaft Design v s . P i l i n g , ”
D r i l l e d S h a f t Design and Construction Seminar , 19—20 Sep 1978,
spon sored by the Texas State Department of Highways and Public
Transportation and Center for Highway Research , U n i v e r sity of
Texas , Au st i n , T ex.
113. Reese , L. C. and Wright , S. J ., “Construction of Drilled Shaft s
and Design for Axial Loading, ” Drilled Shaft Design and Construc- —
tio n Gu i delines Manua l , Vol 1, Jul 1977, U. S. Department of
Transportation , Federal Highway Administration , Office of Research
and Developm ent , Washingt ion , D. C.
115 . Mohan , D . , Jam , 0. S ., an d Sharma , D . , “Foundation Practice ic
Expansive Soils of India ,~’ Proceedings of the Third International
Conference on Expansive Soils, Vol 1, Jul 30—Aug 1, 1973, Ha i fa ,
Israel , pp 319—321.
115. B-c-o nward , R. J ., Gardner , W . S . , and Grees , D. H ., D r i l l e d P ier
Foundations, McGraw—Hill , New York , 1972.
116. Sowers , 0. F. an-i-I Kennedy , C. M ., “High Volume C han ge Clay s o f the
S o u t h e a s t e r n Coastal Plain , ” P r o c e e d i n g s of t h e T h i r d Panamerican
C o n f e r e n c e on Soil Mechanics and F o u n d a t i o n Eng i r ; e e r i n ; g , Caracas ,
Vol 2 , Jul 1967, pp 99— 120.
117. Holland , J. E ., “Discussion—Review of Expansive S oil s by C. J.
Gronnik , ” Journal, Geotechnical Division, Proceedings , American
Society of Civil Engineers, Vol 101, No. G T)4 , Apr 1975 , pp 106—109 .
119. Vesic , A. S ., “De sig n of Pi le Foun d ations ,” National C - o e r a t i v e
Highway Research Program Symthesis of Highway P r a c t i c e, No. 12 ,
T r a n s p o r t a t i o n R e s e a r c h Board , N a t i o n a l Res- :’ar ch Cour ;cil , 1977 ,
W a s h i ngt o n , 0 . C.
119. Tomlinson , M . J. , “ F o u n d a t i o n Desi gn and C o n i s t r u c t i n-n , ” 3rd e d . ,
John Wiley & Sons , New York , 1975.
120. Collins , L . F . , “A Preliminary Theory For The Design of Under—
reamed P i l e s , ” Sout h A f r i c a n I n s t i t u t i o n of Civil Engineers , Nov
1953, pp 305—313.
121 . Donaldson , 1. ‘1. , “F o un d a t i o n s For A Pi peli ne Over Expansive Soil ,”
Fi fth Regiona l C o n f e r e n c e For A f r i c a On Soil Mechanics and Founda—
t i - nfl Engin eerin g , Vol 1, Aug 1971 , Luanda , Angola , pp 3—39 to ~— 11i .
122. I n n ’l sOfl , C. C . , “ A p p ar a t u s and Tests For Determining :-legative
P-cr’- Wator Pressure Characteristics of Desiccated Clays ,” Miscel—
laneous Proper S— 6 9—2O , May 1969 , U. S. Army Engineer Waterways
i x u e r i m e ri t S t a t i o n , CE , V ic k s b u r g , Miss .
123. Komornik , A., Wiseman , S., and Ben—Yaacob , Y .. “ St u d i e s of T n — S i t u
- Moisture and Swelling Potential Profiles ,” Second International
-

59

_ _ _
---~~~~~ -
 - - - -~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --- V -~~~~~~~~~~

Research and Eng i n e e r i n g C o n f e r e n c e on Expansive Clay Soils, Aug

18—20, 1969, Texas A&M University, College Station , Tex.
1214 . McAnally , P., “The Design of Deep Fo unda ti ons in Expans iv e Soi ls
in Semiarid Areas , ” A u s t r a l i a n Geomechanics Journal , Vol 03, No. 1,
1973 , pp 15—20.
125. Newland , P. L . , “The Behavior of a Pier F o u n d a t i o n in a Swelling
Clay , ” Proceed in gs of the Fourth Confer ence o f t he A u stral i a n
Road Research Board, Vol 14 , Part 2 , 1968, pp 19614_l968.
126. Reese , L . C. and JUI.en , J. D ., “Structural Analysis and Design For
Lateral Loading, ” Drilled Shaft Design an d C ons truct ion Gu id el in es
Manual , Vol 2 , Jul 1977, U. S. Department of Transportation , Fe-i —
eral Highway Administration , Office of Research and Development ,
Wash ing ton , 0. C.
127. Claessen , A. I. M . and Horvat , E ., “Reducing Negative Friction With
Bitumen Sli p Layers ,” Journal, Geotechnical Division , Proceedings,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol 100 , No. GT8, Aug 19714 ,
pp 925_ 91414.

60

--- V _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
 V . - -V-V -V--V—-. - -——- ---V — ------V— -
-V - - - - - V —-V-- --—--- —-V ~~~— - — — - - -V— ~~~~-

lablo 1

Factors I n f l u e n c i ng M a gn i t u d e and R a t e of Volum e (‘ -u

Factor Description;

Soil P rope rt ies

Conn:n :es ition of A c t i v e clay m i n e r a l s i n c l u d e m o n tm o r ih l - c u i t e s and m i x e d

solids layer combinations of montmori llonites and other c l a y
m inerals .
Concentration High concentrations of cations in the por o f l u i d ten i
o f pore to r educe the ma gn i t u d e of volume chan ge ; swell f r om
fluid salts osmosis can be significant over long periods of tim e .
Comoosition of Prevalence of monovalent cations increase shrink—swell ;
po re f l u i d divalent and trivalent cations inhibit shrink—swell .
Dry density Larger dry densities cause closer particle spacings
and larger swells.
S t r uct ur e Flocculated par t icle s tend to swell mo r e t han dispersed
p a r t i c l e s ; cemented p arti cles tend to reduce sw el l ;
f a b r i c s that slake r e a d i l y may promote swell .

Environmental C o n d i t i o n s

‘7limate Arid climates promote d e s i c c a t i o n , w h i l e hum id climates

promote wet soil p r o f i l e s .
Groundwater F l u c t u a t i n g and shallow water tables provide a source
of moisture for heave .
Drainage Poor :— u rfnio-c J r a i n n - e leads to n n : o i :t u o e ac-s ur n~I a t i o n c
or ponding .
Vegetative Trees , sh rubs , and gras ses a re conduc i v e to m ois ture
cover depletion by transpiration ; moisture tends to accumu—
late beneath areas denuded of vegetation .
Confinement Larger c o n f i n i n g pressures reduce s w e l l ; cut areas are
more likely to swell; lateral pressures may not equal
v e r t i c a l overburden p r en s u r e s .
Field Fissures can s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n c r e a s e p e r m e a b i l i t y and
permeability promote f a s t e r rates of swell.

V- . --- -
—-- -- —-- - _ _ _ _ _ _
 -~~~~ -- - -V

-V--V - —.‘— .--V

— -.------. ‘-—- ---—.—- -— - --
- -— -V
~

Table 2

t~~p ir i c a l M e t h o d s For 1’r e d i - t i n ~~j 9~y~ e

Le s T i pt lsn **
-

11 , 1)- ; ( - V () A ;-n - ~~ -~ lur : i t n -~— ii on s w e l l no-st y - n - : u i t s of ssrr ç ~~~ - - I ‘- Y :

s o i l s . Field heave estimated fz- n-nr. a fmi ly of - : o r v ’ - . uS: .- -
t t t - o r l e r g 111711t s , i n i t i a l w a t e r c o rj t - r t , a~ -.I ou r - - n o r ’- n ’ -: —
cu r e s of each soil s t r a t u m . The i n i t i a l ou~~,- r :-~~r. n - ’ -: . ’ ~~. :
compared with maximum (0.1471 I~+ :) and m inimu m (0- : : . : - -~ - ) wo ’ --:
contents.

-
Hn
Var; her Merwe , i~ (h S ~~ F
. FE
- - — in which F is a re duc ti on f u c o r to
p ~ H=i H H
~ ~~

account for pressure - i n . depth H and found from H = 20 b C

FH ; FE = 1, 1/2 , 1/14 , 0 in ./ft for very high , high , me-
dium , and low degrees of expansion , respectively. The be-
gree of expansion is found frrm a chart of p i a n t i c - i t y index
and percent clay fraction. 1 ft = 0.305 m; 1 in. 25.t mm- .
Vijayvergiya & Log S~ = l/l2 (0.1414LL - w0 + 5.5) from init ial woter content
G}-nazzaly, 1973 (61) to saturation for 0.1 tsf (10.7 kN/ mn ’-) surcharge ~r’—~:i-Vu re.
Schneider & Poor , Log S p 0.9 ( P I / w ,) — 1.19 for no fill or weifht Cr, th e
19714 (59) swelling soil to saturation .
McKeen , 1977 (58) A procedure relating soil suction with po- rcer t n :wcIb i r n - u d —
ing effect of surcharge pressure. Peq ui r cn - use ~~: era : in - ,

-
shrinkage limit , plasticity ind€ x , liquid l i m i t , ~~-r- : -: t A

clay fraction , and estimates of initial and final - --i l

suctions.
Johnson , l i ~8 (19 ) Fl > l0
~ S = 23.82 + 0.73ln6PI — 0.11n58H —
+ O .0025PIw —

P1 140 = — 9.18 + i .55146P1 + 0.0814214H

~~ +

— O .Oln32PIw — 0.C)12itPIH
2
for 1 psi (11.9 kN /m ) surcharge preasure to sat uration.

* Superscript n nrn~ -r-iis and other mention inC of re f-ren ren by m om-i cr in these t at-le n
refer to the similarly numbered sources listed in the References section at It ,—
end -- f the n In t’-xt .
I = per --n t -
; LL = liquid limit in percent ; P1 = plasticity index in p e r S o n
~‘e~~ initial water - -~-nno--m- ’ in percent ; ii de p th of soil in
-V
- I-.

L ---- —-
_ _ _ _ _ _

- ~‘
- — -—- - -
~~~ ~~~~
 -V

- .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
II~T~~~

Table 3
H~eln r t - ivr - Swe ,: o-- ~~Ieen Undisturbed and C o m p a c t - - i lIeu
-V
Class iCicatiom Pote: ~~ti 1. quid lasticity datus-al Soil
-f Pot -:.t al Swell 5: , I mit Index Suct ion T~ -
Swell er - - en S LL, p e r c e n t Si, i - ~ r c o - r ;t tsf ( S 1 ri~~

62
Un d is t u i - L - ’n d Soi1

Low <0.5 <50 <25 <1.5 (1141)

0.5-1.5 55-SO 25-35 1.5-14 .0 (1141-383)
High >1.5 >60 >35 >l, .O ( l t )
~~

Classification Plasticitt-
o f Po te n t i a l PVC ,* Index
Swell percent COLE** HI , percent

Compacted Soil
61

Low <10 <0.03 <10

Medium 10—20 0.03—0.06 10-20
High 20-30 0.06-0.09 20-30
Very h igh >30 >0.09 >30

* Pot’-nfial volumetric swell .

** Coefficient of linear extensil ility .
~ -V - - ---
---- V—--V--V ——-—--- —- - - .—-- -------.--. -V — —V -—-— --V
~ ~~~~~~
-- —-V.— — -V —
~~~~~~
.,.--‘-V— - -V
I

ri) 0

--
.2
0* •~ - ) j U
0 5 ‘ OH 0 0
4~~ 0 *‘ - --4 .0 4-. 4-’ ~~‘ -~~
4) -4-) —~ biD .H 4 ) 4-) -rI rI -3-i
cc l)
~
.- 17 5 5
4- 0~~~~
~
4-. -o ,-1 O .-4 .,4
ii C0) -4 -4~~H P. 0 —4 ,—4 0
0~ 5c- a cr H
0 0 7) 0 0 7)
no no -~~

—I
— -- ‘0 — — - - -- — -

o
-H 0
I 0
7) 0
(ml 7) 0)3
0
. C’). CU
LC\ 00 0 II)
4-,
0
0
0
C)
‘0 4)
p 0 . 4)
0 -- ~
0
a
5
Cl)
7) 0 ~~a-. I -d 4) o o o
—~~
-
~~ I no c-
O 4 ,0 • O 7 ) C m j •,-4 0 - ~~ 0U ’0 0 7 ) 4, 0
3 0 0 C 0 a cmi S . . . 4-. o O b D O - d
no -‘ 0 nfl 7)~~~~~
7) 0 Co — co ~~ CU o ‘0 0
o m~ ) I . Hou C/) — ---- --— -- H~- P 7 ) c m i )d S
‘
0 0 0 a0 0 o 5 ~~~ a
÷‘
cmi 4, 4 , 5 O - ,- ’ -) . H 5~~-. Lrs C\J O cc 1 , 0 0 4 ,4 ) 17 00
7) ÷ ‘ O C mlC’J .0 ‘0 (ml HH r -1 (1) 0 . 0 1
4, a~~~-, a)~~ --- + , o 7) I I I P
P. 0 ,C ) I ~~~~~~~~ Cs) o tr-. c o 141
. l c d 07)
(I) d .r-l ~~ Cl) ‘0 (\J r-I H C) 4)Co--
1717 4, ~~
O H ‘ 0 4 ,0 ,-I cd c d ) ’ 0 0 .0 cmi 00) no
o cml 174 .,-4 I 0 ) d O - H -4-’ 00 ) ‘0
-H 0 0 - -- O C\J ,
0 ’ 0 0’ 0 SOacmi
4-’ ‘0 H S O JH p ’ ..- • o 0 4 , 4-. H
‘-4 5 4-. 1 4 ) ~~~ 0 cc ‘ 0 O~~C U O b O
1 t-, 1 4 - ’ no c m l a C ’ ) H 7) 0 ,CC— ~~~Q P.
4-, ..—4 H C - -, 5 0, 4, 0 4) 5 0
0
cc
‘0
S
+ ) Q p • ’4 ,
.0 ,— i n n H~O ) ~~~
~ ÷)
4, ~~cc
0
4)—
0)
0 ’d p ~~
~~~ c-. o
4,
5 7) ‘-4 bi D— 7) 4-) 4, cc ..-, C) 5 4, ~ . 4 ‘ 0 4-’ 7)
4) ~~ .-4 .S0 < ..-4 7 ) a 0 0 .0
4) 4) • +‘ +)~~0) -‘ C) 0) 4, CU .H aD C\J 0 ‘ 0 -4-’
cc H 5 ..-3 7) 17 4-, 4-, 4 ) . 0) HO t’
~ a D w r- 1 4-.o 0
H ‘d .H ... 0 0 0 170 4, .- 0-P 0
Cl) cml S I 0 0L t \ a 0,~~
cm -
~~~~ ( ,,0 5 5 7) -p .
1) a-”.0t
I l l l-~
I))
4-, ccc ~~ ~4 ( m l 0 J 7)
1 7 7 , — l Cj O) 4-’ DO ’d
+
0
‘-
45 0 0 0
1-4- ’
cmi c-,
‘ 0 00 0 0
0 - 1 ,0 cc Cl)
‘4
0..
0 0 O ’ 0 a 4 , , 0 a ’ 0 O0j 5 0 0 0 7) 504
4-’
C)
0
0
0
0
O c t 0
o e a ) c-. w~~~
O n o + g o 4 , . 00
-’
cc
7) 0~~~~~~~~
5 . —-’ LI\’.O
-- —-
.0 .-4

‘S
174 ~~ -
a) a) 17 ,-4~~ 4-.
d- +’ # - , C ) O
C)
no
C
4-. r4 ‘0 I 0 ) -.-4 -0 -’ a D - - -, ( miS 0~~~~0 O~c ml 4~~ , 0 0 1- 0 0,
—~~ 4-’ -‘ --
~ 5 4-, 0) . 0 < ‘0 0) .,4 (‘C (‘4 C’~ 0) 4, . C- H C)
a S c c o o 4 , . -’ ~aJ ,S c ml Cs) I I I 0 0 .H4 - ’
4) C., o o) \C O LA ’
4 , 4 —’
~ 5 cC
H ) no .—4 (
’~J (\J .0
.
0
0 0 C) C)
0. ‘0 5
-nm
o -~-‘ •.-,
.0 — 11>-~ 0.
.0 0
1 4-’ 4- 4)
a P ‘dO 4- ’ti cmi 5cC 4) H CO
0 0 ‘0 0 ) 5 - 0 0 ) 0 .) •HE - 0) 1-,
-4—) 04 )
0 0 0) ~~
0
O 0 0 0
o C) ,- ’ 1- d-, t-, H 0) 5 0) C-
-
~~ ‘
0 n-C 0 0 4-. 4—. C, 0 .5 0.
an H ~~~ .H 4, .~~~c-, C)
nm C): ) H 0 4) 0 00 0
-‘C S cml -~~ cc > ._ 4-, ~ -
~
3 .0 0) .0 0) 0 0
9 i-I 0 4,
o -4 +)
a. ~4) a
‘
.0 ., 4,
00 --, Co a
4) CU -o 5.
C) (Co C— c.-
a —o H C — ct) C) ~
n-n
C) —1 ~~Co I I I cr0.0 0
‘
0. (Co O )’ I I I
n-- ~~~~~~~~ I CO 04) .- 0. C)
7-- C— C. 0-. H n-— un- C
C) ‘- O CO OS- 7-- 0
3: .- 10\ •- •- C
U\ (0) u-\ N- N-
00 4)
a-
on- 0.
5’
-- --
0 r ~ ‘0 0
1r~ Cu —a H I I
0 4) ‘0 4) I I -C I I CC 0
‘
i-0 V L O - O S A~ 5’
4— 1)~~~
—’ ,—1 C0 n- n- 1-.
no ,- --
~ Ci 0
n,, ,- C-C~~—
C.)
C)
0 4) Lr\
C-
H j - - .-‘-- O 0 . 0 4 )
-

cC i ’- cf’- 0 0 C) in-O H
-a - .-. — — -4 °Th C-) It o H 4-. ---
0
.
.

~~
III 0 0 c C
a a j v (‘ C-, H m C-
0 4) 0 ~
0. 4)
— ---i H no (Co 4) 4-) 0..
— .-— - .-- - -4 ..-4 C 4-. C--
0 -C ) > .
‘ (\j 5 5
C) 4-- -- a —. H -V ) -C .,-4 --4 0) .-) tn-I
0. - -- H I I I H -4
5 .’ ’ V
CO —
~ 0’ * *
H Co n-n -
-

*
 Table 5
~~ p er structure Systems

Tolerable
S upo z’ cltrun-tore Deflection/Length
oy :lt CU Ratios Reference Description
Rigid <1/1000 5 , 2~i , 75, Precast concrete block , unreinforced
101 , 102 brick , masonry or plaster walls , n-n- tat—
on—grade
Semirigid 1/500 ~o 1/1000 6, 16, 37, Reinforced masonry or brick reinforced
68, 75 , with hori zontal and ve rtical tie b ar s
99, 103, or bands made of steel bars or rein—
l0~ forced concrete beams ; vertical re-
inforcement loca ted on sides of doors
and windows ; slab—on—grade isolated
from walls
Flexible >1/500 5, 7, 16, Steel , wood framing ; brick veneer wi t h
2~I , 27, articulated joints ; metal , v i n y l , or -V

32 wood panels ; gypsum board on metal or 5

wood studs ; vertically oriented con-
struction joints ; strip w ’ndows or
metal panels separating rigid wall
sections with 25—ft (7.5—rn) spacing or
less to allow different i-n i movement ;
all water pipes and drains into struc-
tur e with flexible joints ; suspended
floor or slab—on—grade isolated from
walls (heaving and cracking of slab-
on—grade probable and accounted for in
design )
16, 27, 32 Walls or rectangular sections heav e as a
cc-nntrc ct jon unit (modular construction); Joints at
25—ft (7.5—rn) spacing or less between
units and in walls; suspended floor or
slab—on—grade isolated from walls
(probable cracking of slab—on— grade);
all water pipes and drains equipped
with flexible joints ; construction
joints in reinforced and stiffened mat
slabs at 150—ft (1i5—rn ) spacing or less
and c old joints at 65—ft (20—rn ) spacing
or less

~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
— ---V —-V— —.----- - - -~~~~~ --- ---- -- V —- - - - - -V — - — —
 - -V - V -
—~~~~~~~~~~~~
V- ~~~ -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -~--- —~~ -

—
ci — —
i c u u h l li cc u

~ 1
-, + +
~~

_ _ _
~~~~~~
—

I ~~
no
— — J—4 -- - 0

~ -- V- H - -- — 2 - -: Cl
-V

- _ )) -
--- n- - -c .- - ‘- ; -
-

zn- - ‘- --
- -
-- - - i- - U

-C -
— --

-
a1-
_ ! ~ ~ ~1 ~
—‘
~~~~-

- c
 - --V ——- -— - --—-- —--------_---— - -- —~~-- .,— V-
--V -•- --—-- — - V - —-,-— -‘--—----V-- -
__________________________________ --V -‘ ~~_-~~ -— -‘- ,—- -,‘~~~~~~~ -—
-V” l

V- V-
0 0_
s o - ,-.
-C — . 0 cC
U) 0 I n-C
I - -l 7) 4-
~ ~~r4)) p 4 ) C C ~-- ,” 7 ) 1 0
C I.) -- - 31 17 -“
~ I) a
0. -- 4) 1-. n-n- - - -.4 4) 0) ~: 4 — - 0 aD 7) 4)
a 4-V 0 . 0 .10 4) ‘- ‘-—I n - c

-
~ ~~~~ :~ • .1 0 1 — , 1-
1010 C-’ 1 - C - ,-, m n -~, 0~ C 4 ) 1 1 .0 ’)
. - ,n-- s -.-i n-n- u- c.- ic - - -, 4 0 c . , -. - - 4 0 , C ) ’ r 1 4 ) 1 r 4 a 5 - o
c--n - C) . - 0 C) 1) 0. nO c-n I- -i- ’ On- . - 4) 45 Cr’ 0 4
C C 1- 0 10 c- “ C) cc C) 0. 4) - (C 0. 0 0 0~
c- n- 4) 4- ,‘ 4) - - - 4) 0) ,- , ‘C ic 0) On- 0. -~~ 0. 0) 4)
4) Cl U - ~1l C-’ 4-~ ~ U) ,C) 1) 0 C o ‘0 aD no cc
Cl - oc - ,) o - - . : 7,c 001—. 7 ) ’ w - H CO 4--, — — 5 0 O - . - ~
cc- , ~n - - ’~~~;-’ 0,4) C
‘ C - O c c O c c o C0 ’C .H ‘ti
’5 o ,—~ I-, Cd’ ci) 7) ‘) C- ~—‘ 4) 1-, —
cc. -p 1) -,-i -~)
. 1 ‘~ - - C CC
no - o -, -4 ‘ 5 .1 0) .-) 1-. .4 4~) ~ 0)
1’ 0 ‘Cd - c- , C l n - n - O o ‘ 1 7 ) 0 . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0) 0 . O
no 0 0 , 4 1 00 -H 4 ) 0 0 . , 4) ~~
-o 0~~~ 0 1 - u -- ’ 4-’ ,-~~~0 0 C ) 4 ) — C f l 0 0 0 ,-I
cml -c tI 0. 4-. 4-~ 5 0 - -, 7)). ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0) 0 1-. 0 ~ -. -I Q .,-4 C +4 ,-I 0 ,-4 .,-I cmi 4 ) 4 ) 7 ) 0 .
~~4 ~
- 0) aD -J 0) “ ‘0 0 ‘ 0 0 .- ‘ “ ‘—‘ n-n-I 4-. -~~- 0 ‘4 0.
~ -.-1
CC) --‘ 0.7) “4 4- ’ 0 10 . 04 0 4-’ 0 -On 0 7) -0) ‘0 c-)
.- x o 0 o a c , V- cmi o a a ~ - ,-, -H 4-, C. ‘
1 0 ) 5 C T ’ .,-I C.. -,-~~~10 C) ‘0 - H 5 0 0 n o 5 o , 10 ) 4-,
- 71 ‘ 0 C - , O , )-C , 7 ) 1 4 4 ) 0 - — 1 0 4 - ’0, ‘C 0 , 04--
4 1 7 . ,- . 0 . C ) c f l 0. 4) C’I ’Cd 4) 0 d 0 * ’ - o - H 4 , ) . , 0 0 5 .0 .
(0 ) 4, , - o - c ) 1 7 4 ) 4 ) n-1 O ,—4 C) - -- .~~~‘ 0 4 ) 4 - . C)C 3 *—
a - 4 . 7) ~C ) C ) c O O a ’- u c’, ’ C C ) 1 - T~~ IO 4,~~5 a 0 , n~~~ o 0 .
0, - H 0 , 4 - C ’ n-C CJ cc CC C) ) 5 + 4 4 , 0 7 c — ’ L C ) 1 7 7 ) ccd’ i 0. c
C - O X 4 ) 0 0 0 ) 5 - 1 C~~ 1 0 0
~~~~~~ 0 . 0 , 7-- S -H O O S o 0 ) . o — : -,, cc) , p. -I ct U-
(0 1)’ no 0
no V-
—4
4)
• 0 ‘-1 D
a
4) 1 CC H
C— I _C ’ 4 ) 4) I 1 0 - --‘ 0
— 5 - fl-, 0, 4 ) 0 C - Xml ) ,-4 ‘00. .0 -
0 0. cml 1- cC 4) 0) 4) • 4) 0) 0
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ no -‘-‘ ‘0 4 - - D O) cc G,~
4- —4 (4.0 - 0 ~ 0) 0 5 -O 0
‘ -- ‘ 0.
C— c-. -- cml C- 0 4 O ~i p - ,-, 4) CC C)
Cl) - C ) ,--1 5 0 4 ) >, 0)aD ,-4 c- , ’)3 0) C)0 , c - )
o 4 4)~~~~~CO ~lC C ci) - - ‘ -4) 0 - ,-. .—I 0 c - -.- -
o
—
0 0 0 .-I
4’ - , 4 ) U - On- (d cl) - , - 4 O - ,- 4 ) 0) 0)
‘- -i 1 74 ) 0 5 0 - ) -,- n o 4 ) 0 . 4 ) 0 C) C S - - -’
.0 ,—4 nI C ) - 7 ) 7 )-. 0.0, 0 , 0 -
‘ CC 4 - 0 . 0 0 ,)
O O—- - — o 5 c n -D 0. n/ 0 C 0,14 CJO-
-o .o - --. n-i - ) 0.” 4) C- CC C-~ ~~~~
C--, C) cc . CC 0 nc. ~
-a
10 0. C) C” 4) .H C ‘ 0 , , C)) ‘ 0 ‘—i 4- 0
C) 4) 1 - 0 . 04) ‘01 0 0) ‘0 0 . no
C) ~C C ) ‘d O’ - 4’ O ’ O n- C- ‘ 0 1 5 0 C- n- 0 . o O
a,
~ 1-,.—C - )C 4C) - 0 t Ci- V S - 0~~~
45 4 ) 0 0 . 0 . 4 ) 0 .
0-~ E - ,-. Cc) 5 0 0 O ’H 17 4 ) 0 4 ) 0 4 )
0. 4- ,— 4 . C) no 5 0 0 . 0 . -,4 4) ’d C - n o 4)0)1 0
-5 4) .0) — n-n- - H 4 ) > O o 0 0 c C 4-4) 5 0 0 Ci -0)
4) O ’ O n-n- CC 0) )< -,-4 ., - 4 ’ d 4 ) C-n- TI ~
Cj O-.
4 ) 5 . 0 1 4 0 5 0 4 )- - ’ 0 ) 4 )0 . 4)4, 5-H ’ 0 . 4 ) • H’ 0 0 .
C) cC 0)
~4 7 ) 4) ‘- ‘0 CCC + 4 ~~~ 4 ) 0 0 . 4 ) ‘0 1 4 0
0)1 1- 0 . 0 C )C - o ‘a U—
~~~0 no 5 0 1 7 C ) 0 — S c-n-
5 ‘0 4) 7)0 ,0 4) cc c-n-
~~ 5 -, 4-. ,—4 0. 0) 0) 5 4) 4) 5 4, 4- 1- 7) n--:
0) ,—) Qc O -4) 0 0 , 4) 0 ,-I “ -4 0 0) 0 0 0 . .0 n - n -
-- 0 ) 0 C) .0 0cC 0 0 ,5 C)-
0. 0 4 1 7 ’ 05 0 ) 3 0 .-I -H 7 )0 0) 4-’ 04) 4 ) 0 1 .-
+ 4 0 0 --I C -H O) ~-4 O) 4-0 C) 40- 0 30
‘ C U n C - H O C —4 0 ))) 4) “-‘ 0 4 ) 0 -00
no o’ ’C c - 4 ) O -C-’ ---. a c ~~~o) O -oOco 4-, -~-) C- ‘
0
O 0) ~ - I0) 4—a C a-cc 0, 5 0 4 ) 5 04 - 0
S C- 4)- - 0) ‘ 0 0) CC0 cci 7) ‘C 0 4) - - ‘ 1 0.
n-n- • 0 ) .- C - ~ 7 ) 4 ) 0 4 ) 0 0 1- O ’ 0 0 -H -
~~~~- ~
0 4) ‘0C) U) 4) C-~ 0) -a 4) - D ‘ ‘ ,—I
0 5 C) C~) C-1 C - C-, C. n-I
0) 4 ) 4 )0 5 . 5 0, 0 4 ) 0 - --, ,-’ 3 ,-I , d 0 . L C ) hi
0 0 0 - H -,4 -‘ C
. ) 4 ) .-C c t O c ) ) ,)D C)”C -HO CO O- C-
-- 3 0 0 4 7)5 C) • ’-C C ) - ~’ C 5 4 , 4 , 1 7 4 ) 04 - 5 5 C - 0 .
C 0 , O ’ - H tn S o 5 > 0 > 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 -0 0 4) 4 - 0 ’)
0 4 )0 0 0 0 0 c C 0 . C ) o 1 - 0 + 4 ~~~~~~~~~~~ --~~no - no —
c cci u n o a - ~~ a ., 0 4 ) 00 0 50 . mci - p c - n o coo 1 4 ~~0 - --
-‘ C) >- 0) -H ‘0
a, CO C -‘4 5.

C) IT ’ I
4) 0 - - 4 . cO I I Ccl)
3 4-i o t 1 C 0) cml 0 0
C- -n - n-in- ‘ O 0 0 )
‘
H C ) . -’
‘0- c-c : ~n-O 0 ‘0 1- 0. 4-
no C -- 4- 0 . ~~~0. C ) 0 5 Cn- cmi co cml
fl r - 4 0 0 ()~~~~l ’C 14 0 0 , 0 -~’ 1 - ‘CO
C- - 0 4 ) 14 5 4 I 4 ) c c 04) 0 ,9
— -VI ~ - --‘ 5 4) 0 31 -4-i c- ~
i (04) ,t C:
4 ) 0 . 0 4- rI) - -‘ 0 7) 0 ,-I I 0 c c C.-
c-I - C’
~~
-o - - ) ’ 0 5 ° c-, C ) c m l C\c 4-, 0 ci) 0.
c-c ~~~
O. 0 ) 0 4)140 , C) 0 , 4 7)0 5 0 , : -
n - C)’’0 4 ) ) 1 7 4 ) -4 0 03
-V
D 0 0. ---1 C) C -I Cn- -‘‘ 7) 0 5V- ‘01 cd 4-’ -H
-H • n - n’ n - C ) C ’ ~ ~ . 4-i) C) 0 0 4 ) 4 )C - 1 7 O -V
-

4) 5 -) 0 0 > 0 ) 0. 00. 0) ‘cC cC -,-’

H I C-’ - / 4) 4) 0) 0 4) 3 0. 5 0.
) 0 5 4) no -
- - 0 4 ) 1 0 4 0 n- - ,-- - ,-, > ’ - V -
- 0 4) 4) “- C c- 0 .5) C - ~~ 4“-1 - 7 ) Cl~~~
5
4 - 4-- n - S
- --‘ 0 • —
CC 3 CC - -- 4 ) C-, n- 0 ‘n-~ -~ 0- 0 0)1 ..c 4) 4) 7- . 1 , cC
- -C
V-
-‘I -- -- 4-,
~ci ~-4 .0 (1) ‘- 1 C S -‘4 0 -0 40
-C -
-
0) 0 - 0—’ - c-. - --- 4 ) a’~~~~~4 ) C n - - on-
c m l u s ~~~~— E m 3 4 ) 0 n - -- 1 ( 0 0 1 0 5 co n - n - ’ 0 c m iO
0 1 0 4)- - C 4 ) 0 0 )17 4)
-V

---4 - -’
q) C’
4- 5 . 0 ,- 4 - 4 ) c - . ~c.. 4 - 5 - - - o 4 ) 5 - s 4 ) 0 . ---C ) -
-
0 0 ’ - 0) - 0 4) 0 0 ‘ .4.) ‘,-i 14 01 0.
5 +4 0. —r C) C)
-

‘ C)
- -, ‘-- 1-~ 4
- -’ 5’
n - c l ) 0 . 4 ) 4 ) ’ C~ - l C C 4 ) C O c - ) 0 1 4 —~~--’
-V

,
S 0) I
I
-

0 :1 4-- ~~ a) CS C- 4-- o CS C -V 10
- - - -— 1 ,-
-V
0 4 0) 1” - V- - - 1 ‘~C 0.
4) ,S n-- 4) 0. 4. . 0 .4 ) 0~ (Co - - 1 -V ,-I c-
-V

- ~ - n-
0 C ’ n--Vc~ 6--~
‘
0

-n - — -V ‘4 -4-’ ,- — - 10. 40 1-, UI C-. “- - CcO 4- ~ ) ‘~—“ C

.0 -
- C) .,-4 -C-)
-C - - no
-V

_ - _ _ _
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 V
- - -, — --- ---’ V - - ’----• -’- -” - •-,— ’—-
- ’- V-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~

-
Table 8
ni luc- ,-: ccn - n - n - n -- -ciated With Drill ed I - V ic - - r cc

- n - ,- ) —
Recmcn-irks

113 115
from Construct ion ‘Iechn i g u es
-V - -
I ureci

C ) c : c . n - c c t c r , n - c c ti e c i
ho . haft
icc 401 ’tec i caused by cuttings left in the borehole prior to concreting.
.
Too rapid pulling of casing cax cause voids in the c-c-lucre ’
Groundwater hydrostatic pressure greater tl,ar concrete J ren-;- ~
sure. lrtadeciuate spacing in steel reinfo rn-ecc-ent, i r a-Vien -~uc,’n- c -
-
concrete slump and workability.

R cn - -duc ed diameter Caving or squeezing occurs along the shaft in cchesionless n - n - iic . ,
t’rocIn- caving soil rock flour , sa nd or gravel , and soft soilcc , especially below tr.e
water table. Coarse sands and gravels cave extensively during
drilling and tend to freeze casing in place. Soft soils t en d
to close open boreholes . Raising t h e auger in soft soils may
“ suck ” the borehole to almost complete closure.

Distortion of Distortion of steel reinforcement cages can occur while the casing
reinforcement is pulled. Horizontal bands should be placed around reinforc ir ,g
steel.

Mode of Failure ICecnarinoc

82 ll7
Fail ures A t t r i b u t ed to Swelling soii ~

Subsoil wetting Moisture may migrate down the concrete of the shaft from the sur—
below base of face or perched water tables into deeper desiccated zones ,
shaft causing the entire pier to rise. Piers may also heave froco a
rising deep water table. Rise is sometimes avoided by increas-
ing the pier length or placing the base in nonswelling soil or
within a water table.
Uplif t
W et t i n g of s u r r oun di n g d e s i c c a t ed swelli n g clay s c an ca u se t h e
shaf t to r i s e and even f r a c t u r e from excessive t e n s i l e s t r e s s .
R i s e can be reduced by placing an underreamed base in non swell—
i n g soil , increasing steel reinforcement along the entire shaft
length and underreaicced base to resist the tensile stress , and
providing sleeving to reduce adhesion between the s h a f t and s o i l .

Grade beams on Lack of an air gap between the s u r f a c e of swellir.g soil and the
swelling soil grade b eam can cause the grade beam to rise.

Lateral swell Pier foundations have low resistance to damage from lateral swell.
Downhill creep of expansive clays contribute to damaged pier
f oun d a t i o n s .

-------- --.-- -—-

- - - - ~~~~~~ -- .--~~~~ - - “
-- -
- ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~-c - -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~
-

A PPENDIX A: DETERMINATION OF SOIL 1cri ’~

BY iHF-:iC-~ cc CJPLE P SYC HRO M ETE I- C

Theory

1. The thermocouple psychrometer measures relative h urrcidity in

soil by a technique called Peltier cooling . By causing a ourr€ -rct to
flow through a single thermocouple junction in the proper direction ,
th at part icular ju nct ion w ill cool , causing water to condense or1 it
when the dew—point temperature is r e a c h e d . C o n d e n s a t i o n of t h i o w a t er
ir,i il its f u r t h e r c o o l i n g of t h e j u n c t i o n . The voltage developed between
the t h e r m o c o u p l e and reference junctions is measured by t h e p r 0 0 0r read-
out equi pment.
2. The o u t p u t of’ t h e thermocouple p s y c h r o m e t e r ( i n m i c r o v o l t s ) is
cal ibr at ed by test s w i t h salt solutions , such as potass ium c h l o r i d e (hcJ )
t h a t produce a given r e l a t i v e humidity for known c o n c e n t r a t i o n s , as shown
in t h e following t a b u l a t i o n :

Cali b ration Solutions

Crtm ’-Formul a Relative

W ei n -’ht per Gram s of KC1 per Humidity S u c t i o n at
1000 r’ Water , M 1000 ml water 25°C , t oC
V-
~percent

0.05 3.728 99.83 2ici

0.20 1L .91 99.36 9.3

0 .5 0 37.27 98.~~2 22 .8
1.00 71~.55 96.8’~
The relat ive humidities are -‘onverted to total suction by

= -~~~~ ln~~ -- (Al )

v p
w 0

* Superscript numerals in this and subsequent appendixes (and the men-

t i o n i n g of’ r e f e r e n c e n u m b e r s ) r e f e r to similarly numbered sources
listed in the Re ferences section at the end of the main text .

Al

i-V
-V

____ ________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 - —--- ~~~~~~~~ -
__ ~~~

where
= total suction free of external j o- eooorc x-n-ept atmos i2cen -rn-c
pro -a n - o u r e , t o f

H = u n i v e r s a l gao constant , 86.8i cc—t sf/rnole— Kel v ir1

T = absolute temperature , Kelvins
V = volum e of a mol e of l i q ui d w at er , 18.02 cc/mol e
p/p = relative humidity
p = p re s s u r e o f water va por , tsf
p = p r e s s u r e of s a t u r a t e d water vapor , t o f
-V

3. The total soil suct ion is defined as the n- USC of matrix T~~
m
and osmotic T s u c t i o n s ( Table A l ) . The m a t r i x s u c t i o n TO iS re—
S in
la t ed to the g eometrical co n fi gu r a t i o n o f th e soil and st ru cture , capil—
lary ten si on ira t h e pore water , and w a t e r sorr-tion forces of the clay
particles. The osmotic suction -r is caused by t h e concentration of
soluble salts in the pore water. The matr ix suction is pressure—
dependent , whereas the osmotic suction is p r e a su r e — i n d e p e n d e n t . The
ef fect of the osmotic s uct i on on sw ell is no t well known , but an osmot ic
e f f e c t w i l l be ob serv ed if t h e c o n c e n t r a t i o n of ao l u bl e s a l t s in t h e
pore water differs from that of the externally available water ; i.e.,
swell may occur in the specimen i f t h c ‘ -~: t e r n al w a t e r c o n t a i n s less
soluble salts than the pore water . The effect of the osmotic suction
on swell behavior is assumed small comp are d w ith the e f f e c t o f the
matrix suction .

Proce du re

l~~. Laborato ry measuremen ts to evaluat e t o t a l suct ion may b e rn -od e

w i t h the appara tu s il l u s t r a t e d in Figur e A l . Thermocouple p s y ch r o m e t er o
are i n s e r t e d i n t o 1 — p t — c a p a c i t y metal c o n t a i n e r s w i t h t h e s o i l s p ec i m e n s
and t h e assembly c;ealed w i t h No. 13— 1/2 i -ui - V iler stoppers. The ao-oonsl- ly
is inserted into a 1— by 1— by 1.25—ft (0.3— y 0.3— by 0.~~—m) cheo~
~
capable of holding six 1—pt c o r lt 9 i : . ,n- ro an i insulated with 1.5 in.

A?

. -—- C
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -- -~~~~~ -V — —- - - —~~~~~ -~~~ — . —-- ‘ -~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - -~~~ - ~~~~~~
- - - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(
~

C)
4 -- -— -— .
—~~ ~~ .
‘ -l, - _ Cl .
~
\
~~

p
-

~~
-

— -
~~~~~~~~~~~~
/
~~~~~~

‘ -

i . ’ u- - - Al. t~c - n i t o r i n g o?.T o t e m

(38 rn-n-sn- ) of -Coon -ed -- 0n - --’-;:- -o ~-- . Cableo from t L e p s y ch r o m e t or o aro paCss- :J
tj . r c u ~ :c c-c .5 — i r . — ( —) di n-c-rn h o le c e n t e r e d in t h e ch-o :st C O l O n - - C . C orn—
~~1n -~~ l ii r’i I~~n-n - :o a t t n i r c u d w i t h i n a few h o ur o a f t e r p l a c i n g tin - -
110 . i il1i r
~~~ ~ JSC. of the r’ :lat i- ,”n- }:uio i -i i ty in the air rn - e on - - ac ed in-- : t h e
-

n- c c r - o r n - c - f c : r ari d th e r~e j - I t i v e rcujrn- .i i it in the ro il ST - : C ’ I ! S c c n -r n - J O

~ ~~~ U , :

oh- o -n -ii ned w i t h i n 2l~—li 8 hr.

5. The c a l i b r a t i o n c-aro, :. - of 12 cornj ner cin-ii (Weo -c or ) r-uycn - :rcn -n -n - ter:
ac aIred f o r ~.}ce ::ubj ect s t u d y v-or e w i t h i n 5 i c rc e n t on-i could be ex-
pressed by

= 2 .6 5E — 1.6 (A:- )
25

WCI ore
t o t ’ -ii ou ct i o n , tn -n - f

~5 C
= m ic r o v o lt .; ~~~

The Tr:O)cI toriro c yotom (Ftcu rc- -~~~ ) inciuir-c a cooling c i r c u it w it h the

An-

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
 - -
_____ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~

capabil ity of immediate sw i tch ing to the voltage readout circui t on ter—
mination of the current (Figure A2) . The microvoltmeter should have a
maximum range of at least 30 m ic r o v o l t s and allow readings to w i t h i n
0.1 microvolt . The 12—position rotary selector switch (2) allows up to
12 simultaneous psychrometer connections. The 0—25 milliarnrnetc-r (3),

~4), and the variable potentiometer

two 1.5—volt dry cell batteries ( (5)
form the cooling circuit . The optimum cooling current is about 8 mil li—
ammeters applied for 15 sec . The measurable range of suction varies
from about 1—60 tsf (100—5700 kPa).

A r”

c 0 0 O
~~ o O

d I K E I T H L E Y MODEL 14a N A N O V O L r M ( TE R
0 0 I
2 L EE OS-P-4ORTHRUP ENCLOSED SILV ER S W I T C H
0 0 ~ MILL IAMMETER (DC) RANGE 0 - 2 5 MA
~ SIZE 0 DRY CELL B A T T E R I E S

I
0 0
5 BOU RNS TEN T URN P O T E N T I O M E T ER

0 0
0

- -
Figure A2. Electrical circu it for the thermocouple psychrometer

C. The read ings can be taken at room temperature , preferably from

4 20 to 25°C , and corr e cted to E by
25
E
—
25 0 .32 5 + 0.027t

A!4

~~ --—— -
—- - - -~~~~~
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
~~~~~~~
--
-— ~~~
-
--—
~~~~
-- - ‘
—-
~~~~
--- -
~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~
 n
r— - -
J~~~~~~~-~
~~~~~~~~~-~

where E is the microvolt output at t°C. Placement of the apparatus

t
in a constant temperature room w ill increase accuracy of the readings .
Further details of this test procedure are available in References 19
and ~ 3.

Characterization of Swell Behavior

7. The total soil suction—water content relationship of a partic-

ular soil is evaluated from multiple 1—in. (2—cm ) pieces of the undis-
turbed sample. The pore water may be evaporated at room temperature
for various periods of time up to about 48 hr from six undisturbed
~
specimens; various amounts of distilled water may also be added to six
other undisturbed specimens of each sample to obtain a 12—point water
content distr ibution . Each specimen may be inserted into a 1—pt metal
container with a thermocouple psychrometer for evaluat ion of the total
soil suction by the above procedure . The dry density and void ratio of
each undisturbed s p ec im en may be evaluated by the water displacement
method.
Matr ix suction
8. The 12—point total soil suction and water content relationship
may be plotted as shown in Fi gure A3 for each undisturbed sample. An
osmotic suction is indicated by a hor izontally inclined slope at high
water contents , and the magnitude may be estimated by noting the total
soil suction at the high water contents. The matrix suction—water con—
tent r e l a t i o n s h ip can be determined by subtracting the osmotic suction
from the total soil suctions and expressing the result

1og t~~~~ A — B w (A1 ~)

where
= matrix suction without surcharge pressure , tsf
A = ordinate intercept soil suction parameter , t s f
B = slope soil suction parameter
w = wa t er con t ent , p ercent dry weight

A5

~
 - -
~~~~
—-
- ‘ —~~-

r —- - —

100

50 — —

~~~
z0— —

U,

5 —
I —

LOG 1)~~ r 6. 75-O.?S W —-—...j

•
0 -V

2 — —

I
~~ I
-V~
I
0 0 20 30 40 50
WATER CONTENT , PERCENT

Fi gure A3. Suction—water content relationship -:

of Lackland soil at 3.2—)4.2 ft
Suction index
9. The suction index is analogous to the swell index of consol—
idometer swell tests ) except that the suction index is evaluated with
respect to the change in matrix soil suction rather than the change in
)43
pressure :

A e C 1og —~~ (A5 )

‘
~mf

wher e
= change in vo id ratio
C =
~ G / l00B , suction index
Ci = c o m p r e s s i b i l i t y factor
G = speci fic gravity
0
~~ T = initial matrix suction without surcharge pressure , t sf
= final matrix suction without surcharge pressure , tsf

A6

r
-

~Ih. - --. - ----

fuction indices are generally iar-gc --r than swell indices and 14 - n - s tn - c u r.
C-orn -0 -Vrin -sai on indices determined from consolidation tests.
10. The initial matrix suction without surcharge 1r e ~n-;;n - ur 1 : 1~~
-
mo
may be evaluated using the soil ouction test procedure and ur iii: tur ~ e-1
spec imens or may be calculated from Equation A1~ and t h e i n i t i a l wat’-r
content . The final matrix suction without Surcharge j-rc-in- n-n- ure can

-V
b e calculated assumi ng

T =P _U (A 6 )
~~f f =P f w

w here
Pf = final mean normal e f fect ive pressur e , t s f
= final mean normal total pr essure , t sf
The pore—w ater pressure U is found from Equation 1 or 2 in the main
text . The consoliclometer swell methods simply assume tin -nt P f~ IS
equ ivalent w it h the f i n al ve rtical e ffe ct ive p ressure
Compressibility factor
11. is t~co r a t i o of the change in
The compressibility factor a
volume for a corresponding change in water content , i.e. , the slope of
the curve plotted as a function of the water content where ‘y
is Cd-n-c unit weight of water and is t h e dry density . Highly jn -laotic
~d
so ils co mmonly have a close to 1.0 , while sandy and low j n - i n o t i c i t y
soils commonly have u much less t h a n 1.0. High cc-r n- rn - sibility fac-
tor s can indicate highly swelling soils; however , -ooils w i t h all voids
filled with water also have an a equal to unity.
12.
Figure A~ illustrates the c o m p r e s s i b i l i t y f a ct o r c al c u T ht e - l
fro m laboratory data of a silty clay taken from a field test section
near Clinton , Mississippi. Extrapolating the line to -~.=ro water corn-tent ,
as shown in t h e f igu r e , provides an estimate of 1/H with

-I-I -V .
(AT )

where
H = shrinkage rat io -V

A7

_ _ _ ____ _ _
_ _ _ _
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~T

—
‘\

~~~~~

\ \

I Z
‘ \ II It)
~~

\ I ~

\~~~
- 2

L
I
t
0~~~~ O

I~.Z u . ii
0

A8

k~~ - -- ——~~ -- — - - - — - - -V-

~ - —-- -— —---- —~~~ ---. --- - --- --—----- ~ --- --.-- — -- _ _
- ---— - - - —- -.~.— - -
 —1rr1Itfl!r 1r
~

W = mass of a specimen of oven—dried soil , g

V = volume of a specimen of oven—dried soil , cc
13. The shrinkage lim it SL of the clay shown in Figure A )-i may be
taken at the abrupt change in slope of the curve , which is 23 .3 percent .
Calculat ion of the shrinkage limit by the equation given in tIM 1110—2—
1906, i.e. ,

SL = w — 100 (A8 )
tt W 0)
\

where
V = volume of the wet soil specimen , cc
may result in a SL that varies depending on th-j initial water content
of the specimen. For example , if the i n i t i a l water content is at the
natural water content of 25.7 percent , then Equation A8 will give
r

SL = 2 5 .7 - (0.658 - 0.588) 100 = 18.7

as shown in Figure ALL . Other shrinkage limits may be evaluated b y

drawing straight lines with slope a = 1 through other water corn -tent
points. The actual shrinkage relat ionship of the soil does n ot in-dicute
a SL at l ;3. 1 percent . This shows the advantage of using the r-lot in
Figure All and the compressibility f a c t o r to evaluate t h e volume—water
content relat ionship f o r dry in g and wet t i n g .
S u c t i o n swell pressure
111 . The suction swell pressure is defined as the soil matrix suc-
tion without surcharge pressure t hat is in equilibrium with the soil
when all voids are filled with water and the proportion of voids is
given by the initial void ratio e . The suction swell pressure p
0
L
may be evaluated from

lOOBe
log P
S
= A — ° (A9)

A9
-V

- -— _ _ _ _ _ _

— - - --- -- -- -
-

~~~
 --—--~~— - — -- ~~~ - - - - — -
--_ —---—-- -- V- -—- —- - -w - --

The n-act I n - un - owe lii pr--cs -ur€ - is n - in - n - n - nI - IJ - - Vo n - n - n V- - to- ttl E awn - - I I or - . - - v an - ~n - c

n - r o n-n- c-V - -V -ii tn -n - of con s olj don -rn - a n- r- swell tu-jt n-

15. F-n -u at ion A ~, wIn - I - n - n - . aI - ;ulat es a wel l :-r 1 - ; ; s u r ~- L a : - d on ene rn - I/

~ r in c i pl e s , is cons i d~ -ren -I n - i; p l i cable v t - - i - - - c l i C n- n- n - - on-herni on- n-n- x-j i— f fern -. : -

~ of
-

I c l ay id es n-n-re- i~ n - .i n - on - n - i t .
~n -otrC Inert ~-n -c r t i c l - - s in - n - t n - n - c n - oil , — ‘rticularly
~
gcavcl s arid pebbltn-a , r n - c ay -reclude roil u b i in- C; Ln- i c ul - ot i - n - r c a c- -i - co- i I pres—
-V

sara- from Equation A a

-

AIM
_______
- - — - - - ‘— _—-.—,---.---—.—.--- V- —-- .---.--_ -.,—---.----- -.-----.--— .— ----_- -.- —_-.—,--—- ----.,- - —— .---------
_ - -------_--——--- .-w--.--.-
- - —--_---’-.--,--------—--

~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~ n - I- V~~ ~ c-n- it ~~~~~~~~~ -.

:!: r
.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

NO I I DflS O N IS U 3 1 4 3 1 4 4 - -

n-0n- 4

-V
0
B 0 n-n- -
0 U .-~~~o U -- n- .
U 1 -.-4 1.1 .4 .0 U .0 1
S I I~ ‘4 O I l n-- n-n- .
— O~ 4~ I~ .0 1.. 0 ‘4 U i_ _ 3
0 . 4 0 . 0 44-IU n-- n-I
4.10 0. -l O la . 4 0 -n - - n - n-
~ ~~~~~.0
U . 40 3 U 0 --- n-.
U *9 1.1 0 o ~ —4 _ I I. . 0 ~~
V 4) V 4 4 0 0 U U I-.
O -~~ .0- 4) 4.1 0 0 .0 .0 49 .0 I-
4 90 ~
5 4.
o U 0 0 0 . -.~ ‘ 4 0 * 4 9 1 4 0
.4 -.4 0 - 3 0 .4 4.1 .4 3 U I- -
‘4 0 . 0 . 4* ~~ 0. U -.. 0 .0 B a
o ‘4 3 U ’ U U ‘ 4 3 — I O~~U
0 I-. 4) .4 U .0 .0 0 -.9 1 . 3
Cl) 4 ) 0 4 )1.1 0 *9 0. 4) 00 14 II

> ‘4~ 0 U U .0 0 -..I B >4.1 *0 .4

— 4.. -.. 1-. 0. 0 ‘4 3 0 .4 .4
0 ‘9~ 0 4) .4 (9 ‘4 • V ‘-I 0
*4.1 .0 .0 4.1 U U . I .0.1
*1 4 — I U O O ) n-4 ) U O O — * 4 ) 4 9 0*
-
II 0 4) ‘4 -.* . U —4 U ‘4 4) V-
0 0 ‘ 4 U .~ 0 0 0 ) 4 1.1 1.1 44 .0 41 .0 c
-- - .4 .4 3 ~0 44 ‘4 ‘4 0 .0 -.4 3 ‘4 1. - 4.
l~J ‘4 U 4
U . ’ 4 4 )3
‘I
‘ 0 U —4 0 ~
-‘4 ‘4 U O U U 4n - n - . 3 . - 4 .c
0 0 1 4 . 40 1 4 44.4 G.4 0 . 9 ‘4
.4 .4 O O U V V 0 ‘4 0 0 0 4 4 . 4
*4 1(9 44
~ -.4 44
U 0.0 U O U 0 01 U 0 .0 3 ~~~~~~~~~~
- -
U U U .0 U ~ U ..4 U 0) ‘4
0 0 U U O E I . U I -4 .0 . O
U U.0 Ia U U ’4 0 . 0 . 4 . 4 -. ’ --
U 4) 0.U U 0. 4.4 01 44
4) U ‘ E O 0 19 3
U O .O U E U . 0 I* 0 U 0 0 .U
000 0 0 0U . 4 , 0 0 4 ~~
) o U
U ‘ 4 . 0 —
00 4*0 0 > .
U U 0.49
00 .40
44 0 1 4 . -’
0 0 4 00 . 0
. —- 4. V-
4 4 0 0. - ’ UB— ’ 10
44 U
U41 E 0 0 4J . O U O U U O O
> 1. 1 40 > U U > 1 4 — 4 --* 4 ,-,
.4 0 1 4 . 0 .4 4_I 1.1 .40 -- in-
‘ 4 0 ) 4 4 . 4 * ? ‘ 4 U S U U * 9 * 4 O U - .
U U I J I- U~~~~ 49 U U U U D .
OO 4J U E — 40 4) . 0 0 0 U 004 )04- ’
4 ) 1 43 0 0 4) 0 00 3 U 1 ..4UU
0 0. -.4 0 0 1 . 0— i 0 0 ~~
. 4 9 U O n-c-
U I 9 n-0) U 0 0 . - ’ 0 ’ O n--
4 1 0 1 1 9 0 . -’ 4 ) 4 9 1 4 - _ i_-I U U U .0 1I I- c
.O U O . . . 4 0 .OU .0U0 .c U ~~ 0 0 O
E4 I
00 . U 0. -_

0
0 4, CO -
n-_I
.4
B .-~~ 0
in- o n- i
Ia _-
~~ : n - - on -

I~ .2
I
U 1 9 *9
‘4 B ”0 ‘ 4 0
O 4) U 0 * 4 )
Z U

—- —~~~ - - -~~~~~~ -~~~~~~ -— — -~~~~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

 ~~~~~~— - -- - - - - ---
— - - — - - - -- - -
-
- - -.-_I---

APPENDIX B : REMEDIAL MEASU1~ES

1. Most damages from effects of swelling soils tend to be cosmetic ,

l6
rather than structural . The results of an early statistical analysis
of damaged res ide nces ind icated that repairs are more ec ono m ical than
rebu ilding as long as the structure remains structurally sound. Mainte-
nanc e costs and frequency of repairs wer e obs erved to be greates t abou t
3 to ll yr following the original construction . Overall maintenance
expe n ses were m inim i zed by repairing damages b efo re ex t e n s i ve repa irs
were required , such as breaking out and replacing sections of walls.
The cho i ce of remed ial m easures sho uld depend on the results of site and
soil investigations. Investigation and repair are specialized proce-
dures that usually require muc h expertise and experience.
2. All existing information on the foundation soil and design of
the foundation and superstructure should be studied before proceeding
ith new soil invest igations .
w Initial soil moi sture at time of construc-
t ion , types of soil , soil swell potentials , depth to the gro undwater
table , type of foun dation and superst ructur e , and drainage sys tem shoul d
be determined. Details of the foundation , suc h as l o a d i n g p r e s s u r e s ,
s i z e and lengt h of foot ings , slab and pi er r e i n fo r c i n g , are help ful .
D r i l l ing logs made dur ing c o n s t r u c t i o n of pier f ou n d a t i o n s may h elp
dete~~ ine soil and groundwater conditions and details of pier founda—
tions . Actual construction should be checked with plans of the design
-V

71
to determ ine compliance by the contractor .
3. Types and locations of damage and when movements first became
noticeable should be determined. Most cracks caused by differential
heave are wider at the top than at the bottom . Nearly all lateral sepa—
71
ration results from differential heave . Diagonal cracks can ind ica t e
f o o t i n g , drilled pier foundation movement , or lateral thrust from the
doming pattern of heaving concrete slab s . Level surveys can be help ful
to determine the trend of movement when prior survey records and reli—
able benchmarks are available . Excavations may be necessary to study
damages to deep f o u n d a t i o n s , suc h as cracks in p ier shafts from u p l i f t
forces.

Bl

_
~ — -- —--- - -_ ---—_ --- --,------— I.-.-- ~~~~~~ .— -‘- --- - ~~~~~~~~~~~~ --- V
-
—
_ .— -— ._- ----. — — --—-V. - —,_--- - — — _- --

l4~ The source of soil m o i s t u r e t h a t led to the differential heave

oh-on - n - i d be d e t e r m i n e d to evaluate the c a u s e of damages. L 0cn - atio n of deep—
rooted v e c et n -t t i o n such as shrub s and t r e e s , locat i on -rn - and f r e q u e n c y of
w a t e r i n g, in a d e q u a t e slopes and ponding , se epage into founda t ion so il
f rom surface or perch ed water , and d e f e c t s in dra in , water , and sewer
l i n e s ca n make important chan ges in soil mo i s t u r e an d can lead to
differential heave .
5. Remedial measure s ca n be more e a s i l y det e rm in ed a f t e r the
causes of differential heave have been pinpointed. Table Bl illustrates
common remedial measures that can be taken. The structure should be
allowed t o ad just , following comp leto-o n of remedial measures for up to
a year befcre cosmetic work is done . The structure is seldom rebuilt
to its oric-iinal condition and in some in stan ces , remedial measures ha-ic
11
not been s u c c e s s f u l.
6. Some remed ial mea sures , such as m u d j a c k ir i ~ or c o n s t r a n -n -t i o n of
a series of spread f o o t i n g s or p ie r s to r e p a i r and ot r a i g h t e n dam n-i~-e-i
slabs—on—ground , may be several t i m e s t h e cost of t h e o r i d in a l fo am - - la —
tion . Adequate soil in v e s t i g at i o n s , larn--:i-o n-n-~~mn -ing , n -ir a inage , and f-a -con- i-a —

tion design are essential to avoid future o roh ihitive remedial reoni ro..

‘h

B2
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Table Bl
Re m edial Measures *

Measur e D e s c r i p t i o n -n -
Drairia~ e Slope ground sur face (positive -irai riar e) from s t ru n - n - t c r c ;
~ V-
add drains for downspouts , ou tdoor fa ucet s in areas
of poor drainage and discharge away fran-n-n- f o u n d a t i o n
soil; provide subdrains if perched water tables or
free f low of sub s ur face water ar e pr oblems ; p rovid e
f lex ible , water—tight utility connections.
Moisture Remove and recompact (with impervious , n c - r n - s w e l l i n g )
stabilization b a c k f i l l ; i n s t a l l v e r t i c a l a n d/ o r h o r i z o n t a l m e m b r a n e s
around t h e c er i m e t e r ; locate deeo—r on-jtej v e g e t a t i o n
outside of moisture barriers ; avoid automatic sprin-
kling systems in areas protected with moisture bar-
riers; mix ll—8 percent lime in soil to reduce pcten—
t i a l for swell or p r e s s u r e — i n j e c t lime s l u r r y .
Superstructure Free slabs from f o u n d a t i o n by c u t t i n g along f o u n d a t io n
adjustments w a l l s ; provide sli p j o i n t s in inter ior walls and door
f r ame s ; rei nforce maso nry and co ncrete blo ck walls
with horizontal and vert in -al tie bars or reinforced
c o n c r e t e b eams ; prov i de fanl i ghts ove r doors extend ed
to ceiling.
Spread footings Decrease footing size; underpin with piers; mudjack; re—
and deep c o n s t r u c t vo id beneat h grad e beams ; el imina te mus hroom
f o un d a t i om at top of p i e r s ; adjust elevat ion by c u t t i n g t h e top
adjustments or adding shims ; increase f o o t i n g or pier spacing to
c oncen tra te loadin g and to reduce angular di s t o r tion
from d i f f e r e n t i a l heave between adjacent f o o t i n g s an -i
piers.
Continuous wall P rovide vo ids be n eat h portions of wal l foundation ; c o ot -
foundation tension ; re i n f o r c e w i t h hor izontal and ver ti cal t i e
adjustment s bars or reinforced concrete beams .
R e i n f o r c e d and Mudjack; u n d e r p i n w i t h spread f o o t i n g s or p i e r s to j a c k
stiffened up the edge of slabs.
slab—on —
groun d
ad justments

-
* i- room- References 16 , 21, 27, 37, 71, 99, 103, 105, and 106.
‘

-- - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 -~~~~ -- -——_-,— -

APPENDIX C: PREDICTION OF PIER MOVEMENT

Theory

1. The mechanism of pier movement , Table Cl , is based on the prem-

ise that the uplift forces and resulting movements of the pier are
caused by swelling pressures from soil wetting . The maximum swell pres-
sures that can develop are functions of the void ratio or dry density of
3,71
the surrounding soils. The mechanism is consistent with the ideas
71
of Chen , except that the influence of final effective pressures of the
soil and added restraining force from the bell are included . The analy-
sis assumes that the interaction of stresses between skin friction and
end bearing components is negligible. End bearing does not exist after
pier uplift occurs. Predictions of pier movement s from uplift forces are
made for three cases: ( a ) m o i s t u r e migrating down from the ground sur-
face such as from r a i n f a ll , ( b ) moisture mi grating from an i n t e rme d i a t e
zone such as from a relatively thin pervious sandy stratum , and Cc ) mois—
V- ture migrating upward from below the pier such as from a rising water
125
table . Case 3 may also be u sed for the special case where X ex—
a
ceeds length L , but moisture migrates downward.
The formula for the restraining force P , Table Cl , was devel—
2.
r
1214 -V
oped after McAnally who assumed a net upward bearing pressure from
the bell of 7 times the shear strength t . The shear strength is
S
est imated by
7, 66 ,69,120

= c’ + Ko tan (ci)
s v ~

where
= effective cohesion , tsf
K ratio of horizontal to vertical effective pressure
= effective vertical pressure , t s f
= e f f e c t ive angle of internal f r i c t i o n , degrees
3. The u p l i f t f o r c e 1’ is computed by
u

Cl

-- ~~~~~~~~~
 - - - - - - - -_
~~ ~— ~
-—‘ -w --. ---------w - -
~~~~~ ~~ -— ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -~~~~~~

T’ = (p —
~ f )A ; (p —
Pf ) < f (C 2 )
u

= f A
s act
; (p
5
—
P f ) >f 5 (C 3)

whe re
= swell pressure , t s f
p~. = final effective pressure , t s f
A = area over which the swell pressure is exerted on the pier V-
act
sha ft , f t 2
f = skin friction (Equation 9 in main text), t s f

If (p — I f ) is less than zero , then the uplift forc e does not exist ,
and it i s repl aced by a downdrag force exerted on the pier s h a f t and sub—
soils beneath the footing as discussed below.
14. The tens ion forc e T developed within the pier conc rete from
the u p l i f t f o r c e s is compensated for t h e r e s t r a i n i n g e f f e c t of t h e f i n a l
effective pressure p~. by

T = P- P (C14 )
U

where P is the loading force exerted by the weight of the foundation

and super structure and P is given by Equation Cd or C3 .

-V 5. The force exerted vertically downward at the bottom of the

foot in g on the so il beneath the footing du e to the lo adin g force P is
e s t i m a t e d by

= P — — P~~)LrD —
Pf~ < (C 5)
~

= P — f LrrD , P —
P f~ > f (06 )
~

where in- and D are the length and diameter of the pier sha ft , re—
spect ively . The force is set equal to zero , if Equation C5 or c6
~b
results in negative values. If the swelling pressure is le~ n-3 than the
ver t ic al e f f e c t i v e pressure , a dragdown force (negative skin friction )
exerted by the surrounding soils is ~mp oreci on the shaft and th - - sut— n-icil

C2

~~~ ~
-- - - — - -—~~~~~~~~
 beneath the footing adding to the loading force P

Compu ter Program

-
Organization

-
6. The program HPIER for computing forces and pier movements from
swelling soils is based on the above theory , and it is cons istent with
the format previously developed for the program ULTRAT for pred icting
total and rate of heave of structures constructed on expansive clay
Co m putation of swell pressures and heaves are ba sed on the
19,143
mechanical swell and soil suction models described by Johnson .
7. The program consists of a main routine and four subroutines.
The main routine co m putes the ef f e c t i v e vert ical overburden and swell
pressures , r e s t r a i n ing force , tension force , and foundation pressure
exerted on the subsurface soils beneath the footing . The subroutine
MECH computes heave based on consolidometer swell tests. The subroutines
SUCT and HSUCT compute heave based on the soil suction model . The sub-
routine PSAD sets up the proper depths in the soil profile for calcula-
tion of swell pressures and heaves. The program is set with statement
PARAMETER NL 1O , NQ 81 where NL is the maximum number of soils NMAT
and NQ is the maximum number of nodal points NNP. The capacity of t h e
program may be increased by i n c r e a s i n g NL and NQ
Input data
8. The program was prepared for time— sharing on the Honeywell
series G600 computer. The input data are as follows :

Data
1 The program will print :
A description of the problem is recommended .
2 The program will print aft er carriage return :
NOPT ,NPROB ,NSUCT,NNP ,NBX ,NMAT ,DX
= . Input the above variables , Table C2 .
3 The program will print after carriage return :
M ,G ,WC ,EO ,C ,PHI
Input the above variables , Table C2 .
14A If NSUCT U , the program will print after carriage return :

03

L - - ~~~~~~~~
_ _-—- -,-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 ~~~~~~
j n- D ata
M ,Aln-L ,dP ,CS ,CC
Input the above var i able s , Tr’l-le Ci , for soil M l .
14B If NSUCT 1, the p ro gram will pr i nt a ft er carr ia~’e return :
M ,A ,B ,ALPHA ,AKO ,PI
Inp ut the above variable s , Table C2 , for soil M=l.
The program will repeat steps 3 and 14 until all soils
from M 1 to M NMAT have been read into the computer .
5 The program will print after carriage return :
ELEMENT ,NO . OF SOIL
Input 1,1
Inpu t elem ent , 2 for elem ents in incr e asi n~-: order
for each increase in soil type M.
Input NEL ,NMAT as the last and deepest element for
so il type M=NMAT .
6 The program will print after carriage return up to NPROB :
PLOAD ,XA ,XF ,AF ,DP ,DB ,DOWT ,IOPTION ,K~TT
Input the above variables , Table C2 .
Step 6 will be repeated following printing of the solu-
tion of a problem until the number of problems = NPHOB .

Output dat a
9. If NOPT 1, all computed data will be printed :

Line Data
1 FORCE RESTRAINING UPLIFT= EXCESS= TOhS
2 FORCE AT BOTTOM OF PIEB= TENSION= TONS
3 HEAVE IN FEET : PIER SUBSOIL
14 ELEMENT DEPTH ,FT FRACTION HEAVE EXCESS PORE PRESSUBE ,TSF
If NOPT=O , line 14 and subsequent data tabulated for each soil
element will not be printed. The nomenclature for the output
data is defined in Table C3 .

Applicat ion

Parametric analysis
10. The program HPIEB was used to perform a limited parametric
study of the movement and performance of piers 1.5 ft (1457 mm) and 2.5 ft
(762 mm) in diameter . The results of an analysis with the assumptions
described in Table C14 led to the following empirical equations for esti—
mating the maximum permissible depth of the active zone Xa
 -
_ _ _ _ _
-

Shaft Diameter
D , ft X ft
p a

O.lOoP
1.5 O.7l (
~~ + 0.5L + if
~ = o (CT )
)

O.0614P
2.5 o.88 (
~~ + 0 . 5L + if
~ = o (c8)
)

2.5
l.88P
1.5 0.
88(
i) + O. TL + if c = a (c9)
a

l.i~ P
2.5 O.8l (
~~ + O. TL + if 0 = 0 (d o)
a
)

where
D = d iameter of base , f t
b
D = diameter of shaft , f t
p
L = length , f t
P = loading force , tons
c = soil adh esion , tsf
a
K = ratio of horizontal to vertical effective pressure
= effective angle of internal friction , degrees
If the actual swelling pressures are less th~~ 1 tsf (96 kPa),
11.
then the maximum safe active zone will be deeper than those calculated
by the Equations CT to C1O. These equations also show that the per-
mitted X will be less if undrained strengths ( 0) are valid than
a ~~~

if soils with zero adhe~ ion (c = 0) are assumed. For example , if piers
are unloaded (P D /D = 2.5 , and where the activ e zone equals or
= 0) ,
b p
exceeds the lengths of the piers , lengths would have to exceed only 15
and 25 ft ( 14 .5 and 7.6 m) for soils with
~ = 0 , while lengths -would be
31 and 52 f t (95 and 15.8 m) for soils with = 0 for 1.5— and 2 .5—ft—
c
a
(1457— and 762—mm— ) diam shaft s , respectively , to cause upward displace—
-V

-
ment from skin friction uplift forces . If no underream is used and
-

C5

_ _ _ _
- ~~~~~~~
 , - -- - --. n- -~~~~~~~ - -V~_ I _ -V~~ __ - V _ _ -V_-_ _ _ * -V -
~~~~ ~ ~ ~

n egligible leadin gs are com templ ated such as with r es i d ences and lightly
loaded building s , the pier length should be twice the depth of the ac-
t ive zon e for soils wit h ~ = 0 or 1.5 times X for soils w it h
a
c 0.
a
12. Tension forces computed from the parametric analysis provided -n -
th e basi s fo r est imat in g th e required percent steel A ,, by

Lc 2
L K tan
As = 0.0914
~~~~~~~~
+ 0.00275
‘~
— 0.03 (d l)
p p D

where the units in Equation Cll are the same as those in Equations CT—
ClO. The allowable stress in the steel reinforc ing was assumed to be
60 ,000 psi (14114 MPa).
F i eld tes t s
13. The program HPIER was used to analyze the performance of test
piers 1 and 2 constructed at a test pier site on Lackland Air Force Base ,
Tex .
39 The input parameter s , Table C5 were taken from results of con-
,
19 143
stant volume (mechanical ) swell and soil suction tests. The
stren gth parameter 7’39 of 1 tsf was assumed equal to the soil ad-
hesion c
, and the coefficient K was taken as 1.0. The calculations
a
ind icat e that total tension loads for the intact material shown in
Figures Cl and C2 agree reasonably well with field data and are also
reas o nably con sistent with res ults calculat ed by th e Fort Wor th
7
.
114. The depth of the active zone that would lead to pier X
a
heave was calculated by HPIER to be 27 ft for the intact material .
Since t h e actual t e n s i o n loads are signif icant along the pier sha ft s for
-V
lengths greater than 27 ft , HPIER predicts that the pier should be
lifted upward fro m lateral sk in f r i c t ion uplift forces with the amount
predicted varying fro m 514—89 pe r cen t o f the heave of the ad jacent soil ,
Table C6. Actual pier heave in excess of the soil heave observed at
314 f t of dept h is about 69—76 percent of the a djacent soil heav e.
15. An est imate of the re in f o r c i n g st eel needed to resist the
-V

tension forces for zero loading force P is found from Equation Cli :

C6

-~~~~~~ _ _ _ _ _
~
r~~-~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

0
0 ________________________________________________________

o
In-

I
/
I

~:

y/
.

L .
/
-

~~ I f /
— -
I / ~i-

v
~ i/.
‘
I. — -~~~

- -

/ 1’
I II —
1 // — -~
PU -~~~

°
0 -

F ~ ~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~

V-
id ‘Hj.d a
- ~~

C7

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - -- --- ~~~~~~~

 I
I I

I
I
l ’
‘ xi
~~~~~~
-
-

-V

ç~ i1’i\ -

: t / . ipJ
~~ ~
-

~~~~~~~~~~

-
-

,PfJ/ vl

‘ H id
~~ cJ
kd
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
——
~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ - - --

--

0 . l - L ,~~3 O _ 12) x 1 n- n- -
TFI : A = + ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
l. o% (Cl2)
s =

L .J 9oLo -~~ 1:) 1 n- . n- - - - d~-~ d - Y 1 x O .li~

TP2 : A = + 0.9% (Cl3)
s

The actual amounts of steel placed in test piers 1 and 2 are 2 an n -I 1

J - e r c ~ n -t , respectively. These amounts should be satisfactory .
1- . Table C? presents a listing of the computer p 1-c-i-rain-.. lal le f F~
presents an example of a program application for a suction ru-del , ar- h
Table C9 presents an example of a program application fei- a CVS racheL

-t

C9

- - - -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -— — - - ~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- ---- _ :_- - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - “ -- ---~~~~~~~~~

-—
 ____-
- -
-~~~
- -V - --—----——- —--- ~~~~~~--~~ -——--~~~~~ ----- -
-~-V --- ---,- -V - — —- ---- - V-

_ _es---’- ’
~ ~~o~ O_ n-~
V- V-
— —- —— --— L
. -

- ) n - n- - .- I
~- n -n - n- ri .-- .- -
.
- - - - - r . I
-
—
-
- —-
— n--V
-
jr - n - - n - - - — I r -
n-n- . - -
~ ~~~~~~~ - n -n - n - A -f

r
I
j— —I : A

— - - -

~ ~~
L_ _ ___ _ --I]
-_
-
-
— r
- -
n- - ~-~n- n-n- - - i-
n- -

:,
2 - n-n - n -i - A ,~ , - -n - -
“ n- . - r
~ — r - n-

~ A

:~
~~~~~~
I
~~~~~
~~~

V-
h ~i::
- n-
- - - a n- - n-
I I
~

n-
p I

—~~
-i n- 1

A P

- —
—
n- - —r
- - - n- I - .- n- r - r.

- v - v
- c
-
-
-
I.

.,
A D A 076 551 ARMY ENGINEER WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION VICKSBURG——ETC F/s 13/13 -
~

OVE RVIEW FOR DESIGN OF FOUNDATIONS ON EXPANSIVE SOILS. (U)

I
SEP 79 L 0 JOHNSON II
isrLScc t Etr n wcc—Gt— 7Q— 21 Mt.
 Table C2
Numenclature of Input Data

Descript~ ur,

Problem Parameters

2 Op t i o n for amoun t of output : ~ O for f ,rr’c : and total heave ; ~ l

for fo rces , total heave , and t h e f r ’i n and excess p u r e
p r e s s u r e at each depth i n t e r v a l
NPP OB 2 Number of eases w i t L t h e same m a ter i a l p r o p e r t i e s , p i e r t . ’r v t i . , and
soil p r o f i l e
‘ ‘CT 2 Option for model : 0 for m e c h a n i c a l swell model; 1 for soil suc-
tion model
NN I 2 Total number of nodal points , NEL+l
2 Number of nodal point at the bottom of the pier
2 Total number of different soil layers
2 Increment of depth , ft

Physical Properties

i 3 Number of soil layer

3 Specific gravity of soil layer P .
3 Initial water content of coil layer M , W r. percent
Eu Initial void ratio of soil layer H , e
0
3 Soil cohesion c or undrained shear strength , tsf
Iii 3 Patio of horizontal to vertical effective pressure times the tangent
of the effective angle of internal friction , Ktan

Swell Characterization by the Mechanical Swell Model

Number of soil layer

ALL 4A Liquid limit of soil layer H , LL percent
SF iA Swell pressure of soil layer M , p 5 tsf
C’S iA Swell index of soil layer M , C5
Compression index of soil layer M , C 0

Swell Characterization by the Soil Suction Model

Number of soil layer

A Intercept of suction—water content relationship of soil layer P . tsf
B liP Slope of suction—water content relationship of soil layer H
AultiA Compressibi lity factor of soil layer M , a
AK Patio of total horizontal to vertical pressure of soil layer H , K t
P1 uN Plasticity index of soil layer H , P1 percent

Element Characterization

Number of soil element

IL 5 Nurober of soil layer P

5 Total number of soil elements
5 T:
~~iI number of soil layers
Problem Characterization

~I °AI 7orce on p ier , P tons

L r ~a d i n g
XA l ’; ’ u of the active zone , X a ft
XF 6 :~~ ; t t from ~r run I surface to the depth that the active zone begins ,

Ar Reduction factor of skin friction term (Equation 8), aç

DP u a m , t ’r 1’ ic r shaft , 0p f’~
p 1 O i a m e t e r of l ane of i cr , ~~ ft
t h e ‘r’ iruIw ~i ’ r t a b l e , ft .
6 l . i ~~ i ; i k r i cr moisture ire fi ]” : =0 for saturation; =1 for hydros tati c
K t’T :~~ u r o e of r n i st u r e : ~ l from groun d surface; =2 from an ir .t e r m e d i a tc
layer; =3 fr rr below base of’ pier. Heave of soil adjacent to the
T I e r Is oput I if a zero is added after each of t h e : e i nt e g er c :
I , I ) ,~~~~ , o- f ~ f’ r KOPT cases I . C , or 3 , r e s p e c t I v e ly

- -—— . .-.
- - — - - -—
~~ ~~~~~~
- -—- - --- ~~~~~
— - - ‘-
~~~~
F
-
‘‘
~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~

Table C3
Nomenclature of Output Data

Symbol Line Descr iption

FORCE RESTRAINING UPLIFT 1 Force restraining uplift , tons
~r
EXCESS 1 Restraining force ‘r — u p l i f t force
P , tons ~
U
FORCE AT BOTTOM OF PIER 2 Force exerted on soil beneath the pier
footing , tons
~b
TENSION 2 Maximum tension in pier , T tons
HEAVE IN FEET :
PIER 3 Uplift of pier , ft in KOPT = 1, 2 , or 3.
Uplift of soil adjacent tç pier , ft if
KOPT = 10 , 20 , or 30. Does not in-
clude heave beneath base of p ier
SUBSOIL 3 Uplift of soil beneath base of pier , ft
ELEMENT ~ Number of element
DEPTh ,FT )4 Depth of center of element , ft
FRACTION HEAVE ~4 (e — e )/(1 + e ) for each element
f
EXCES S PORE PRESSU RE ,TSF 14 Mechanical swell model : (p r . — P f ) for
each element soil suction model :
(T
mo
— r
m
) for each element

Table C1t
Assumptions of Parametric Analysis

1. Source of moistur e was from the ground surface (Case 1 , Table Cl).
2. Equilibrium moisture profile was saturated (pore—water pressure = 0
in the active zone).
3. Swell pressures exceed 1 tsf .
4• Depth of the groundwater table was below base of the pier .
5. Soil adhesion C
a
values were less than 1 t s f with f r i c t i o n
angle ~ = 0 , and
~ values were less than 20 deg with C a 0
6. Ratio of horizontal to vertical pressures were equal to one.
3
7. The moist unit weight was 122.5 lb/ft .

L—__ _ _ _ _
 —
——
~~~ ~~ ~
‘_•.— -._-- . -
~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--

Table C5
Input Parameters for Field Test Piers

TP1 TP2

Physical Dimensions

D ft 1.5 2.5
p ,

D . ft 3.0 14 .0
b
L , ft 314.0 35.0

Depth , ft c~ w % e~ C t sf p t sf C C~
0 4 a (d e ~ r e e s ) 5 s LL , %

Constant Volum e (Mechanical) Model

0.0—8 .0 2.68 11.9 0.800 0 20 2.20 0.0145 .27 70

8.0—13.0 2.71 23.8 0.714 5 0 30 0.70 0.030 0.27 149
13.0—30.0 2.75 31.0 0.838 l(0)* 10 2.140 0.052 0.20 75
30.0— 2.76 29.0 0.8814 1(0)* 10 2.85 0.0148 0.13 80

Alpha ,
A B c~ PI ,~~

Soil Suction Model

0.0-8.0 2 .75 32.0 0.880 0 20 14 .

~ 1414 0.135 1.00 14o
8.0—13.0 2.75 30.0 0.825 0 30 5.0 1414 0.167 0.26 114
13.0—30.0 2.76 30.0 0.828 1(o)* 10 5.859 0.179 1.00 55
30.0-. 2.76 30.0 0.828 1(o)* 10 6.135 0.185 1.00 55

* Residual or fractured material .

s__ _ 1_ _ _ _ .
IL - --
_ _ _ _ _ •._ _
•] . ~~~ - ~s_ _ ~ —-- -
~~
S.---
 T a bi t

Upw~trd ~1ov m .~n t e~ t P i e r s

Dii ~~ i n Level P er c e n t of A d j a c e n t
Depth of n: ~ r m Soil Heave
Adj acent Soil 1~I~j t~~ it 0b~ erved Predicted
ft 1 ibP 1 i~ 1 I~~75 1975 (IV~ Suction
Test Pier 1 .0, 0 .i f ~ 69 68_ ~H9 514—81
1.0 . ~~~. 0.111
i14.o 0.000 . 088 O . i ~~i
314 Q 0.000 .
~1 0. 058
Test Pier 2 p . 008 .079 .170 76 68-89 514-81
1.0 0.010 . 079 0.~~l3
114.0
~.oo8 .l~)9 0.250

314.0 0.0014 0.058 0.103

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _
_ _
_ _ _
~~~~~~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
 Table C7
L i s t i n g of Computer Program

*74 41 01 0 2— 1 5 — 7 9 09 .749

$P$QC PIESICTION oF Pi~ i~ HOY 5NEN~

SC P*c~ D ON CONSTA NT VO ~ UMl •k ~~ I.~ $WI ~~
!~~~OC IThV LQ Y L.
~ EPR~~4L lO D . J0 N 0N
~,030 PAR ~ MhT N0a8i ~ ~
~~ ~ ~ ~~
10~ 0 C0PI~4ON A ( N L ) . B C N L ) , G ( l ). WC CP L ) s E0 ( N L ) D S P t L ) m A L ( N L ) .
•liII~ 1 .y~ kL.J,Ppi4O~I,J,~ ~o ~
~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~
iHi.P,Pil,Iik.
~~~~~
$S!O1 10C~ Q.1).N1.N2,NBX.NE~ , LoPHCN.N0PI.$OPT.IoOT I$W.lIt.Dxx.
~
108 0 R~ ALJ i
1O~~0 F Q R M A T (3 0 H
~
3 100 GAW ; 0 .03125
UU PI~~5.)~~141~~Y d O ~
$00 N s1
USO P~ 2 T 5
ti lO ~ ~ ruRMAT 3~~1r1~~~I ,N F~ V ~~,NS y C T ,NP ~P . viHiT .f ~ 1
—

j 50 ~~ A lp NO p T ~ NPR OB s M SUC T,p 5N F. I~B X .N p 4~ 1 ,DX

~
1160 P4 L :N N P—j
~
1240 14 P W IN I 10
$110 10 FOS HA T ( 15 HN,S , W C ,E0 C Pl. L )
£ 110 ~
_________________________________
1~~UU I P ( N 5 U V r . t r ~ .1,0 U To z —
~
1210 P~~t NT 12
1220 12 FOR pjAT c1 4H p4 A LL SP ,C$ , c c )
~~ ~~
I D I M . AL ~~~MJ
oP ~O 2Q
Ills ft PR 1N~ $
b ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
12~ 0
1280 I F (A L P HA ( I 1 ) , L E . 0 . ) G 0 10 16

li 1$ A1JHA($)~ ,0275.PI (M).,$25

LP (R1 Pi) .1.0.5. )A LPHA ( M) .0 ,C
11*0
1.32u iF ~ Pi H , O! 4o, )AL
~~ ~ ~~ IcWj ~~~.
1330 20 I Fç NM aT—M )2 6 ,2 7 , 14
1 1340 26 PR I NT iT ’P4
1W f 0!d1.~T (p~~ I R O lvi I* 1 M p1. . )I
1160 fl Op ~~ ~ ~ ~
$110 Z J L.O
1380 PRI NT O
1390 3g FO~RMA TgI 9 HELEMEN T , NO , OF SOn. )
1400 40 REA O ,N.I E( N.3 . )
~ U~~V ~P
1420 I F ( N . L ) 6 0 . 6 0 .7 0
$439 70 IE(1.,i ) ’ 104%. ’1,1)
14’O 00 T0 5 0
1450 60 IV (NEL ..L )8D , bO, 40
1460 80 CO NT I’ nJE
;.1y 5~ Y~ I~ r ~ 0
$4$0 90 F Q R MA T ( / , 3O H PL OA D ,X A ,xr , AF. pp, P S D G W T ;Le p T l , N .N Qp T )
$4’O ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1~~UU ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1510C CALCULATION OF EFIE C ILV E 0 EP BI R t E P4 P R E S S O P E
~ ~
(Continued )
(Sheet 1 of 7)

L _ _ ~~~~~~ -_ — ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - — -
j
_ _ _ _

‘1

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Tabl e (‘7 (Continued)

6744T 01 p2—1 5— 79 o9 .74~

$1. PC$ .0 , 0
si ll DsØD*
LIO 11) 0 1S
~~ .Nl ~ F’
1550 N T X P . I E ( I ? j , 1)
15 60 W cC~ W C (MT y P )/ 1O0 .
-
I Nuö *l4~~ P IAWw ( I,. i~~~) j l I. .iG4$4 !yP U ~~.

lift - . P (~~) e p (t $) *DX•G ANN

-
- .,
- ~•

1610 100 CON T INUE

1620 IF (KO PT .GT .5)G 0 TO 220
höl*~ EI
~ J*.
~~
T1VN Of 1~ IILi&viln ~ OMi~t
040
5~ COII p ~~.P 2J .P P a*~
$110 •1~ o.o
1660 P~ 1~~ • O
-

16~ 0 p S1~ O •O
1680 IF (KO PT ,E Q .3,G ° TO 122
i~+v
1719 91 1r4 X (A N I ) •I
$720
jT2y I~~ N i .GT ..fi21GO 1~i !l ~ dC
1730 DO 120 IzN1 ,N2
1740 I I TY PW I E ( I ’ i)
IF U 0T , $,Q $Q TO 11
Y~ tJ1aa (MTV ~ p)—l~ K 1yp). 1
WC (NTY p7
~
$111 $p (NTYP)a*0, ’atAtjl
sp .A ( P ~1r pi—1op ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1790 S PRE ’jO . .eSPR E
1800 IFc SP ~ E .LT.SP (MT Y P )) SF (P’TV P )z SPRE
UIl 119 PtI ,P$1~-lp thTVP I*-CWi
$000 PR .(P(~~p .P~~ .$))/~ ç
dli PAI PNI.P* CON
1~ 4O
-
~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1850 120 CONTIN UE
1860 122 MA T Z I E(NBX- .1,1)
$010
lOll
$110 125 PBEiP ~ OAD .p1.7 ,.CU.P~ I-.(0 B.,2 , .fl P.el ,)/ $.
~~ Ou v.. t~ L~ U~~ T1O- ~ 0, OAC !SS prsI~ A TI ~?via rpp cE A , StTTh$ ~F
1910 p2 0. 0
1920 PR2* ~~ O
$940 5QPTs Q
$910 CA L i~ PSAD
1v6u VU ~~~~ I Z N J . N 2
1970 MTY PX IE ( I ,t )
1980 IF (NS (JCT .E Q ,Q )GO TO 145
T~ U~ .p~ IjT jPJ ..p11 .TyP ;I.ç 1,T’~P 1
100 Sp( PITYP~~ $O. .øTAU ~
2010 $pRE.A ,CMt Y P)— t0 0 ..0 pT ~ p )s f O(N YY P~ / $ (~ T~ PI
U
~~U~~
2030 IF~ SPRE. LT . S P ( M T y P ) ) S P ( M T Y P ) ~~SPR ~

(Continued)
(Shee t 2 of 7)

_ --“~~~~~ --
- ~~~~~~~
 ______________ _ _ ___— _ -
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
_

Table Cl ( C o n t i n u e d)

67441 01 Q2 ~’ 15—79 09. 749

*040 ~~~
*000
2060 PR~ :PR2+P’ P.CVN
____________________________________________

2070 P2 P2• ( P R’ PH IU1TYP ).c ( PITYP ) ) .CO K

~
2080 1 0 CON TI N ’JE

*110 P R , PRj.P12
*1*0 CAT s ~ I*P2
212 0 DPSN ’P$2 P~ 2
21 30 0= PR F— D PS R
2140 IF ( D P S R. GT . P2)O’ PR E. P2
1110 PRiNT 160 ,I R E .Q
*160
13101
*60 PO ~ MAT (,.l5HFORCE RE37 ~ AIN1PI O UPLLI T 6 , Ej , ,, ,9 w
F1o .5.6$ TOt4 )
EXCE$S
*.
CA L C U L A T I O N OP F O U NLJA IIO N P tS U T
~ 1~ UC ~ ~ ~~ d~ NtA ~ F C U T 1 N ~
ã
21 90 P STPRT zP S T -PR T
2200 Q Q Z PL OA D_ P S T PR I
U~ V ~
F S1P (T S 07 • CA T PWOUPI, CAV.CA7
~
2220 T.PLO AD DPSR
s*so IF( DPS R.GT. P2)T S PI,OAC .P2
2240 PRINT t 70 0fl ,T
225 0 170 FO R M A T (2 SH~F C IR C E A T a C T T O P ~ CF PIER ~ 1F1O’ 5 , 9H T ENSI O Ns
~
2260& F 1 O .5 ’ 6 H TONS ) _________________________________
TV i Y ç P U . I . 1 v U . 0 ) ~iO
~~
2200 OQ ’4 . ’OO I C P U . P 0 ~~~~~~
a .2.)
•PMEIIQO’P (NOX )
2300 DX X = 0 . O
2310 DO 200 Iz Na ~ , NNP
2320 IF (I.E ~~.NBX)G C TO 201
1410
u40
*300
2340 GO TO 2O ~
2370 201 p ( i ) P (T ) +B P R E S
2380 205 D XX ~ D XX .DX
I~~VV ~~~U CUN T~ NU8
$s $o c *OJ OST FINAL PROSSURli TO ETFEC11V ~ POR N*cb - RODiL
24*0 120 qx p
24 20 ~~ ~ NNF
00 25UI’2
2430 A I : I— j ~
2440 BN :DGwT,DX_AI
2490 i~~~~ ucT ,gj ,0p ~ u To 275
24*0 Ir ( Dx X .LE,. DGWt ,AN0 t C PtL0N.S Q .* ) P4U . P($)4 lN00X ’ $AW
~
*4* 0 00 TO 280
I I)? Fi1,
2 15 ~~t u x k . GT .uG ~ ~ 1,s *DX !IiA~
2490 200 pXX=pXX .DX •
2500 250 CON ’t IN , JE —

19 270 TO pp
IF( K O PT,G? b 5 ) Q O T~ ~303
~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*520
*130
,
I F ( a , Q T . o ~ 0. AN p NiX 0C.Pd4P$Oo TO a,o
2 540 3d) PRINT ~iQ~
2550 305 FQ RMAT( / , 33HELE NE N T p EP TH ,Ft FR AC TI 0P ~ H E A V E ,

(Continued)
(Sheet 3 of 7)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 -~~~ -

Tab 1 C7 ( fon t 141 u ~

6 744 T 01 Q2 e1 5 79 09 . 7 4 9

990$ 26W EXCESI POOl PR s$ .?1~ )

$ft lu ir (NrnJ t t .ft .0)OA 1.L~MI ~~~
eN
~ TYtNS U CI . OT. ,J ’C AU . Suti
2~ 9Q NP:p4P.1.
2600 IF(N P .GT. N PRO H,G 0 10 310
47
Hil 2 0 ITOI
- 1*0 - ROD
-
- -

2650C
2660 SUBROUT INE MECH
N 1D ,NOw,*
W IIIIAI ’IitIU
—

COMp ON A ’ N~ T .0 NL .i . ).WttN L 7 .$O ( l I, iP N ). I.1.(NL4 O

~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~

27106 ~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

0GWT ,PRF 1DP .P II XA XF Q ITF I .DEL. H
~
2720 DELH1. ~~~.O
1r( v~u Y ~ w!,~~)I O TO ~
j
J740 IF($ $T ’ O DbGO To 50
1500 45 ~
MOPT,1 ~
6O 4 AL L PsAu
~~
2770 DO jO !:N1 ,N2
2780 ~ T 1p s I E (I . j)
2100 8A ’$* (NV?P)~ 0R
21*0 . -
g,(PR .1.T,* 5AND . KOp T , T,$ICo .lPçM ! PP#PRI
~ ~
2830 jF (PRE , L~~.SP(Pi T Y P ))E 1E C (P TY P ).C S (MT ~ P).~ LC G ~ Ø (CA )
2840 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0108 UE1..~1.IPIM !rF t/ 1,.lO NTil$
~ ~ ~
$40 ~Fh (NQ~~ ,IQsO )GO TO 4Q
10*0 B2~P.s$P($TY P~ .PR
PRINT tOD ,I UiD!L,D !i.P
2890 40 DELH1I v~ELH1+DX.DEL
2900 DxX :DX X ,D X
i$~ $il •
$09 l? (D W1 LT ,0, 0,AN D,KO PT.L ? .1)DE N1*0. 0
58 DELs2 O O ~ ~ ~
~ ~I
2950 T F(N BX .EQ .NNP)GO TO 175
29(p O DXX F LO AT ( NB X ) *D X PX/2 .
$0 LII L N$$ l.EL
1010 N T Y P ’I E ~
(Z ,t ,
30110 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
—

Q1 Q E :EO (MTVP),CC CMTVP ).A LOG1C ~CA )

~
302 0
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1#lv
Ho Ir(i ,0ptj a,O)OO TO $25
~
2011 $ L,P9RPg MT 7!) P*
~
PXIN 0U .I&D ~ ,U~ L.$D ~ LP
3070 ~
125 DEL N2srIE LH 2,DXSOEL

(Continued)
(Sheet ~ of 7)
----~~ --
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

T~t b l e C7 (Continued)

6744? 01 p2—1.~ -79 09 .749

—

1000 DXX s DXX . DX

$I~ 0 100 C ONTINUE
3i6u 1” ~~K j ~ .J T ~~
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

1 r J . U L h 1 , O F L P4 2
~~
3110 200 F O R M A T (I 5 . F 1 O ,2 , F15.5 ,~~X .F15 .~~)
3120 210 FO PM AT U. 21HHEAV E IN FEE I: F IER ; .F8.540H SUBS0IL,~~
41)01
1140 RETURN
1110 END
3160C
3170C
3180 SUBROU T INE SUiT
P A ~~ TE~ MI. s&0 ,NW*51 —
3200 COM MON A ( N L P ‘ B ( N L ) ‘Gl!lI. I .WC U% L ‘EO ( NL ) ‘SP N L ) ’ A LL C N L )’
32 104 R l ( N L ) , C ( NL) 4 P H L ( N L . ) , C S C N L ) , C C ( ~~ L ) , A L P W A ( Kl~~)J A K O( NI.), P(Ni ),
NW. Nj a N~~.TJ8 ~~ EL , rcp’
, N T UPT . r i . F.U~ T , GA
32306 DGWT ,PRE ,D P,P II ,XA.XF ,Q ,IFI. DELN
324 0 NN NEL .j __________________________________________________
~
IFL~ QPf laN~ EO,~~~5Q ~O 5
3240 G0 Y0 7
1230 5 P~AT NEL u 1E(NEL, 1)
P r l N pz (j . .i . .A p c U ( F I A TN E L , , / . 5 .
3 200 S U C T I : A ( M A T N E L ) . . . B ( M A T N E L ) . W C ( P A T I EL )
~
3300 SUCTI :10 ...SUCTI
33*0 TV! ESUC T I_ P ~ F4N ).FNNP.A L PWA ( RA TN EL )
3320 7 DEL H1 ;0.0
1310 IF~~KOPT ~ GT .5)OO TO 45
3340 IFcQ . GT .O. 0~ GO to so
3350 45 Pl0PT~ 1
3360 CALL PSAD —________________________________________
CAL L HS (JC T
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

3370
1300 QELI4~ T)ELH
*390 58 DEL H2eO. O
.
3 400 I F ( N B X . E U . N N ) I ~O 1C 1
3410 ~~
D XX ~ F L 0 A T ( NB X ) * D X — P X / 2 .
3420 Ni. NBX
14.30
3 4!O 5OPTs Ø
9010 CAL L. HSUCT
4 bO DELH2 DF.LH
~
3470 j75 P R I N ~
T 2 00 eD EL H1 ,01 LN 2
34~ 0 200 rORPIAT (/211 .4HEAVE IN FEE TI PIER :;Fe .s;loI- SUBSOIL .,
34504 F~0.,)
3590 RETu RN
3520 END
.352 DC
353 0C
3540 SUBROU T INE HSUCT
1550 *AR A HtTEA NL . 1O, N9.8i
15*0 COMMON ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
35304 PI( N L ) e C ( NL) P N I ( N L ) , C S ( N L ) , C C (~ L ) , A W A ( t )1A K0t L ), PC Ni) .
35806 I~~ I N Q . j 1 , Nj . R 2 , N b X , NE L , T C r u I c N 1 PT . PT ~,K~~ PT ,~~Ah~ ,DA .U)~F.
3590i DGW T, PRE .DP,PII ,XA ,XF ,0 ,TFI .PELH

(Continued)
(Sheet 5 of 7) •,

~1
•U
_ _ _____________ ~ -- - .-
,
- - --- - -

-
( Coot -i ni u d )
~ C7
fab t

67441 01 O2 — 1 5—7 ? 09 .749

3600 A N E ~ zF LO A T (NEL) .DX
16*0 OE L H ~ 0 ,0
3620 00 iO i tJN2
3630 M T Y P : IE ( I . l~~
)
~
3640 F z (l . .2. .A < o ( M ry p ) ) / 3 .
*‘~ O A
~~~~~~~i
3640 8~ s c D G W T / D x ) — A I
3670 00~ IP,j .
3880 ip p. O
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

369~ I F C I O P I ION .EQ .j.Ok .DXX .GT ,tG T )TF: (BN.BO) 0X .8At /2.
~ ~ ~
3700 IF (IO PT ION .EO .2)Tf T F I+ (A N E L DXX ).GAW
~~ ~
1119
172 0 AL.P 1 A L P H A ( M T Y P )
3730 I F C D X X .GT .DGWT )AL P* 1 , Q
3140 TA%jp~~TF+p’~~ p~~A 1j~
3750 IF(K ’~PT .G T • 5~ G O TO 5
3 760 Ir ( T AU F .L T .p R E , A N D ,M o p I .EC . 1) TA U r z pN E
j7~~p ~ IF ( Y AU P .O T . 0 ,9 0 0 9 0 1 7 0 0 Ty 1~
17,0 P !INT 2 0 ,TA UF ,I
~79~ 20 FOR M A T (31HN EGA T IV E F)t ~A L EF FECTIVE S?R5$~ ,
38004 pI O ~~~.1~ pj j ’~
3810 GO TO 3~
3820 iS T A U I :A (U T V P )~~B (M TV H ) .W C (M T Y P )
1030 I *u ~ $O . ——TAu I
3040 I F C M Q P T E 0s0 )GO TO 18
3800 SPR ~ ,A(N~ TY P)_ 100 ,. 8(MtVP).EO ~ M TY P)/Q (R Typ)
3880
3870 IF(SPR F .LT .TA II I )TAUI .SPRE
3880 18 T I TA u I_ A L P .pH.F
4090 IN I r T I— T
3500 ~
CT .A L~~ ~ P) .G (MT, P )/ (10 0..8 (PTW P))
PHA (MTY
39*0 cT scT/ (1 ..Eo (MTr P)I
0510 R T A O - TA u !/TAIjI
3930 DF.L C T .A L O G 1O UT A U )
3940 IF(DEL .LT. 0 .O .A ND .UXX’ ;0T .tGbT )DEL :DEL/ A L PH* (~~TYP )
-495,9
1960 I,(NOPI .E0 .O) GO TO 33
19*0 PRINT 3O ,I.D ~ X ,D E L ,U i N I ?
OT-o0 3p r p p M A r ~~I5 ,F 1n .!,r15; ~~, S~~.r1S , 5)
399o 33 DELH :DELH+DX DL~L
4000 35 DXX DXX .DX
18 CO,T I wO
4020 Ir ( DELW .L T . 0 ,0 .AN p , $tP t .EQ .1. AND , KOP Tt LT .1)DIL WIO , 0
4050 RETURN
4040 !T4 0
4 0 5 0C
4060C
40*0 8WBROUT1N P3*0
4 000 PARAMETER ~ NL .10,N0p81
4090 COM MON A ( N ~~) . S ( N L ) , G ; N L . )~ WC fN 1.7.0 O NI. 1, $ p W4~j ,$1.1.( NL ),
11006 PT ~ t (LJ C L) PPI (NL,,C3 ~ Nt .Ct L 1. AL P WA ~ 1~~ )JA4OfNL 3,P(?te) .
41104 IE (NQ .t ),N 1 N2 , N8X ,NEL, IC P T I CN ,KOP T ,M G PT , .0PT ,OA W ,DX ,DXX ,
~ ~

(Continued)
(Sheet of ‘)
~~
~
-

— “ —-- . .-—
~~ ~~
 Table CI ( C o n c l u d e d )

67 441 01 0 2— 1 5— 7 9 09 .749

41204 OGWT . P R E , D P , P ! I , X A ,X F , 0 . TF I ,DELH

4130 IF(KOp T.EQ .1,OR ,~ Opy,~ 9 .1o)Gp 90 10
4140 IF (K1PT .ta ,2. OR .K0PT .E~~.2Q Jt ~C 10 15
~15o AN1~ X F,DX
4160 N 1 :I F I X ( A N I I .1
‘ITO P47~ N~~R.j
4 1o0 DXX1 X , ,øX/2 ,
4190 IV P’o BT . Eg . 0 , Q R . K O p , , G T . 5 l G Q TO 20
~
A N t~X :FLO A1( N B~~)ØU ~ .
.
~2QD
42
LJ X
PRE: PR E /(AN B X .P J I .DP )
10
4220 GO TO 20
4230 10 A R 2 sxA l D ~
42 40 DX ~I~ DX ,2~
4 2 50 M jsl
426 0 N2 :AN ~
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

4261 AN3 :AN2 .DX

4262 N 3~ NB X 1
JF (N 2 T 1 ’ I . 3 ) A N . 3 U V L U A ~~
T N3 ) I D X
4265 !c N2 . 9 T . N3)N2 N3 S

~~MoPT , EQ •1 A~Np .K OPT ’ t •5) PRv .8 RE/ (A N1.P;I , P)

‘230 I ~ .i.
4230 0~ TO 20
4 290 15 AN 1 :X F ,iD X
430o AN 2ZX A /DX
R1*TFIX( *rI1p. 1
4320 N2~ A N2
4330 DKN 9Xr .Dx? 2,
4.3.32 AN.3 A N2~ UX
4334 N3 :N BX— j
433S IF (N 2 .GT .N3 )4N 3 :FL U AT (N 3 )ID X

43*0 1F M0 PT. E0• 0 ,OR , K O P T . Q T , 5 I S 0 TO 20

4310 AR gsp~R E/(( A N4 X F) .PJI .0 p )
~
43bD 20 CUNIINI)E
4370 RE TU R N
4380 END
- - —

(Sheet 7 of ) :
~
_

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Tablo C8
Exam p le fl’ Pro ~ r arn App lication, N u c t i . i~~~’ ie ~

RL ~N
=TEST PIER 1 INTACT MATERIAL SUCTION MODEL Dd WN= 12 J ’l
NOPT ,NPROB ,NSUCT ,NNP ,NBX ,NMAT ,DX
=o ,:u,1,6~ ,69,~ ,.5
~-1 ,G ,WC ,EO ,C ,PHI
=1 ,2.75,32. ,.88,o. ,.36I~
I,A ,B ,ALPHA ,AKO ,PI
=l , i~. 5 I ~~ , . 1 3 5 , l . , l. , 14Q ~
~ , ,WC ,EO ,C ,PHI
=2 ,2 .75 , 30. ,. 825 ,O. ,. 577
~1,~\ , B ,ALPHA ,AKO ,PI
=2 , 5 .O 1~14 , . l67 , . 26 , l ., l).t .
T
M , ., WC , EO , C ,PHI
3 , ?.~~r , 3O . , . 8 2 8 ,l . ,. l7 6
j
~~~~~- ,~L~ HA ,AKO ,PI
=3 , 5 .8 5 9 , . 179 ,1. , 2. ,55.
-

‘ , , WC ,EO ,C ,PH I
~
~~~ .76 ,30.,.828,1.,.176
, ,ALPH.A ,AKC ,PI

ELE ~-~ENT , N O . OF SOIL

=1 ,1
=17 ,1
= 21,3
=61 ,14
=68,11
PLOAD , XA ,XF , AF , DP , DB ,DGWT , IOPTION , KOPT
=0. ,l. , O. ,l. , 1.5,3. ,12. ,O ,1

FORCE RESTRAINING UPLIFT= 175.79709 EXCESS 175.7)45314 TONS

FORCE AT BOTTOM OF PIER= —129.56935 TENSION= —0.0 5 175 TONS

HEAVE u; FEET : PIER 0. SUBSOIL= 0.

— ~~~~~~ “ .
~~~~
— _
___
~
—_ - __—•.w’,—~,
~~~ —~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ f l’ ’’ ‘. — . ‘~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
— - - ._ .

Table C9
Example of ’ Program Ap p l i c a t i o n, CVS Model

RUi’~
=TEST PIER 1 INTACT MATERIAL CVS MODEL DGWT= 12 FT
NOPT ,NPROB ,NSUCT , NNP , NBX ,NMA T ,DX
=0 , 20 , 0 , 69, 69, 14 ,. 5
M , G ,WC ,EO , C , PHI
=1,2.68 ,17.9,.8,0. ,.36)4
M ,ALL ,SF ,CS ,CC
.
=1 ,70. ,2 .2 , 0)4 5, 27 .
M ,G ,WC ,EO ,C ,PHI
=2 ,2.7l ,23.8,.71i5,O. ,.577
M ,ALL ,SP ,CS , CC
. .
=2 ,)4 9 . ,.7 , 03, 27
,G ,WC ,EO ,C , PHI
=3,2.75,31. ,.83 8 ,1., .176
ALL ,SF , CS ,CC
=3 ,75. , 2 . 14 ,.052 , .2
~ ,G ,WC , E0 ,C , PHI
=~ ,2.76 ,29.,.88)4,i.,.176
:~1 ,ALL SF , CS CC
, ,

= 14 ,8o.,2.85, 0)48, 13
. .

ELEMENT, NO. OF SOIL

=1,1
= 17, 2
=27,3
=61,14
=68 ,14

PLOAD ,XA , XF , AF ,DP ,DB ,DGWT , IOP TION , KOPT

= 0. ,5 . , O. ,l . ,1. 5, 3. , 12. , O ,l

FORCE RESTRAINING UPLIFT= 172.1414676 EXCESS= 171.27056 TONS

FORCE AT BOTTOM OF PIER —127 .714035 TENSION= —1.17619 TONS

11EAVE IN FEET : PIER= 0. SUBSOIL 0.

r
 APPENDIX D: NO lA iIU1I

A O r d i n a t e i n t e r c e p t soil s u c t i o n parameter , t s f
2
A Area over w h i c h swell p r e s s u r e is exerted , f t
act
2
A Bearin g area of pier base , ft
.

P 2
A Bearing area of pier stiaft , ft
A Reinforcing steel , percent
B Slope soil uu~ t iou ~~ir ~Lmt t e r ’
o Strength i n t e r c e p t ( c o h e si :r i ) of t he assumed s t r a i gh t — l i n e
Mohr envelope , tsf
c’ E f f e c t i v e coh - s i o n , t s f
C Soil adhesion , t s f
a
o Un drained shear strength , tsf
2
c Average e f f e c t i v e coe f ficien t of swell , ft /day
C Support index
C Compression index
C Swell index
5
C -t S u c t i o n index ,
~ G / lO OB
Niarneter of pier base , ft
D Diameter of p i e r s h a f t , f t
e Edge l i f t — o f f d i s t a n c e , void r a t i o
e I n i t i a l void, r a t i o
0
e Final void ratio
f
H Long—term creep modulus of concrete , t s f
E Modulus of concrete based on 28—day compression strength , tsf
E Modulus of elasticity of soil , t s f
Microvolts at t °C
H Microvolts at 25°C
25
f Ultimate skin friction or shaft resistance , tsf
S
F Fraction of p o t e n t i a l heave
F R e d u c t i o n f a c t o r to account for pressure at depth H
H
S p e c i f i c gravi ty
~~ 14
I Moment of inertia , f t
3
k Subgrade mo dulus , tons/ft

Dl

I-
~ .- —-. •.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ‘- -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ —- -
_~~~ _ ~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

k Average e f f e c t i ve c o e f f i c i e n t of p e rm e a b il i l :,’ of ’ ~‘i t u r - i t e - 1 soi l~

~ f t/ d a y
K R a t i o of h o r i z u n i r . a l to v e r t i c a l e f f e c t i v e i t r e u s
L Pier leni ~ t 1i , f t ; length 1’ slab , ft
LL Liquid limit , percent
m ~io un d exponent
N Bearing c a p a c i t y I - i~~t o r
N Bearing c a p a c i t y f a c t o r
q
p Pressur e of water vapor , L sI ’

Pf Final mean norma’ total pressure , u s C

p Pressur e of saturated W~~ t L ’ n ’ ’ 5-’tu ~ r , t s f
p Uwel l p r e s s u r e , t s f

Pf F in al e f f e c t i ve pre s~i i i r , tu t ’
P Loading for ce , tons
Force exerted v e r t i c a l l y iowr iwar on soil b e n e a t h t h e f o o t i n g ,
tons
P R e s t r a i n i n g forc e
P Uplift force , tons
P1 Plasticity index , per cent
Center load , t o n s/ f t
Ed ge load , t o n s/ f t
q~ Ultimate base resistanc e , t s f
Normal stress acting on pier shaft , t s f
Unconfined compression strength , ps i
F Ultima te t otal load , to ns
0
Q Ultimat e base load , t o n s
p
Q Ult i mate sha ft load , tons
S
R Universal gas constant , 86.8 1 cc—tsf/mole—Kelvin ; shrinkage
ratio
SL Shrinkage limit , percent
S P o t e n t i a l swell , percent
t Time , days ; degrees C
T Tension force in pier , t s f ; absolute temperature , degrees Kelvin
u Pore—water pressure , t s f
u Pore—water pressure at depth of the active zone X , tsf
wa a

P2

L -~~ --
~~~~~~~ --~~~~~~~~~ ---~~~~— - —- - -
 v Volume of a mole of li quid w a t e r , 18.02 c c/m o l e
w
V Volume of a wet soil specim en , cc
V Volume of a o v e n — d r i e d soil specime n , cc
0
w Water content , percent dry weight ; average foundation I res s ure ,
tsf
w Initial water content , percen t dry we ig ht
Mass of a oven—dried specimen , g
X Depth , f t
X Depth of the aLtive zone , ft
X Depth of i n a c t i v e soil at t h e ground s u r f a c e , f t
f
Maximum d i f f e r e n t i a l swell , i n .
~m
o Compres sib il i t y factor
R e d u c t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t in s k i n r e s i s t a n c e depending on type of
pie r and so il c o n d i t i o n s

~ Rel ati ve s t i f f n e s s len gth , f t

Con st ant character i zing m ou n d shap e
m
3
Dry d e n s i t y , t o n s/ f t
.
‘Y d,
3
Unit weight of water , 0.03125 t o n s/ f t
Lie Change in void r a t i o
p Poi sson ’s ratio
o E f f e c t i v e v e r t i c a l str e s s , t s f
-r Final in situ matrix suction , t s f
mf
-r I n i t i a l in s i t u matrix suction , t s f
mo
Natural soil suction
nat
Osmotic suction , t s f ; shear s t r e n g t h , t s f
‘r ° Total soil s u c t i o n f r e e of external p r e s s u r e except atmospheric ,
tsf
o Matrix soil suction free of external pressure except atmospheric ,
t
m
tsf
Final matrix suction without surcharge pressure , t s f
I n i t i a l m a t r i x suction without surcharge pressure , t s f

~ Angle of i n t e r n a l f r i c t i o n , degrees

~~~
‘ E f f e c t i v e angle of i n t e r n a l f r i c t i o n , degrees

~ Angle of f r i c t i o n between soil and pier shaft , degrees

D3

_ _ _ _ _ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 - ----- --- —-,- - -
TT
--
—

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~

In accordance wi th letter from DAEN -RDC , DAEN-ASJ da ted

22 July 1977 , Subj ect: Facsimile Catalog Cards for
Labora tory Technical Publications , a f a c s i m i l e ca t alog
card in Librar y of Congress MAR C format is rep roduced
below .

Johnson , Lawrence U
Overview for d e s i g n of f o u n d a t i o n s on e x p a n s i v e s o i l s /
by Lawrence U. Johnson. V i c k s b u r g , ~‘I i s s . : II . S. Water-
ways E x p e r i m e n t S t a t i o n ; Sp r i n g f i e l d , Va . : available from
N a t i o n a l T e c h n i c a l In f o r m a t i o n Service , 1979.
• 60 , [4°] p. : i l l . 27 cm . ( M i s c e l l a n e o u s paper - U. S .
.~riny Engineer ~ atcrways Experiment S t a t i o n GL-79-2 l)
Prepared for O f f i c e , C h i e f of E n g i n e e r s , U . S. Arm y ,
Washin gton , U . C., under RUThE Work Unit AT4O EO 004.
R e f e r e n c e s : p. 50-60.

1. C l a y s . 2. Expansive c l a y s . 3. Expansive s o i l s .
4 . Foundation d e s i g n . 5. Soil s w e l l i n g . 6. S t r u c t u r a l
d e s i g n . I . U n i t e d S t a t e s . Army . Corps of E n g i n e e r s .
I I . 5 er i e s : l ln it e d S t a t e s . Waterways Experiment S t a t i o n ,
V i c k s b u r g , M i s s . M i s c e l l an e o u s paper ; GL-79-2 1.
1A7 .W34m n o . G L - 7 9 -2 l

- ~~~~~ •~~~ v ’. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ‘~~~~~~~

r
- - ---- —--— ~~~-
___ -
_~~~~~~~~~~~~ --~~~~~ _
— -.-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- -