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

net/publication/249959015

Rapid Determination of Swelling Pressure of Clay Minerals

Article  in  Journal of Testing and Evaluation · July 2005

DOI: 10.1520/JTE11866

CITATIONS READS
29 3,327

2 authors:

Vikas Thakur Devendra Narain Singh

Norwegian University of Science and Technology Indian Institute of Technology Bombay
122 PUBLICATIONS   404 CITATIONS    243 PUBLICATIONS   2,977 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

https://www.civil.iitb.ac.in/~dns/researchproj.html View project

Environmental Geotechnics"--ICE, UK, Volume 6, Issue 5 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Vikas Thakur on 15 August 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Testing and Evaluation, July 2005, Vol. 33, No. 4
Paper ID JTE11866
Available online at: www.astm.org

Vikas K. S. Thakur1 and Devendra N. Singh2

Rapid Determination of Swelling Pressure

of Clay Minerals

ABSTRACT: The present study deals with development of a rapid and easy way to apply methodology that can be employed to determine the
swelling pressure of clay minerals, and hence, expansive soils. Conventional oedometer tests were performed to determine the swelling characteristics
of montmorillonite and bentonite clay minerals corresponding to various molding water contents, maintaining the same dry density. With the help
of a dew point potentiameter, which can be used for measuring very high suction (∼ =90 MPa), the suction of these minerals was measured. The
results obtained were used to correlate suction with the swelling pressure and the correlation was validated using data reported in the literature. The
study demonstrates the usefulness of the methodology for quickly determining the swelling pressure of various clay minerals and soils.

KEYWORDS: montmorillonite, bentonite, swelling pressure, suction, dew point potentiometer

Nomenclature classification schemes such as plasticity index [9,10], activity ratio

[11], and cation exchange capacity [12], and as “direct methods,”
A, B, C, D fitting parameters;
which provide actual physical measurement of swelling, such as the
Hi initial height of the sample;
free-swell test [13], expansion test [14], California bearing ratio test
M molarity of the solution;
[14], and coefficient of linear extensibility test [15]. Also, various
P vapor pressure of air;
researchers have shown that the shrink-swell behavior of soils can
P0 saturation vapor pressure;
be predicted by examining a combination of their physical, chem-
Pa applied pressure;
ical, and mineralogical soil properties [3,16–18]. However, most
Ps swelling pressure;
of these methods are time-consuming and tedious [18–25]. New
R universal gas constant;
methods that are easy to perform and yield rapid results have been
T temperature of the sample (in K);
developed [26,27].
γd dry unit weight;
Several researchers have demonstrated, in the past, the impor-
w water content (in %);
tance of suction and its measurement for various civil engineering

total suction (in MPa);
projects [28–35]. These studies indicate that suction influences the

 total suction (in pF);
overall behavior of a soil to a great extent. However, the biggest

m matric suction;
handicap in measuring soil suction is that most of the techniques,

o osmotic suction;
methods, and devices currently used are not suitable for measuring
χ molecular mass of water.
suctions higher than a few hundreds of kPa [27,36,37]. This calls
for employing a suction-measuring device, such as a dew point
Introduction potentiameter, WP4 R
, which can be used for measuring extremely
high suction, of the order of tens of MPa, quickly [38]. However,
Expansive soils that consist of swelling clay minerals pose a
not many studies that utilize this device have been reported in the
major challenge to engineers and are considered as geological haz-
literature, except for the classification of expansive soils [26,39].
ards throughout the world [1]. As such, characterization of these
With this in view, attempts were made to correlate the swelling
soils, and the minerals responsible for their swelling behavior, be-
pressures of minerals with their suction values. Conventional oe-
comes important [2–4]. Determination of swelling pressure is also
dometer tests, following the guidelines provided by ASTM [13],
necessary for designing suitable foundation systems [5–8]. Many
were conducted to obtain swelling pressure, while suction was
tests and methods have been developed or modified for estimating
the shrink-swell potential of soils; they can be broadly classified as measured using a dew point potentiameter, WP4 R3
. The results
“indirect methods,” which involve application of soil properties and obtained are used to correlate suction with swelling pressure, and
the correlation is validated using data reported in the literature [35].
The study demonstrates the usefulness of the methodology for the
Manuscript received 21 Jan. 2003; accepted for publication 12 Jan. 2005; quick determination of the swelling pressure of clay minerals. As
published July 2005. swelling soils are constituted of clay minerals, this correlation is
1 Former Post Graduate Student, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian
Institute of Technology, Bombay, Powai, Mumbai-400076, India.vksthakur@
rediffmail.com
2 Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, 3 WP4R
is a registered trade name of Decagon Devices, Inc., Pullman,
Bombay, Powai, Mumbai-400076, India.dns@civil.iitb.ac.in Washington.

Copyright by
Copyright  ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Thu Dec 16 14:56:37 EST 2010
C 2005 by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. 239
Downloaded/printed by
vikas thakur (Statens+Vegvesen) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
240 JOURNAL OF TESTING AND EVALUATION

TABLE 1—Physical properties of the minerals used in the present study. TABLE 3—Swelling pressure for various samples.

Property Bentonite Montmorillonite Mineral Sample w (%) PS (kPa)

Color Yellowish brown Dark brown Bentonite B1 13.6 194.26

Specific gravity 2.76 2.78 B2 30.1 114.80
Liquid limit (%) 227 411 B3 40.3 99.22
Plastic limit (%) 65 71 B4 60.5 44.69
Plasticity index (%) 162 340 B5 67.4 27.69
Free swell index (%) 264 410 Montmorillonite M1 11.4 454.17
Specific surface area (m2 /g) 48 310 M2 28.8 369.26
(@150◦ C for 60 min) M3 55.3 201.77
M4 72.3 169.83
M5 98.3 113.73
useful for determining the swelling pressure of expansive soils as
well.
als to a depth of 12.5 mm, so as to achieve a dry unit weight γd equal
to 12 kN/m3 . The oedometer ring was placed in the consolidome-
Experimental Investigations
ter, which was connected to a water column. Later, swelling of the
Properties of the Minerals Used sample was recorded over a period of time using an LVDT mounted
on the top of the loading pad, which sits on the upper porous stone.
Montmorillonite and bentonite minerals in dry powder form have
These observations were recorded until the change in LVDT read-
been chosen for the present study; their physical properties are de-
ing vanished. This process is termed as the “swelling cycle.” From
picted in Table 1. The specific gravity of these minerals was ob-
these observations percentage swelling, defined as the ratio of the
tained with the help of an Ultra Pycnometer R
1000 [40]. These
change in the height of the sample due to swelling to its initial
minerals contain particles of size <2 µm, determined using a Soft
height Hi , was computed for different samples, and the results are
Imaging System [41]. To determine the mineralogical composition
presented in Fig. 1.
of these minerals, X-ray diffraction analysis was conducted using a
After completion of the swelling cycle, these samples were
Rigaku source and Philips power diffractometer with CuKα radia-
loaded in steps, and at the end of 24 h, the LVDT readings were
tion [39]. With the help of the ICDD search files [42], these samples
recorded for each increment of the loading. This process is termed
were identified as Na-montmorillonite and Ca/Mg-montmorillonite
as the “loading cycle.” From the recorded LVDT values, the final
(bentonite). Liquid limit (LL), plastic limit (PL), and plasticity
heights of these samples corresponding to the applied pressure Pa
index (PI) of these minerals were obtained following guidelines
have been obtained. The loading was continued until the sample
presented in the literature [43]. The surface area of these miner-
was restored to its initial height Hi . Percentage compression, de-
als was found using a surface area analyzer (SMART SORB 91TM )
fined as the ratio of the change in the height of the sample due
manufactured by Smart Instruments Company, Mumbai, India. The
to loading to its initial height, of these samples was computed.
free swelling index of these minerals has been determined based on
Figure 2 depicts compression characteristics of the various sam-
the guidelines provided by ASTM [13].
ples. From this figure the swelling pressures Ps that correspond
to the pressures applied to restore the initial sample heights, i.e.,
Methodology to Measure Swelling Pressure zero percent deformation, have been obtained and are presented in
To measure the swelling pressure Ps of the minerals, they were Table 3.
mixed thoroughly with the required amount of Millipore water, and
the mixes were stored in desiccators for 24 h for preconditioning Methodology to Measure Suction
and maturing. Later, the water content w of the conditioned miner-
als (designated as Sample) was obtained, following the guidelines A dew point potentiameter (WP4 R
manufactured by Decagon
suggested by ASTM [13], and the same is presented in Table 2. Devices, Inc., USA, as depicted in Fig. 3, has been employed in
An oedometer, with ring 75 mm in internal diameter and 25 mm in the present study. This device is based on the principle of the
height, made of stainless steel, was used in the present study as per chilled-mirror technique to measure suction
of the soil sample.
the guidelines presented by ASTM [13]. Samples were prepared in As depicted in Fig. 4, the primary component of the device is a
this ring by packing the required amount of the conditioned miner- block chamber, which consists of a mirror, a fan, an optical sensor,
and a temperature sensor (thermopile). The sample is placed inside
the block chamber in a PVC cup provided by the manufacturer.
TABLE 2—Details of the samples used in the present study. The fan speeds up the equilibration of the sample with the chamber
environment. At equilibrium, the relative humidity of the air in the
Mineral Sample w (%) chamber corresponds to the water potential of the sample. With the
Bentonite B1 13.6 help of the built-in software, the suction4 of the soil sample (in MPa
B2 30.1 and pF) is displayed on the LCD panel along with its temperature.
B3 40.3 The unit pF can be defined as “the common logarithm of the height
B4 60.5 in centimeters of the water column” [44]. The relationship between
B5 69.9

and the vapor pressure of air P can be expressed using Kelvin’s
Montmorillonite M1 11.4
M2 28.8
M3 55.3
4 The WP4 measures potential energy of water per unit mass (of water) in
M4 72.3
M5 99.8 the system, and reports in units of MPa. Water potential values are negative; the
corresponding positive values are called “suction.”

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Thu Dec 16 14:56:37 EST 2010
Downloaded/printed by
vikas thakur (Statens+Vegvesen) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 THAKUR AND SINGH ON SWELLING PRESSURE 241

FIG. 1—Free swelling response of various samples.

FIG. 2—Compression characteristics of various samples.

equation [45]: where R is the universal gas constant (=8.31 J/mol. K), T is the
temperature of the sample in K, χ is the molecular mass of water
(=18), and P0 is the saturation vapor pressure.
RT However, before using the device for measuring soil suction,
ψ= log(P /P0 ) (1)
χ it must be calibrated. For this purpose KCl solutions of different

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Thu Dec 16 14:56:37 EST 2010
Downloaded/printed by
vikas thakur (Statens+Vegvesen) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
242 JOURNAL OF TESTING AND EVALUATION

FIG. 3—Schematic diagram of the dew point potentiometer, WP4.
is 1.1 times greater than the slope of the standard results (=4.37).
As such, the suction values obtained have been reduced by a factor
of 1.1.
According to the guidelines provided by the manufacturer of the
WP4 R
, for measuring suction of the sample it is mandatory that
the bottom of the PVC cup be fully covered with the sample and
the cup must be about half full [36]. With this in view, 1.5-mm-
thick stainless steel rings, 35 mm in internal diameter and 5 mm
in height and provided with sharp edges, were fabricated. These
rings were tamped into the sample, which is identical to the one
prepared for conducting the swelling pressure tests, using a light-
weight wooden mallet weighing 150 g. This procedure ensures the
minimum disturbance of the sample and, hence, the equal dry unit
weight for the oedometer tests and suction measurements can be
ensured. Later, both sides of these rings that contain the soil sample
were trimmed and levelled using a spatula. These rings, containing
the soil sample, can be placed in PVC cups for measuring the
suction. After each suction measurement, the sample is taken out
of the WP4 chamber and is left for air-drying. Before starting the
next suction measurement, the weight of the sample is recorded
and its gravimetric water content w is determined. This process is
repeated several times to develop relationship between the suction
and the gravimetric water content.

Results and Discussion

FIG. 4—Details of the block chamber.
Data presented in Table 4 have been plotted as depicted in Fig. 6.
For montmorillonite as well as bentonite, the relationship between
suction
and water content w is seen to be a straight line, as
depicted in Table 5. It should be noted that as suction does not
depend on the dry unit weight of the material, these relationships
would be unique [27].
The data presented in Tables 3 and 4 have been plotted to develop
the variation of swelling pressure Ps with suction
(in MPa),
as depicted in Fig. 7. In generalized form, the variation can be
represented as:
Ps = A(0.001
)B (2)
where A and B are fitting parameters.

TABLE 4—Suction values for various samples.

Mineral Sample w (%)
 (pF)
(MPa)

Bentonite B1 13.6 5.67 46

B2 30.1 4.99 9.1
B3 40.3 4.53 3.4
B4 60.5 3.6 0.41
B5 67.4 3.19 0.15
Montmorillonite M1 11.4 5.92 83
M2 28.8 5.42 26
M3 55.3 4.61 4.07
M4 72.3 4.15 1.50
M5 98.3 3.52 0.33

FIG. 5—Calibration of the WP4 using KCl solutions of different molarity. TABLE 5—Relationship between suction and water content.

Mineral Relationship
molarities M, supplied by the manufacturer, were used. As depicted
Bentonite
 = 6.21 − 0.028 w
in Fig. 5, a relationship between the osmotic suction
o and M was log (
) = 2.32 − 0.046 w
established. It must be noted that in the absence of salts and other Montmorillonite
 = 6.32 − 0.045 w
contamination in the soil mass,
o is negligible, and the device will log (
) = 2.21 − 0.028 w
yield
=
m . From Fig. 5 it can be noted that for the laboratory
working conditions, the slope of the experimental results (=4.79)
 : Suction in pF,
: Suction in MPa, w: water content in %.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Thu Dec 16 14:56:37 EST 2010
Downloaded/printed by
vikas thakur (Statens+Vegvesen) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.

FIG. 6—Variation of suction with molding water content.
TABLE 6—Relationship between suction and swelling pressure.
Mineral Relationship
Bentonite Ps = 12.5(0.001
) 0.25
Ps = 64
 – 183
Montmorillonite Ps = 25(0.001
)0.25
Ps = 139
 – 328

 : Suction in pF,
: Suction in MPa, Ps : Swelling pressure in kPa.
Further, when Ps is plotted against suction
 (in pF), as depicted
in Fig. 7, the generalized relationship can be represented as:
Ps = C
 + D
where C and D are fitting parameters.
As depicted in Fig. 7, the results are bracketed extremely well
for values of A ranging from 22.5 to 30 and from 10 to 15 for mont-
morillonite and bentonite, respectively. Hence, an average value
of A equal to 25 and 12.5 can be assigned to the montmorillonite
and bentonite minerals, respectively, with B equal to 0.25. Table 6
presents the relationship between Ps and
 for these minerals.
For the sake of comparison, results reported by Garbulewski
and Zakowicz [35], who have employed the filter paper method to
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Thu Dec 16 14:56:37 EST 2010
Downloaded/printed by
vikas thakur (Statens+Vegvesen) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
THAKUR AND SINGH ON SWELLING PRESSURE 243
FIG. 7—Variation of swelling pressure with suction.
measure soil suction, are superimposed on Fig. 7. It can be noted that
in the lower ranges of suction (
= 50 kPa) the results reported by
Garbulewski and Zakowicz [35] follow the trends defined by Eq 2.
However, the same is not true for higher suction ranges, due to the
limitations of the filter paper method in measuring high suction.
Concluding Remarks
The study reported in this paper demonstrates a methodology to
predict the swelling pressure of clay minerals with the help of a
(3) dew point potentiameter, WP4, which is capable of measuring very
high suction (of the order of ≈90 MPa), easily and rapidly. Based
on the study, generalized relationships have been developed that
can be used for determining the swelling pressure of montmoril-
lonite and bentonite minerals corresponding to different molding
water contents. As expansive soils mainly consist of swelling clay
minerals, it is believed that the proposed methodology easily can
be extended to determine the swelling pressure of such soils. How-
ever, to achieve this, extensive experimental investigations must be
carried out on different clay minerals in their pure form, as well as
on their mixes of known composition.
244 JOURNAL OF TESTING AND EVALUATION
References
[1] McBride, M. B., “Surface Chemistry of Soil Minerals,” Min-
erals in Soil Environments, 2nd ed., J. B. Dixon and S. B.
Weed, Eds., Soil Science Society of America Book Series No. 1,
1989, pp. 35–88.
[2] Viani, B. E., Low, P. F., and Roth, C. B., “Direct Measurement
of Relation between Interlayer Force and Interlayer Distance
in the Swelling of Montmorillonite,” Journal of Colloidal
Interface Science, Vol. 96, 1983, pp. 229–244.
[3] Borchardt, G., “Smectites,” Minerals in Soil Environments,
2nd ed., J. B. Dixon and S. B. Weed, Eds., Soil Science Society
of America Book, Series 1, 1989, pp. 675–727.
[4] Oloo, S. Y. and Fredlund, D. G., “Matric Suction Monitoring
in an Expansive Soil Subgrade in Kenya,” Proceedings of the
First International Conference on Unsaturated Soils, Paris,
Vol. 2, 1995, pp. 631–635.
[5] Mohan, D., Jain, G. S., and Sharma, D., “Foundation Practice
in Expansive Soils in India,”Proceedings of the 3rd Interna-
tional Conference on Expansive Soils, Haifa, Israel, 1973,
pp. 125–132.
[6] Popescu, M. E., “Engineering Problems Associated with Ex-
pansive Clays from Romania,” Engineering Geology, Vol. 14,
1979, pp. 45–53.
[7] Chen, F. H., Foundation on Expansive Soil, Elsevier,
Amsterdam, 1988, The Netherlands.
[8] Du, Y., Li, S., and Hayashi, S., “Swelling-Shrinkage Prop-
erties and Soil Improvement of Compacted Expansive Soil,
Ning-Liang Highway, China,”Engineering Geology, Vol. 53,
1999, pp. 351–358.
[9] Casagrande, A., “Classification and Identification of Soils,”
Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineering,
Vol. 113, 1948, pp. 901–931.
[10] Hillel, D., Soil Physics, Academic Press, 1980, New York.
[11] Skempton, A. W., “The Colloidal Activity of Clays,” Pro-
ceedings, 3rd International Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, 1953, pp. 57–61.
[12] Holtz, Wesley, G., and Gibbs, H. J., “Engineering Properties of
Expansive Clays,” Transactions of American Society of Civil
Engineers, Vol. 121, 1956, pp. 641–67.
[13] ASTM Standard D 4546, Test Methods for One-Dimensional
Swell or Settlement Potential of Cohesive Soils, Annual Book
of ASTM Standards, Vol. 4, No. 8, 1994, ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA.
[14] Nelson, J. D. and Miller, D. J., Expansive Soils: Problems
and Practice in Foundation and Pavement Engineering, John
Wiley & Sons, 1992, New York.
[15] Soil Survey Staff, “Soil Survey Laboratory Methods Manual,”
Soil Survey Investigation, Vol. 42, No. 3, 1996, National Soil
Survey Centre, Lincoln, UK.
[16] Davidson, S. E. and Page, J. B., “Factors Influencing Swelling
and Shrinking in Soils,” Soil Science Society of America Pro-
ceedings, Vol. 20, 1956, pp. 320–324.
[17] Franzmeier, D. P. and Ross, S. J., Jr., “Soil Swelling: Labo-
ratory Measurement and Relation to Other Soil Properties,”
Soil Science Society of America Proceedings, Vol. 32, 1968,
pp. 573–577.
[18] Erguler, Z. A. and Ulusay, R., “A Simple Test and Predictive
Models for Assessing Swell Potential of Ankara (Turkey)
Clay,” Engineering Geology, Vol. 67, 2003, pp. 331–352.
[19] Bell, F. G. and Maud, R. R., “Expansive Clays and Construc-
tion, Especially of Low Rise Structures: A Viewpoint from
Natal, South Africa,”Environmental and Engineering Geo-
science, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1995, pp. 41–59.
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Thu Dec 16 14:56:37 EST 2010
Downloaded/printed by
vikas thakur (Statens+Vegvesen) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
[20] Al-Homoud, A. S. and Al-Suleimani, T. I., “Loss in Service-
ability of Pavements due to Expansive Clay Subgrades,” Envi-
ronmental and Engineering Geoscience, Vol. III, No. 1, 1997,
pp. 277–294.
[21] Popa, A., “Shrinkage-Swelling Phenomena Effects on Build-
ing,” Proceedings of the First International Symposium on
Engineering Geology and Environment, Athens, Greece,
Balkema, Rotterdam, 1997, pp. 327–329.
[22] Derriche, Z. and Iguechal, L., “Damage Due to Swelling Soils
in the Region of In-Amenas: Algeria,” GeoEng 2000, An In-
ternational Conference on Geotechnical and Geological En-
gineering, Melbourne, Australia (on CD).
[23] Cocka, E., Swelling Potential of Expansive Soils with a Criti-
cal Appraisal of the Identification of Swelling of Ankara Soils
by Methylene Blue Tests, Ph. D. Thesis, Department of Civil
Engineering, 1991, Middle East Technical University, Ankara,
Turkey.
[24] Doruk, M., Swelling Properties of Clays on the METU Cam-
pus, MS Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, 1968,
Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
[25] Omay, B., Swelling Clays on METU Campus, MS Thesis, De-
partment of Civil Engineering, 1970, Middle East Technical
University, Ankara, Turkey.
[26] McKeen, R. G., “A Model for Predicting Expansive Soil Be-
havior,” 7th International Conference on Expansive Soils,
Vol. 1, 1992, pp. 1–6.
[27] Fredlund, D. G., “The Scope of Unsaturated Soil Problems,”
Proceedings of the First International Conference on Unsat-
urated Soils, Paris, Vol. 3, 1995, pp. 869–876.
[28] Bouma, J., Hillel, D. I., Hole, F. D., and Amerman, C. R.,
“Field Measurement of Unsaturated Soil Hydraulic Conduc-
tivity by Infiltration through Artificial Crusts,” Soil Science
Society of America Proceedings, Vol. 35, 1971, pp. 362–364.
[29] Parker, J. C., Amos, D. F., and Zelazny, L. W., “Water Ad-
sorption and Swelling of Clay Minerals in Soil Systems,” Soil
Science Society of America Journal, Vol. 46, 1982, pp. 450–
456.
[30] Parker, J. C., Zelazny, L. W., and Amos, D. F., “Swelling Com-
ponents of Compacted Ca-montmorillonite,” Clay Minerals,
Vol. 28, 1980, pp. 135–141.
[31] Rahardjo, H., Chang, M. F., and Lim, T. T., “Shear Strength
and In Situ Matric Suction of a Residual Soil,” Proceedings
of the First International Conference on Unsaturated Soils,
Paris, Vol. 2, 1995, pp. 637–643.
[32] Gourley, C. S. and Schreiner, H. D., “Field Measurement of
Soil Suction,” Proceedings of the First International Confer-
ence on Unsaturated Soils, Paris, Vol. 2, 1995, pp. 601–606.
[33] Sudhakar, M. R. and Revanasiddappa, K., “Role of Ma-
tric Suction in Collapse of Compacted Clay Soil,” Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE,
Vol. 126, No. 1, 2000, pp. 85–90.
[34] Blatz, J. and Graham, J., “A System for Controlled Suc-
tion in Triaxial Tests,” Geotechnique, Vol. 40, No. 4, 2000,
pp. 465–469.
[35] Garbulewski, K. and Zakowicz, S., “Suction as an Indicator
of Soil Expansive Potential,” Proceedings of the First Interna-
tional Conference on Unsaturated Soils, Paris, Vol. 2, 1995,
pp. 593–597.
[36] Singh, D. N. and Sneha, J. K., “Estimation of Hydraulic Con-
ductivity of Unsaturated Soils using a Geotechnical Cen-
trifuge,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 39, No. 3,
2002, pp. 684–694.

[37] Singh, D. N., Sneha, J. K., and Madhuri, V., “Application of
a Geotechnical Centrifuge for Estimation of Unsaturated Soil
Hydraulic Conductivity,”Journal of Testing and Evaluation,
Vol. 29, No. 6, 2001, pp. 556–562.
[38] Decagon Devices, Inc., USA, “WP4R User’s Manual,”
http://www.decagon.com/wp4/.
[39] Thakur, V. K. S., Instrumentation for Measuring Extremely
High Soil Suction and its Application, M. Tech. Dissertation,
Civil Engineering Division, 2003, Indian Institute of Technol-
ogy, Bombay, India.
[40] Quantachrome, “Ultra Pycnometer 1000,” Quantachrome,
2002, FL.
[41] GmbH, Soft Imaging Software, Ver. 2.1. Ernst Leitz Wetzlar
GmbH, 1995, Germany.
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Thu Dec 16 14:56:37 EST 2010
Downloaded/printed by
vikas thakur (Statens+Vegvesen) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
View publication stats
THAKUR AND SINGH ON SWELLING PRESSURE 245
[42] “Powder Diffraction File, 44, 7354-CD ROM (PDF 1-44),”
International Centre for Diffraction Data, 1994, PA.
[43] Wagner, A. A., “The Use of the Unified Soil Classification
System by the Bureau of Reclamation,”Proceedings of the
Fourth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foun-
dation Engineering, London, Vol. 1, 1957, pp. 125–134.
[44] Schofield, R. K., “The pF of the Water in Soil,” Transac-
tions 3rd International Congress of Soil Science, Oxford, UK,
Vol. 2, 1935, pp. 37–48.
[45] ASTM D 6836-02, Test Methods for Determination of the Soil
Water Chararcteristic Curve for Desorption Using a Hanging
Column, Pressure Extractor, Chilled Mirror Hygrometer, and/
or Centrifuge, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.08.
2003, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.