International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

ISSN: 1938-6362 (Print) 1939-7879 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yjge20

Effect of swelling on the shear strength behaviour

of expansive soil

Moataz A. Al-Obaydi, Ibrahim M. Al-Kiki & Abdulrahman H. Aldaood

To cite this article: Moataz A. Al-Obaydi, Ibrahim M. Al-Kiki & Abdulrahman H. Aldaood (2019):
Effect of swelling on the shear strength behaviour of expansive soil, International Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, DOI: 10.1080/19386362.2019.1651043

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2019.1651043

Published online: 08 Aug 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yjge20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2019.1651043

Effect of swelling on the shear strength behaviour of expansive soil

a
Moataz A. Al-Obaydi , Ibrahim M. Al-Kikib and Abdulrahman H. Aldaooda
a
Civil Engineering Department, College of Engineering, University of Mosul, Mosul, Iraq; bDams and Water Resources Department, College of
Engineering, University of Mosul, Mosul, Iraq

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Swelling soil is predominant in the Nineveh province of Iraq, leading to severe problems for many civil Received 27 January 2019
structures. The present study attempts to investigate the effect of stress state on the shear strength of Accepted 28 July 2019
highly expansive soil from Mosul city. Variations of shear strength parameters, namely cohesion (c) and KEYWORDS
angle of internal friction (ϕ), with the swelling potential, swelling pressure, stress relief, initial normal Expansive soil; swelling;
load, and loading–unloading cycles are studied experimentally. The shear parameters (c and ϕ) were shear strength; high
found to decrease with increasing swelling potential and specific percentage of stress relief, but plasticity clay; stress state
increase with increasing swelling pressure and initial normal load. During the first cycle of loading–
unloading, c shows higher reduction, after which the rate of reduction decreases; the reduction is
almost insignificant after the second cycle. In contrast, ϕ shows continuous reduction although at a slow
rate.

1. Introduction Swelling soil is widespread in Mosul city, leading to severe

Most current design practices in geotechnical engineering are
based on strength criteria, where shear strength is considered
as one of the most important design parameters. Many stu-
dies have been conducted on the shear strength of soil but
only a few have investigated the swelling behaviour. Attempts
have been made to examine factors that affect the swelling
and shear strength behaviours, such as initial water content,
suction, stress history, stress path, wetting–drying cycles,
method of test, and repeated loading–unloading (Sridharan,
Rao, and Sivapullaiah 1986; Meschyan and Airoyan 1988;
Leroueil and Vaughan 1990; Yang 1993; Pereira et al. 2006;
Sagae et al. 2006; Seguel and Horn 2006; Shimizu, Yamamoto,
and Tahara 2006). To overcome problems associated with soil
swelling, many methods have been suggested, such as soil
replacement, chemical stabilization, pre-wetting, or the use
of special types of footing (Das 2004). Some additives have
also been found to be efficient at reducing the swelling beha-
viour of the soil (Al-Omari, Ibrahim, and Al-Bayati 2010;
Thyagaraj, Samuel, and Kumar 2016; Wang et al. 2017).
Soundara and Robinson (2009) estimated the swelling
pressure using the following three methods: swelling-consoli-
dation, different pressure and constant volume. The swelling
pressure obtained using the first method was about twice that
using the second method, which was found to show the low-
est value. The change in the soil structure is the main reason
of the variation in swelling pressure. Nagaraj, Munnas, and
Sidharan (2010) studied the swelling behaviour of compacted
black cotton soil with vertical drains. The incorporated ver-
tical drain caused higher swelling as well as reduced the time
required to complete swelling by 50%. The swelling potential
and swelling pressure obey the S-shaped curve trends in soil
−water characteristics curves (Azam and Chowdhury 2013).
problems for structures and roads in the city. The aim of this
study is to evaluate the undrained shear strength parameters
of expansive soil under various conditions of stress state,
including the variation in swelling potential, swelling pres-
sure, stress relief, initial normal loading, and loading–unload-
ing cycles.
2. Methodology
2.1 Soil properties
The soil used in the present study is red clayey soil (fat clay),
collected from the eastern part of Mosul city in Iraq. The co-
ordinates of the location are 36° 23ʹ 23” N; 43° 09ʹ 17” E. The
soil sample was collected from a depth of 1.0–1.5 m below the
ground surface. Tests of index and physical properties, and
compaction characteristics using the Proctor compaction test
and a modified method were carried out, and the results are
presented in Table 1. The soil is classified as a ‘clayey soil with
high plasticity–CH fat clay’ according to the Unified Soil
Classification System.
2.2 Sample preparation
After drying the soil, a required amount of water equivalent
to an optimum moisture content of modified compaction
(24%) was added. To ensure homogeneity in the distribution
of moisture throughout the soil, the sample was sealed in a
plastic bag for 24 h as mellowing time. Subsequently,
remoulded samples were prepared by static compaction to
achieve the maximum dry modified unit weight (15.65 kN/
m3). The mould and compaction set-up used in this study is
shown in Figure (1).

CONTACT Moataz A. Al-Obaydi dralobaydi@yahoo.com Civil Engineering Department, College of Engineering, University of Mosul, Mosul, Iraq
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 M. A. AL-OBAYDI ET AL.

Table 1. Chemical and physical properties of the natural soil. respectively. For each identified SF value, the free swell test
Properties Value was performed, and accordingly, the samples were allowed to
Liquid Limit (%) 84 reach the specific value of swell percentage (e.g., 2.6%, which
Plastic Limit (%) 37
Plasticity Index (%) 47
is 20% of the total swell potential). Thereafter, normal shear
Shrinkage Limit (%) 14 stresses were applied to the samples and the shearing process
Linear shrinkage (%) 20 was carried out. The entire process is described in Figure 3(a).
Total Soluble salts (%) 3
Specific Gravity 2.76
Accordingly, six UDST sets were performed.
pH 7.96
CEC 32 2.3.2 Shearing under various swelling pressures
Sand (%) 3
Silt (%) 47
In this method, the samples were inundated in water and a con-
Clay (%) 50 stant volume test was carried out until the swelling pressure
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) CH (Fat Clay) reached a specific value from the overall swelling pressure obtained
Standard Compaction Optimum Moisture Content 27 previously (370 kN/m2), as described in Figure 3(b). The propor-
Max. Dry Unit Weight (kN/m3) 14.05 tions were 0%, 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 100%, which are equiva-
Modified Compaction Optimum Moisture Content 24
(Max. Dry Unit Weight) (kN/m3) 15.65 lent to specific values of the swelling pressure (SP), namely, 0, 74,
148, 222, 296, and 370 kN/m2. Subsequently, normal stresses were
applied and the shearing process was carried out on six UDST sets.

2.3 Testing procedure 2.3.3 Shearing under stress relief

Firstly, free swell and constant volume tests (ASTM D-4546) of After the samples were inundated in water, specified initial normal
the remoulded samples were conducted. The total swelling loads (P) of 100, 275, 550, and 830 kN/m2 were applied for 2–32 h
potential and overall swelling pressure were found to be 13% until swelling or consolidation occurred, depending on the amount
and 370 kN/m2, respectively. Based on these values along with of load applied. A proportion of this load (ΔP) was lifted, and
liquid and plastic limits, the soil was classified as highly expan- volume changes in the samples were monitored until a constant
sive soil (Das 2004).
To evaluate the shear strength characteristics of swelling soil,
undrained direct shear test (UDST) (ASTM D-3080) of the
remoulded samples was performed using the apparatus shown
in Figure (2). Shear strength parameters, namely cohesion (c) and
the angle of internal friction (ϕ), were obtained from at least three
samples for each test set. In order to examine the variation of the
shear strength parameters (c and ϕ) under different stress states,
five loading conditions were applied.

2.3.1 Shearing under various swelling potentials

After inundation in water, the remoulded samples were
allowed to freely swell up to certain proportions of the total
free swell potential (13%). These proportions are 0%, 20%,
40%, 60%, 80% and 100%, which satisfied swell potential (SF)
values equal to 0%, 2.6%, 5.2%, 7.8%, 10.4% and 13%, Figure 2. Direct shear test apparatus.

Figure 1. Sample remoulded and the compaction set-up.

 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 3

σn
free swell test
τ

inundate free swell (SF)= 0, 2.6, UDST

5.2, 7.8, 10.4 and 13 %
(a) Undrained direct shear test after reach portion of total swelling potential
constant volume test
SP SP+σn

inundate Swelling pressure UDST

(SP)= 0, 74, 148,
222, 296, 370 kPa
(b) Undrained direct shear test after reach portion of overall swelling pressure

P P-ΔP (P-ΔP)+σn

inundate Normal load (P) ΔP=(0, 25, 50, 75 UDST

= 100, 275, 550, and 100%) P
830 kPa
(c) Undrained direct shear test after a removal portion of initial normal load

P P+σn

inundate P = 0, 100, 275, UDST

550, 830 kPa
(d) Undrained direct shear test after applied an initial normal load

P P σn
τ

inundate P = 0, 100, 275, P=0 P = 0, 100, 275, UDST

550, 830 kPa 550, 830 kPa
1st cycle 2nd cycle
(e) Undrained direct shear test after cycling of normal loading and unloading
Figure 3. Shearing process under various: (a) swell potential, (b) swelling pressure, (c) stress relief, (d) initial normal stress, (e) cycles of loading-unloading.

volume was achieved. Instantly, the shearing process was carried
out, as defined in Figure 3(c). For each of the specific normal loads
mentioned above, the proportions of load lifted were 0%, 25%,
50%, 75% and 100%. As an example for a specified load P = 100
kN/m2, if 25% of the load was lifted, i.e., ΔP = 25 kN/m2, the
remaining load is (P-ΔP) = 75 kN/m2. Accordingly, 20 sets of
UDST were performed.
2.3.4 Shearing under various initial normal loads
The samples were inundated under specific initial normal loads,
which caused settlement. When this settlement ceased and before
the probability of swelling started, UDST was carried out under
the consolidation condition of the soil. The applied initial normal
loads (P) were 100, 275, 550, and 830 kN/m2, as defined in Figure
3(d). The test steps were repeated for each normal load applied, i.
e., five sets of UDST were performed.
2.3.5 Application of loading–unloading cycles
Loading–unloading cycles were performed to verify their effect on
the swelling behaviour and in turn on the shear strength of the soil.
The samples were inundated in water for 24 h under each specified
initial normal load (P) of 100, 275, 550, and 830 kN/m2.
Accordingly, the swelling or consolidation of the soil depends on
the amount of subjected normal load. When the maximum volume
changes were achieved, the entire applied normal load was lifted (P
= 0), allowing the samples to experience swelling. As shown in
Figure 3(e), this is a one-cycle process. Thereafter, UDST was
carried out to find the shear strength parameters.
For two cycles and so on, the loading–unloading processes
were repeated and the UDST was then performed. In this study,
one, two, three and, four cycles were considered for each specified
normal load mentioned above, i.e., 16 sets, in addition to the case
without loading, of UDST were performed.
3. Results and discussion
3.1 Effect of swelling potential
The samples were allowed to freely swell up to various per-
centages (0%, 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 100%) of the total
swelling potential of the soil (13%). Then, the shear strength
parameters were evaluated under such circumstances from
4 M. A. AL-OBAYDI ET AL.

350
SF= 0%
SF= 2.6%
300
SF= 5.2%
SF= 7.8%
250

Shear stress (kN/m2)

SF= 10.4%
SF= 13.0%
200

150

100

50

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Normal stress (kN/m2)

Figure 4. Mohr-Coulomb failure envelopes for various percentages of swell potential.

% Swell from the total swell potential

0 20 40 60 80 100
160 30

Angle of Internal Friction (Ø°)

Cohesion
140
Friction
Cohesion (kN/m2)

120
25
100

80

60
20
40

20

0 15
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Swell potential, SF (%)

Figure 5. Variation of shear strength parameters with swell potential.

250
SF= 0%
Mohr–Coulomb failure envelopes plotted in Figure 4. The
SF= 2.6%
results presented in Figure 5 show that both shear strength
SF= 5.2%
parameters of the soil (c and ϕ) decrease with increasing swell
200 SF= 7.8%
potential. When the swell potential increased from 0% to
SF= 10.4%
13%, the cohesion intercept decreased by about 83% from
Shear Stress (kN/m2)

SF= 13.0%
150 kN/m2 to 26 kN/m2 and the angle of internal friction
decreased by about 42% from 26° to 15°. These reductions 150
may be attributed to the increase or enlarged voids with the
swelling occupied by water. Hence, soil particles had less
contact between each other, leading to the reduction in the
shear strength parameters. 100
The typical shear stress–strain curves plotted in Figure 6
show a reduction in the shear strength of the soil at failure
with increasing percentage of swell potential. With a high swell 50
potential, the soil behaved similar to a ductile material at failure,
exhibiting some brittleness with decreasing swell potential.

0
3.2 Effect of swelling pressure 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20
Shear strain (%)
To investigate the effects of swelling pressure, a shear test was
performed for each set after the swelling pressure reached 0%, Figure 6. Typical shear stress–strain curves for various percentages of swell potential.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 5

450

400

350

300

Shear stress (kN/m2)

250

200 SP= 0 kN/m²

SP= 74 kN/m²
150 SP= 148 kN/m²
100 SP= 222 kN/m²
SP= 296 kN/m²
50 SP= 370 kN/m²

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Normal stress (kN/m2)

Figure 7. Mohr-Coulomb failure envelopes for various percentages of swelling pressure.

20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% of the overall swelling pressure
of the soil (370 kN/m2). Figure 7 shows the Mohr–Coulomb
failure criterion considered to evaluate the shear strength of the
soil. As shown in Figure 8, both shear strength parameters
increased with increasing swelling pressure, i.e., increasing
percentage of the overall swelling pressure. The cohesion inter-
cept increased by about 1.5 times (49%) from 150 kN/m2 to 220
kN/m2 and the angle of internal friction increased by about 1.2
times (27%) from 26° to 33° when swelling pressure was
increased from zero to its maximum value. With the increasing
percentage of applied swelling pressure, the ability of soil to
swell decreases; hence, the soil exhibits higher shear strength.
This is can be attributed to the decrease in void ratio with
increasing amount of swelling pressure.
The typical shear stress–strain curves under various per-
centages of swelling pressure are presented in Figure 9. The
shear strength at failure obviously increased with increasing
percentage of swelling pressure. Under low percentages of
swelling pressure, the soil exhibited a ductile behaviour,
which changed gradually to a brittle behaviour with increas-
ing percentage of swelling pressure.
3.3 Effect of stress relief
The stress state was investigated by applying different initial
loads (P) on the sample (100, 275, 550, and 830 kN/m2) for
each set of shear tests. Then, the load was lifted by amounts
(ΔP) equal to 0%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% of the applied
load (P). The results are presented in Figure 10(a and b). Both
shear strength parameters decreased with the percentage relief
of the initial applied load. This can be attributed to the same
reason mentioned previously that the increase in the volume

% from overall swell pressure

0 20 40 60 80 100
250 40
Cohesion
Angle of Internal Friction (Ø°)

Friction
200
35
Cohesion (kN/m2)

150
30
100

25
50

0 20
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Swelling pressure, SP (kN/m2)
Figure 8. Variation of shear strength parameters with swelling pressure.
6 M. A. AL-OBAYDI ET AL.

350 of the sample, i.e., void ratio, causes a reduction in the

contacts between particles, which in turn decreases shear
300 strength. Under the higher initial applied load, higher
strength parameters were observed, but all cases exhibited a
Shear Stress (kN/m2)

similar attitude of reduction in strength along with stress

250
relief. In addition, the reduction in cohesion (c) was more
pronounced with a large normal load, and the values of c
200 were similar for the entire relieving load (P = 0). Reductions
in cohesion were observed up to about 3.3 times in the case of
150 the entire load relief. The angle of internal friction (ϕ)
SP= 0 kN/m²
decreased by about 12.8, 1.7, 1.6, and 1.5 times under normal
SP= 74 kN/m²
loads of 100, 275, 550, and 830 kN/m2, respectively.
100 SP= 148 kN/m²
SP= 222 kN/m²
3.4 Effect of initial normal load
50 SP= 296 kN/m²
SP= 370 kN/m²
The soil samples were subjected to specific initial normal loads
0 and allowed to settle until an equilibrium condition was
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 achieved. Subsequently, the shear test was conducted to find
the shear strength parameters. This procedure was conducted
Shear Strain (%) for various initial loads (P) of 0, 100, 275, 550, and 830 kN/m2.
Figure 9. Typical shear stress–strain curves for various percentages of swelling Figure 11 shows that the cohesion and angle of internal friction
pressure. increased with increasing initial normal load. Cohesion

300
Initial normal load= 100 kN/m²
Initial normal load= 275 kN/m²
250 Initial normal load= 550 kN/m²
Initial normal load= 830 kN/m²
Cohesion (kN/m2)

200

150

100

50

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Stress relief percent (%)

(a) Variation of cohesion

40
Initial normal load= 100 kN/m²
Initial normal load= 275 kN/m²
Angle of internal friction (Ø°)

Initial normal load= 550 kN/m²

30 Initial normal load= 830 kN/m²

20

10

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Strees relief percent (%)

(b) Variation of angle of friction

Figure 10. a. Variation of cohesion (c) with stress relief. b. Variation of angle of friction (ϕ) with stress relief.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 7

350 40 160

Angle of Internal Friction (Ø°)

Cohesion Initial normal load= 100 kN/m²
300 Friction 35 140 Initial normal load= 275 kN/m²
Initial normal load= 550 kN/m²
Cohesion (kN/m2)

250 120

Cohesion (kN/m2)
Initial normal load= 830 kN/m²
30
200 100
25
150 80
20 60
100

50 15 40
20
0 10
0 150 300 450 600 750 0
Initial normal load, P (kN/m2) 0 1 2 3 4 5
Figure 11. Variation of shear strength parameters with initial normal load (as Number of loading-unloading cycles
consolidated pressure).
(a) Variation of cohesion
30
Initial normal load= 100 kN/m²

Angle of Internal Friction (Ø°)

increased almost linearly from 150 kN/m2 to 288 kN/m2 (92%) 25
Initial normal load= 275 kN/m²
Initial normal load= 550 kN/m²
under zero initial normal load and that under 830 kN/m2, Initial normal load= 830 kN/m²
respectively. Similarly, the angle of internal friction increased 20
from 26° to 34° (31%) under zero initial normal load and 830
kN/m2, respectively. It is obvious that the increasing normal 15
load causes less swell and more consolidation during the shear-
ing process, which results in more contact between soil parti- 10
cles and hence higher shear strength parameters.
5

0
3.5 Effect of loading–unloading cycles 0 1 2 3 4 5
The samples were subjected to various loading–unloading Number of loading-unloading cycles
cycles before the shear test. For normal loads of 100, 275, (b) Variation of angle of friction
550, and 830 kN/m2, 1, 2, 3 and 4 cycles were conducted.
Figure 12. a. Variation of cohesion (c) with number of loading-unloading cycles.
Figure 12(a) shows that the cohesion decreases with increas- b. Variation of angle of friction (ϕ) with number of loading-unloading cycles.
ing number of loading–unloading cycles. A similar trend was
observed for the angle of internal friction, as shown in Figure
12(b). This behaviour can be attributed to the fatigue that for one cycle, and 58% and 35% for four cycles. The rate of
occurs in soils with loading–unloading cycles, which causes a reduction in cohesion became stable after the first cycle, but
reduction in the shear strength of the soil. Under the normal minor reductions in the angle of internal friction appeared
load of 100 kN/m2, the reductions in cohesion and angle of after the third cycle. Al-Homoud et al. (1995) reported a
internal friction (c and ϕ) were 67% and 38%, respectively, for similar behaviour after the first cycle of wetting–drying on
1 cycle, and 72% and 54%, respectively, for four cycles. Under swelling pressure. As the normal load increased, the rate of
830 kN/m2 normal load, these reductions were 42% and 23% reduction in both shear strength parameters decreased after

500

400
Shear strength (kN/m2)

300

200

Initial normal load= 0 kN/m²

100 Initial normal load=100 kN/m²
Initial normal load= 200 kN/m²
Initial normal load= 300 kN/m²

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Swell Pressure (kN/m2)

Figure 13. Variation of shear strength with swelling pressure.

8 M. A. AL-OBAYDI ET AL.

500

400

Shear strength (kN/m2)

300

200
Initial normal load= 0 kN/m²
Initial normal load=100 kN/m²
100
Initial normal load= 200 kN/m²
Initial normal load= 300 kN/m²

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Consolidation Pressure (kN/m2)

Figure 14. Variation of shear strength with consolidation pressure.

350 (2) Both cohesion and angle of internal friction (c and ϕ)

increased with increasing swelling pressure. They
300 increased by 1.5 and 1.2 times when swelling pressure
Initial normal load= 0 kN/m²

Initial normal load=100 kN/m² was increased from zero to the maximum value (370
250
Shear strength (kN/m2)

Initial normal load= 200 kN/m² kN/m2).

200
150
100
50
0 (5) Cohesion exhibited a high rate of reduction upon one
0 1 2 3 4 5
Swell potential (%)
Figure 15. Variation of shear strength with swelling potential.
the first cycle, but a contrasting behaviour was observed
thereafter.
3.6 Effect of swelling and consolidation pressures
Figure 13 shows the relationship between swelling pressure
and shear strength of the soil. The shear strength of the soil
was calculated based on the Mohr–Coulomb theory (τ = c +
σn tanϕ). The shear strength was found to clearly increase
linearly with the swelling pressure under various normal
stress values (σn). Similarly, the shear strength increased
with consolidation pressure, as shown in Figure 14.
However, the increase in swelling potential caused a reduc-
tion in shear strength (see Figure 15).
4. Conclusions
Initial normal load= 300 kN/m² (3) With increasing amount of stress relief, cohesion and
angle of internal friction decreased. The reductions
were 3.3 and 1.6 times when stress relief was increased
from 0% to 100%, respectively.
(4) As the initial normal load was increased by 0 and 830
kN/m2, cohesion and angle of internal friction
increased by about 1.9 and 1.3 times, respectively.
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 cycle of loading–unloading, but no significant change
was observed thereafter. Under one cycle, the reduc-
tions in cohesion were 3 and 1.7 times, while under
four cycles, they were 3.6 and 2.4 times for 100 and
830 kN/m2, respectively. A continuous reduction in
the angle of internal friction (ϕ) was observed with
loading–unloading cycles, particularly for large normal
load. The reduction for 1 and 4 cycles was 1.6 and 2.2
times for 100 kN/m2, and 1.1 and 1.5 times for 830
kN/m2.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on contributors
Moataz A. Al-Obaydi is Assist. Professor of Civil Engineering
Department, College of Engineering, University of Mosul. He has a
PhD from IIT Roorkee, India and a Post-Doctoral from METU-
Ankara. Member of ISRMTT, ISSSMFE, ISSMGE. Graduate MSc and
PhD students.

(1) A reduction in the shear strength parameters (c and ϕ) Ibrahim M. Al-Kiki is Assist. Professor of Engineering Dams and Water
Resources, College of Engineering, University of Mosul. He has MSc in
was observed with increasing swelling potential from 2002. Member of Engineering Consulting Bureau.
zero to its maximum value by about 5.7 times (83%)
Abdulrahman H. Aldaood is lecturer in Civil Engineering Department,
for cohesion and 1.7 times (42%) for angle of internal
College of Engineering, University of Mosul. He has A PhD from
friction. Orleans, France in 2014. Member of Engineering Consulting Bureau.

ORCID
Moataz A. Al-Obaydi http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8100-4131
References
Al-Homoud, A. S., A. A. Basma, A. I. Malkawi, and M. A. Al-
Bashabsheh. 1995. “Cyclic Swelling Behavior Of Clays.” Journal Of
Geotechnical Engineering, Asce 121 (7): 562-565. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9410(1995)121:7(562.
Al-Omari, R. S. Ibrahim, and I. Al-Bayati. 2010. “Effect of Potassium
Chloride on Cyclic Behavior of Expansive Clays.” International
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 4 (2): 231–239. doi:10.3328/
IJGE.2010.04.02.231-239.
Azam, S., and H. Chowdhury. 2013. “Swell-shrink Consolidation
Behavior of Compacted Expansive Clays.” International Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering 7 (4): 424–430. doi:10.1179/
1939787913Y.0000000005.
Das, B. M. 2004. Principles of Foundation Engineering. 5th ed. US:
Thomson Lerning Academic Resource Center.
Leroueil, S., and P. R. Vaughan. 1990. “The General and Congruent
Effects of Structure in Natural Soils and Weak Rocks.” Journal of
Geotechnique 40 (3): 467–488. doi:10.1680/geot.1990.40.3.467.
Meschyan, S. P., and S. G. Airoyan. 1988. “Shear Strength of Swelling
Soils with Variability in Normal Stress and Initial Moisture Content.”
Academy of Science of the Armenian SSR 5: 24–25.
Nagaraj, H. B., M. M. Munnas, and A. Sidharan. 2010. “Swelling
Behavior of Expansive Soils.” International Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering 4 (1): 99–110. doi:10.3328/IJGE.2010.04.01.99-110.
Pereira, A., C. Feuerharmel, W. Y. Y. Gehling, and A. V. D. Bica. 2006. “A
Study on the Shear Strength Envelope of an Unsaturated Colluviums Soil.”
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 9
4th International Conference on Unsaturated Soils, ASCE, held in Carefree,
Arizona, USA, April 2–6: 1191–1199. DOI: 10.1061/40802(189)97
Sagae, K., M. Sugiyama, A. Tonosaki, and M. Akaishi. 2006. “Ratio
of Undrained Shear Strength to Vertical Effective Stress.”
Proceeding of the School of Engineering, Tokai University, Series
E 31: 21–25.
Seguel, O., and R. Horn. 2006. “Strength Regain in Soil Aggregate Beds by
Swelling and Shrinkage.” International Agrophysics 20 (2): 161–172.
Shimizu, M., D. Yamamoto, and Y. Tahara. 2006. “Suction and Its
Effects on Shear Strength of Unsaturated Undisturbed Samples of a
Volcanic Pumiceous Soil.” 4th International Conference on
Unsaturated Soils, ASCE, held in Carefree, Arizona, United State,
April 2–6:1235–1246. DOI: 10.1061/40802(189)100.
Soundara, B., and R. G. Robinson. 2009. “Influence of Test Method on
Swelling Pressure of Compacted Clays.” International Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering 3 (3): 439–444. doi:10.3328/
IJGE.2009.03.03.439-444.
Sridharan, A., A. S. Rao, and P. V. Sivapullaiah. 1986. “Swelling Pressure
of Clays.” Geotechnical Testing Journal 9 (1): 24–33. ASTM.
doi:10.1520/GTJ10608J
Thyagaraj, T., Z. Samuel, and K. S. Kumar. 2016. “Relative Effecies of
Electolytes in Stabilization of an Expansive Soil.” International
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 10 (2): 107–113. doi:10.1179/
1939787915Y.0000000017.
Wang, Y.-X., -P.-P. Guo, W.-X. Ren, B.-X. Yuan, H.-P. Yuan, Y.-L.
Zhao, S.-B. Shan, and P. Cao. 2017. “Laboratory Investigation on
Strength Characteristics of Expansive Soil Treated with Jute Fiber
Reinforcement.” International Journal of Geomechanics 17 (11).
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000998.
Yang, Q. 1993. “Strength and Pore Pressure of Silty Clay under Repeated
Stress.” Proceeding of the Third International Offshore and Polar
Engineering Conference, Singapore, June 6–11, ISOPE-I-93–079.