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

net/publication/245290297

A Study of Expansive Soils and Residential Foundations on Expansive Soils in

Arizona

Article  in  Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities · January 2009

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000077

CITATIONS READS
36 6,659

5 authors, including:

Heather B. Dye Claudia Zapata

Arizona State University Arizona State University
9 PUBLICATIONS   116 CITATIONS    69 PUBLICATIONS   1,192 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ken Walsh
George Mason University
94 PUBLICATIONS   1,255 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Implementation of an Introductory Module on Biogeotechnics in a Freshman Engineering Course View project

Interdisciplinary Engineering-Education Design View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Claudia Zapata on 23 July 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Study of Expansive Soils and Residential Foundations
on Expansive Soils in Arizona
Sandra L. Houston, Ph.D., M.ASCE1; Heather B. Dye, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE2; Claudia E. Zapata, Ph.D.,
M.ASCE3; Kenneth D. Walsh, Ph.D., M.ASCE4; and William N. Houston, Ph.D., M.ASCE5

Abstract: Construction on expansive soils is challenging and thus prone to some problems and litigation. The engineering community
makes extensive use of local experience and empirical procedures to address these problems. Although there has been extensive study of
expansive soils and foundations on expansive soils, data related to performance of residential structures are limited in general and limited
in the Phoenix area, in particular. In this study, an overview of the Phoenix Valley, Arizona, geotechnical practice and foundation
performance related to residential structures on expansive clays, was developed through surveys and interviews with geotechnical
engineers, structural engineers, and homebuilders. Using data obtained from files of Phoenix area geotechnical firms and government
agencies, the existing Natural Resource Conservation Service map showing expansive soil locations throughout the Phoenix region was
updated through the use of correlation developed in this study relating expansion index to common soil index properties such as Atterberg
limits and percent passing the No. 200 sieve. Files of forensic investigations linked to expansive soil regions were made available for this
study by several geotechnical engineering firms, and Phoenix Valley areas where forensic investigations have been identified, were
mapped for comparison to regions identified in the updated map as having expansive soils. Comparison of the forensic investigation map
to the updated map of expansive clay locations revealed that most of the forensic investigations were in regions identified with clays
labeled as high to moderately high expansion potential, with a few forensic investigations in regions of medium expansion potential.
Finally, unsaturated flow analyses were conducted for an Arizona expansive clay profile for two very different landscaped conditions of
well-irrigated turf and desert landscape. The results of the numerical analyses were consistent with the reported observations and modes
of failure identified through the surveys and interviews conducted with engineering and homebuilder professionals, including the finding
that site drainage was found to be extremely important to good foundation performance, regardless of the type of landscape selected.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲CF.1943-5509.0000077
CE Database subject headings: Forensic engineering; Numerical models; Unsaturated soils; Expansive soils; Foundations; Arizona.
Author keywords: Forensic; Numerical modeling; Unsaturated soil; Residential; Practice; Soil map.

Introduction/Background
Providing good performance of facilities constructed on expan-
sive soils is challenging, as such structures have been proven to
be prone to certain problems and litigation, therefore collected
data are often not available for research. Because support of
1 Richards 1984; Fredlund and Rahardjo 1993兲. Although consider-
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Arizona
State Univ., P.O. Box 875306, Tempe, AZ 85287-5306. E-mail:
sandra.houston@asu.edu
2
President, Tao Engineering, 141 S. Sirrine, Mesa, AZ 85210 共corre-
sponding author兲. E-mail: heather.dye@asu.edu
3
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Arizona State Univ., P.O. Box 875306, Tempe, AZ 85287-5306. E-mail:
czapata@asu.edu
4
AGC-Paul S. Roel Chair of Construction Engineering and Manage-
ment and Professor, Dept. of Civil, Construction, and Environmental En-
gineering, San Diego State Univ., 5500 Campanile Dr., CA 92182-1324.
E-mail: kwalsh@mail.sdsu.edu
5
Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Arizona State Univ., P.O. Box 875306, Tempe, AZ 85287-5306. E-mail:
bill.houston@asu.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on December 4, 2008; approved
on June 26, 2009; published online on August 7, 2009. Discussion period
open until July 1, 2011; separate discussions must be submitted for indi-
vidual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Performance of Con-
structed Facilities, Vol. 25, No. 1, February 1, 2011. ©ASCE, ISSN
0887-3828/2011/1-31–44/$25.00.
structures on expansive soils is still largely based on art and soil
characterization is perceived as difficult and expensive 共especially
for light structures兲, the engineering community makes extensive
use of local experience and empirical procedures to address prob-
lems associated with these soils 共Fityus et al. 2004; Nelson and
Miller 1992; Lytton 1994; Wray 1997; Bratton 1991; Holland and
able research has been done on the topic of expansive clays, the
existing database on performance is limited, and data on perfor-
mance of residential structures on expansive soils is especially
scarce.
Foundations placed on expansive soils are vulnerable to dis-
tress from moisture-induced change in volume. The changes in
volume that occur are a function of a number of variables, includ-
ing the properties of the soil, the moisture condition 共suction兲 at
the time of construction, the amount of change in moisture con-
tent, its variation over time and space, and the geometry and
stiffness of the structure. The moisture change that generates vol-
ume change beneath the structure occurs in unsaturated soils lo-
cated above the ground water table. The behavior of unsaturated
soils is often not fully and/or appropriately analyzed for residen-
tial construction where there is a tendency to use more empiri-
cally based solutions. Furthermore, with many existing models,
small changes in input parameters can lead to dramatic changes in
estimated soil response. Conditions in practice and in forensic

JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2011 / 31

Downloaded 27 Jan 2011 to 149.169.245.15. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org
investigations present engineers with substantial uncertainty for
field applications.
The amount of expansion or shrinkage that occurs in the field
is a function of the degree of wetting 共or drying in the case of
shrinkage兲. The results of response-to-wetting tests wherein the
specimen is fully wetted are conservative for most field applica-
tions where full saturation throughout the clay profile is not
reached, and modern methods of analysis are available for com-
puting heave for cases of partial wetting 关Yoshida et al. 1983;
Sattler and Fredlund 1991; Post-Tensioning Institute 共PTI兲 2004兴.
Of course the real challenge is to understand the relationship be-
tween soil moisture, stress level, and volume change, as well as
the prediction of the actual depth and degree of wetting that will
occur in the field, which is related to soil properties and control of
site water. Development brings about changes in both surface and
groundwater flows, with the typical impact being an overall in-
crease in soil moisture 共Walsh et al. 2009a, 1993兲. In general,
precautions such as good site drainage and diversion of roof run-
off reduce the amount of moisture introduced into the soil over
the life of the structure. It is critical that the moisture conditions
and moisture content changes of unsaturated soil are taken into
consideration in the geotechnical site investigation and foundation
design.
The Phoenix region is a useful case in point because the soil
diagenesis in this arid region has primarily created soils which
provide excellent building support. However, some areas of ex-
pansive soils do exist and litigation and reports of performance
difficulties have ensued.
Summary of Study on Performance of Slab
on Grade Foundations in Arizona
To place the above problems in a larger context, a study was
undertaken of the Phoenix, regional practice for residential foun-
dation design for expansive soil sites. The study had several
goals, including determination of typical soil properties for
Phoenix-area clays and expansion potential for these soils given
the climatic region and common development practices 共land-
scape, control of site water, spacing of structures, etc.兲. Another
goal was to assess general performance of residential structures
on these soils. A summary of the findings from this study is pre-
sented herein, with an emphasis on performance of structures, as
linked to soil properties and site water/drainage conditions. While
the study was regionally focused, many of the methodologies em-
ployed are appropriate for application to other regions subject to
expansive soil problems. The Phoenix-region study consisted of
several steps, including the following discussed in this paper:
1. Survey of the Phoenix regional geotechnical practice for site
investigation and soil characterization;
2. Determination of representative expansive soils properties
for a range of expansive soils across the Valley;
3. A survey of homebuilders, structural and geotechnical engi-
neering firms to identify locations of past forensic investiga-
tions linked to expansive soils problems;
4. Development of maps showing expansion index for Phoenix
Valley soils—updating the existing National Resource Con-
servation Service 共NRCS兲 maps showing expansive soil lo-
cations throughout the Valley. This data on expansion index
were collected primarily from files of local geotechnical en-
gineering firms. Comparison to maps of locations of forensic
investigations was made;
5. Survey of landscape professionals and government agencies
32 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2011
Downloaded 27 Jan 2011 to 149.169.245.15. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org
concerned with water use to determine typical homeowner
landscape water use in the Phoenix Valley; and
6. Computer modeling of unsaturated flow for slab on grade
foundations on expansive soils. Conditions of irrigated green
lawn as well as desert landscaping were considered. Arizona
climatic conditions were used. This work resulted in in-
formation on depth and extent of wetting for various land-
scaping scenarios, and the results were compared to findings
from the surveys of forensic investigations to check for
consistency.
Survey of Local Practice
Interviews and Surveys
Companies for interviews and surveys were selected on a conve-
nience basis as respondents to a solicitation extended to compa-
nies specializing in residential construction. The solicitation was
issued by both the researchers and the Homebuilders Association
of Central Arizona 共HBACA兲 共2006兲 staff in separate communi-
cations. Three different groups of professionals were interviewed:
geotechnical engineers, structural engineers, and homebuilders
with experience in construction on expansive soils. Six geotech-
nical consulting engineers, four structural engineers, and six
homebuilders were interviewed.
A set of questions was prepared for each target group of inter-
viewees. The information categories included experience, design,
testing, communication, and problems encountered when dealing
with expansive soils.
Geotechnical engineers’ questions were related to the follow-
ing:
1. Professional experience in the field and educational back-
ground;
2. Resources and guidelines used for soil investigation, plan-
ning and design as well as type of information collected be-
fore construction when dealing with nonexpansive and
expansive soils;
3. Sampling information: number of samples collected per area,
test performed, and frequency;
4. Volume change testing: frequency and details of consolida-
tion and swell potential testing, if any;
5. Familiarity with unsaturated soil testing: soil-water charac-
teristic curve 共SWCC兲 test, method, frequency, etc.;
6. Surface water drainage issues;
7. Monitoring of site during construction;
8. Communication practices: within the company 共engineer-
technician兲 and outside the company 共consultant-contract,
lab-structural, engineer-builder兲 along with reporting require-
ments and specs 共i.e., information needed by the structural
engineer or builder兲;
9. Familiarity with the PTI design of posttensioned 共PT兲 slabs-
on-grade protocol and assumptions;
10. Definition of active zone;
11. Mitigation measures before and during construction or spe-
cial recommendations when working with expansive soils:
which measures are taken and who is the responsible party.
Also, type of postconstruction monitoring; and
12. Forensic studies and modes of failure observed 共center or
edge lift mode兲.
Structural engineers were provided with similar questions to
those given to geotechnical engineers but with more emphasis on
the information taken from geotechnical reports and the design
method used when dealing with expansive soils. They were asked
for an estimated percentage of the design projects for which they
recommended PT slabs in expansive soils as well as the changes
recommended to the design if known to be on expansive soils.
Emphasis was given to the problems associated with the design
共center lift or edge lift and definition of failure兲 or other condi-
tions that affected the houses 共slab characteristics, construction
stage, etc.兲.
Questions to homebuilders included topics such as
1. Experience in residential construction and educational back-
ground;
2. Sources of information used to assess the site regarding prob-
lem soils;
3. Time elapsed between collection of geotechnical information
and design/construction processes, and between site grading
and vertical construction;
4. Site preparation information: moisture level, equalization
time, and monitoring level;
5. Geotechnical information deemed important to homebuild-
ers, budget allocated to geotechnical investigation, and how
often the geotechnical engineer is hired to monitor and con-
trol the construction phase;
6. Involvement of the homebuilder to monitor proper site
drainage;
7. Communication practice with the geotechnical engineer
and/or structural engineer;
8. Mitigation measures taken by the homebuilder and/or post-
construction monitoring issues if dealing with expansive
soils; and
9. Litigation/complaint issues: problem description and
frequency.
Homebuilders that had experience with litigation related to
expansive soils problems in residential construction were also
asked to answer questions related to the following topics:
1. Construction date and location where problematic soils were
identified;
2. Approximate date when the problem appeared or was re-
ported;
3. General description of the damage observed including the
maximum slab differential, if available;
4. Foundation type and slab thickness;
5. Moisture-conditioned state of the foundation pad prior to
construction; and
6. Time elapsed between the conditioning and the pour of the
concrete.
Homebuilders were also asked to attach the geotechnical re-
port for the subdivision of the forensic investigation site and any
pre- and postforensic geotechnical investigation report available.
Geotechnical and Structural Engineer Interviews
and Surveys
To evaluate the geotechnical practice for slabs on grade and light
residential floors on expansive soils in the Phoenix area, surveys
of geotechnical engineers, structural engineers, and homebuilders
were conducted, as discussed in the preceding section. Although
the emphasis of the surveys was placed on geotechnical practice,
some attention was given to communications among engineers
and homebuilders. The information collected was treated confi-
dentially with participants in the interview and survey being as-
signed a number code for identification purposes.
From these surveys, it was determined that the second edition
PTI design procedure 共PTI 1996兲 was in the recent past the most
JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2011 / 33
Downloaded 27 Jan 2011 to 149.169.245.15. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org
commonly implemented design procedure for slab-on-grade foun-
dations on expansive soils in the Phoenix region, although most
engineers reported that they are now using the third edition PTI
design method 共PTI 2004兲. Geotechnical engineers typically re-
port values of y m 共differential soil movement兲 and em 共edge mois-
ture variation distance兲, as determined by the PTI method, to the
structural engineers who use this information in the design of
slabs, whether PT or conventional reinforced concrete. Geotech-
nical engineers often use the “soil shrink/swell potential” NRCS
map and local geological maps for reconnaissance and planning
共NRCS 2002兲. They also rely extensively on experience from
previous investigations.
The total number of samples taken per unit area varies widely
and depends on project size and uniformity of the soils encoun-
tered. From interviews it was found that the soil investigation for
residential construction consists of preliminary and final stages.
During the preliminary investigation, typically one soil boring
is made every 8 hectares 共20 acres; i.e., 0.05 borings per acre兲.
There appears to be less consistency in the number of borings per
area made for the final investigation, with reports of numbers of
borings ranging from 0.30 to 1.14 per hectare 共0.12 to 0.46 bor-
ings per acre兲. The depth of soil investigation typically varies
from 1.5 to 6 m 共5 to 20 in.兲. It appears to be the prevailing
opinion, however, that the top 1.2 to 1.5 m 共4 to 5 in.兲 of soil are
the most important for the slab design, with the active zone depth
commonly assumed to be within the upper 1 to 3 m
共3 to 9 in.兲 of the soil profile. Soils are visually classified, bulk
soil samples are obtained, as well as relatively undisturbed
samples. Undisturbed samples are commonly obtained using ring
samplers 共56% area ratio兲 and are typically collected at depths of
0.6, 1.5, and 3 m 共2, 5, and 10 in.兲. Standard penetration test
共SPT兲 blow counts are commonly obtained in addition to and
mingled among the ring samples. Ring sampler blow counts are
also recorded. The soil is visually described in the field from soil
cuttings and samples extruded from the SPT sampler. Soil testing
is performed on bulk samples obtained with an auger and on
undisturbed samples collected in the rings. The bulk samples are
used to obtain gradation, Atterberg limits, Proctor compaction
tests, and reconstituted sample swell tests. The undisturbed soil
samples are normally used for moisture content and dry density
determination, and for one-dimensional 共1D兲 response-to-wetting
tests. Usually the specimen共s兲 with the lowest blow count is se-
lected for the response-to-wetting test. Depending upon the firm,
the response-to-wetting test specimen may be allowed to dry
some from its in situ moisture state prior to testing. A few com-
panies were found to perform additional soil testing including
direct shear, pH, resistivity, percent chloride, and soluble salts.
Note that all of these observations are based on the general case;
additional specialized testing for specific cases may also occur.
The swell potential of the soil may be determined using ASTM
D4829 共ASTM 2006b兲, but was reported to be most often as-
sessed using a modified expansion index test commonly used by
Arizona practicing geotechnical engineers 共EIAZ兲. The Arizona
Expansion Index test is a 1D swell test performed on reconsti-
tuted soil specimens with water content 2% below the optimum
water content and at 95% of the maximum dry density as deter-
mined with the standard Proctor compaction test, ASTM D698
共ASTM 2006a兲. A load of 4.8 kPa 共100 psf兲 is placed on the soil
that is then saturated and allowed to swell for 24 h. The resulting
moisture-induced strains are presented as percent swell. The swell
potential was commonly described by industry interviewees as
small when EIAZ is smaller than 2.5%, moderate for EIAZ between
2.5 and 4.5%, and high for EIAZ larger than 4.5%.
 General recommendations given by geotechnical engineers for
residential structures relative to expansive soils are to avoid over-
densification of the soil and to moisture condition the soil. Soil
moisture is commonly specified between ⫺1 to +4% of optimum
water content as determined by the standard Proctor test. Some-
times recommendations are given to avoid irrigation within some
distance of the structure. Prior to construction, the pads may be
reconditioned by applying an undetermined amount of water
through a sprinkler system or by flooding. A less common miti-
gation strategy, based on interviewee responses, is the removal of
0.3 to 0.6 m 共1 to 2 in.兲 of problematic soil and replacing it a with
nonexpansive compacted fill material. Lime treatment is generally
dismissed by respondents as ineffective, although lime treatment
has been used in the area in a few cases for residential construc-
tion and used always in pavement construction practice. All sur-
veyed companies indicated that for sites with high swell potential,
only PT slab design is currently 共between 2007 to 2008 time
period兲 recommended, though relatively recent past practices in-
volved essentially no PT slabs and only conventional concrete
slab construction. Based on geotechnical firm responses, it ap-
pears that the local practice is moving in the direction of using the
new PTI third edition method for computation of differential
heave and edge moisture variation. Local engineers, more re-
cently, are also often recommending the use of PT slabs designed
with slab thickness as determined by the PTI third edition
method.
Structural engineers report that two types of slab designs are
available, PT slab and conventional slab. The type of slab chosen
for the design depends on the client, the builder, for whom cost
is a very relevant parameter. Structural engineers interviewed
reported that currently all builders choose the PT construction
when expansive soils are encountered with swell potential larger
than 3%. When the swell potential is less than 3%, both PT
and conventional designs are reported to be used. The alternative
to the PT design is the stem-and-footer design, with a 0.10 m
共4 in.兲 thick slab on grade. When expansive soils are found, it is
recommended to increase the standard footing depth from 0.46 m
共18 in.兲 up to 0.61 m 共24 in.兲 or 0.76 m 共30 in.兲 below final grade
to reduce the moisture beneath the slab that results from lateral
migration.
Homebuilder
Homebuilder surveys indicate that a geotechnical engineer is em-
ployed to perform preliminary soil exploration prior to the land
purchase. An environmental site assessment is also performed
prior to the land purchase. After the purchase, a period up to few
years elapses before construction of residences begins, and a
more detailed site investigation 共second phase or supplemental
phase兲 is performed by the geotechnical engineer during that time
lag. The structural design is based on that detailed site investiga-
tion. It is not uncommon for the geotechnical site investigation to
be augmented after extensive site grading. The structural design is
then refined based on the modified soils report. The following
geotechnical information is important to the builders: swell po-
tential 共if less than 3%, the builder is generally not concerned兲,
location and extent of clayey material, and the existence of any
problematic soil. If clayey material is found only in one lot, this
particular lot alone is treated differently. Some builders require
the homeowner to sign a contract stating that the grading and
drainage cannot be modified, and that plants cannot be planted
within 0.61 m 共24 in.兲 from the house. Unfortunately this infor-
mation is not required to be turned over to the next homeowner.
34 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2011
Downloaded 27 Jan 2011 to 149.169.245.15. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org
Communication
Geotechnical engineers report that communication between geo-
technical engineers and structural engineers/builders is generally
limited to clarifications and problems. The structural engineer re-
quires em edge moisture variation distance 共PTI 2004兲, y m differ-
ential soil movement 共PTI 2004兲, soil bearing capacity, subgrade
modulus, and friction angle values from the geotechnical engi-
neer. The builder needs to know in general what kind of soil is
present at the site and the prevalence of various materials, or in
other words, if there is a problem with expansive soils. Addition-
ally, the builder needs to know how to deal with expansive soils.
Structural engineers report that communication with geotechnical
engineers is limited to identifying the variables needed for the
PTI design software, and/or clarification when the information is
missing or unclear from the geotechnical report. By contrast, the
structural engineers report frequent contact with homebuilders
and architects.
The builders indicated in the interviews that there is consider-
able communication between the builder and both structural and
geotechnical engineers. Some builders have periodic meetings
with both the structural and geotechnical engineers. In addition,
the geotechnical engineer is present at the site during pad prepa-
ration, and the structural engineer is on site during post-
tensioning of slabs. Typically the same geotechnical engineer that
developed the report is monitoring the site preparation. The
builder also communicates with the homeowner through purchase
documents which discuss drainage, grading, and typical behavior
of construction materials, as discussed in a subsequent section of
this paper.
Sources of Problems Identified in Interviews
The time lapse between the pad preparation and slab construction
is from a few months to a few years. During the time lapse, the
pads are not covered to maintain the design soil moisture state. In
addition, the prepared pads are frequently driven over by con-
struction trucks to access the construction zone. Such practice
leads to overcompaction of pads. It was reported that the site
construction is often monitored by superintendents who lack the
knowledge of how the dry density and water content of soil in-
fluence postconstruction soil behavior.
The structural and geotechnical engineers interviewed held the
opinion that the main cause of excessive soil swell relates to the
initial moisture state of pads prior to construction. The time lapse
between pad preparation and construction is from a few months
to a few years. Pad preparation is typically monitored by a geo-
technical technician for moisture content and dry density. It
was the opinion of several interviewees that a builder representa-
tive is typically present during the pad preparation process. The
constructed pads are certified for construction of slab on graded
for 3 months. Those interviewed also indicated that it is not un-
common for the builder to recondition the pads to obtain new pad
certification.
The opinion expressed by the engineers questioned in this
study was that edge lift is the most commonly observed deforma-
tion mode of PT slabs on grade in the Phoenix region. While there
is no direct data available to support the opinion expressed by
engineers that pads are frequently allowed to dry excessively
prior to construction, such overdrying of pads is consistent with
the edge lift deformation mode reported by engineers interviewed
as a part of this study. Due to landscape irrigation and changes in
surface water conditions, site development is almost always asso-
 Fig. 1. 共Color兲 NRCS 共2002兲 swell potential
ciated with some increase in soil moisture content. The greater the
increase in moisture content, the higher the soil expansion. Edge
lift would occur as moisture from landscape irrigation, for ex-
ample, moves beneath the slab. The drier the initial state of soil
moisture 共i.e., the higher the initial suction兲, the greater would be
the amount of edge lift as soil moisture increased 共suction de-
creased兲.
In the Phoenix region, those surveyed estimated that “0.5% of
constructed homes” on expansive soils exhibit “excessive deflec-
tions,” nonetheless, “90% of all PT slabs” exhibit at least some
degree of edge lift deformation, though commonly not excessive.
These terms excessive deflection and “some degree of edge lift
deformation” were not quantitatively defined by interviewees, and
should be viewed as qualitative assessments. The structural engi-
neers also generally held the opinion that PT slabs minimize slab
cracking. No specific numbers or statistics were provided on level
of slab cracking in PT slabs versus conventional slabs or on what
constituted excessive deflection. Local geotechnical engineers ex-
pressed concern that the PTI design method is based on general-
ized climatic conditions only. It is believed that this concern
arises from the fact that the engineers surveyed tended to use the
chart-based 共hence climatic condition only based兲 values, while
fewer used the Volflo option in the PTI second edition method
that allows other sources of wetting and drying to be taken into
consideration. In general, the geotechnical engineers express the
opinion that local, in situ conditions, and possible regional adjust-
ment factors, should be incorporated into the PTI procedure to
reflect the actual soil/slab behavior in the Phoenix region.
Characteristics of Phoenix Area Expansive Soils
As a part of this study sampling and testing of selected Arizona
expansive soils was performed. As per USCS soil classification,
JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2011 / 35
Downloaded 27 Jan 2011 to 149.169.245.15. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org
the clayey soils encountered included clay 共CL兲, clayey sand
共SC兲, and fat clay 共CH兲 materials, with the predominant classifi-
cations being CL and SC. The plasticity index 共PI兲 for these soils
ranged from approximately 10 to 60%. Typical EIAZ values were
around 2%, with a range from under 1% to just over 8% for the
subset of soils tested as a part of this study.
In addition, soil properties and measured expansion index EIAZ
for around 900 soils were considered. The data were collected
from existing files of local geotechnical companies. Some addi-
tional sampling and laboratory testing on Phoenix-area expansive
soils was conducted as a part of this study. The maximum EIAZ
from the totality of data obtained from files and tests from this
study was 26%. However, EIAZ values ranging from 1 to 8% are
most prevalent for Phoenix-area clays, with a median of 4%. Be-
cause many readers may be unfamiliar with the EIAZ test, the
writers performed a limited comparison of EIAZ to the ASTM
D4829-03 共ASTM 2006b兲 EI method which showed that to a
good approximation the ASTM expansion index can be obtained
by multiplying the EIAZ by a factor of 10 共Dye 2008兲. This ap-
proximation appears to work fairly well within the range of EIAZ
of 1 to 10% but was not confirmed outside of this range.
Updated Map of Expansive Soils in the Phoenix
Area
As a part of site investigation, many engineers turn to the NRCS
maps and geological maps for investigation planning. A com-
monly available and often referenced map, shown in Fig. 1,
was developed by NRCS and last updated in 2002 共NRCS 2002兲.
This map identifies regions of high, medium, and low-swell po-
tential in the Phoenix area. It is common practice for engineers
working in regions identified as having expansive soils to perform
expansion index tests and other index tests intended to determine
 Fig. 2. 共Color兲 Updated swell potential map 关after Dye 共2008兲兴
the presence of expansive soils. As a part of this study, the NRCS
soil unit map and database on surficial soils was used as a starting
point for development of an updated and improved map of expan-
sive soils in the Phoenix Valley. For this purpose, the EIAZ
was estimated through correlation with NRCS reported soil index
properties, as described in detail by Zapata et al. 共2006兲 and
Dye 共2008兲. The EIAZ was found to correlate well with the PI and
the amount of fines 共percent passing the No. 200 sieve兲. The
initial updated map was developed as part of a study for the
Central Arizona Homebuilders’ Association in 2006. Dye 共2008兲
further refined the map of expansive soils for the Phoenix region,
including additional data. Regions 共soil units兲 with estimated Ari-
zona expansion index of greater than 10% were identified as
highly expansive, between 5 and 10% as moderately high expan-
sive, between 2 and 5% as medium expansive and less than 2% as
low expansion. Additionally, available measured expansion index
data and index data from local geotechnical firms was used to aid
in identification of expansive soil units. The expansive soil des-
ignations 共high, moderate, medium, or low兲 in Fig. 2 were devel-
oped using the maximum measured or maximum estimated EIAZ
point within a given soil unit. Thus, a given measured or esti-
mated swell potential within a particular soil unit may be lower
than the maximum swell potential used in developing this map. In
other words, the map is intended to be a conservative indicator of
36 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2011
Downloaded 27 Jan 2011 to 149.169.245.15. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org
the presence of expansive clays. While this analysis and map
updating process was only done as a part of this study for the
Phoenix region, it is possible to employ the same methodology to
develop maps of expansive soils in other regions of Arizona and
the United States.
Forensic Studies
The local community of geotechnical and structural engineers and
HBACA 共2006兲 members was solicited for information on foren-
sic investigations thought to be related to expansive soils. The
response to this solicitation, which was issued by researchers as
well as the HBACA staff, was initially limited. Nonetheless, input
from multiple geotechnical, structural, and homebuilder firms in-
cluded 50 locations where detailed information on soil properties,
landscape, and distress were available. A followup solicitation
yielded additional data analyzed by Dye 共2008兲. Both of these
studies are summarized below. Other than the being slab-on-grade
construction, details of the foundation systems for the study
homes were, in general, not available to the writers. However, the
database of forensic cases was heavily dominated by homes built
before common use of PT slabs in the Phoenix region, and thus is
 Fig. 3. 共Color兲 Location of soil units with forensic information 关after Dye 共2008兲兴

comprised primarily of conventional reinforced concrete slab-on-
grade floors.
Sites included are those where the forensic geotechnical engi-
neer had attributed the investigation to the presence of expansive
soils. The locations of the 50 forensic studies identified in the
initial solicitation are approximately depicted in Fig. 3, where soil
units associated with forensic study locations are indicated. For
mapping purposes, if a forensic study was located within a par-
ticular NRCS-identified soil unit, the entire unit was labeled as a
location of forensic investigation. This was done because the soils
in a particular unit share important characteristics related to soil
expansion such as gradation and plasticity, and also because iden-
tification of the specific address of a forensic investigation was
not allowed due to confidentiality agreements.
The forensic data, while somewhat limited, are spread
throughout the Phoenix Valley region. These forensic data were
coupled with the NRCS soil unit data to identify soil units within
which forensic studies had taken place. Clearly there is a need to
augment this database of forensic studies, but the information
currently available is valuable for validation of other findings of
this study as well as for making preliminary judgments with re-
spect to acceptability of current practice and, to some extent, with
respect to the desirability of regional adjustment factors for the
newly adopted third edition PTI geotechnical guidelines.
Comparing the forensic investigation map, Fig. 3, to the up-
dated map of expansive clay locations, Fig. 2, it is quite apparent
that most of the forensic investigations are in regions identified
with moderately high to high expansion potential clays with a few
forensic investigations in regions of medium swell potential. In
making this comparison, it is important to remember that the ex-
pansive clay map of Fig. 2 was developed using the maximum
swell potential data for a given soil unit. Thus, individual test
results from forensic studies often showed swell potential 共EIAZ兲
less than the maximum observed or estimated data. In other
words, one should not be surprised to measure medium, or even
low, swell potential in soil units identified as having high expan-
sion potential in the region-scale map of Fig. 2. This is a result of
natural soil variability within a given soil unit.
In addition to expansion potential, the forensic data was evalu-
ated, to the extent possible, with respect to site drainage and
landscape scheme. Poor drainage was reported in 97% of the 34
cases where drainage information was available. Landscape type
was also available for 34 cases. In designation of landscape type
for these 34 cases, a judgment was made of the “dominant” land-
scape. It should be noted that essentially all properties exhibited
some blend of turf and desert landscape, rather than being exclu-
sively one type or the other. In 91% of the cases where damage
was observed in houses with lawn landscape, poor drainage was

JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2011 / 37

Downloaded 27 Jan 2011 to 149.169.245.15. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org
Table 1. Residential Construction Performance Criteria in the First 2 Years after Homeowner Occupancy 共Arizona Registrar of Contractors 2004兲
Structure Distress
Stemwall ⬎3.2 mm 共1 / 8 in.兲 wide crack requires cosmetic repair and ⬎6.35 mm 共1 / 4 in.兲 wide crack,
determine cause of distress and perform appropriate repair
Stoops ⬎6.35 mm 共1 / 4 in.兲 differential
Stucco Excessive hairline cracks or larger than 1.6 mm 共1/16 in.兲 wide
Drywall Excessive hairline cracks or larger than 1.6 mm 共1/16 in.兲 wide
Bulge or sag in walls and ceilings 9.5 mm 共3/8 in.兲 in 2.4 m 共8 in.兲 is acceptable
Ceiling sag 9.5 mm 共3/8 in.兲 in 2.4 m 共8 in.兲 is acceptable
Flatwork: garage, patio, driveway ⬎2.4 mm 共3 / 32 in.兲 wide cracks,
⬎3.2 mm 共1 / 8 in.兲 vertical differential, replace affected area, and ⬎9.5 mm 共3 / 8 in.兲 wide
control joints
Flatwork: sidewalk ⬎4.8 mm 共3 / 16 in.兲 wide cracks, replace affected area
Pool deck ⬎1.6 mm 共1 / 16 in.兲 wide horizontal and vertical displacements and ⬎3.2 mm 共1 / 8 in.兲 wide
control joint separation
Levelness ⬎6.4 mm 共1 / 4 in.兲 in 3.7 m 共12 in.兲
Concrete spalling Unacceptable
Masonry 艌3.2 mm 共1 / 8 in.兲 wide stair-step crack
Counter top and wall joint Caulk joint not to exceed 3.2 mm 共1/8 in.兲
Tiles Lose or cracked—Unacceptable and
⬎1.6 mm 共1 / 16 in.兲 joint with other material separation

also reported. Furthermore, in 82% of the cases where damage
was observed in houses with desert landscape, poor drainage con-
ditions were reported.
Because the level of damage varied for the residences of this
study, a qualitative judgment of the level of damage was made as
the 50 forensic reports were reviewed. There were only 10 sites
classified as having distress indicative of the requirement for
more than cosmetic repairs 共termed “significant” distress herein兲.
Of the 15 sites characterized as desert landscape, eight properties
were categorized as having significant distress, while two of the
19 homes with lawn landscape had significant distress. While the
sample size is relatively small, it seems clear that site drainage
conditions are important to performance, but landscape scheme
also appears to have an influence on level of damage experienced
in expansive soil regions.
In a follow-on study by Dye 共2008兲, 742 different forensic
investigation locations were obtained through additional surveys
of geotechnical firms. The level of detail was not uniform, and in
many cases only the location of the investigation was known.
However, for 134 additional cases details of soil type, landscape
scheme, and site drainage conditions were available, and there-
fore, these cases were analyzed. Due to more restricted confiden-
tiality agreements with the participating firms, the locations of
these additional forensic cases were not mapped but are discussed
in the section below. The forensic sites were used to identify
landscape, drainage and grading conditions associated with struc-
tural distress and to correlate forensic investigation incidence
with soil type and swell potential index using NRCS soil unit data
and soil properties obtained during the forensic investigation.
The Arizona Registrar of Contractors 共AROC兲 developed ac-
ceptable distortion criteria for residential construction 共Arizona
Registrar of Contractors 2004兲, which are commonly used by
Phoenix-area practitioners. The AROC document provides guid-
ance with respect to unacceptable quality of construction, unac-
ceptable postconstruction deformations due to either settlement or
soil movement within 2 years of homeowner occupancy, and ho-
meowner responsibilities which, among others, include: adjust-
ment of doors and windows, maintaining weather stripping,
interior and exterior caulking, leaks from plumbing fixtures and
cosmetic repair of hairline cracks. The postconstruction perfor-
mance criteria are summarized in Table 1. It was determined that
50% of the 134 study properties under forensic investigation ex-
hibited distress outside of AROC tolerance for homes 2 years old
or newer 共Table 1兲. Therefore, only about half of the properties
considered in the forensic studies had damages that would likely
result in the need for more than simple cosmetic repair. The age
of the properties under forensic investigation varied between 1/2
to 20 years. The AROC criteria apply to residential properties that
are 2 years or newer, but were simply used as a benchmark in the
study.
There was an attempt to separate the properties by landscape
type, however, it was found that only six residences had turf
landscape around the entire structure, and only 19 had desert
landscape around the entire structure. The remainder of the resi-
dences had mixed landscaping. Due to the limited number of
exclusively turf or desert landscape conditions, it was difficult to
draw generalizations on the basis of landscape scheme. It was,
however, determined that about 95% of the properties under fo-
rensic investigation did exhibit poor drainage in the vicinity of the
slab.
The location of forensic investigation incidence was compared
to the existence of expansive soils in Arizona. Because CH soils
are not extremely common in the Phoenix area, the frequency of
forensic investigations associated with CH soils was found to be
only 4% 共i.e., 4% of the 134 homes兲. In general, forensic inves-
tigations occurred most commonly on SC soil profiles 共51%兲,
which are very prevalent in the Phoenix Valley. The second most
common soil type, CL, is associated with 36% of the 134 forensic
investigations. The remainder of the forensic cases identified was
on silty sand 共SM兲 soils, and possibly associated with collapse
rather than expansion and it is, of course, possible that some
distress was at least in part related to nonfoundation soil issues
such as construction defects. However, the writers have included
only those studies identified by geotechnical engineers as having
distress related to expansive soils. Most likely because arid/
semiarid climatic conditions tend to result in larger changes in
water content 共suction兲, the writers and Phoenix Valley geotech-
nical engineers interviewed in this study have found that even

38 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2011

Downloaded 27 Jan 2011 to 149.169.245.15. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org
moderately expansive soils can be associated with distress to resi-
dential structures. In more humid climates, problems with expan-
sive soils may tend to be concentrated in higher PI clays, and may
less frequently include low to medium plasticity soils.
Numerical Modeling Results
Overview
There is a limited amount of high quality field performance data
for structures on expansive soils. Challenges of interpretation of
field data result from variability and difficulties associated with
separation of construction and postconstruction performance mea-
sures 共Walsh 2007兲. These facts combine to create the need for
more insight than can be gained from field performance data and
simple lab tests alone. The field 共empirical兲 approaches were
supplemented with unsaturated flow modeling to develop a
greater understanding of moisture changes within the soil profile
and moisture change driven distress.
Modeling was carried out to determine the degree of saturation
and the horizontal and vertical distances of moisture penetration
for residential construction for typical Arizona environmental and
human-imposed flux boundary conditions. An initial equilibrium
suction value of 1,500 kPa was used, based on direct suction
measurements made beneath residential slabs 共Dye et al. 2008兲.
The analyses presented herein were performed using measured
properties for an Arizona soil with PI of 53 共which is relatively
high expansion potential for the Phoenix area兲. The results of the
analyses were used to better understand the influence of climatic
conditions, initial moisture conditions, drainage, and landscape
scheme on performance of residential structures on expansive
soils. The computer code SVFLUX 5.80 关SVFlux user’s and
theory guide: Version 5 共2005a兲兴 was chosen for the unsaturated
flow modeling of this study. Although both 1D and two-
dimensional 共2D兲 analyses were performed, the majority of the
runs were 1D simulations, with an emphasis on evaluation of
wetting front progression some distance away from the structure.
The reason that 1D simulations dominate the numerical studies is
related to the fact that the writers discovered that the unsaturated
flow solutions were rather sensitive to accurate, detailed, simula-
tion of the surface flux condition. The detailed simulation of sur-
face flux, combined with the highly nonlinear soil property
functions and surface run-off simulations, resulted in the require-
ments of extremely tight mesh size and very small time steps to
achieve stable and convergent solutions. These restrictions on
mesh size and time step resulted in very lengthy run times of
several months, even for 1D analyses 共Dye et al. 2008, 2009; Dye
2008兲.
Soil Properties
The modeling results for one expansive clay 共CH soil兲 are pre-
sented herein. The properties of the clay were obtained experi-
mentally, where SWCC was performed on undisturbed samples
with pressure plate apparatus and filter paper. The unsaturated
hydraulic conductivity 关K共h兲兴 curve was estimated from experi-
mental data for similar soils available through SoilVision 关SVFlux
user’s and theory guide: Version 4 共2005b兲兴. The Leong and
Rahardjo fit with Fredlund and Xing SWCC parameters were
used to estimate the K共h兲 function, matching the slope of the
curve to the slope of the K共h兲 experimental data 共Leong and Ra-
hardjo 1997兲. The basic soil properties are presented in Table 2.
JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2011 / 39
Downloaded 27 Jan 2011 to 149.169.245.15. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org
Table 2. Soil Properties for the Clay Simulated in the Numerical Mod-
eling Study
LL 85
PL 32
PI 53
P200 86
% clay 33
Gs 2.797
␥d 关kN/ m3 共pcf兲兴 13.4 共85兲
Detailed information on the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity
and SWCC curves are reported by Dye 共2008兲.
Surface Flux Conditions Including Landscape
Practices
To obtain a reasonable estimate of the input flux for the models,
landscape professionals and city government employees were sur-
veyed to determine the appropriate as well as the commonly ap-
plied irrigation patterns in the Phoenix Valley. The precipitation
input was determined from analyses of 24 years of precipitation
data from the National Climatic Data Center 共NCDC兲 共2004兲. It
was found that the average annual rainfall is 200 mm 共8 in.兲 while
the potential evaporation is 2.26 m 共89 in.兲. Two extreme flux
conditions were identified for purposes of modeling. They are turf
landscaping, where the lawn is irrigated every day 共corresponding
to approximately twice the levels of irrigation recommended by
professionals兲, and desert or Xeriscape landscaping where a neg-
ligible amount of water is introduced to the soil surface.
Based on information obtained from the landscape profession-
als and government water use agencies, it is approximated that the
turf landscapes are commonly overwatered by two to five times
the recommended amount. Those proving water use data judged
that homeowner’s lack of knowledge about grass needs was the
primary reason for overwatering. Landscapes are typically irri-
gated all year long, every day, where the water is applied once or
twice a day. The once a day option consists of a 15 to 20 min
watering period while the twice a day watering pattern typically
lasts 5 to 10 min per application. This translates to about 2.5
m/year 共97 in./year兲 for the once a day watering scheme used in
the computer modeling, though the water is not evenly distributed
throughout the year as summer watering is greater than winter
watering. The introduction of turf landscape also affects the po-
tential evapotranspiration 共Brown 2000兲. For modeling turf con-
ditions, drainage from the landscaped lot was assumed to be fairly
good, a condition modeled by use of a runoff option in code
SVFLUX.
It is recommended by professionals that a landscape consisting
of low water use plants, also referred to as Xeriscape, be irrigated
once to twice a month. The amount of applied water should
match, and not exceed, plant water needs. Irrigation of Xeriscape
is typically managed with a water drip system. The drip system
must be maintained so as to perform as designed. Irrigation pro-
fessionals interviewed reported that drip systems in Arizona are
often poorly installed with substandard materials, which leads to
the development of leaks. Because the tubing is installed below
ground surface, those leaks are rarely caught in a timely manner.
As a result, in some instances, these systems are found to use
more water than a lawn sprinkler system. The lack of education
about the proper use and maintenance of the drip system and the
Fig. 4. Profile at wettest and driest conditions in Year 6. Dry initial
conditions and desert landscape with well-sloped ground surface, 1D
assumptions.
fact that the amount of water provided to the plants is not easily
observable are believed to be the main causes of water overuse
according to the professional interviewed.
The amount of water typically applied to Xeriscape, however,
is negligible provided leaks are not the source of water, and this
was the assumption made for modeling purposes of desert land-
scape flux conditions. For the purpose of developing a reasonable
input flux, 24-year daily precipitation data and 9-year hourly pre-
cipitation data were obtained from the Phoenix Sky Harbor Air-
port meteorological station 共NCDC 2004兲. For the most part,
rainy days within a month occur close to each other and rainy
hours within a day occur consecutively. Site drainage was as-
sumed to be fairly good for the desert landscape modeling, and
the runoff option in SVFLUX was used to accomplish this con-
dition. However, to evaluate the effect of poor drainage, some
studies were performed wherein roof runoff was allowed to pond
next to the structure.
1D Numerical Modeling for Desert Landscape
Conditions
The impact of desert landscape conditions on changes in soil
moisture 共suction兲 was evaluated for two different initial condi-
tions, referred to here as “dry” and “moist.” The dry initial con-
ditions were assumed to be constant matric head 共⫺153 m兲,
corresponding to an initial soil suction profile of approximately
1,500 kPa, which is consistent with our field measurements in the
Phoenix Valley. The moist initial condition was obtained by nu-
merical simulation of typical turf irrigation patterns, simulating
34 years of irrigation. The “wettest” condition obtained for the
34th year was used as the initial condition for the moist initial
condition analyses.
Dry Initial Conditions
1D desert landscape modeling on an expansive clay soil illustrates
that for dry preconstruction 共initial兲 conditions, properly main-
tained desert landscape and properly maintained grading and
drainage conditions around residential property, moisture content
change is limited to very shallow depths. For 6-year-long analy-
ses, seasonal variations in moisture content extend to approxi-
mately 0.4 m of depth while the depth of wetting due to short-
term precipitation is only about 0.1 m as illustrated in Fig. 4.
40 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2011
Downloaded 27 Jan 2011 to 149.169.245.15. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org
Fig. 5. Profile at wettest and driest conditions for desert landscape
with moist initial conditions; 1 year long analysis, 1D assumptions
Moist Initial Conditions
For moist initial conditions, the suction profile obtained after 34
years of turf landscape analysis was used as the initial condition.
This modeling scenario represents either the existence of turf
landscape for a prolonged period of time followed by change in
landscape scheme, or perhaps abandoned agricultural activity for
residential development using desert landscape. Fig. 5 shows that
a significant increase in matric suction 共drying兲 occurs to a depth
of about 1.5 m from the soil surface after only 1 year of applica-
tion of desert landscape conditions. Drying around the edge of the
slab would result in an edge-drop 共center lift兲 distress pattern.
Surface Ponding near Structure
Commonly, roof runoff is designed to flow into a side yard swale,
which diverts the water into the street and off the property. This
type of drainage system is often used in the Phoenix area in lieu
of a gutter system. Practicing engineers and building profession-
als report that the designed swale drainage system is often modi-
fied by the homeowner who installs sidewalks and planters in the
vicinity of the foundation. This type of lot modification has a
potential of trapping the roof runoff on site and developing areas
of water ponding.
A 1D simulation was performed to assess the impact of pond-
ing of roof runoff for desert landscaped conditions. The amount
of roof runoff was calculated based on an assumed 10 m wide
total roof area, and all of the roof runoff was allowed to infiltrate
next to the structure. Thus the site was assumed to be poorly
graded 共not well-sloped away from the structure兲. The initial con-
ditions were obtained from sixth year of desert landscape analysis
when, based on simulations, the degree and depth of wetting and
drying appeared to reach a pseudoequilibrium for desert land-
scape conditions after 6 years. One year of the roof-runoff pond-
ing situation was simulated. The soil became wetted 共as defined
by the suction reaching 1,000 kPa兲 to a depth of about 1.5 to 2 m,
and essentially saturated in the upper 0.8 m, as shown in Fig. 6.
Depth and degree of wetting would be expected to be somewhat
less for actual field conditions, as discussed in more detail subse-
quently.
1D Numerical Modeling for Turf Landscape Condition
For the turf landscape evaluations, only dry initial conditions
were considered. The dry initial conditions correspond to a con-
stant soil suction profile of 1,500 kPa.
 Fig. 8. Long-term depth to 1,000 kPa and 200 kPa suction for turf
Fig. 6. Profile for 1 year of roof run-off water ponding next to foun- landscape conditions, initially dry, 1D assumptions
dation after 6 years of desert landscape; wettest and driest conditions,
1D assumptions
lation, and this is the believed to be the primary reason why
application of net flux overestimates the depth of wetting in the
profile. The curve representing depth to soil suction of 1,000 kPa
Dry Initial Conditions
shows continued depth of influence with increasing time, even
The expansive clay profile was studied using 1D unsaturated flow
in the first 11 years of surface flux modeling. The difference in
analyses for turf landscape conditions, using the once-a-day wa-
the shape of the depth of influence curves to suction of 200 and
tering scheme for 34 years of simulation. In conducting the 34
1,000 kPa, in the first 11 years of analysis, is likely related to the
year analysis, after 11 years of simulation of very detailed surface
“spreading” of the water within the wetted front which is more
flux 共hourly time steps allowing for infiltration followed by
pronounced with increased distance from the source of wetting.
evaporation/transpiration phases兲, it was observed that the net
The depth of wetting shown in Fig. 8, while relevant for
amount of water entering the profile 共the actual flux entering the
comparative purposes 共i.e., for comparison to 1D simulations for
profile, rather than the applied surface flux兲 became more or less
desert landscape and surface ponded conditions兲, should not be
constant 共Fig. 7兲. Because of the long run times required for these
assumed to be indicative of depth of wetting that would occur
analyses, the average 共net兲 surface flux from the 11th year of
beneath residential structures under normal field conditions, par-
analysis was used as input for the remaining 23 years. The results
ticularly in the qualitative result of continuous increase. Blight
are summarized in Fig. 8 where the depth to soil suction of 1,000
共1965兲 reported that, in field studies, maximum heave was
kPa is presented 共initial suction conditions were assumed to be
achieved after about 4 years, indicating that wetting beneath the
1,500 kPa, so 1,000 kPa represents some wetting兲. Also depicted
building was complete, or essentially complete. Masia et al.
on Fig. 8 is a plot of the depth to soil suction of 200 kPa 共very wet
共2004兲 indicated that only 3 to 5 years would be required for
conditions兲. It is interesting to note that the curve representing
maximum heave to be realized. Foundation Performance Associa-
maximum depth to soil suction of 200 kPa tends to flatten out
tion 共FPA兲 共2005兲 suggests that movements 共and thus by exten-
with time at around Years 8 through 10, but once the average net
sion damaging moisture migration兲 should be completed within
flux is applied, a pattern of monotonic increase with time of the
10 years. Reasons for differences in depth of wetting between 1D
depth to soil suction of 200 kPa is observed. This indicates that
simulations and field conditions relate to the fact that field wetting
flux averaging overestimates the depth of wetting compared to
is not 1D near the structure, and also the fact that these 1D simu-
detailed flux modeling. The depth to 200 kPa curve shows only
lations assume relentless application of turf landscape watering at
the greatest depth that occurs throughout the year, but this depth
a rate that is approximately two times that recommended by land-
fluctuates 共oscillates兲, of course, as wetting/drying cycles occur.
scape professionals. A further factor is the flux averaging tech-
One effect of the flux averaging is that these oscillations of wet-
nique applied after the 11th year of detailed surface flux
ting and drying at the surface do not occur in the numerical simu-
numerical simulation.
The suction profiles for the wettest and driest conditions from
the 11th year of analysis for the clay soil is depicted in Fig. 9,
showing a seasonal fluctuation to about 1-m depth. Seasonal fluc-
tuations cannot be assessed after the first 11 years because of the
surface flux averaging employed.

Comparison of Depth of Wetting for Various

Fig. 7. Turf landscape, depth to 200 and 1,000-kPa suction, average
surface flux per year, initially dry, 1D assumptions
Landscape and Drainage Conditions for 1D Modeling
The results of numerical analyses of unsaturated flow through
clay soils for the turf and desert landscape conditions, as well as
ponding of roof runoff conditions, were compared at the end of 1
year of simulation for cases where the initial condition of the
profile was simulated at a constant suction value of 1,500 kPa.
The depth of wetting was assumed to be the depth at which the

JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2011 / 41

Downloaded 27 Jan 2011 to 149.169.245.15. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org
 Fig. 11. Lateral moisture migration, initially dry, turf landscape, 2D
Fig. 9. Profile at wettest and driest conditions for turf landscape; dry assumptions
initial conditions, 1D assumptions 共Year 11兲

soil suction reduced from its initial value of 1,500 kPa to a value ting and drying was observed to be limited to about 0.10 m from
of 1,000 kPa. The comparisons are shown in Fig. 10. The depth of the edge of the slab. The depth of wetting for the 2D analyses and
wetting for desert landscape is quite minimal. Considering 1 year desert landscape was also very small 共0.1 m兲.
of landscape/drainage pattern, the depth of wetting for the desert Numerical modeling of 2D turf landscape condition was found
landscape combined with ponding of roof runoff results in sub- to be an extremely challenging scenario. Proper modeling, satis-
stantially greater depth of wetting than the heavily irrigated, but fying stability and convergence criteria, during summer months
well-sloped 共drained兲 landscape condition. This conclusion is characterized by extreme variations of soil suction at the soil
consistent with findings from forensic studies which show that in surface required extraordinary computer run times. For this rea-
approximately 95% of the forensic cases poor drainage conditions son, long-term 共6 year兲 analyses were performed using a surface
exist and that the drainage conditions appeared to be more impor- flux consistent with the amount of water infiltrating the soil pro-
tant as a predictor of foundation problems on expansive soils than file 关average absorbed flux 共AAF兲 共or net flux兲兴 or the “compan-
landscape type. Although deeper wetting may occur in response ion” 1D analyses 共e.g., the amount of water entering the 1D
to heavy turf landscape irrigation, wetting from intermittent near- profile for turf landscape and initially dry conditions was used as
surface ponded sources would, in general, tend to be more differ- the surface flux condition for the 2D analysis for turf landscape
ential in nature, likely resulting in greater distress. Additionally, and initially dry conditions兲. The reasonableness of this selection
when heave is deep seated, the differential heave at the ground of applied flux was verified by comparing detailed 2D flux mod-
surface is less than when the “seat” of heave is more shallow eling 共based on hourly stepped flux conditions consistent with
共Walsh et al. 2009b兲. actual watering and climatic patterns兲 to those obtained from the
AAF 2D analyses for a modeling period of 1 year. Additional
details are provided in Dye 共2008兲.
2D Numerical Modeling The comparison was performed on depth of influence, varia-
Both desert and turf landscape conditions were simulated using tion of matric suction with depth, and domain accumulation. A
2D analyses for a period of 1 and 6 years, respectively. For desert comparison of domain moisture accumulation showed expected
landscape conditions the lateral distance of influence due to wet- deviation during the precipitation and irrigation events and a gen-
eral agreement at the end of each month between of hourly flux
共HF兲 and AAF with slightly larger values obtained with the HF
analysis.
0 Fig. 11 illustrates lateral seasonal moisture fluctuation at the
Depth from surface to 1000 kPa suction [m]

soil surface of up to 0.34 m for the 2D turf landscape scenario,

0.5 starting from initially dry conditions. The lateral moisture migra-
tion, presented in Fig. 12, starts to level off at about fifth year of
1 analysis at a horizontal distance of moisture migration of approxi-
mately 1.5 m 共as judged by the suction decreasing to 1,000 kPa
1.5 from the initial 1,500-kPa condition兲. The vertical wetting front
below the foundation edge and 1 m away from the foundation
CH, Desert
2
CH, Desert, Ponding
reaches 2.2 and 2.6 m. respectively, using the criteria of suction of
CH, Turf
1,000 kPa as indicative of some wetting. The 1D results are
2.5 shown in Fig. 12 for comparison. Note that the wetting front in
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 1D analysis reaches 3.3 m at the end of the sixth year. Interest-
Time [day] ingly, the 1D results use HF rather than AAF, indicating that the
lateral migration is a significant component of the overprediction
Fig. 10. Depth to 1,000-kPa suction, initially dry, both desert and in the 1D results. Nonetheless, the 2D results in Fig. 12 would
turf landscape, 1D assumption still be expected to overpredict because they are based on AAF.

42 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2011

Downloaded 27 Jan 2011 to 149.169.245.15. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org
 Horiz. Dist to 1000kPa: 2D Analysis clays. Excessive turf landscape watering results in some moisture
0 Depth to 1000kPa below Edge of Slab: 2D Analysis
Depth to 1000kPa 1-m away from Slab: 2D Analysis
increase to significant depth. Greater depths of influence might be
0.5 Depth to 1000kPa: 1D Analysis experienced with poor drainage conditions. In general, the depth
1 and the degree of wetting 共degree of saturation兲, as well as the
seat of heave, influence the near surface soil movements. So, the
Distance [m]

1.5
depth of wetting is only one factor in projecting damage.
2

2.5
Summary of Key Findings from This Study
3

3.5
Foundations placed on expansive soils are vulnerable to distress.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Based on geotechnical firm interviews, it appears that the Phoe-
Time [year]
nix, practice has moved in the direction of use of the new third
edition PTI method for computation of differential heave and
Fig. 12. Comparison of results from 1D and 2D analyses of moisture
edge moisture variation. Local engineers are also often recom-
migration, initially dry, turf landscape
mending use of PT slabs designed with slab thickness as deter-
mined by the third edition PTI method. It is the writers’ opinion
that there is insufficient data from PT slabs at the time of writing
Conclusions from Numerical Models and Comparison to judge whether PT slabs will perform differently than conven-
to Forensic Study Findings tional slabs. Conventional reinforced concrete slabs dominated
the forensic database of this particular study due to past extensive
The objective of 1D modeling was to determine the depth of
use of this foundation system and only fairly recent use of PT
suction variation 共wetting and drying兲, at equilibrium or pseu-
slabs.
doequilibrium condition, for desert and turf landscapes at some
Based on the surveys and interviews on current practice, dis-
distance away from the structure. The analysis revealed that for
cussions with many local professional groups on residential home
desert landscape and a well-drained site the seasonal suction
performance, and the findings from the forensic studies, it appears
variation 共wetting or drying兲 is limited to about 0.5-m depth
that generally good performance has been realized with current
below the soil surface; however, the depth of influence of wetting
and past approaches, which were, to a large extent, based on
共i.e., reduced suction兲 that would result in swell/edge lift is only
geotechnical design parameters obtained from the less conserva-
about 0.1 m. It is concluded that the depth of influence of surface
tive second edition PTI method, and for conventionally designed
flux 共precipitation and evaporation兲 is quite shallow for desert
concrete foundation systems. However, there are still some prob-
landscape, provided the drainage conditions at the site are good
lems, and cases of litigation, surrounding expansive soil issues.
and recommended desert irrigation practices are followed 共i.e.,
When problems arise with expansive soil profiles, the sources of
negligible additional water is added to the site over and above
problems include poor drainage, construction problems, home-
normal precipitation兲. In arid and semiarid regions, actual evapo-
owner activity, and landscape scheme—and most likely some
ration will exceed rainfall. Reasonable landscaping will add some
combination of two or more of these sources. The findings of this
to the soil moisture state, but at a degree of wetting that is well
study imply that current methods of dealing with expansive soils
below saturation. The high soil storage capacity helps keep water
are good, but somewhat higher reliability may be desirable. The
from going to greater depths.
solution is to develop a greater understanding of the factors af-
The same conclusion cannot be drawn for the desert landscape
fecting performance and to improve understanding of input pa-
scheme if the initial conditions are representative of previously
rameters required for design.
irrigated surface conditions 共perhaps even including past agricul-
The updated map of expansive soils in the Phoenix region
tural irrigation兲. In this scenario, moisture loss with depth is the
indicates greater presence of potentially expansive soils compared
governing mechanism. The suction 共moisture content兲 changes
to the most current NRCS map of the Phoenix region. The corre-
could result in soil volume change from shrinkage and slab move-
lation between highly expansive soil regions on the updated map
ment should be anticipated.
with locations of forensic investigations is remarkable. This map
The influence of wetting is quite different when desert land-
can be continually updated as new information becomes avail-
scape is combined with poor site drainage. When roof runoff was
able. Further, maps such as that produced for the Phoenix region
allowed to concentrate at the soil surface after a rainfall event, the
can be developed for other areas using the same methods em-
depth of wetting became quite significant. The effect of poor
ployed in this study.
drainage and roof runoff water ponding near the structure is the
The findings from the unsaturated flow modeling are consis-
worst case scenario, resulting in high degree of saturation to a
tent with the findings from the forensic investigations of this
depth of 0.8 m in the expansive clay for only 1 year of simulation.
study in that site drainage were found to be extremely important
It is concluded that uncontrolled drainage and water ponding near
to good foundation performance. The use of unsaturated soil
the foundation lead to significant suction reduction to great depths
theory and associated numerical modeling can be quite helpful
which could result in differential soil swell and slab movement.
in understanding the often complex conditions of wetting and
This finding is consistent with soil/slab system behavior reported
drying surrounding forensic investigations for residential struc-
by practicing engineers 共edge lift兲 and also with poor drainage
tures founded on expansive soils.
reported on 95% of the forensic cases available.
The turf landscape analyses were completed for 1D conditions
to assess the depth of suction variation resulting from typical References
Phoenix-area lawn watering practices and for assumptions of
good site drainage. For these analyses the seasonal suction varia- ASTM. 共2006a兲. “Standard test method for laboratory compaction char-
tion occurred to a depth of approximately 1 m for expansive acteristics of soils using standard effort 600 kNm/ m3.” Annual book

JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2011 / 43

Downloaded 27 Jan 2011 to 149.169.245.15. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org
 of ASTM standards: D698-00, Vol. 4.08, ASTM, West Conshohocken,
Pa., 81–91.
ASTM. 共2006b兲. “Standard test method for expansion index of soils.”
Annual book of ASTM standards: D4829-03, Vol. 4.08, ASTM, West
Conshohocken, Pa., 900–903.
Arizona Registrar of Contractors. 共2004兲. “Workmanship standards for
licensed contractors.” 具http://www.azroc.gov/典 共May 4, 2007兲.
Blight, G. E. 共1965兲. “The time-rate of heave of structures on expansive
clay.” Moisture equilibria and moisture changes in soils beneath cov-
ered areas, Butterworths, Sydney, 78–88.
Bratton, W. 共1991兲. “Parameters for predicting shrink/heave beneath slab-
on-grade foundations over expansive clay.” Ph.D. dissertation, Texas
Tech. Univ., Lubbock, Tex.
Brown, P. 共2000兲. “Basics of evaporation and evapotranspiration.” Turf
irrigation management series no. 1, University of Arizona Coopera-
tive Extension, Tucson.
Dye, H. B. 共2008兲. “Moisture movement through expansive soil and im-
pact on performance of residential structures.” Ph.D. dissertation, Ari-
zona State Univ., Tempe, Ariz.
Dye, H. B., Houston, S. L., and Houston, W. N. 共2008兲. “Surface flux
boundary simplifications for flow through clay under landscaped con-
ditions.” Proc., 1st European Conf. on Unsaturated Soils: E-Unsat.,
Unsaturated Soils: Advances in Geo-Engineering, D. G. Toll, C. E.
Augarde, D. Gallipoli, and S. J. Wheeler, eds., CRC, Boca Raton,
Fla., Balkema, Rotterdam, 805–810.
Dye, H. B., Houston, S. L., and Welfert, B. D. 共2009兲. “Influence of
unsaturated soil properties uncertainty on moisture flow modeling.”
Geotech. Geologic. Eng., to be published.
Fityus, S., Smith, D., and Allman, M. 共2004兲. “Expansive soil test site
near Newcastle.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 130共7兲, 686–695.
Foundation Performance Association 共FPA兲. 共2005兲. “Homebuyers’ guide
for foundation evaluation.” FPA-SC-06-0, FPA, Houston, Tex., 具www.
foundationperformance.org/Projects/FPA-SC-06-0.pdf典 共July 5, 2006兲.
Fredlund, D. G., and Rahardjo, H. 共1993兲. Soil mechanics for unsaturated
soils, Wiley, New York.
Holland, J. E., and Richards, J. 共1984兲. “The Practical design of founda-
tions for light structures on expansive clays.” Proc., 5th Int. Conf. on
Expansive Soils, ACT: Institution of Engineers, Australia.
Homebuilders Association of Central Arizona 共HBACA兲. 共2006兲. “A
study of the performance of slab on grade residential foundations on
expansive soils in Arizona.” Rep., Arizona State Univ., Dept. of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, Phoenix.
Leong, E. C., and Rahardjo, H. 共1997兲. “Permeability functions for un-
saturated soils.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 123共12兲, 1118–1126.
Lytton, R. 共1994兲. “Prediction of movement of expansive clay: Proc. of
vertical and horizontal deformation of foundations and embank-
ments.” Geotech. Spec. Publ., 2, 1827–1845.
44 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2011
View publication stats Downloaded 27 Jan 2011 to 149.169.245.15. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visithttp://www.ascelibrary.org
Masia, M. J., Totoev, Y. Z., and Kleeman, P. W. 共2004兲. “Modeling ex-
pansive soil movements beneath structures.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 130共6兲, 572–579.
National Climatic Data Center 共NCDC兲. 共2004兲. Climatic data, 具http://
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html典 共Sept. 12, 2004兲.
Natural Resources Conservation Service 共NRCS兲. 共2002兲. “Soil shrink/
swell potential map.” 具http://www.az.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/soils/
phoenixmap.html典 共Aug. 6, 2005兲.
Nelson, J., and Miller, D. 共1992兲. Expansive soils—Problems and prac-
tice in foundation and pavement engineering, Wiley, New York.
Post-Tensioning Institute 共PTI兲. 共1996兲. Design and construction of
post-tensioned slabs-on-ground, 2nd Ed., Post-Tensioning Institute,
Phoenix.
Post-Tensioning Institute 共PTI兲. 共2004兲. Design and construction of
post-tensioned slabs-on-ground, 3rd Ed., Post-Tensioning Institute,
Phoenix.
Sattler, P. J., and Fredlund, D. G. 共1991兲. “Numerical modeling of vertical
ground movements in expansive soils.” Can. Geotech. J., 28共2兲, 189–
199.
SVFlux user’s and theory guide: Version 5. 共2005a兲. Soil Vision Systems
共SVS兲 Ltd., Saskatoon.
SVFlux user’s and theory guide: Version 4. 共2005b兲. Soil Vision Systems
共SVS兲 Ltd., Saskatoon.
Walsh, K. D. 共2007兲. “Performance of methods for analysis of relative
floor elevation measurements in residential structures.” J. Perform.
Constr. Facil., 21共5兲, 329–336.
Walsh, K. D., Colby, C. A., Houston, W. N., and Houston, S. L. 共2009a兲
“Method for evaluation of depth of wetting in residential areas.”
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 135共2兲, 169–176.
Walsh, K. D., Houston, S. L., Houston, W. N., and Harraz, A. M. 共2009b兲.
“Finite element evaluation of deep-seated swell.” Proc., 4th Asia-
Pacific Conf. on Unsaturated Soils, Newcastle, Australia.
Walsh, K., Houston, W., and Houston, S. 共1993兲. “Evaluation of in-place
wetting using soil suction measurements.” J. Geotech. Engrg. Div.,
119共5兲, 862–873.
Wray, W. K. 共1997兲. “Using soil suction to estimate differential soil
shrinkage or heave: Unsaturated soils engineering practice.” Geotech.
Spec. Publ., 68, 66–87.
Yoshida, R. T., Fredlund, D. G., and Hamilton, J. J. 共1983兲. “The predic-
tion of total heave of a slab-on-grade floor on Regina clay.” Can.
Geotech. J., 20共1兲, 69–81.
Zapata, C. E., Houston, S. L., Houston, W. N., and Dye, H. B. 共2006兲.
“Expansion index and its relationship with other index properties.”
Proc., 4th Int. Conf. on Unsaturated Soils (GPS 147), G. A. Miller, C.
E. Zapata, S. L. Houston, and D. G. Fredlund, eds., ASCE/GEO In-
stitute, Reston, Va., 2133–2137.