Effect of Sea Water on Expansive Soils

Dr. P. D. Arumairaj
Associate professor and Head,
Geotechnical Engineering Division,
Department of Civil Engineering,
Government College of Technology, Coimbatore

A. Sivajothi
M.E. Geotechnical Engineering,
Department of Civil Engineering,
Government College of Technology, Coimbatore
e-mail: nanisivajothi@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
In this work, the effect of sea water on various properties of expansive soils were studied and
is compared with the same found using tap water from soil mechanics laboratory of GCT
which is used as control sample. The sea water for the study is collected from Bay of Bengal
sea and the soil sample is collected from Government College of Technology, Coimbatore.
Based on consistency indices and free swell the soil falls under highly expansive soil
category. Test results showed significant improvements upon the use of sea water. The
plasticity index reduced from 11.90 for control sample to 7.66 for sea water. The free swell
value reduced from 72.5% for control sample to 40% for sea water. The swell pressure
decreased from 7.5 T/m2 for control sample to 7.06 T/m2 for sea water. The co-efficient of
consolidation has increased by about 40% for sea water when compared to control sample.
The unsoaked CBR value increased from 10.25% for control sample to 11.13% for sea water.
The optimum moisture content increased from 14.25% for control sample to 16.5% for sea
water, also a light decrease in maximum dry density is observed for sea water when compared
to control sample. Initially there is a decrease in the unconfined compressive strength. But the
unconfined compressive strength remained almost the same for both control sample and the
sea water after a reaction time of 2 days.
KEYWORDS: Expansive Soils, Sea Water, Plasticity Index, Free Swell, Swell
Pressure, Unconfined Compressive Strength, California Bearing Ratio

INTRODUCTION
Expansive soils, with high swell and shrink behavior prove to be challenging for construction
and pavement activities. Expansive soils will heave and cause lifting of building or other
structures during high moisture variations and they suffer shrinkage and can result in building
settlement during dry spells. They also exert pressure on the vertical face of the foundations,
basements and retaining walls resulting in lateral movements. Apart from its effects on building
constructions and foundations, they have severe impact on roads, ground anchors, underground
pipelines and other buried structures.

- 425 -
 Vol. 15 [2011], Bund. J 426

Expansive soils cover almost 20% of India’s land cover and about 8% of the world’s land
cover. Hence, they cannot be simply ignored of construction and pavement activities because of
their problematic nature. There are several methods available for improving the characteristics of
expansive soil. But an efficient and cost effective method with minimum time is always the most
welcome.
Previous researches on improvement of expansive soils have come out with numerous fruitful
solutions including chemical stabilization techniques and deep foundation techniques. The most
significant among them being the lime stabilization. The basic concept behind chemical
stabilization for expansive soil is that, expansion occurs because of absorption water molecules in
the diffuse double layer through three possible mechanisms, the stabilization works on the
concept of introducing cation of high valence than that of water, which gets attracted to the clay
minerals and brings clay minerals closer together. In this study, an attempt is made to study the
sea water as an effective chemical stabilizer in expansive soils.

METHODOLOGY
The methodology comprises of collection of soil and sea water samples from the desired
locations. The tap water from the soil mechanics lab is used as control water sample. The
collected soil and water samples are subjected to laboratory investigations to find their physical
properties. All the tests were conducted as per IS codes. Then the experimental investigation part
of finding out the various engineering properties is carried out using both control water sample
and sea water sample. Then the results found were compared to analyze the changes that sea
water has imparted on the properties of expansive soil. The location from which the soil and
water samples are collected given in Table 1.

Table 1: Location of Sample Collected

Sample Latitude Longitude Altitude Place
Soil 11°1’1.91’’N 76°56’2.31’’E 432m above msl Coimbatore
water 10°2’17.47’’N 79°.16’0.51’’E 2m above msl Pudukkottai

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY
The experimental study involves the study of effect of sea water on the various properties of
soil namely free swell, Atterberg limits, compaction, consolidation, swell pressure, strength, and
California bearing ratio. Consolidation, swell pressure, strength and California bearing ratio are
performed using samples prepared at optimum moisture content.

Properties of Soil Sample

The basic properties of the soil sample collected, from various laboratory and field tests are
summarized in Table 2 and the particle size distribution is shown in Figure 1.
Vol. 15 [2011], Bund. J 427

Table 2: Properties of Soil Sample

Property Results
Natural moisture content 8.75
Specific gravity 2.63
% of gravel 0
% of sand 35.1
% of silt 27.9
% of clay 37
Liquid limit 56,90 %
Plastic limit 24.03 %
Shrinkage limit 11.90 %
pH 7.95
Organic content 7.28 %
Free swell 72.5 %
In-situ density 1.87 g/cc

Figure 1: Grain Size Distribution

 Vol. 15 [2011], Bund. J 428

Characteristics Of Water Samples

The ionic concentrations and salt species of the control sample and the sea water found out
through laboratory investigations are given in Table 3 and Table 4 respectively

Table 3: Ionic Concentration of Water Samples

Mineral content Tap water Sea water
Calcium 0.56 (meq/L) 12.56 (meq/L)
Magnesium 0.39 (meq/L) 118.70 (meq/L)
Sodium 0.18 (meq/L) 443.50 (meq/L)
Potassium 0.10 (meq/L) 9.15 (meq/L)
Carbonate 0.80 (meq/L) 0.80 (meq/L)
Bicarbonate 0.80 (meq/L) 1.20 (meq/L)
Chloride 1.04 (meq/L) 565.30 (meq/L)
Sulphate No traces No traces

Table 4: Various Salt Species Present in Sea Water

Salt species Tap water Sea water
Sodium carbonate No traces No traces
Sodium bicarbonate 0.18 0.18
Sodium chloride 26.90 436.04
Sodium sulphate No traces No traces
Calcium carbonate 0.56 0.80
Calcium bicarbonate 0.40 1.20
Calcium chloride No traces No traces
Calcium sulphate No traces No traces
Magnesium carbonate 0.24 0.24
Magnesium bicarbonate 0.15 0.15
Magnesium chloride 10.70 118.70
Magnesium sulphate No traces No traces
Potassium carbonate No traces No traces
Potassium bicarbonate 0.10 0.10
Potassium chloride No traces No traces
Potassium sulphate No traces No traces
 Vol. 15 [2011], Bund. J 429

Free Swell Index

The free swell index is obtained by conducting Free Swell Index Test as per IS 2720 (Part
XL)-1980 but using sea water. The free swell index obtained for control sample is 72.5 % and
that foe sea water is 40%. A comparison plot of free swell in sea water and tap water is shown in
Figure 2.

COMPARISION OF FREE SWELL

80 72.5%
70
60
SWELL %

50
40%
40
30
20
10
0
normal water sea water

Figure 2: Comparison of Free Swell

Atterberg Limits

The tests were conducted using sea water instead of normal water and the values of plastic
lim it, liquid limit and shrinkage limit are found to be 37.8, 8.85 and 7.76% respectively. The
liquid limit graph is shown in Figure 3.

Table 5: comparison of indices

Parameter Control Sample Sea Water

Liquid limit 56.9 37.8
Plastic limit 24.03 8.85
Shrinkage limit 11.90 7.66
Plasticity index 32.87 28.95
Liquidity index -.42 -.01
Consistency index 1.31 1.01
 Vol. 15 [2011], Bund. J 430

Standard Proctor Compaction Test

The optimum water content and maximum dry density for control sample and sea water
sample are obtained from Standard Proctor Test. The procedure is followed as per IS: 2720 (Part
7) – 1980.The test is performed thrice and the average value is taken as the OMC and maximum
dry density. A graph of one trial and the values obtained from standard proctor test are given in
Figure 4, Figure 5 and table 6 respectively.

2 14,
1.8 1.766618446
dry unit weight in g/cc

1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20
water content in %

Figure 3: Optimum Moisture Content Graph Using Tap Water

2 16.85, 1.74
1.8
dry density in g/cc

1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
water content in %

Figure 4: Optimum Moisture Content Graph Using Sea Water

 Vol. 15 [2011], Bund. J 431

Table 6: Results of Standard Proctor Test

Parameter OMC Dry density
Tap water 14.25 % 1.83 g/cc
Sea water 16.5 % 1.74 g/cc

Unconfined Compression Test

The Unconfined Compressive Strength and cohesive strength are obtained from
Unconfined Compression test. The test was conducted as per IS 2720 (Part 10): 1991. At first, the
tests were conducted immediately for control sample and sea water. Then a reaction time of 2
days is allowed for the sea water sample for the salts of sea water to react with the expansive soil,
meanwhile a control sample is also left for two days and tested to study the drying effect. The
tests were conducted on at least four samples and the average is value is considered as the
Unconfined Compressive Strength and the Cohesive Strength. Sample graphs and results obtained
from test are presented in Figure 6, 7, 8, 9 and table 6 respectively.

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH
0.4
0.338267898
0.35
STRESS()N/mm2)

0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
STRAIN(mm)

Figure 5: Ucc Test Results With Normal Water

Vol. 15 [2011], Bund. J 432

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH
0.25
0.204843081
0.2
STRESS IN N/mm2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
STRAIN

Figure 6: Ucc Test Results With Sea Water

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH
1.2
1.031362264
1
STRESS IN N/mm2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
STRAIN

Figure 7: Ucc Test Results With Control Sample After 2 Days Reaction Time
 Vol. 15 [2011], Bund. J 433

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH
1.2
1.051712358
1
STRESS IN N/mm2

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
STRAIN

Figure 8: Ucc Test Results With Sea Water After 2 Days Reaction Time

Table 7: UCC Test Results

Parameter UCC STRENGTH COHESIVE
(T/M2) STRENGTH(T/M2)
Tap water 31.61 15.81
Sea water 21.48 10.74
Normal water @ 2 days 95.92 47.96
reaction time
Sea water @ 2 days 97.45 48.73
reaction time

Swell Pressure Test

The swell pressure exerted by the expansive soil can be obtained from swell pressure test.
The test is performed as per IS: 2720 PART (XLI) – 1977, reaffirmed 1997. There are two
methods available to calculate the swell pressure that is consolidometer method and constant
volume method. The latter is adopted here. The values obtained from swell pressure test are
presented in table 6.3.
 Vol. 15 [2011], Bund. J 434

10
9

swell pressure in T/m2

8 7.46
7.08
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
SEA WATER TAP WATER

Figure 9: Comparison of Swell Pressure

Consolidation Test
The consolidation test was performed using odeometer apparatus for both control sample
and sea water. The co-efficient on consolidation for control sample is 0.002 and that for sea water
sample is 0.0028. The graph plot between time and dial reading are shown in figure 11 and 12.

Sample treated with Normal water

1.196
1.194
dial reading (mm)

1.192
1.19
1.188
1.186
1.184
1.182
1.18
1.178
0 10 20 30 40
√t (min)

Figure 10: Co-Efficient Of Consolidation for control sample

 Vol. 15 [2011], Bund. J 435

Sample treated with sea water

1.065
1.06
dial reading (mm)

1.055
1.05
1.045
1.04
1.035
1.03
0 10 20 30 40
√t (min)

Figure 11: Co-Efficient Of Consolidation with sea water

California Bearing Ratio Test

The California bearing ratio value is obtained from laboratory CBR test for both control
sample and sea water. The test is performed as per IS: 2720 (PART 16) - 1987. The results
obtained from CBR value are presented in Figures 12, 13 and 14.

UNSOAKED CBR
300

250

200
load in kg

150

100

50

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
penetration in mm

Figure 12: Unsoaked CBR Using Tap Water

Vol. 15 [2011], Bund. J 436

UNSOAKED CBR USING SEA WATER

300

250

200
load in kg

150

100

50

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
penetration in mm

Figure 13: Unsoaked CBR Using Tap Water

C0MPARISION OF UNSOAKED CBR

VALUES
12.00% 11.13%
10.29%
10.00%
8.80%
8.26%
8.00%
CBR IN %

6.00%

4.00%

2.00%

0.00%
2.5mm 5mm

Figure14: Comparison Of Unsoaked CBR Values For Sea And Tapwater

 Vol. 15 [2011], Bund. J 437

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The physical properties of the sample are listed in table 2. The various minerals and salts
present in water samples are listed in table 3 and 4 respectively. The result shows that the sea
water contains the cations such as Al3+, Mg2+, Na+ and K+ in large quantities which are very
meager in control sample. These ions undergo cation exchange with the ions in the double layer
of the clay mineral and bring about various changes.
The liquid limit value of 56.9 for control sample drops to 37.8 for sea water. This indicates
that the particle size has increased (after White 1949), which can be explained as follows. When
sea water in added to the clay soil, the free ion such as Al3+, Na+, Mg2+ and K+ present in the sea
water replaces the cations of the hydrous layer surrounding the clay particles and reduces the net
electrical charge. This allows the sheets to come closer forming flocs.
As clay particles flocculates, transforms natural plate like clays particles into needle like
interlocking metalline structures, Making the Clay soils drier and less susceptible to water content
changes (Roger et al, 1993).The flocs behave as silt particles which is least plastic. That is why a
reduction in plastic limit, from 24.03 to 8.85 has occurred (after white, 1949), Resulting in a
reduction in the Plastic limit (33-28).
The optimum moisture content has increased from 14.25% for control sample to 16.5% for
sea water treated sample and the maximum dry density has decreased from 1.83 g/cc for control
sample to 1.74 g/cc for sea water treated sample. This conforms that stabilization has taken place
(Stabilized mixture has lower maximum dry density than that of unstabilized soil for a given
degree of compaction. The optimum moisture content increases with increasing binders – after
Sherwood, 1993)
The unconfined compressive strength remained almost same for both control sample and sea
water treated sample with a reaction time of two days for the sea water treated sample. This is
because of the absence of or very small pozzalonic reaction. The pozzolonic reaction usually
occurs in lime stabilization due to presence of calcium and is responsible for the strength
improvement in that case. Sea water contains very meager amount of Ca2+ which is insufficient
for the pozzolonic reaction to take place.
The swell pressure has decreased from 7.5t/m2 for control sample to 7.1t/m2 for sea water
treated sample; co-efficient of consolidation has increased from 0.002 for control sample to
0.0028 for sea water treated sample; the California bearing ratio has increased from 10.29% for
control sample to 11.13% for sea water treated samples. This can be contributed to increased size
of the clay minerals (silt like behavior due to flocculation).

CONCLUSION
Treatment with sea water causes reduction in liquid limit, plastic limit and plasticity index of
the clay minerals. Treatment with sea water increases the particle size of the clay minerals. The
optimum moisture content of the clay mineral increases when treated with sea water. No
pozzalonic reaction takes place in clay sample upon treatment with sea water. Sea water causes
reduction in free swell index and swell pressure of clay mineral. The co-efficient of consolidation
increases upon treatment with sea water. The California bearing ratio also increases upon
treatment with sea water.
Vol. 15 [2011], Bund. J 438

REFERENCES
1. Bassam Z. Mahasneh, “Dead Sea Water as a Soil Improvement Agent” Electronic Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol 09-1, 2004, ppr 0401.

2. Kirov Borislav.L and N.N. Truc, “A study on the relationship between geotechnical
properties and clay mineral composition of Hanoi soft soils in saline media ”International
Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol 10, June 2012,ppr 2.

3. Imad H. Alainachi and Ghada A. Alobaidy, “The Effects of Basra Gulf Salt Water on the
Proctor Compaction and CBR Test Results of Soil Samples at Baniyas City,Abu Dhabi,
UAE”,Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol 14, 2009, pp.001.

4. Nader Shariatmadari, Marzieh Salami and Mehran Karimpour Fard, “Effect of inorganic
salt solutions on some geotechnical properties of soil-bentonite mixtures as barriers”,
International Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol 9, June 2011, pp.02.

5. Rassoul Ajalloeian, Hadiseh Mansouriand Amir Hossein Sadeghpour, “Effect of Saline

Water on Geotechnical Properties of Fine-grained Soil”, Electronic Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, Vol 18, 2013, ppr g-14.

6. S .A. Naeini and M. A. Jahanfar,“Effect of Salt Solution and Plasticity Index on

undrained Shear Strength of Clays”, World Academy of Science, Engineering and
Technology. Vol 49, 2011, ppr 1.

7. M. Chittaranjan, T. Srikanth, B. Yamini Lakshmi & D. Pavani,“Effect of sea water on

some geo technical properties of clayey soil”, International Journal of Earth Sciences and
Engineering, Vol 04, oct 2011, ppr 161-164

8. Yeliz Yukselen-Aksoy a, Abidin Kaya b, and Ali Hakan Ören, “Seawater effect on
consistency limits and compressibility characteristics of clays”, Elsevier, Engineering
Geology, Vol 102, 2008, pp. 54-61

09. Sanjeev Kumar (2001) “Geotechnical Properties of Fly Ash and Lime-Fly Ash Stabilized
Coal Mine Refuse”. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol.7.

10. Lambe, T. W. “Stabilization of soils with calcium acrylate”, J. Boston Soc. Civil Eng.,
April (1951).

© 2014, EJGE