Civil Engineering and Architecture 8(4): 721-733, 2020 http://www.hrpub.

org
DOI: 10.13189/cea.2020.080434

Swelling Stress and Suction Correlation of Compacted,

Heaving Soils
Armand A. Fondjo1, Thywill C. Dzogbewu2,*

1
Department of Civil Engineering, Central University of Technology, Free State, South Africa
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Central University of Technology, Free State, South Africa

Received Februry 20, 2020; Revised March 20, 2020; Accepted May 31, 2020

Copyright©2020 by authors, all rights reserved. Authors agree that this article remains permanently open access under
the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 International License

Abstract The behaviour of unsaturated soils is mainly algebraic relation between the constituent’s elements of
influenced by suction. When unsaturated soils display the total suction. Zhang and Lu (2018) investigated the
swelling properties, it becomes fundamental to investigate unitary characterisation of the matric suction or negative
the impact of soil suction on the swelling stress. A survey potential as the free energy variation in a water unit
was done across Free State province in South Africa and volume state to the free water state. Matric suction is
samples were obtained from Bloemfontein, Winburg, and observed as the key parameter determining unsaturated
Welkom. Geotechnical studies were performed on particle soils behaviour. It is the difference in pressure between
size definition, free swell ratio, free swell index, Atterberg the pore air, designated by (ua ) and the pore water,
limits, X-ray diffraction, proctor compaction test, soil designated by (uw ) as given in Eq.(2).
suction measurement, and constant volume swelling tests 𝜓𝑡 = 𝜓𝑚 + 𝜓0 (1)
to determine the physical and hydro-mechanical properties
𝜓𝑚 = 𝑢𝑎 − 𝑢𝑤 (2)
of the soil samples. According to the findings, at the
optimum water content, the swelling stress values are in Swelling stress is the force required to maintain the
the range of 177 kPa to 326 kPa which is more than the initial volume when the specimen is subjected to an
bearing limit (~ 40 kPa) applied for most lightweight increment in moisture. The swelling stress can develop
footing. Smectite is identified as the predominant clay significant uplift forces detrimental to the stability of
mineral in the study areas and has a key influence on the foundations. In this study, the correlation between
swelling properties. A solid relation is observed between swelling stress and the soil suctions of compacted heaving
soils have been investigated at the optimum water content.
the swelling stress and the soil suctions, with a correlation
coefficient value greater than 80 %. The geotechnical index properties and the mineralogy of
soil samples are determined. The correlations between the
Keywords Swelling Stress, Suction, Compaction, swelling properties and the soil suction, as well as the
Heaving Soil, X-ray Diffraction, Optimum Water Content initial water content and dry unit weight, were
investigated.
Studies relating to the relationship between swelling
stress and suction are reported in the literature. The
hydro-mechanical properties of heaving soil have been
1. Introduction and Background analyzed by estimating the swelling stress, soil suction
Heaving soils, predominantly clay exhibits huge and other related factors by some researchers (Basma et
volume changes as a result of soil water variation. al., 1995; Komine and Ogata, 1994). It is generally
Foundations built on these soils are exposed to uplift reported that the swelling stress does not depend on the
forces induced by swelling stress that can cause cracks, initial water content but instead on the void ratio. Besides,
and break up both slabs and building foundations. The the swelling stress increases with the increment of initial
behaviour of heaving soils is mainly influenced by suction, dry density and diminishes as the initial water content
which is a free energy state of water inside the soil increases. Nevertheless, this conclusion does not concord
(Edlefsen and Anderson, 1943). The total suction is with the results of Sridharan et al., (1986) who state that
formed by the matric suction, represented by (ψm ) and swelling stress decreases upon an increment of initial dry
the osmotic suction, designated by (ψ0 ). Eq.(1) gives the unit weight. If the swelling stress depends on the void
722 Swelling Stress and Suction Correlation of Compacted, Heaving Soils

ratio it cannot be dissociated from the initial water content diametrically opposed to the outcomes of the study
and the degree of saturation because the voids within conducted by Kandemir et al., (1997) who stated that there
unsaturated soils are partially occupied by air and/or is no satisfactory relationship between the initial soil
water. suction and the swelling stress to propose a simple
Kandemir et al., (1997) attempted to predict the regression equation to predict the swelling stress from
swelling stress from matric suction estimation. Bentonite initial suction estimation.
-Kaolinite clay mixtures are set up to have soils within the The relation between swelling stress and suction of
range of high plasticity indices. Matric suction is compacted heaving soil cannot be dissociated with the
measured utilizing thermocouple psychrometer procedure impact of dry unit weight and water content on swelling
and zero swelling tests are performed on compacted stress. Villar and Lloret (2008) reported that the swelling
specimens. A linear correlation is found between stress increases exponentially with an increase in dry unit
logarithmic matric suction and swelling stress. A weight. However, the study conducted by Fondjo (2018)
satisfactory relation between the initial matric suction and on the relationship between the swelling stress and the dry
the swelling stress does not exist to propose a simple unit weight of compacted specimens at the optimum water
regression equation to predict the swelling stress from content revealed that the swelling stress reduces
matric suction estimation. The experimental results of exponentially upon an increment of dry unit weight. This
Kandemir et al., (1997) revealed that the dry unit weight can be justified by the fact that the swelling stress
influences the relation between swelling stress and the obtained upon water addition on specimens with smaller
suction, the swelling stress magnitude increases with the initial water content is higher compared to the swelling
increment of the dry unit weight. stress obtained on specimens with higher initial water
Attom and Barakat (2000) proposed numerical models content.
to predict swelling stress. These numerical models Basma et al., (1995); Komine and Ogata (1994) studied
demonstrated that the swelling stress is inversely the impact of the initial water content on swelling stress.
proportional to the initial water content and directly Their results reveal that there is no correlation between
proportional to the dry unit weight. The results concord the swelling stress and the initial water content. These
with the outcomes of the investigation conducted by results are not in agreement with the outcomes of the
Basma et al., (1995); Komine and Ogata (1994); and Rank studies conducted by Rank et al., (2018); Cantillo et al.,
et al., (2018) on the swelling potential of heaving soil. (2017) and Fondjo (2018) on the correlation swelling
These results are not in alignment with the study stress and the initial water content of heaving soils, which
conducted by Sridharan et al., (1986). This can be revealed that the initial water content influences the
explained by the fact that the study conducted by swelling stress; as the initial water content increases, the
Sridharan et al., (1986) is performed on compacted swelling stress increases. Fondjo (2018) reported that at
specimens at the optimum water content. Moreover, the the optimum water content the swelling stress instead
swelling stress obtained upon water addition from the decreases with the increment of water content because the
specimens with smaller initial water content is higher maximum air void has been reduced within the soil
compared to the swelling stress obtained from the particles and the dry unit weight can no longer be
specimens with higher initial water content. enhanced by water addition. Therefore, the initial water
Thakur and Singh (2005) studied the correlation content cannot be dissociated from the swelling stress.
between swelling stress and suction in clay minerals, Agus et al., (2013) investigated the correlation between
sodium montmorillonite, and calcium montmorillonite. the swelling stress and the suction of compacted
The suction is measured using a Dew-point potentiometer bentonite-sand blends. A series of swelling stress tests
(WP4). One dimensional expanding stress and free were conducted utilizing constant-volume techniques
swelling test are conducted to develop the correlation where the initial suction decreased toward zero. The
between the swelling stress and the suction. It is observed outcomes revealed that the swelling stress increases with
that swelling stress within calcium montmorillonite is the reduction of suction values. The maximum swelling
higher than sodium montmorillonite, suction within stress is found to be a function of dry unit weight whereas
calcium montmorillonite is lower than sodium the threshold suction is found to be a function of bentonite
montmorillonite and swelling stress increases upon an content. These results are not in line with the
increment of suction. Therefore, soil mineralogy influences investigations conducted by Kandemir et al., (1997) and
the relation between swelling stress and suction. Erzin and Thakur and Singh (2005) on the correlation between
Erol (2007) attempted to describe the swelling stress and swelling stress and the suction, which revealed that the
suction relationship using compacted samples. A linear swelling stress increases with the increment of suction.
relationship is built up between the logarithmic suction and However, the impact of the dry unit weight on the swelling
the swelling stress. It is discovered that the initial suction is stress concord with the outcomes of the studies conducted
the most significant condition of suction which by Villar and Lloret (2008), who revealed that the
characterises the swelling stress. These results are maximum swelling stress increases exponentially with
 Civil Engineering and Architecture 8(4): 721-733, 2020 723

increment in initial dry unit weight. and the impact of swelling stress on foundation failures in
Lightweight structures are the most vulnerable structures the study areas.
experiencing severe defects when built on heaving soil.
Nevertheless, swelling stress is generally ignored in
engineering practice. Swelling stress can develop
2. Methods
significant uplift forces detrimental to the stability of
foundations (Figures 5 and 6). Nelson and Miller (1992) 2.1. Sample Locations
suggested the types of foundations to be built on heaving
Soil samples are collected from various locations across
soil: Pier and beam; pile and beam; reinforced rafts, and
Free State province in South Africa and labeled as follows:
modified continuous perimeter spread footing. Lucian
Bloemfontein soils (BLS-A; BLS-B; BLS-C); Winburg
(2006) recommended that the swelling stress should not
soils (WBS-A; WBS-B; WBS-C); Welkom soils (WKS-A;
exceed the calculated foundation pressure to avoid heave of
WKS-B; WKS-C). The respective GPS coordinates are
foundation. Simultaneously, the foundation pressure
(BLS-A: 29°11′49.53"S; 26°12′ 52.55"E); (BLS-B:
should not exceed the bearing limit of the soil given by
29°08′04.40"S; 26°15′58.10"E); (BLS-C: 29°06′48.20"S;
geotechnical studies to reduce foundation displacement.
26°10′56.70"E); (WBS-A: 28°30′43.5" S; 27°00′12.8" E);
The literature survey revealed some discrepancies in
(WBS-B: 28°30′ 59.8"S; 27°00′58.0"E); (WBS-C:
characterisation of the relationship between swelling stress
28°31′08.00"S; 27°00′22.00"E); (WKS-A: 27°57′51.8"S;
and suction. Further investigations are required to
26°45′36.9"E); (WKS-B: 28°00′12.10"S; 26°43′ 52.30"E);
characterize the relationship between the swelling stress
(WKS-C: 27°58′15.10"S; 26°43′05.00"E).
and the soil suction of compacted unsaturated heaving soil,

Figure 1. Samples location

2.2. Laboratory Tests

Laid down protocols and standards found in the literature to assess the physical and hydro-mechanical properties of
the soils are as follows: sieve analysis (ASTM D6913, 2009); hydrometer analysis (ASTM D7928, 2016); Atterberg
limits (ASTM D4318, 2005); free swell index (IS: 2720-part 40, 1977); free swell ratio (Sridharan & Prakash, 2000);
X-ray diffraction technique (Brindley and Brown, 1984); Proctor compaction test (SANS 3001-GR30); Soil suction
measurement using filter paper technique (ASTM D5298, 2016); zero swelling test (ASTM D4546, 2014).
2.2.1. Free Swell Index
The free swell index is the increase in the volume of soil without any external restraints when submerged in water.
Two representative oven-dried soil specimens of 10 grams at a temperature of 105°C for 16 to 24 hours are sieved
through 425-micron sieve. Each soil sample is poured in two glasses graduated cylinders of 100 ml capacity. One
cylinder is filled up with kerosene, and another with distilled water up to 100 ml mark. The volume of the specimen
read from the cylinder containing distilled water is denoted as (Vd), the volume of the specimen read from the cylinder
containing kerosene is denoted as (Vk). The free swell index is express as:
𝑉𝑑− 𝑉𝑘
𝐹𝑆𝐼 = 100 × � � (3)
𝑉𝑘
724 Swelling Stress and Suction Correlation of Compacted, Heaving Soils

Table 1. Soil expansivity classification using FSI (IS: 2720-Part 40, 1977)

Free swell index, % Soil expansivity Degree of swelling

< 50 Low Mixture of swelling and non-swelling
50-100 Moderate swelling
100-200 High High swelling
> 200 Very high Very High swelling

2.2.2. Free Swell Ratio

The free swell ratio is used to evaluate the swelling potential and clay mineralogy. The soil expansivity classification
is presented in Table 2. The volume of specimen read from a cylinder containing distilled water is denoted (Vd), the
volume of the specimen read from a cylinder containing kerosene, is denoted (Vk). The free swell ratio is express as:
𝑉𝑑− 𝑉𝑘
𝐹𝑆𝑅 = (4)
𝑉𝑘

Table 2. Soil expansivity classification using FSR (Sridharan & Prakash, 2000)

FSR Degree of swelling Soil expansivity Dominant clay mineral type

=1 Non-swelling Negligible Kaolinite
1.0-1.5 Mixture of swelling and non-swelling Low Mixture of kaolinitic and montmorillonitic
1.5-2.0 Swelling Moderate Montmorillonitic

2.2.3. Swelling Stress Test calibration process of filter paper using a salt solution.
The swelling stress is the maximum external load that is The moisture content within the filter paper, designated as
required to prevent swelling soil from any further (Wf), is estimated using Eq. (8). The calculated moisture
deformation while wet. Geotechnical engineers usually content is introduced in Eq. (7) to determine the soil
measure the swelling stress in the laboratory using a suction. Compacted soil specimens are divided into two
conventional consolidometer setup. Basma et al., (1995); cylindrical parts with a width of 75 mm and a depth of 35
Fattom and Barakat (2000) reported that the zero swell mm so that the specimen can be placed and removed from
test (ZST) is an efficient method to determine the swelling the glass jar easily for suction assessment. The suction
stress of heaving soil. The swelling stress measurement assessment is performed using the Whatman No 42 type
was conducted according to ASTM D4546 on compacted filter paper (Ashless circles 70 mm diameter, Cat No
specimens. Before the submergence of the specimen in 1442-070). Three filter papers (two protectives, and one
water, the load bar was reset to zero to measure the for suction assessment with 70 mm radius) were placed
vertical displacement of the compacted specimens, tap between these two surfaces using tweezers for matric
water was used to soak the specimens, the surcharge is suction assessment. The two cylindrical specimens’ parts
added in small increments to prevent the specimen to are joined using electrical tape and place into a glass jar.
swell, this process continues until the specimen ceases to A plastic ring is put on top of the soil specimen and the
expand. When no further deformation, less than 0.05 is filter papers placed on top of the ring to measure the total
observed for several hours, the experiment is completed, suction. The glass jars are labeled, sealed, and placed into
and the total stress applied to prevent the specimen from a temperature regulatory apparatus at 25±1°C for an
swelling is called the swelling stress. The total surcharge equilibrium period of four weeks. The moisture tins were
in kg, denoted by (∑ni=1 Mi ), the gravity in m/s2, denoted oven-dried at 105°C for overnight. Water content within
by (g), the beam ratio in m, denoted by (br ), the number the filter paper is measured using a 0.0001g readable
of surcharges, denoted by (n), the internal diameter of the balance. The water content of the filter paper, represented
consolidating ring in m, denoted by (ϕ). The swelling by (Wf); the mass of water in the filter paper, designated
pressure, denoted by (PS ) in kPa is expressed as: by (Mw); and the mass of the filter paper, denoted by (Mf).
The soil suction, denoted by (ψ) in kPa is given as:
n 
i∑ M i  × g × br
=1  𝑙𝑜𝑔(𝜓) = −0.0791 × 𝑊𝑓 + 5.313 (7)
π ×φ 2 (6) 𝑀𝑤
𝑊𝑓 = × 100 (8)
Ps = 4 𝑀𝑓
1000

2.2.4. Suction Measurement

The calibration curve Eq. (7), is established by a
 Civil Engineering and Architecture 8(4): 721-733, 2020 725

3. Results and Discussions

3.1. Material properties Results

The material properties of the soil samples used in this study are summarized in Table 3. BLS, WBS, WKS, are
fine-grained soil, more than 50 % passing the No 200 (0.075mm). The liquid limit values of BLS, WBS, and WKS are >
50%, these soils exhibit high plasticity, and classified as high plastic clay (CH).
Table 3. Material properties results
Fine =
Soil Liquid Plasticity Clay Specific
Clay + Silt Sand (%) Gravel (%) USCS*
Designation limit (%) index (%) (%) gravity
(%)
BLS-A 58.98 36.82 30.40 59.51 29.39 10.09 2.64 CH
BLS BLS-B 61.27 38.25 32.20 61.82 29.49 8.38 2.68 CH
BLS-C 64.60 40.33 35.07 65.18 30.48 4.32 2.71 CH
WBS-A 63.78 42.48 34.03 67.52 26.80 4.85 2.73 CH
WBS WBS-B 66.22 44.10 36.50 70.10 27.20 2.45 2.76 CH
WBS-C 70.64 47.04 39.73 74.78 23.98 1.21 2.78 CH
WKS-A 69.45 49.87 40 73 23.50 2.56 2.73 CH
WKS WKS-B 74.31 53.36 48.31 78.11 18.71 1.98 2.78 CH
WKS-C 78.94 56.68 55.25 82.98 15.92 1.10 2.83 CH
*USCS: Unified Soil Classification System

3.2. Swelling Properties Assessment

The investigation of the swelling capacity is performed according to the heaving soil classification based on the liquid
limit (LL) as proposed by Holtz (1954), based on the free swell ratio (FSR) as proposed by Sridharan and Prakash (2000),
and based on the free swell index (FSI) following IS 2720-40. The summary of the investigation of the swelling
parameters is presented in Table 4. The results revealed that all the sample exhibits swelling behaviour at various levels.
Additionally, some similarities and differences in classification are observed. According to Sridharan and Prakash (2000)
and IS 2720-40 classifications, WKS exhibit a high swelling potential whereas BLS and WBS exhibit a moderate swelling
potential. Moreover, it can be observed that the Holtz, (1954) classification approach overestimates the swelling potential
compared to Sridharan and Prakash (2000) and IS 2720-40 classifications. These discrepancies can be justified by the
differences in classification methods. Holtz (1954) classification is based on liquid limit which did not evaluate efficiently
the swelling potential because the liquid limit represents the boundary between the plastic state and liquid state. FSR and
FSI classifications are better compared to the classification based on the liquid limit.
Table 4. Swelling potential assessment results
Swelling potential Swelling potential Swelling potential
LL FSI
Soil Designation based on LL FSR (Sridharan & based on FSI
(%) (%)
(Holtz,1954) Prakash, 2000) (IS 2720-40)
BLS-A 58.98 High 1.64 Moderate 64.31 Moderate
BLS BLS-B 61.27 High 1.70 Moderate 66.66 Moderate
BLS-C 64.60 High 1.79 Moderate 70.19 Moderate
WBS-A 63.78 High 1.73 Moderate 81.37 Moderate
WBS WBS-B 66.22 High 1.80 Moderate 84.66 Moderate
WBS-C 70.64 Very high 1.92 Moderate 90.30 Moderate
WKS-A 69.45 High 2.20 High swelling 116.60 High swelling
WKS WKS-B 74.31 Very high 2.35 High swelling 124.60 High swelling
WKS-C 78.94 Very high 2.50 High swelling 132.60 High swelling
726 Swelling Stress and Suction Correlation of Compacted, Heaving Soils

3.3. X-ray Diffraction Results differences of compaction curves for each soil can be
explained by the differences of fine content, differences of
Specimens are analyzed for their major mineral contents clayey minerals content, and the swelling behaviour.
utilizing the X-ray diffraction technique (Brindley and
Brown, 1984). The results revealed that the smectite is
found to be the predominant clay mineral in these soils, a
very small amount of illite and a trace of illite are found.
Quartz, feldspar, and plagioclase are the predominant
non-clay mineral, and a very small quantity of calcite and
trace of calcite are discovered. The significant amount of
smectite content in the soils induces the swelling behavior
of these soils.

3.4. Hydro-mechanical Properties Analysis

The results of the compaction test, zero swelling test,
and soil suction measurement at the optimum water content Figure 2. Compaction curves (BLS)
(OWC) are summarized in Table 6. The OWC and the
maximum dry unit weight (MDUW) are obtained from the
compaction curves of soils BLS, WBS, and WKS as shown
in Figures 2 to 4. It can be noticed that WKS soil exhibits
the smaller values of MDUW and the higher values of
OWC. BLS soil displays the higher values of MDUW and
the smaller values of OWC. WBS soil exhibits the median
values of MDUW as well as OWC. These results can be
explained by the fact that as the fine soil (Clay + Silt)
content increases, the MDUW decreases, and the OWC
increases upon the same compaction energy. These results
can be also explained by the fact that as the clayey mineral
(smectite + illite) content increases, the MDUW decreases,
whereas the OWC increases upon the same compaction
energy. Furthermore, the swelling stress values and the soil
Figure 3. Compaction curves (WBS)
suction values increases as the fine soil fraction increases
within the soil, WKS swelling stress values, and suction
values are higher. BLS swelling stress values and suction
values are smaller. WBS swelling stress values and suction
values are median. These results can be explained by the
amount of fine soil content in these soils. As mentioned in
Table 3, WKS fine soil content is within the range of 73 %
to 83 %; WBS fine soil content is within the range of 68 %
to 75 %, and BLS fine soil content is within the range of 60 %
to 65 %. As presented in Table 5, WKS smectite content is
within the range of 67 % to 76 %, WBS smectite content is
within the range of 58 % to 63 %, and BLS smectite content
is within the range of 57 % to 61 %. Besides, as the amount
of fine soil increases, the swelling stress, soil suction
increase whereas the MDUW decreases. Lastly, the large
Figure 4. Compaction curves (WKS)
 Civil Engineering and Architecture 8(4): 721-733, 2020 727

Table 5. X-ray diffraction results

Soil Designation Smectite (%) Quartz (%) K-feldspar (%) Plagioclase (%) Illite (%) Calcite (%)
56.83 56.83 12.47 23.51 3.29 1.89 2.01
BLS 58 58 14 24.88 3.12 trace trace
61.15 61.15 11.93 19.01 2.63 3.3 1.98
58.22 58.22 25.08 10.42 2.45 2.02 1.81
WBS 59.41 59.41 27.70 9.99 2.9 trace trace
63.37 63.37 20.34 10.71 1.8 2.43 1.35
67.05 67.05 19.98 10.66 2.31 trace trace
WKS 71.74 71.74 13.40 9.91 1.85 1.89 1.22
76.21 76.21 11.69 8.57 1.25 1.14 1.18

Table 6. Hydro-mechanical properties

Soil Optimum water Maximum dry unit Swelling stress, Matric suction, Total suction,
Samples
designation content, % weight, kN/m3 kPa kPa kPa
BLS-A 20.07 17.58 176.88 671.89 1036.11
BLS BLS-B 22.61 17.16 187.36 697.98 1076.32
BLS-C 23.00 16.95 204.06 735.90 1134.82
WBS-A 24.03 16.85 232.91 1199.35 1699.05
WBS WBS-B 24.58 16.71 312.26 2853.32 3717.73
WBS-C 26.05 16.45 271,92 1328.33 1881.75
WKS-A 26.14 16.29 262.30 1778.65 2475.62
WKS WKS-B 26.52 16.05 361.79 1903.16 2648.91
WKS-C 27.75 15.65 362.30 2021.814 2814.07

3.5. Influence of the Swelling Stress on Lightweight

Footing Foundations
Heaving soils across the study areas exert upward
swelling stress above 177 kPa, which is greater than the
bearing limits (~ 40 kPa) exerted by most lightweight
footings in the study areas. This can justify the defects
(cracks, buckling, differential settlement, etc) observed on
lightweight constructions as shown in Figures 5 & 6 in the
study areas. Multistorey buildings in the study areas have
no structural damage. These heavier buildings are capable
to overcome uplift forces induced by swelling stress.
Foundation pressure must exceed the swelling stress to
Figure 6. Crack at the corner of the wall opening due to foundation
prevent uplift forces. Moreover, the foundation pressure differential settlement caused by heaving soils at Winburg
must not exceed the bearing limit of the soil given by
geotechnical studies.
3.6. Study of the Correlation between Swelling Stress
and the Soil Suction
The influence of the variation of the total suction values
denoted by (∆ψt ) and the matric suction values
designated by (∆ψm ) on the swelling stress values
denoted by (∆PS ) can be described as follows: The
variation in total suction evaluated as ∆ψt = 1778 kPa
as well as a change in matric suction estimated as
∆ψm = 1350 kPa induces a change in swelling stress at
the OWC content estimated at ∆PS = 185 kPa.
Hence, the variation of the soil suction in compacted
heaving soil impacts the swelling stress values. Besides,
the influence of the total suction on the swelling stress is
Figure 5. Buckled foundation defect from heaving soils at Kroonstad greater than the effect of matric suction on the swelling
728 Swelling Stress and Suction Correlation of Compacted, Heaving Soils

stress. This can be explained by the fact that total suction are used to represent the various range of swelling stress
is greater than the matric suction. and soil suction values. The light blue and dark blue
Additionally, to investigate the correlations between the colours represent the smaller values of swelling stress, the
swelling stress and the soil suctions, the experimental data orange patterns represent the median values of the
obtained from geotechnical studies (Table 6) are plotted swelling stress, the red and dark red colours represent the
(Figures 7), and a three variables model including higher values of the swelling stress evaluated as 362 kPa.
swelling stress, total suction, and the matric suction is The shape of the surface plot portrayed an increment of
shown in Figure 8 (data from Table 6). the swelling stress upon the increasing of total suction as
The correlations between the swelling stress and the well as the matric suction.
total suction are shown in Figure 7(a). The results It came to light that; the swelling stress variation cannot
revealed an increase of swelling stress as the total suction be dissociated from the change in soil suction in heaving
increases and portrayed an exponential relationship with soils. These results are in line with the studies conducted
very small disparities for the soil samples BLS, WBS, and by Rao et al., (2004) on the correlation between swelling
WKS. The trend line equation is given as: PS = stress and soil suction, it is found that the swelling stress
152e0.003ψt , with a correlation coefficient R2 = 85 %. increases as the soil suction increases. Additionally, the
There is a strong correlation between the swelling stress results are also in line with the investigation carried out by
and the total suction since the coefficient of correlation Kandemir et al., (1977) and Thakur and Singh (2005).
exceeds 80 % for soils BLS, WBS, and WKS. Also, the Moreover, the investigation by Wójcik and
correlation between swelling stress and matric suction is Gawriuczenkow (2017) on the swelling stress and swell
shown in Figure 7(b). The swelling stress increases as the index from the suction test on precompacted Neogene
matric suction increases and exhibits an exponential clays in Warsaw Poland shows an exponential correlation
relationship with very small discrepancies for the soil between the soil swelling stress and the suction, as the
samples BLS, WBS, and WKS. The trend line equation is suction increases, the swelling stress increases. However,
given as: PS = 163e0.003ψm , with a correlation coefficient these results contradict the outcomes of the studies
R2 = 81 %. There is a strong correlation between the conducted by Agus et al., (2013) who reported that the
swelling stress and the matric suction since the coefficient swelling stress decreases upon the increase of the soil
of correlation exceeds 80 % for all the soils. suction. By and large, the swelling stress of heaving soil is
Three-dimension modeling of the correlation between the significantly influenced by the soil suction.
swelling stress, the total suction, and the matric suction is
illustrated in Figure 8 (data from table 6). Colours patterns

(a) Swelling stress vs total suction

 Civil Engineering and Architecture 8(4): 721-733, 2020 729

(b) Swelling stress vs matric suction

Figure 7. Swelling stress vs soil suction (total suction, matric suction) @ OWC

Figure 8. Surface plot of swelling stress vs total suction. Matric suction @ OWC

3.7. Study of the Correlation between Swelling Stress, of the initial water content and the dry unit weight within
Initial Water Content, and Initial Dry Density a compacted heaving soil influence the swelling stress
values. Moreover, to investigate the correlations between
The influence of the variation in initial water content the swelling stress, the initial water content, and initial dry
values denoted by (∆Wi ) and the variation of initial dry unit weight, experimental data obtained from the
unit weight values designated by (∆γi ) on the swelling geotechnical studies (Table 6) are plotted in graphs shown
stress values denoted by (∆PS ) can be described as in Figure 9(a) and Figure 9(b). Also, three-dimension
follows: The variation in initial water content evaluated as modeling of the relationship between the swelling stress,
∆Wi = 8 % and the variation in initial dry unit weight initial water content, and initial dry unit weight is
estimated as ∆γi = 2 kN/m3 induces a change in represented in Figure 10 (data from Table 6).
swelling stress estimated as ∆PS = 185 kPa at the OWC. The correlation between swelling stress and the initial
From the results, it could be concluded that, the variation water content at the optimum water content is shown in
730 Swelling Stress and Suction Correlation of Compacted, Heaving Soils

Figure 9(a). A tendency of increment of the swelling is noticed, the coefficient of correlation is greater than 80 %
stress as the initial water content increase was noticed and for all soils. These results concord with the outcome of the
portrayed an exponential relationship with very small investigation conducted by Rank et al., (2018) on the
discrepancies for the soil samples BLS, WBS, and WKS. behaviour of clay collected from various locations across
The trend line equation is given as: PS = 21e0.10Wi , with India which revealed that the swelling stress decrease as
a correlation coefficient R2 = 80 %. There is a strong the initial dry unit weight increases. Moreover, Sridharan
correlation between the swelling stress and the initial et al., (1986) reported that the swelling stress decreases as
water content since the correlation coefficient exceeds the initial dry unit weight increases. On the other hand,
80 % for all soils. These results are in accordance with the Basma et al., (1995); Komine and Ogata; (1994); Attom
outcome of the investigation conducted by Rank et al., and Barakat (2000) reported that the swelling stress
(2018) on the behaviour of clay collected from various increases upon an increment of initial water content.
locations across India which revealed that the swelling
These discrepancies can be justified by the fact that the
stress increases as the initial water content increases and
swelling stress obtained upon water addition from the
the results of the investigations conducted by Sridharan et
specimens with smaller initial water content is higher
al.,(1986). Also, the results did not concord with the study
conducted by Cantillo et al., (2017) on empirical compared to the swelling stress obtained from the
correlations for the swelling stress of heaving clays from specimen with higher initial water content.
the city of Barranquilla, Colombia. This can be explained Three-dimension modeling of the correlations between
by the fact that at the optimum water content, the the swelling stress, initial water content, initial dry unit
maximum air void has been reduced within the soil weight is shown in Figure 10. Colours patterns are used to
particles, and the dry unit weight can no longer be represent various range of swelling stress values, initial
enhanced upon water addition. Therefore, the swelling water content, and initial dry unit weight values. The light
stress increases upon increment in initial water content. blue and dark blue colours represent the smaller values of
The correlation between the swelling stress and the swelling stress, the orange patterns represent the median
initial dry unit weight is shown in Figure 9(b). The values of the swelling stress, the red and dark red colours
correlation portrays a decrease of swelling stress as the the higher values of the swelling stress evaluated as 362
initial dry unit weight increases and displays an kPa. The shape of the surface plot at the optimal water
exponential relationship with very small disparities for the content displays an augmentation of the swelling stress
soil samples BLS, WBS, and WKS. The trend line upon the increment of the initial water content, and a
equation is given as: PS = 2512e−0.41γi , with a reduction of the swelling stress with the increment of the
correlation coefficient R2 = 83 %. A strong correlation initial dry unit weight.
between the swelling stress and the initial dry unit weight

(a) Swelling stress vs initial water content

 Civil Engineering and Architecture 8(4): 721-733, 2020 731

(b) Swelling stress vs dry unit weight

Figure 9. Swelling stress vs initial water content. Dry unit weight @ OWC

Figure 10. Surface plot of swelling stress vs initial water content. dry unit weight @ OWC

4. Conclusions areas of the study and must be designed so that the

foundation pressure must exceed the swelling stress to
The values of the matric suction at the optimum water prevent uplift force, and the foundation pressure must not
content are within the range of 672 kPa to 2022 kPa and exceed the bearing limit of the soil. The swelling stress
the total suction values within the range of 1036 kPa to increases upon the increment of soil suction, and exhibit a
2814 kPa. The swelling stress values at the optimum strong correlation with R2 > 80%. A strong correlation
water content are within the range of 177 kPa to 326 kPa estimated at 89 % is observed between the swelling stress
which is greater than the bearing limit (~ 40 kPa) applied and the dry unit weight. Very good correlation estimated
for most lightweight footing in the study areas and justify at 80 % is obtained between the swelling stress and the
the damages to lightweight structures. Reinforced rafts, initial water content. Swelling stress and the initial water
modified continuous spread footing, pier beam or pile content cannot be dissociated.
beam systems are the suitable type of foundations for the
732 Swelling Stress and Suction Correlation of Compacted, Heaving Soils

unsaturated soils. Master dissertation, Bloemfontein:

Central University of Technology, Free State, South Africa.
[15] Fattom, M. and Barakat, S. (2000), "Investigation of three
REFERENCES methods for evaluating swelling pressure of soils",
Environmental & Engineering Geoscience., 6 (3), 293-299.
[1] Agus, S.S., Arifin, Y.F., Tripathy, S. and Schanz, T. (2013), http://worldcat.org/issn/10787275.
"Swelling pressure-suction relationship of heavily
compacted bentonite-sand mixtures", Acta Geotechnica, 8 [16] Holtz, W.G. (1954), "Engineering properties of expansive
(2), 155-165. Doi 10.1007/s11440-012-0189-0. clays", Transactions of the American Society of Civil
Engineers, 121, 641-677.
[2] Attom, M.F., Barakat, S. (2000), "Investigation of three
methods for evaluating swelling pressure of soils", Environ. [17] Komine, H., Ogata, N. (1994), "Experimental study on
Eng. Geosci. 6 (3), swelling characteristics of compacted bentonite". Can.
293-299. http://worldcat.org/issn/10787275. Geotech. J. 31, 478–490. https://doi.org/10.1139/t94-057.

[3] ASTM (2009), Standard Test Method for Particle-Size [18] Kandemir, A., Erol, O. and Erzin, Y. (1997), Swell pressure
Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis, D prediction by suction methods, In proceedings of the
6913; 04. 09, American Society for Testing and Materials, international conference on soil mechanics and foundation
PA, USA. Doi: 10.1520/d6913-04r09. engineering-international society for soil mechanics and
foundation engineering, 1, 139-142. AA Balkema.
[4] ASTM (2016), Standard Test Method for Measurement of
Soil potential (Suction) using filter paper, D 5298; 04. 08, [19] Lucian, C.(2008), Geotechnical aspect of building on
American Society for Testing and Materials, PA, USA. Doi: expansive soils in kibaha, Tanzania: Preliminary study.
10.1520/d5298-16. Licenciate Thesis: Stockhlom, Royal Institute of
Technology, Sweden.
[5] ASTM (2014), Standard Test Method for One-Dimensional
Swell or Collapse of Soils, D 4546; 04 .08, American [20] Nelson, J.D. and Miller, D.J. (1992), Expansive Soils:
Society for Testing and Materials, PA, USA. Doi: Problems and Practice in Foundation and Pavement
10.1520/d4546-14e01. Engineering. New York: Wiley.

[6] ASTM (2016), Standard Test Method for Particle-size [21] Rao, A.S., Phanikumar, B.R. and Sharma, R.S. (2004),
Distribution (Gradation) of Fine-Grained Soils Using the "Prediction of swelling characteristics of remoulded and
Sedimentation (Hydrometer) Analysis, D 7928; 04. 09, compacted expansive soils using free swell index".,
American Society for Testing and Materials, PA, USA. Doi: Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology &
10.1520/d7928-16e01. Hydrogeology., 37 (3), 217-226. https://doi.org/10.1144/14
70-9236/03-052.
[7] ASTM (2005), Standard Test Method for Liquid Limit,
Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils, D 4318; 04. 08, [22] Rank, K, Metha, J and Bhanderi, J. (2018), "Swelling
American Society for Testing and Materials, PA, USA. Doi: potential of different expansive soil placed at different dry
10.1520/d4318-17e01. density and initial water content by constant volume
method", International Journal of Innovative Research in
[8] Basma, A.A., Al-Homoud, A.S. and Malkawi, A.H. (1995), Science, Engineering and Technology, 7 (3). DOI: 10.1568
"Laboratory assessment of swelling pressure of expansive 0/IJIRSET.2018.0703016.
soils"., Applied Clay Science, 9 (5), 355-368. https://doi.or
g/10.1016/0169-1317(94)00032-L. [23] Thakur, V. S., & Singh, D. N. (2005), "Swelling and suction
in clay minerals", In Advanced experimental unsaturated
[9] BIS, I. (1977), Methods of Test for Soils: IS: 2720-Part 40 soil mechanics Experus, 27-31.
Determination of Free Swell Index of Soils. Bureau of
Indian Standards, New Delhi, India, 1-5. [24] Sridharan, A. and Prakash, K. (2000), "Classification
procedures for expansive soils", Proceedings of the
[10] Brindley, G.W and Brown, G. (1984), "Crystal Structures of Institution of Civil Engineers-Geotechnical Engineering,
Clay Minerals and Their X-ray Diffraction Identification". 143 (4), 235-240. Doi: 10.1007/s41403-016-0001-9.
London: Mineralogical Society. 495 p.
[25] SABS (2015), Civil Engineering Test Methods,
[11] Cantillo, V., Mercado, V. and Pájara, C. (2017), "Empirical Determination of the Maximum Dry Density and Optimum
correlations for the swelling pressure of expansive clays in Moisture Content SANS 3001, Part GR30, South Africa
the city of Barranquilla, Colombia", Earth Sciences Bureau of Standards. Pretoria.
Research Journal., 21 (1), 45-49 http://dx.doi.org/10.1544
6/esrj.v21n1.60226. [26] Sridharan, A., Rao, A.S., Sivapullaiah, P.V. (1986),
"Swelling pressure of clays", ASTM Geotech. Test. J. 9 (1),
[12] Edlefsen, N. E. and Anderson, A. (1943), Thermodynamics 24–33. https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ10608J.
of soil moisture., 15 (2), University of California, USA.
Doi:10.3733/hilg.v15n02p031. [27] Villar, M.V., Lloret, A. (2008), "Influence of dry density
and water content on the swelling of a compacted
[13] Erzin, Y. and Erol, O. (2007), "Swell pressure prediction by bentonite",
suction methods", Engineering Geology, 92 (3-4), 133-145. Appl. Clay Sci. 39, 38-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.20
Doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2007.04.002. 07.04.007.

[14] Fondjo, A.A.(2018), Characterization of swelling stress and [28] Wójcik, E. and Gawriuczenkow, I. (2017), "Determination
soil moisture deficiency relationship for expansive of swell index and swelling pressure from suction tests- a
 Civil Engineering and Architecture 8(4): 721-733, 2020 733

case study of Neogene clays from Warsaw (Poland)",

Geotechnical Quaterly., 61 (4), 738-750. Doi: http://dx.doi.
org/10.7306/gq.1362.
[29] Zhang, C. and Lu, N. (2018), "Unitary Definition of Matric
Suction", Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering., 145 (2). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.
1943-5606.0002004.