J.L.

Briaud, Texas A&M University

FOUNDATIONS ON SHRINKING AND SWELLING SOILS

(Prediction of Movement, Construction Issues)

by
Jean-Louis Briaud, Sangho Moon, Xiong Zhang

Department of Civil Engineering,

Texas A&M University, College Station,
Texas 77843-3136, USA
 J.L. Briaud, Texas A&M University

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

• ENVIRONMENTAL SOIL STABILIZATION LTD.

Russ Scharlin
Johny Sherwood

• SPENCER J. BUCHANAN PROFESSORSHIP

• GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES INC.

Doug Dayton
 J.L. Briaud, Texas A&M University

OUTLINE

• FUNDAMENTAL BEHAVIOR

• SHRINK TEST – WATER CONTENT METHOD

• CASE STUDY

• SMART FOUNDATION
 J.L. Briaud, Texas A&M University

soil grain soil grain soil grain

water water water
air air

Saturated Occluded Air Continuous Air

uw ≠ 0 uw = ua uw ≠ 0
ua = 0 ua = 0
σ’ = σ - uw σ’ = σ - uw σ ’ = σ - αu
 J.L. Briaud, Texas A&M University

4 T cos á
hc =
d ãw
Glass
where T = 72 mN/m
α α
T Contractile T
Skin
hcγw
0 kPa
- 1,000 kPa

Water d hc Atmospheric
pressure

- +
u
0
Water h
hγγw
 J.L. Briaud, Texas A&M University

after time, t
initial state h = Osmotic Suction Initial state
after time, t

Pure Water Salt Water

 J.L. Briaud, Texas A&M University

Suction Degree of Water

Water State Examples Swell Shrink
pF cm kPa Saturation Content

Oven Dry 7 -107 -106 0 0

Suction NO
Air Dry 6 -106 -105 YES

Shrinkage Limit 4 -104 -103 Near 100 % 8 to 15 %

Tension
Field Capacity
2 -102 -101 25 to 50 %
Swell Limit YES

0 0 0 100 %

NO
Large River 103 102

Deepest Offshore
Compression 105 104
Platforms
Bottom of Deepest
109 108
Ocean
 J.L. Briaud, Texas A&M University

Soil State Swell Shrink - 0 +

u
Unsaturated Yes No

Saturated Yes Yes

GWL

Saturated No Yes
 J.L. Briaud, Texas A&M University

PHASE DIAGRAMS
 J.L. Briaud, Texas A&M University

wSW

Saturated or wi
∆wmax
Occluded Air

wSH

∆(∆V/V)max

0
∆V/V
 J.L. Briaud, Texas A&M University

SHRINK TEST PARAMETERS

Do
D

Wo SHRINK
Ho W
H

t=0 t
 J.L. Briaud, Texas A&M University

SHRINK TEST

Shrink Test Shrink Test Example (B/RF1/6)

25
0.3-0.9 m,Ew = 0.86, w = 17.15 %
1.2-1.8 m, Ew = 0.69, w = 21.66 %
2.1-2.7 m, Ew =0.83, w = 16.03 %
data chosen for calculation of Ew
20

Water Content, %
15

10

5
-0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0
Volumetric Strain, ∆V/V
 J.L. Briaud, Texas A&M University

SHRINK TEST RESULTS (1)

Porecelain Clay
0.0 Porcelain Clay
and Bentonite Clay
Bentonitic Clay
-0.05

∆H/Ho
-0.10

-0.15
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 t, hr

0.0
1
f
f
∆H/Ho

-0.05
1
-0.10 Porcelain Clay
Bentonitic Clay
-0.15
-0.30 -0.25 -0.20 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0 ∆V/Vo

0.4 wo
Ew 1
0.3
wo
w

0.2 Ew
wsh wsh 1
0.1 Porcelain Clay
Bentonitic Clay
0.0
-0.30 -0.25 -0.20 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0 ∆V/Vo
 J.L. Briaud, Texas A&M University

SWELL TEST

Swell Test Swell Test Example (B/RF1/6 0.3–0.9 m)

L

Recompression Swell under Swell with

lOAD under Overburden Pr Overburden no Overburden
essure Pressure Pressure

0.010
∆1 ∆2 0.00954

Porous stone
Soil sample 0.005
Consolidometer
Porous stone
0.000
Maximum

∆H/H
0
Free % Swell,
% Recovery, (∆H/H)FS
(∆H/H)P
0.00458
-0.005
Max. Swell
Under Overburden,
(∆H/H)PS
-0.010 -0.00996

-0.015
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Time, hrs
 J.L. Briaud, Texas A&M University

EXAMPLE OF THE PREMISS METHOD

 J.L. Briaud, Texas A&M University

SHRINK TEST RESULTS (3)

Influence of 0.25

Vertical Pressure 0.20

0.15 Sample(S)

w
0.10 Overburden(O)
S (S1)
0.05 S+O (S2)
0.00
-0.2 -0.16 -0.12 -0.08 -0.04 0 0.04 ∆V/Vo
0.25
0.20
0.15 Sample(S)
w

0.10 Overburden(O)
S (S1)
0.05
S+O (S2)
0.00
-0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 ∆H/Ho
0.25
0.20
0.15 Sample(S)
w

0.10 Overburden(O)
S (S1)
0.05 S+O (S2)
0.00
-0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 ∆D/Do
 J.L. Briaud, Texas A&M University

SHRINK AND SWELL TEST RESULTS

Porecelain Clay 0.2

Swell
and Bentonite Clay Shrink
0.1

0.0
∆w
-0.1

-0.2
Porcelain Clay
-0.3
-0.20 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 ∆V/Vo

0.4
Swell
Shrink
0.2

0.0
∆w

-0.2

-0.4
Bentonic Clay
-0.6
-0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 ∆V/Vo
 J.L. Briaud, Texas A&M University

SUCTION VARIATION WITH DEPTH

After Mitchell (1979)

∆u0 ∆u0

0 ue Suction, u

u(z,t)

pe

ope
velo

nvel
Depth, z

En

ion E
ction

Suct
Su

zmax
∆u(zmax) = 0.1×
× 2∆
∆u0
 J.L. Briaud, Texas A&M University

After Mitchell (1979)

Äu(z) = 2 Äu0 exp (-(∂ / T0 á )0.5 z)

Äw = f (Äu ) characteristic curve

z max = 1.3 ( T0 á )0.5

where ∆u = change in suction at depth z

∆u0 = change in suction at ground surface
T0 = period of weather cycle
α = diffusion coefficient
z = depth below ground surface
∆w = change in water content
zmax = maximum depth of water content change
 J.L. Briaud, Texas A&M University

After Styron et al. (2001)

LI × LL (%) = ± 30

Äw = 0.6 (PI/LL )
 J.L. Briaud, Texas A&M University

WATER CONTENT VARIATION AS A FUNCTION OF TIME

Time for CS
From Posey, Briaud, 1995, Fall Winter Spring Summer Fall Winter Spring
Woodfin, Briaud, 1997 1993 1994 1994 1994 1994 1995 1995
0.35

CC OUTSIDE
SA OUTSIDE
0.30
CC UNDER

Average Water Content

0.25

0.20

SA UNDER CS OUTSIDE
0.15

0.10
CC = Corpus Christi (0-0.5m)
SA = San Antonio (0-0.5m)
0.05 CS = College Station (0-1.5m)
OUTSIDE = Outside the Foundation Imprint
UNDER = Under the Foundation Imprint
0.00
Fall Winter Spring Summer Fall Winter Spring
1992 1993 1993 1993 1993 1994 1994
Time for SA and CC
 J.L. Briaud, Texas A&M University

MOISTURE INDUCED MOVEMENT

S = ∑ H i Äå i = ∑ H i f
Äwi
Ewi
w
w

∆ wi
wi+∆
wi
Hi wi ∆ wi

z εi εi+ ∆ε i εv
 J.L. Briaud, Texas A&M University

WEIGHT INDUCED SETTLEMENT

Äσ i
S = ∑ H i Äåi = ∑ H i
Ei
P σv σv

σ’ov σ’ov+∆σ ’i
Hi σ’ov ∆σ ’i

εi εi+∆
∆εi εv
z
 J.L. Briaud, Texas A&M University

PLAN VIEW OF THE SITE

W2 RF2 North
Site in Arlington, 7. 7.
4. 2. .3 4. 2. .3
Texas .
9 . . .
9 . .
. .
5 1. 6 5 1. 6
8 8
2m 2m
Boring Boring
location order
. 0.6m
1 - deep

W1 0.61m Boring date

. .7
. 2. .3
.
4
9 . . . 0.67m # 1 : 06/24/99
5 81. 6 # 2 : 07/13/99
# 3 : 10/25/99
B/W1/7 redrill - deep
# 4 : 02/11/00
RF1 # 5 : 05/11/00
.
7 BM2
4.2. 3. 3m # 6 : 08/11/00
.
9 . . BM1 # 7 : 11/17/00
.
5 1. 6 0.67m # 8 : 03/13/01
8 # 9 : 07/15/01
0.67m
 J.L. Briaud, Texas A&M University

SOIL STRATIGRAPHY

Site in Arlington, 10m 20m

Texas RF1 W1 W2
10m
A A’ North
RF2
BM1 BM2
A 2m 2m
0 A’

0.6m
Dark Gray Silty Clay : Trace Fine Sand
0.5
Su = 151.5 kPa γt = 20.3 kN/m3
wmean = 20.73 % Ew = 0.752, f = 0.39
1 h = 3.42 pF %SW = 5.17
GWL : 4.27 m (Jun./25/99)
Depth,m

LL = 51.3, PL = 22.3 %<0.002= 47.7

4.8 m (Feb./1/01)
1.5 4 m (Jul./15/01)
Brown Silty Clay, trace fine Sand : Calcareous
2 S = 179.8 kPa Legend
u γt = 20.4 kN/m3
wmean = 19.74 % Ew = 0.869, f = 0.39
RF : Reference
2.5 h = 3.41 pF %SW = 4.31 W : Water injected
LL = 40.4, PL = 17.1 %<0.002= 45.5 BM : Benchmark
3
 J.L. Briaud, Texas A&M University

WATER CONTENT AND SUCTION vs. DEPTH

Footing RF1 at a site Water Content

in Arlington, Texas 0.00.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.3

0.5 B:Boring
B1 B2
1.0 B3 B4
Depth, m
1.5 B5 B6
B7 B8
2.0
B9
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0

Suction, pF
0 1 2 3 4 5
0.0
0.5 B:Boring
B1 B2
1.0 B3 B4
Depth, m

1.5 B5 B6
B7 B8
2.0
B9
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
 J.L. Briaud, Texas A&M University

GARNER’S STUDY (1999)

3 samples at 3 water contents sent to 5 laboratory.

Water Content, %
Sample 1
Sample 2
Sample 3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 %

Suction, pF
Sample 1
Sample 2
Sample 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 pF

Suction, kPa
Sample 1
0 500 1000 1500 2000 kPa

Sample 2
Sample 3
0 250 500 750 1000 kPa
 J.L. Briaud, Texas A&M University

SHRINK TEST RESULTS (2)

Three Samples 0.30

B/RF1/4
From Arlington, 0.25 0.3 – 0.9 m, Ew = 0.67
Texas 1.2 – 1.8 m, Ew = 0.60
0.20
2.1 – 2.7 m, Ew = 1.30
w
0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
-0.30 -0.25 -0.20 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00
∆V/Vo

0.30
B/RF2/4
0.25 0.3 – 0.9 m, Ew = 0.86
1.2 – 1.8 m, Ew = 0.76
0.20
2.1 – 2.7 m, Ew = 1.19
w

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
-0.30 -0.25 -0.20 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 ∆V/Vo
 J.L. Briaud, Texas A&M University

SELECTED SOIL TEST RESULT FOR RF1

Ew f % SW
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0 2.5 5 7.5 10
0.0

0.5

1.0
Depth, m

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0
B3 B4 B5 B6 B7
 Displacement, mm

20

-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
30
40
08/1/1999
summer
09/1/1999
10/1/1999
11/1/1999
fall
12/1/1999
01/1/2000
02/1/2000

W2
W1
winter

RF1
RF2
03/1/2000
04/1/2000
05/1/2000
spring
06/1/2000
07/1/2000
08/1/2000 summer
09/1/2000

Date
10/1/2000
11/1/2000 fall
12/1/2000
01/1/2001
02/1/2001 winter
03/1/2001
04/1/2001
05/1/2001 spring
06/1/2001
FOOTING MOVEMENT OVER TWO YEARS

07/1/2001
08/1/2001 summer

09/1/2001
J.L. Briaud, Texas A&M University
 Rainfall, mm

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
08/1/1999
09/1/1999
10/1/1999
11/1/1999
12/1/1999
01/1/2000
02/1/2000
03/1/2000
04/1/2000
Ave. Monthly Rainfall

05/1/2000
Ave. Monthly Temperature

06/1/2000
07/1/2000
08/1/2000
09/1/2000

Date
10/1/2000
11/1/2000
12/1/2000
01/1/2001
02/1/2001
03/1/2001
04/1/2001
05/1/2001
RAINFALL AND TEMPERATURE

06/1/2001
07/1/2001
08/1/2001
09/1/2001
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35

Temperature, oC
J.L. Briaud, Texas A&M University
 J.L. Briaud, Texas A&M University

WATER CONTENT VARIATION AND MOVEMENT

Average of 4 Footings at a site

in Arlington, Texas
30 24

20 Average Measured movements

Average Water content
10 22
Displacement, mm

Water Content, %
0

-10 20

-20

-30 18

-40

-50 16
08/1/1999

10/1/1999

12/1/1999

02/1/2000

04/1/2000

06/1/2000

08/1/2000

10/1/2000

12/1/2000

02/1/2001

04/1/2001

06/1/2001

08/1/2001

10/1/2001
06/1/1999

Date
 J.L. Briaud, Texas A&M University

PREDICTED AND MEASURED MOVEMENTS

Average of 4 Footings at a site

in Arlington, Texas
60

RF1+ RF2+ W1+ W2

40
4

20
Displacement, mm

−20

−40 Average Measured movements

Water Content Method

−60
−100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Time, days
 J.L. Briaud, Texas A&M University

HOUSES ON EXPANSIVE
CLAYS

MOST EXPENSIVE
NATURAL HAZARD
IN THE COUNTRY
 J.L. Briaud, Texas A&M University

FOUNDATION SOLUTION

• Stiffened Slab on Grade

• Stiffened Slab on Grade & on Piers

• Elevated Structural Slab on Piers

air gap

• Thin Post Tensioned Slab

 J.L. Briaud, Texas A&M University

HOUSES ON
EXPANSIVE
CLAYS
VERY DIFFICULT TO PREDICT
THE SOIL MOVEMENT
(WEATHER, VEGETATION, DRAINAGE)

MUCH EASIER TO DESIGN

AN ADJUSTABLE FOUNDATION
 J.L. Briaud, Texas A&M University

SMART FOUNDATION
 J.L. Briaud, Texas A&M University

SMART FOUNDATION

3.5 ft (1.1 m) 13.1ft (4 m)

3.5 ft
(1.1 m)
1ft
(0.3 m)

1ft (0.3 m)

52.5 ft
(16 m)

13.1ft
(4 m)

52.5 ft (16 m)
 J.L. Briaud, Texas A&M University

SMART FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION

Make Cavity Cast Footing & Place Spacer Back Fill

Excavate Trench Cast Beam Finish

1ft
 J.L. Briaud, Texas A&M University

COST COMPARISON

Conventional Waffle Slab

16 m × 16 m × 0.1 m Slab on Grade with
0.9 m deep × 0.3 m thick Beams every 4 m $24,000

Smart Foundation
16 m × 16 m × 0.1 m Slab on Grade with
0.9 m deep × 0.3 m thick Beams every 4 m
and 1 m ×1 m × 0.3 m Footings $26,200

~ 10 % Increase in Cost
 J.L. Briaud, Texas A&M University

SMART FOUNDATION ADJUSTMENT

Shrinking Excavation Jack up

Front View of Jack up Replace Spacer Finish

Back Fill

1ft
 J.L. Briaud, Texas A&M University

FOUNDATION ANALYSIS BY SAFE

Edge drop case beam moment distribution

 J.L. Briaud, Texas A&M University

FOUNDATION ANALYSIS BY SAFE

Edge drop case beam moment distribution

+ jacking

jacking
 J.L. Briaud, Texas A&M University

CONCLUSIONS

• FUNDAMENTAL BEHAVIOR

• SHRINK TEST – WATER CONTENT METHOD PROPOSED

• SHRINK TEST – WATER CONTENT METHOD VERIFIED

• SMART FOUNDATIONS = ADJUSTABLE SOLUTION