1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 An over view of clay mineralogy :

There are two fundamental building blocks of clay minerals.Octahedral (silica) and
tetrahedral (gibbsite) units.Kaolinite, montmorilloite, illite and palygroskite are main groups
of clay minerals. Kaolinite (1:1 clay mineral) structural unit is made up of gibbsite sheets
joined to silica sheets forming successive layers. Kaolinite bond is strong, it is extremely
difficult to separate these layers, as a result kaolinite is relatively stable and water is unable to
penetrate into these layers. Therefore Kaolinite swells less when wetted . Montmorillonite
(2:1) is common clay mineral in expansive soils. It is made up of gibbsite sheets sandwiched
between two silica sheets as shown in figure 1. There is very weak bonding between
successive sheets and water can enter easily between these sheets causing the mineral to
swell. The spacing between the elemental silica–gibbsite–silica sheets depends on the
amount of water to occupy the space. For this reason Montmorillonite is said to have
expanded lattice. Soils containing montmorillonite show swelling and shrinkage
characteristics. Illite has strong bond compared with montmorillonite but weaker than
kaolinite. Swelling of illite is less when compared with montmorillonite but more than
kaolinite.

Expansion of clays is a widely occurring natural phenomenon. They have volume change
because of change in water content.They swell when moisture content is increased and shrink
when moisture content is decreased. Now a days it is well acknowledged that swelling of
clays may induce considerable distresses and thus serious damage to civil engineering
structures. Expansive soils swell laterally as well as vertically. Lateral volume change may
be accommodated by cracks and fissures if there are cracks and fissures in the soil mass.
However, when there are no cracks or when the cracks are small and close up without
accommodating all the volume increase that is required by the expansive soil, the swelling
becomes restrained in the lateral direction. This results in the development of lateral swelling
pressure.

• Swelling pressure : ASTM define defines swelling pressure as the pressure which
prevents the specimen from swelling or that pressure which is required to return the
specimen back toits original state (void ratio, height) after swelling. It’s the
 2

magnitude of external pressure or stress required to maintain the content volume of

the soil during its saturation

Fig 1 a) b)

a) kaolinite b) montmorillonite

1.2 LOCATIONS OF EXPANSIVE SOILS :

Expansive soils are mostly found in arid and semi arid regions. Expansive soils are mostly
found in arid and semi arid regions.These are found mostly in Africa,
America,Australia,india,Israel,Indonesia,Burma. In india about 20% of total area includes
expansive soils region. Deccan plateau,western Madhya Pradesh ,parts of Rajasthan,Bundel-
khand region in Uttar Pradesh and parts of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka are part of this.

In India these are known as black cotton soils. Expansive soil is commonly known as black
cotton soils, because of their color and their suitability for growing cotton. Black cotton soil
is one of the major regional soil deposits in India, covering an area of about 3.0 lakh sq.km.
These black cotton soils are mostly residual in character. The thickness of the deposits is not
large, being less than 3.5 m in most cases. Black cotton soils have liquid limit values ranging
from 50 to 100%, plasticity index from 20 to 65% and shrinkage limit from 8 to 18% (Katti
1979). These deposits undergo considerable amount of swell accompanied by loss of shear
strength during rainy seasons. During summers, expansive soils shrink, resulting in cracking.
The crack width, which can be as large as 100 mm, extends to a depth of 3 m or even more.
(M .Rama Rao et al).The depth of soil up to which volume changes take place due to changes
in moisture content is usually referred to as the active zone.. so study of the problems
associated with these soils has become essential in our country.
 3

1.3 EFFECTS OF EXPANSIVE SOILS:

Expansive soils undergo detrimental volume changes corresponding to changes in the

moisture regime. They absorb water during monsoon and undergo increase in their volume
(swell) and shrink because of evaporation of water during dry seasons (Nelson and Miller
1992). Problems associated with expansive soils have been documented the world over .The
swelling of expansive soils cause major damage and distresses without taking enough
measures.Buildings present the most obvious cases of damage caused by swelling and
shrinkage of foundation clays. Damages to Pavements the roads that pass through expansive
soil sub-grade are subjected to heaving and shrinkage settlement of soils. This results in
irregularities, cracking and rutting of pavement surface. Damages to conduits and retaining
walls conduits, such as, water supply lines and drainage pipes are subjected to both lateral
and vertical movements. Severe distortion of basement and retaining walls are reported due
to enormous lateral swelling pressures. Changes in moisture content trigger damage.
Damages can occur within a few months following construction, may develop slowly over a
period of years. . The annual cost of damage is estimated at £150 million in the UK, $1000
million in the USA (Gourley et al., 1993) and many billions of pounds worldwide.

IMPORTANCE OF PRESENT STUDY:

Expansive soils cause more damage to structures particularly light buildings and pavements
than any other natural hazard,including earthquake and floods(Jones and Holtz,1973). The
cost associated with damage due to expansive soils is more than double the cost from damage
of natural hazards. Studies have brought to light that damages have been recorded for
buildings, pipelines,canals,airfields and highways in countries like United States,
Isreal,Burma ,Africa. In India, the area covered by the expansive soils is nearly 20% of the
total land area. Therefore problems associated with expansive soils must be addressed so as
to prevent damage causing by them. Despite world wide efforts to combat the damage
caused by these deposits, universally accepted design methodologies are still wanting.
Present study aims to identify the problem,design to minimise moiture content changes,build
in a way that will not change the conditions of the soil.Maintain a constant moisture
environment after construction.
 4

1.4 REASONS OF SWELLING:

The mechanism of swelling in clays is complex and is influenced by number of factors.

Expansion is a result of changes in soil water sytem that disturb the internal stress
equilibrium. Clay particles are generally platelets having negative electrical charges on their
surface and posilive charged edges. The negative charges are balanced by cations in the soil
water that become attached to the surfaces of the platelets by electrical forces. The internal
electrochemical force system must be in equilbrium with the externally applied stress and
cappilary tension in soil water. The capillary tension is called matric suction. If soil water
chemistry is changed either by changing the amount of water or chemical composition, the
interparticle force field change. If the resulting change is not balanced by externally applied
stress the particle spacing will change so as to adjust the inter particle forces to attain
equillibrium. This change in particle spacing is termed as swelling or shrinkage depending
upon the particle rearrangement.

Many factors influencing the mechanism of swelling also affect by, physical soil properties
such as plasticity or density. The factors influencing the shrink-swell potential of a soil can
be considered as soil characteristics like basic nature of internal force field ie clay
mineralogy, soil water chemistry,soil suction,plasticty. Environmental factors such as initial
moisture content , moisture variations, climate change, ground water etc. The state of stress
is an important factor that affects swelling potential of soil.

1.5 DETECTION OF SWELLING :

Before starting construction activity on expansive soils, the first step is to ascertain the degree
of expansiveness and swelling pressure. Though different methods of determining the
swelling pressure have been developed by various researchers, only three methods have been
standardized and also popularly documented in the literature (Brackley 1973; Sridharan et al.
1986; ASTM 1995; Rao 2006). Swell load method,constant volume method(CVS) and
method of equilibrium void ratio at different consolidation pressures. Experiments by three
methods to determine the swelling pressure of clays showed that the conventional
consolidation test gives an upper bound value, the method of equilibrium void ratios for
various consolidation pressures gives the least value, and tests by the constant volume
method give intermediate values.( Sridharan et al. 1986). The discrepancies in the swell
 5

parameters are due to differences in loading and wetting conditions in the following way: in
swell load method test soaking the sample under a low confining stress promotes water
penetration most efficiently. Therefore the swell parameters are relatively high and indicate
higher magnitudes of potential swell as compared to the CVS method where water entry is
restricted by a relatively high value of vertical stress.

Different Methods of Determining the Swelling Pressure:

Swell load method: This method permits complete swelling of the specimen upon saturation
at seating pressure of 6.25 kPa, and then, subsequent loading it to bring it back to its original
volume, which yields the maximum value of swelling pressure. This method is time
consuming, but one specimen is sufficient. This test procedure has been used in many parts
of the world for many years.

Method of equilibrium void ratios for different Consolidation Loads :

Three or more specimens of the soil are placed in the oedometers with identical initial
conditions at the seating pressure. The loads on dry specimens are then increased, allowing
the specimens to absorb water, and swell or compress to reach equilibrium positions, which
lie in a straight line on the swell versus log pressure plot. This method requires at least three
identical specimens but is less time consuming.

The Constant Volume Method or Zero-Swell Method :

Continuous loading is done in this method, allowing water to be absorbed by the specimen
and keeping the volume change nearly zero.This method is quick, and again only one
specimen is sufficient. This method is sensitive to load increment and rate of loading

SWELLING POTENTIAL OF SOIL : It is the equilibrium vertical volume change

from on oedometer test, expressd as percentage of original height of undisturbed soil
specimen from its natural moisture content and density to a state of saturation under applied
load equivalent to insitu overburden pressure.
 6

(Fig 2) Graph showing the methods of tests to determine swelling pressure

(after Sridharan et al. 1986).

FREE SWELL INDEX OF SOIL :

Free Swell Index is the increase in volume of a soil, without any external constraints, on
submergence in water. Free swell tests are commonly used for identifying expansive
clays and to predict the swelling potential. The method as proposed by Holtz and
Gibbs (1956). In this two sanples oven dried soil each of 10 grams passing through 425
micron sieve are taken and are placed in two glass graduated cylinders of 100ml capacity one
filled with kerosene and the other with the distilled water. And soils are allowed to expand
for seven days.

Free Swell Index, FSI = 100. Where = volume of soil in distilled water

= volume of soil in kerosene . based upon swelling potential and free swell index the
degree of expansivity can be assesed.

Table 1: Swelling potential and degree od expansion

Degree of expansion FSI

Swelling potential:

0 - 1.5 Low < 20

1.5 -5 Moderate 20 -30
5 -25 High 35- 50
>25 Very high >50
 7

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Various methods have been proposed by different researchers to counter problems of

expansive soils.These methods have their relative advantages and disadvantages.
Satyanarayana(1969) proposed sand cushion method in 2nd international conferenc on
expansive soils. Satyanarayana suggested that either the entire depth of the expansive soil
stratum, or a part of it, may be removed and replaced with a sand cushion, compacted to the
desired density and thickness.Swelling pressure varies inversely with the thickness of the
sand layer and directly with its density. Therefore sand cushions are usually formed in their
loosest possible state. But this is not in accordance with bearing capacity criteria. So this
method is often miss interpreted.The main advantage claimed in favour of the sand cushion
method is its ability to adapt itself to volume changes in the soil. The principle of this
method is that while the expansive soils swells due to the percolation of water during
monsoon, the sand cushion settles. During summer, as the expansive soil shrinks, the sand
undergoes bulking due to partial saturation. Therefore here will be minimum volume change
in the soil system. However, the sand cushion method has several limitations, particularly
when it is adopted in deep layers. Engineers often suggest some random thickness for the
sand cushion without considering the depth of the zone of potential volume changes(active
zone), which is difficult to determine. The high permeability of sand creates conditions for
percolation of water from surface runoff. This accelerates the swelling process. It is difficult
to arrive at the exact thickness and the density of the sand cushion. Therefore this technique
is not generally recommended for foundations of structures.

2.1 COHESIVE NON SWELLING METHOD (CNS):

Katti and Katti (1979) observed that, in an expansive soil bed, development of cohesion in
the soil–water system upon saturation of the expansive soil arrests heave in the soil below a
depth of 1.2 m. But the soil in the top 1.2 m undergoes heave. So, if an environment similar
to that existing up to 1–1.2 m depth in an expansive soil is reproduced swelling will not occur
in the soil, it may be possible to counter heave in the soil below this depth. Soils that do not
swell, but which possess cohesion, provide this environment upon saturation. Such a soil
system is designated as a cohesive non-swelling soil (CNS).

The specification for CNS material, placement conditions and thickness requirements have
been given and standardised by the Bureau of Indian Standards (IS 9451:1994). Saturated
cohesivesoil loses strength, and foundations resting on it may fail. Hence Katti and Katti
 8

(1979) have recommended the use of a mechanically stabilised mix (MSM) cushion below
the footing and CNS material. But this is not cost effective.

Cohesive non swelling soils are those soils possessing the property of cohesion of varying
degree and non-expansive type clay minerals such as illite and kaolinite and their
combination with low plasticity with liquid limit not exceeding 50 percent.(IS 9491 : 1994).
Some of the soils which may be considered as cohesive non-swelling soils are all adequately
compacted clayey soils, silty clays, sandy clays, gravelly sandy clays, etc, exhibiting cohesive
properties and containing predominantly none expansive type clay minerals. If CNS
material is not available, designed mix to produce blended CNS may be used. The artificial
CNS should satisfy all the requirements of CNS. If stabilized material is to be used, special
mix design needs are to be evolved. Most murrums of laterytic type siliceous sandy silts
exhibit CNS characteristics. Yet some of the murrums may exhibit swelling. CNS is
observed to be effective in counter acting swelling characteristics in expansive soils.

Thickness of CNS materials is related to swelling pressure and the resultant deformation, the
permissible deformation being 2 cm. Studies from (Subba Rao, 2000) revealed that the
swell-shrink behaviour of a CNS cushioned expansive clay is effective only in the first cycle
and that it becomes less effective during following cycles. So this method is ineffective after
repeted swell –shrink cycles.

2.2 STABILIZATION METHODS:

Soil stabilization is most used method to reduce swelling pressures of expansive soils and has
been implemented in many cases. Based on the mechanisms that occur in expansive soils,
stabilization methods physicochemical stabilization, mechanical stabilization and preventive
measures for mitigating effects of expansive soils.

Physicochemical stabilization includes injection of stabilizers into the soil to react chemically
and improve the engineering properties of expansive soils. They inlcude lime,cement,fly-
ash,gypsum etc. Some of the by product materials like kiln dusts are also used for
stablisation. Non traditional stabilizers include polymers,enzymes and other chemicals.
 9

Mechanical stabilization does not alter the chemical properties of soils but they are done by
controlled compaction, prewetting, mixing with sand, reinforcing using geosynthetics.
Preventive methods include excavation and replacement of expansive soils.

2.3 FLYASH STABILIZED METHODS FOR EXPANSIVE SOILS:

Soil stabilization with fly ash can increase the shear strenght and compressibility charateristic
of soils. As fly ash has cementatious value which in presence of moisture increases the
strenght of soils. So this has successfully used in many in geotechnical applications. The
drawbacks of CNS cushion has led to the study of using fly ash cushions stabilized with lime
and cement like (Rao et al., 2007 and 2008). The studies revealed that fly ash cushion
stabilized with either lime or cement was efficient in countering heave substantially. It was
found to be more effective than either CNS cushion or sand cushion in arresting heave. But
the performance of the lime-or cement-stabilized fly ash cushion during wetting and drying
cycles has to be tested before they can be recommended for application in the field. Various
reaserchers have succesfully studied the effect of flyash stabilization for expansive soils. Fly
ash is the material extracted from flue gases of coal industry. It is a nonplastic fine silt. Its
composition varies according to the nature of coal burned. The generation of fly ash very
much more than its utilization.

Studies have been conducted for effect on fly ash on engineerng properties of expansive soils
by Phanikumar and Sharma (2004). The effects of fly ash on properties of soil like liquid
limit, plastic limit, compaction characteristics, penetration resistance, undrained shear
strength and hydraulic conductivity of the expansive soil were found out. Table 2
summerizes the properties of soil and flyash Phanikumar and sharma (2004) used.

Standard compaction tests were conducted on fly ash mixed expansive soil by varying fly ash
contents 0, 5, 10, 15, and 20% based upon dry weight of soil. The penetration resistance of
the soil mixed with fly ash was determined from the penetration tests performed on the
compacted mixtue at water contents of 20, 25, 30 and 35% added to the natural air-dried soil
which has a water content of 14%. A Proctor needle penetrometer with shoe of diameter 20
mm was used. Unconfined compression tests were performed at the same water contents and
dry unit weights as the compaction tests. The hydraulic conductivity of the blends was
determined using a variable-head permeameter as these are fine grained soils.
 10

Property Swelling Soil Fly ash

Specific gravity 2.72 2.1
Liquid limit % 80 -
Plastic limit % 28 -
Plasticity index % 52 Non plastic
Gravel % 0 0
Sand % 7 0
Silt % 24 92
Clay % 69 8
FSI % 250 Non swelling
UCSC classification CH Non plastic

Table 2 (Properties of swelling soil and fly ash used for determining effect on
engineering properties of expansive soils (after Phanikumar and sharma (2004))

PROPERTIES OF FLY ASH BLENDED EXPANSIVE SOIL:

Effect on permeability : Results indicated by conducting test for permeability show that
permeability decreases with increase in fly ash content. This is related to increase in
maximum dry unit weight with with increase in flyash content.

Effect on plasticity : performing liquid limit and plastic limit tests indicated that liqiud limit
decreases and plastic limit increases with increase in fly ash content in expansive soils. The
plasticity index is reduced by 50% almost with 20% flyash content.

Optimum moisture content and Maximum dry density : based upon standard compaction tests
that were performed , results indicated that optimum moisture content decreases by 25 % and
mximum dry unit weight increases about 5 % with 20 % fly ash content. Compaction curve
shifted upwards and towards left indicating the stabilization of expansive soil by fly ash.

Penetration resistance : penetration resistance was determined using proctor needle mold by
adding water to the naturally air-dried soil. The penetration resistance increased with an
increase in fly ash content for a given water content. At water content of 20%, the
penetration resistance increased by about 30% when the fly ash content increased from 0 to
20%. With an increase in water content,the penetration resistance decreased. Because soil
 11

becomes softer with an increase in water content, its cohesive strength decreases. Also, the
percentage of increase in penetration resistance increases as the water content increases due
to the dry unit weight increasing with increasing moisture content up to the optimum
moisture content. Table 4 shows the variation of penetration resistance with fly ash content.

Undrained shear strength : Undrained shear strength was found out using cylindrical samples
by conducting unconfined compression tests at compacted Proctor densities that
corresponded to oven-dried water contents of 34, 39, 44, and 49%. Table 4 shows the
measured values of undrained shear and penetration resistance at different percentages of fly
ash. The undrained shear strength increases with increae in fly ash content and it decreases
with increase in water content at all fly ash percentages

Free swell index and Swelling pressure : The free swell index ( Holtz and Gibbs 1956 ) was
evaluated. With increase in fly ash content free swell index decreased considerably. By
using 20 % fly ash content free swell index decreased almost 50 %. The swelling pressure
and swelling potential of flyash mixed expansive soils were found out by free swell method
(ASTM D4545,1996) in this test. The samples were compacted in four layers each of 5mm
thickness.. Al low percentages of fly ash the decrease in swelling potential and swelling
pressure are high but at fly ash percentage greater than 20 % ther is not much decrease in
swelling potential and swelling pressure of expansive soils. At 20 % fly ash swelling
pressure and swelling pressure has decreased significantly almost by 50 %.

Table 3 (Variation of properties of expansive soil at different fly ash percentages

blended (after Phani kumar and Sharma (2004 ))

Property Fly ash : 5 % 10 % 15 % 20 %

Liquid limit % 77 75 73 70
Plastic limit % 31 35 40 44
OMC % 38 35 33 31
Max dry density 13.91 KN/m3 14.05 KN/ m3 14.19 KN/ m3 14.3 KN/ m3
Free swell index 200 % 165 % 140 % 125 %
Swelling 8.75 7.2 6.0 5.5
potential %
Swelling 72 60 50 45
pressure kPa
Permeability Not tested cm/s Not tested 3.95 cm/s
 12

Water Fly ash 0% Fly ash 5% Fly ash 10 % Fly ash 20%
added
PR Cu PR Cu PR Cu PR Cu

20 1753 147 1822 154 1911 161 2302 186

25 1108 91 1210 97 1310 105 1587 130
30 579 49 641 53 702 58 907 76
35 302 26 365 29 420 32 554 44

Table 4 ( Variation of penetration resitance (PR) and undrined shear stregth (Cu) with
fly ash and water content (afterPhani kumar and Sharma (2004))

Blending of fly ash reduces the plasticity of expansive soils. The liquid limit decreases and
the plastic limit increases with an increase in fly ash content. More importantly the free swell
index of expansive soils can be effectively reduced by the addition of fly ash. For the
expansive soil used, the FSI was reduced by about 50% by adding 20% fly ash. Using of fly
ash for expansive soil reduces the swelling potential and swelling pressure. Both the swell
potential and swelling pressure were reduced by 50% at 20% fly ash. But after percentage of
fly ash more than 20 % the decrease in swelling pressure and swelling potential is not
significant.

2.4 Lime stabilized fly ash cushion for expansive soils :

Lime is as the stabilising agent because it reacts with the silica and alumina present in fly ash
in the presence of water to produce cementitious products called hydrated calcium alumino
silictes. Studies were done with a lime stabilised fly ash cushion on the expansive soil bed.
Researchers also stidied to see whether leaching of the lime occurs with subsequent cycles of
wetting and drying, which might lessen the effect of the stabilised fly ash cushion in reducing
heave. Lime will primarily react with medium, moderately fine, and fine-grained soils to
increase workability, reduce swelling, and increase strength.

Soil properties are improved due to three basic chemical reactions (Fang 1991):

1.Cation exchange and flocculation-agglomeration : This process involves agglomeration of

the fine clay particles into coarse particles. These are initial reactions between soil and lime.
Sodium ions are replaced by calcium ions in lime .
 13

2.Cementation : The reaction between calcium present in lime and silica and alumina in the
soil, forming calcium-silicate and calcium aluminate or calcium-aluminate-silicates.
3.Carbonation : Carbonation occurs when lime added to soil does not react with soil but
draws CO2 from soil or air. This occurs when soil does not contain adequate amount of
pozzolanic clay or when excessive amount of lime is added.

Use of lime stabilized fly ash in expansive soil : A.S.Rao et al 2008 have found the efficiency
of use of lime stabilized fly ash in expasive soils. The properties of expansive soil( Black
cotton soil) used for experimentation (A.S.Rao et al 2008) is tabulated below in table 5.

Specific gravity 2.72

Sand % 24
Silt % 3.2
Clay % 72.8
Maximum dry density Mg/m3 1.5
OMC % 25.5
Liquid limit % 73
Plstic limit % 28
Plsticity index % 45
Free swell index % 150
Swell pressure kPa 147
IS classification CH

Table 5 ( Properties for finding efficacy of lime stabilized fly ash in expansive soils
(from A.S.Rao et al 2008 ))

Various densities of flyash cushion were tested at various percentages of lime and also
different thickness of flyash cushion to soil bed were tested. From the results obtained dry
density and optimum lime content were found out. The densities of fly as used were
0.85 Mg/ , 1 Mg/ , 1.15 Mg/ and 1.3 Mg/ . Percentages of fly ash used were
2.5%,5%, 7.5%, 10%,12.5% for each density of fly ash. The ratio of thickness of fly ash to
thickness of soil bed were .25, .5,.75 and 1. Tests were also done to study the durability of
lime stabilized flyash cushion.
 14

EXPERIMENTAL SEUP FOR SWELLING : The experiment was carried out in galvanised
iron cylindrical test mould 300 mm in diameter and 400 mm height.A sand layer 10 mm thick
was laid at the bottom of the mould and levelled with a rammer. A cylindrical casing, made
of galvanised iron sheet, 200 mm in diameter and 400 mm high, was placed centrally in the
test tank. The casing was coated with a thin film of oil on its surfaces for easy removal after
compaction of the soil. The gap between the casing and the test mould was filled with coarse
sand to facilitate quick saturation of the expansive soil upon flooding with water. The black
cotton clay, sieved through a 75 mm sieve, was compacted in the space inside the casing.
The soil was compacted in three layers. Each layer was kept at a compacted thickness of 50
mm with a dry density of 1.4 Mg/m3 and a water content of 15%. At the above dry density,
swelling of the soil would be quite high. Even though swelling would be highest at zero
moisture content, a minimum of 15% water content was chosen for easy compaction.

After compacting the first layer, the casing was partially withdrawn, leaving sufficient
overlap between the casing and the compacted soil in order to maintain continuity between
successive layers, and ensure that the soil does not spill over the sides. The fly ash cushion
was thoroughly mixed in the dry state with the desired lime content. A hollow PVC pipe
was placed at the top of the clay bed before compacting the fly ash cushion. The lime
stabilised fly ash cushion was placed above in layers and compacted to the desired density
and thickness. After compacting the fly ash cushion, a heave stake was placed through the
PVC pipe on the top of the clay bed. A dial gauge was mounted on the top of the heave
stake. A schematic diagram of the experimental setup is shown in Fig3. After noting the
initial reading on the dial gauges, water was allowed into the test mould and the heave of the
soil was recorded. When the soil was fully saturated and swollen, and there was no further
increase in the dial gauge reading, it was recorded.

After the process of swelling was completed, water left in the cylindrical tank was removed.
The specimen was then oven-dried with a thermostatically controlled oven. The initial
reading was noted before the specimen was airdried. The shrinkage reading was noted when
there was no change in thickness for a period of three days. After the shrinkage process was
completed, which marks the completion of one cycle, the specimen was left for 48 h before
starting the next cycle. The above procedure was repeated for the other four cycles until an
equilibrium bandwidth was obtained over at least two cycles.
 15

Dial guage

Heave stake

Test tank

Flyash cushion

Casing

Expansive Soil bed

Fig 3 . Test setup for swelling studies (from A.S.Rao et al (2008))

Results from test : The effect of lime content and density of flyash on swelling potential of
the soil were plotted. Fig 4 shows the variation of swelling potential with lime content for
different dry densities of fly ash cushion and for a ratio of thickness of flyash cushion and
soil bed (zc/zs = 1).

The swelling potential decreases with increase in lime content for any dry density of
the fly ash cushion. But for any dry density, the decrease is more pronounced after a lime
content of 7.5% and also the decrease in swelling potential is is significant with dry density
greater than 1 Mg/ .As the lime content increases, there will be more development of
cementitious bonds in the fly ash cushion. Further, with an increase in dry density of the fly
ash cushion, the total surface area of the soil available for the lime–fly ash reaction increases.
As a result, the reaction between lime and the silica available in the fly ash will also be
stronger. These two factors together contribute to the development of a large number of
cementitious bonds in the lime-stabilised fly ash cushion, which helps to arrest heave of the
underlying expansive clay bed.
 16

Fig 4 .Decrease in swelling potential with percentage of lime for (zc/zs = 1)

(after A.S.Rao 2008 et al )

Effect of thickness of fly ash cushion : The swelling potential decreases significantly with
an increase in the thickness of the fly ash cushion. For a lime content of 10%, the swelling
potential of expansive soil decreases to nearly 18% for a Zc/Zs ratio of 0.5, where it recorded
a value of 27% without fly ash cushion. The swelling potential further reduced to 8% for a
Zc/Zs ratio of 1.0. The increase in thickness of the fly ash cushion releases larger quantities
of cementitious bonds in the stabilised expansive soils. The lime stabilised fly ash cushion is
more advantageous than either the sand cushion or the CNS cushion.

Fig 5 Decrease in swelling potential with fly ash cushion thickness over expansive soil
(after A.S.Rao et all 2008).
 17

Effect on swell- shrink cycles : After establishing from the studies that the lime stabilised fly
ash cushion was effective in reducing heave of expansive soil significantly, its swell–shrink
behaviour was studied, as it was major disadvantage of CNS cushion that it is effective only
for the first cycle of swelling and shrinkage, and it subsequently becomes less effective after
that ( Subba Rao 2000). Tests were performed whether lime stabilized fly ash cushion has
similar disadvantage.

Fig 6 (Cyclic Swell shrink behaviour of black cotton soil provided with lime stabilized
fly ash cushion (From A.S.Rao et al 2008)).

The above figure depicts the decrease in swelling potential with lime stabilized flyash
cushion with 10% lime and 1.3Mg/ dry density at 15 % water content. It can be seen that
after first swelling cycle with increase in thickness of fly ash cushion the reduction in
swelling potential increases. So this method is more advantageous than CNS cushion in
arresting heave of expansive soil . For a soil bed provided with a cushion thickness equal to
that of the bed (Zc/Zs=1) the difference in swelling potential and the shrinkage over the
successive cycles is tending to zero after fourth cycle.

From the above experimental results by (A.S.Rao et all 2008) the fly ash stabilized expansive
soil was effective in minimising heave and reducing swelling potential and swelling pressure.
With increase in thickness of lime stabilized fly ash cushion the reduction is more and with
increase in percentage of lime and dry density there is corresponding decrease in heave. It
would be sufficient if soil from top half of active zone in removed and replaced by fly ash
cushion as for ratio of (Zc/Zs=1) it was found more effective .
 18

G. Yesuratnam et al 2011 have conducted same tests for effect of lime and fly ash on
expansive soils. Three soils have been tested for swelling pressure and free swell index.
Expansive soils have been designated as A,B and W which they brought from three different
places. The decrease of swell pressure is more in case lime treated soils, and it is
approximately decreased to 25% of the untreated soil swelling pressure, corresponding to 4%
addition of lime of all the soils tested. The same was observed for swelling potential.

FIG 7 (Variation of swelling pressure with lime and fly ash content
(after G. Yesuratnam 2011 et al)

Fig 8 (Variation of swelling potential with lime and fly ash content )
(after G. Yesuratnam et al 2011)
 19

2.5 CHEMICAL STABILIZATION :Another method for reduction of swelling in

expansive soils is usage of chemically stabilized soil as cushion material below on expansive
Soils. V.Ramana Murty and G.V.Praveen( 2008) have studied the effect of chemical
stabilizer CaCl2 with rice-husk-ash (RHA) which is a by product produced after rice husk
has burnt. The mixture of soil and CaCl2 with rice-husk-ash (RHA) serves the purpose of
cohesive non swelling soil (CNS). This can be used where CNS material is not available. It
has been found that CaCl2 is an effective chemical stabilizer to modify the expansive soil
properties (Murty et al. 2000 ,Chandrasekhar et al. 2002). Two combinations of soil and
chemical stabilizer were used for chemically stabilized soil cushion (CSS) by V.Ramana
Murty and G. V. Praveen( 2008) . The expansive soil tested was typical black cotton soil
and the mix of black cotton soil with 0.5% CaCl2 (based on dry weight of soil) and 8% RHA.
This mixture is termed as CSS. Commercial CaCl2 having 60% CaCl2, 22% MgCl2, and 18%
H2O was used along with RHA.

Property Value
Percentage finer than 425µ 93
Percentage finer than 75µ 17
Specific gravity 1.91
Chemical composition in %
Silica 89.32
Alumina 2.73
Ferric oxide .81
Calcium oxide 4.22
Magnesium oxide .87
Table 6 ( Properties of Rice husk ash RHA used for experimentation )

(after V.Ramana Murty and G.V.Praveen( 2008))

Tests were carried out for effect of CSS material on swelling pressure and swelling potential
by Oedometer Tests (IS: 2720-(Part 41) with 100mm dia and 45 mm height . Tests were
performed by varying thickness of CSS cushion of 5,15, and 20 mm over 20 mm thick black
cotton soil layer. Swell tests were also carried out both in the oedometers and also in a bigger
size test tank. The tests in a bigger size tank( 500mm X 600 mm) were intended to
overcome the effect of sample confinement, which is unavoidable in the case of oedometer
testing and for a wider range of thickness variations of cushion materials that may further
 20

improve the test results. The swell potential of clay is calculated as the percentage increase
in thickness of the sample with respect to its original thickness upon inundation with water
under 5 KPa surcharge pressure. Swell pressure is taken as the pressure required to bring
back the swollen sample to its original thickness. Similar tests were also carried out using 20
mm thick murrum which normally serves the purpose CNS cushion for comparision of the
effectiveness of CSS cushion with conventional CNS cushion. The clay and the cushion
materials were compacted to their respective MDD at their OMC.

Murrum / CSS cushion

Expansive soil

Fig 9 variables in oedometer testing

Results from oedometer testing : The swell potential and swell pressure values of expansive
soils tested in oedometers and bigger size test tank even with a nominal thickness of CSS
cushion have decreased. The reduction in swell properties can be supported by the high
cohesion value of CSS mix, the CaCl2 present in a CSS cushion helps to chemically stabilize
the soil at the interface. The effectiveness of a CSS cushion could also be supported by the
concept of CNS layer method (Katti 1979). The CNS layer technique was proposed based on
the field observations that only a limited thickness of clay bed near the surface is subjected to
volumetric changes upon moisture variations while protecting the underneath clay from
volume changes, and if this top layer is replaced by a CNS layer, it helps to restore the similar
environment which was present initially at the interface.

Cushion Thickness of Thickness of Swelling Swelling

material expansive soil cushion potential % pressure Kpa
- 20 mm 0 mm 26 400
CSS layer 20 mm 5 mm 4.6 95
CSS layer 20 mm 15 mm 3.95 51
CSS layer 20 mm 20 mm 1.95 51
CSS layer 35 mm 5 mm 5.25 95
Murrum 20 20 7.6 320
Table 7 Influence of cushion material on swell properties of oedometer tests
(after V.Ramana Murty and G.V.Praveen( 2008))
 21

2.6 MECHANICAL STABILIZATION OF EXPANSIVE SOILS :Mechanical

stabilization of expansive soils do not change the chemical properties of soil but rather they
include controlling the compaction or mixing with sand (Sridharan and Gurtug 2004),(
Mishra et al. 2008) and reinforcing the soil using geosynthetics (Sharma and Phanikumar
2005).

Sridharan and Gurtug (2004) have studied the Swelling behaviour of compacted fine grained
soils laboratory tests for tests were carried out at different energy levels ie for Proctor’s test
and modified Proctor test and one in between them. For a comparing the results soils having
high montmorillonitic content and low swelling kaolinitic soils have been considered. Five
different expansive soils were tested of which three were obtained from three regions of
Cyprus island (Tuzla, Degirmenlik, and Akdeniz) and two soils where one having high
montmorillonitic clay and a kaolinite clay were used for experimentation.

Soil Specific Liquid Plastic Plasticity Activity Principle clay

gravity limit limit index mineral
Kaolinite 2.65 28.2 21.1 7.1 .21 kaolinite
Degirmenlik 2.74 37.0 25.0 12.0 .34 kaolinite
Akdeniz 2.75 49.6 27.7 21.9 .50 illite kaolinite
Tuzla 2.78 52.9 27.7 25.2 .60 montmorillonite
Montmorillonitic 2.60 98.0 40.0 58.0 .77 montmorillonite
clay

Table 8 (Properties of soils used for studying swelling behaviour of compacted fine
grain soils (after A. Sridharan, Y. Gurtug 2004)

TEST DESCRIPTION:

Three different compaction energy levels were used by Sridharan, Y. Gurtug( 2004)
,standard Proctor (SP), reduced modified Proctor (RMP) and modified Proctor (MP). The
standard Proctor test consists of a mould of volume 944 , internal diameter of 10 cm and
a height of 11.68 cm (4.6 in.) in which the soil is compacted in three layers, giving each layer
25 blows by a metal hammer weighing 2.5 kg falling through 30.5 cm in accordance with
BSI, 1990). The compaction energy works will be 593.7 kJ/m3. In the modified Proctor test,
the mould remains same, number of layers is five, weight of the hammer being 4.55 kg
 22

falling through 45.7 cm (18 in.). The compaction energy will be 2693.3 kJ/m3. In the
reduced modified Proctor test, the procedure is the same as modified Proctor test, except the
number of layers is three instead of five. The compaction energy comes out to be 1616
kJ/m3.

The swelling tests were carried by Sridharan, Y. Gurtug (2004) in the conventional
oedometer apparatus. The soils were tested in the standard fixed ring consolidometer 75 mm
inside diameter and 19 mm height. The inside of the rings was lubricated with silicone
grease to minimise side friction between the ring and the soil specimen. Filter papers were
placed on top and bottom of the soil specimen to prevent finer particles from being forced
into the pores of the porous stones placed on both sides of the specimen. Initial moisture
content was kept at optimum moisture conten (OMC) and initial density was kept at
maximum dry density (MDD). Nominal pressure of 7 Kpa was applied. Samples were
inundated with water. Equilibrium was reached for kaolinite in 24 hrs but for monmorillonite
clay it took about 7 days. Measurements were recorded for 16 days.

The swelling continued to take place very slowly for montmorillonitic soil and Tuzla soil.
The samples were then loaded gradually until they reached their original volume. The
pressure required is then recorded which is swelling pressure. Swell load method was
adopted to evaluate swelling pressure.

Soils Modified Reduced Modified

procotor modified proctor
proctor
% swell Swelling % swell Swelling % swell Swelling
pressure pressure pressure
Kpa Kpa Kpa
Kaolinite 0.26 8.5 2.96 135.7 4.19 126.7
Degirmenlik 0.84 115.0 4.18 175.0 9.34 430.0
Akademiz 3.61 184.2 10.48 466.7 15.26 866.7
Tuzla 5.63 150.0 14.27 650.0 24.32 1900.0
Montmorillonitic 10.73 466.7 19.86 1000.0 27.49 5000.0
clay
Table 9 (percentage swell and swelling pressure for various compaction energies)
(after Sridharan, Y. Gurtug( 2004) ).
 23

The percentage swell varitation with the maximum dry density obtained for three different
energy levels was plotted. The percent swell increases with increase in density.increase in
density. Although the montmorillonitic clay has lesser initial dry density, it has shown
highest percent swell. Kaolinite has shown the least percent swell even though the density is
more. The other three soils are in between. The percent swell is larger for soils having
higher liquid limit or plasticity index. Fig (9a) shows variation of the compaction energy and
percent swell.

Fig 10 a) Swell percent vs maximum dry density b) Swell percent vs compaction energy
( after Sridharan, Y. Gurtug( 2004))

Increase in energy for modified procotor test is 4.5 times. Therefore and increase in 4.5 times
the energy resulted approximately 2.5 times increase in % swell. Variation of percent swell
with swelling pressure were plotted from the results obtained on the five soils with three
compaction energy levels. Irrespective of the soil type and the compaction energy levels
unique relationship was obtained between percentage swell and swelling pressure. By this
Sridharan, Y. Gurtug( 2004) concluded that this indicates that the mechanical effects
between soil grains during the application of pressure to compress the soil to no volume
change condition is marginal and does not vary from soil to soil. Results indicate that the
swelling pressure vs percent swell can be taken as linearly related up to about a swelling
pressure of 1000 kpa. (Sridharan, Y. Gurtug (2004))
 24

Fig 11 (variation of swelling pressure with % swell from (Sridharan, Y. Gurtug (2004)).

The variation of swelling pressure with compaction energy for the five soils tested was
plotted. A linear relationship was observed in the semilogarithmic plot. The swelling
pressure increased as the compaction energy increased. The increase in swelling pressure is
about 10 times for montmorillonite clay about 4 times for Degirmenlik soil for the change in
the compaction energy from standard Proctor (593.7 kJ/m3) to modified Proctor (2693.3
kJ/m3), i.e., about 4.5 times increase in compaction energy. Compaction energy has more
effect for highly plastic montmorillonitic clays in increasing their swelling pressures. This
basically implies that percent swell and swelling pressure increase with increase in
compaction energy.

Fig 12 ( Effect of compaction energy on swelling pressure for different soils from
(Sridharan, Y. Gurtug (2004)).
 25

2.7 Granular Pile Anchor Foundation (GPAF) System for Improving the Engineering
Behavior of Expansive soils : Apart from physicochemical stabilization and mechanical
stabilization a new technique was presented by Phanikumar et al 2004 for improving the
engineering behaviour of expansive soils. In this GPAF system foundation is anchored at the
bottom of the granular pile to anchor plate through an anchor rod which reduces the heave of
expansive clay beds. The granular pile alone will not be able to resist the uplift due to
expansion so it is anchored at bottom to a mild steel plate or stiff geo grid material thorigh
mild steel rod so that the granular pile will be under tension resistant and will be efficient in
reduction of swelling pressure. The reasons for resistance to uplift given by Phanikumar et al
2004 are due to weight of granular pile and uplift resistance due to friction mobilized along
the pile soil interface which preludes the possibility of detrimental heave.

Tests were conducted by Phanikumar et al 2004 in laboratory on reinforced expansive clay

beds in which granular pile anchors are installed. The weight of granular pile anchor was
neglected in tests as it was small scale. Granular material choosen were naturally available
stone and sand. 81 tests heave tests were carried out for efficiency of GPAF.

Property Value
Specific gravity 2.73
Sand, % 14
Silt % 44
Clay % 42
Liquid limit % 79
Plastic limit % 26
Plasticity index % 53
USCS classification CH
FSI % 190
Table 10 ( Properties of expansive soil used for testing efficiency GPAF for expansive
soils (after Phanikumar et al 2004))

The exapansive soil was obtained at 1.5m -2 m depth and granular material that was used for
the installation of the granular piles was a mixture of 20 % stone chips of particle size range
between 6 and 10 mm and 80 % coarse sand with varying size between 2.4mm and 4.8 mm.
 26

Test procedure: Tests were performed by Phanikumar et al 2004 were in metal tanks 300 by
300 by 900 mm. The wall thickness of the metal tank was 1 mm. The initial water content of
the expansive clay was kept constant at 14 % in all the tests and initial dry unit weight was
varied as 13, 14, and 15 kN/ . The variables studied in respect of granular piles are length ,
diameter and relative density of granular pile. The height of the expansive clay bed and the
granular pile anchor were the same in all the tests. A square mild steel plate of size 100 by
100 mm was used as the surface footing in the heave tests. For saturating the expansive soil
sand was filled all around the tank of 10 mm thickness and also at the bottom by using metal
sheets. A casing pipe of diameter equal to that of granular pile was pushed at the center of
the tank vertically. A mild steel rod of 8mm was fastened to circular steel plate of diameter
of granular pile was inserted vertically into casing pipe so that it will be on top of bottom
sand layer.

Dial guage

Footing plate
Sand layer

Expansive soil Anchor rod

Sand packing

Test tank
Anchor plate

Fig 13 (Experimental set up for granular anchor pile foundation system (GAPF ) (after
Phanikumar et al 2004)

The soil was then divided in to parts and compacted in layers of 50 mm the amount granular
pile material was taken and divided into parts and then compacted to achieve uniform relative
density. The casing pipe and metal sheets used for sand packing were then gradually
removed. The compaction was done till expansive clay and granular material had same
height. A 10mm sand layer was laid over the surface of compacted clay bed.

The expansive soil was then inundated with water and heave was monitored up to point of
saturation where there was no further heave of GPAF. Heave was determined at various
radial distances from the pile also. Water content from various depths were also determined.

Heave Behavior : the amount of heave was also determined without granular pile anchor for
300mm expansive clay compacted to dry unit weight of 13 kN/ and water content of 14 %.
The percentage reduction in heave is given by which is ratio of reduction in heave with
granular pile and without granular pile.
 27

heave in reinforced expansive clay

= heave in original expansive clay.

Studies were done for various length to diameter ratio of granular pile anchors. The
percentage decrease in heave was decreased with decrease in this ratio. As diameter of
granular pile increases the surface area increases and so the resistance to uplift increases
reducing the percentage of heave.

Fig 14 ( Reduction in rate of heave with GPAF from Phanikumar et al 2004)

Fig 15 ( Variation of percentage heave with length to diameter ratio of GPAF from
Phanikumar et al 2004)
 28

Effect of spacing of granular pile anchors: two granular piles were installed at different
spacing in expansive soil and heave was measured and was compared with when only one
granular pile was installed.The diameter ( ) and the length ) of the pile
were 30mm and 300mm respectively.The spacing was 2 and 3 .The heave was measured
at various radial distances away from the centre of granular pile anchors. Heave increased
with increase in radial distance. Heave increased for a given spacing with radial distance and
it decreased when spacing between the granular piles decreased.

Fig 16 a) b) .

(Effect of spacing of granular pile on percentage heave after Phanikumar et al 2004)

Relative density = .50 .70

mm mm
m) 30 40 50 30 40 50
0.30 1.26 0.95 0.73 1.04 0.70 0.48
0.40 1.08 0.78 0.63 0.82 0.52 0.38
0.50 0.87 0.65 0.50 0.62 0.40 0.25

Table 11 a) (Percentage heave of granular pile anchors in expansive soil

for = 13 KN/ and original heave of 6 % ( after Phanikumar et al 2004)).

Relative density = .50 .70

mm mm
m) 30 40 50 30 40 50
0.30 2.25 1.70 1.35 1.98 1.50 1.15
0.40 1.95 1.45 1.16 1.70 1.26 0.95
0.50 1.65 1.20 .95 1.45 1.00 0.75
Table 11 b) (Percentage heave of granular pile anchors in expansive soil
for = 15 KN/ and original heave of 14 % ( after Phanikumar et al 2004)).
 29

Undrained shear strength of the expansive soils were found out from the samples
obtained at different depths of the saturated expansive clay bed in both the reinforced and the
unreinforced conditions. Undrained shear strength, , was directly obtained from the results
of the vane shear tests. The undrained shear strength of the granular pile expansive soil was
higher than that of the unreinforced expansive soil. In the case of the unreinforced clay,
heave was not controlled as there was no resisting force. Full heave occurred, resulting in the
decrease of the density of the expansive soil bed. But in the case of the expansive clay
reinforced with a granular pile anchor, heave was controlled, and the density of the clay
surrounding the granular pile anchor was high, leading to higher values of .

Dry unit weight Soil without granular Soil with granular

KN/ pile anchors pile anchors

KN/
13.00 15 18
14.00 18 21
15.00 21 25

Table 12 (Undrained shear strength (KN/ ) with granular pile anchors

(from Phani kumar et al (2004)

Tests done by Phanikumar et all (2004) revealed that increase in relative density of granular
pile increase in reduction of heave, Because of the increase in frictional resistance of granular
pile. Heave of expansive soil increased with increase in radial distance from the center of the
granular pile. If the granular pile anchors are installed at spacing of 2 times diameter of pile
anchor the reduction of heave was significant.

Heave of expansive soil decreased with increase in the surface area of the granular pile
anchor. For a surface area, the increase in the diameter of pile gave more reduction of the
of heave than the increase in the pile length. A maximum of 96 % reduction in the heave of
the expansive clay beds was obtained.
 30

2.8 GEOFIBER REINFORCEMENT FOR EXPANSIVE SOILS :

Usage of geo fiber and geofoam for addressing the problems posed by expansive soils is
relatively new. Various reaserchers have studied the feasibility of use non traditional
stabilization for expansive soils. B.V.S. Viswanadham et al 2009 have studied the swelling
behaviour of geo fiber reinforced expansive soil. Use of EPS geofoam for reducing swelling
pressure of expansive soil by M. Aytekin et all 2009 is another method.

Viswanadham B.V.S et al 2009 have studied swelling behaviour of expansive soils with
geofiber reinforcement. This is an alternative method for chemical stabilization. Studies by
Puppala and Musenda 2000 have also revealed that combination of fly ash propylene fibers in
expansive soils have reduced the swelling pressure of soils and increased the unconfined
compressive tests of expansive soils. Laboratory studies were done by Viswanadham B.V.S
et al (2009) for efficacy in arresting heave and reducing swelling pressure of expansive soils.
Results obtained were compared with unreinforced expansive soils by conducting swell
consolidation tests.

Test materials obtained had free swell index of 93 % and expansive soil was collected from
1.5 meters depth. The fiber used for reinforcing expansive soil specimens was polypropylene
fiber (840-TF15090) of width 2mm and thickness 0.021 mm and specific gravity of 0.91.
The fiber content f varied as .25 % and . 5 % by dry weight of expansive soil. The length
(l) to width (w) ratio called aspect ratio was varied by 15, 30 and 45 .

Property Value
Specific gravity 2.72
Liquid limit % 71
Plastic limit % 30
Plasticity index % 41
Optimum moisture content (OMC) 26
Maximum dry unit weight KN/ 15
Free swell index 93
USCS CH
Mineralogical composition Montmorillonite :48- 50 %, quartz: 30 -32,
calcite 15-16 and antase 1-2%.
Table 13 ( properties of expansive soil used (after Viswanadham B.V.S et al 2009)
 31

Type and composition Slit film and polypropylene

Width mm 2
Denier 890
Tenacity (gp ) 5.45
Breaking load (N) 48.4
Breaking elongation % 18
Specific gravity .91
Melting point ( ) 170
Table 14 (Properties of polypropylene fibres used)

( after Viswanadham B.V.S et al 2009))

Testing methodology : swell consolidation tests were performed in oedometer of diameter

75mm and thickness 25 mm. Swelling potential (S%) and swelling pressure ( )were found
out at different fibre contents. Specimens were compacted at MDD and OMC obtained from
compaction curves. Five layers each of thickness 5mm were compacted. Seating pressure of
3kpa was applied and heave was then recorded. After reaching maximum heave, samples
were compressed to attain initial void ratio. Swelling potential (S%) was then obtained by
ratio of increase in thickness of sample to original thickness. Swelling pressure ( ) was
then calculated as pressure corresponding to initial void ratio from e–log p curve.

Inferences from results : the maximum heave of un reinforced expansive soil was 1.35mm
and ion reinforcing with polypropylene fiber the heave has decreased. Both the samples
reached maximum heave in 3 days. The reduction in heave is more in lower aspect ratios of
15 and 30 . the reduction in heave at aspect ratio of 45 is less than reduction in heave at other
ratios. At .25 fibre content for aspect ratio of 15 the heave recorded was 0.55 mm and and at
aspect ratio of 45mm the heave recorded was 1.2mm

The reasons attributed to reduction are replacement of expansive clay by non expansive fiber
and the resistance offered by finer to expansion depends on clay fiber contact area. At lower
aspect ratios means at low length of fibers implies more contact between clay and fiber and
higher length of fiber, the fiber would be subjected to bending and folding so reducing
contact area and less resistance to swelling occurs.
 32

The variation of heave with aspect ratio at different fiber content is shown in figure 14 and it
indicates that heave decreased with increase in fiber content at all aspect ratios. The
reduction in heave was significant for lower aspect ratios can be clearly seen.

Figure 17 ( Variation of heave with aspect ratio at different fiber contents ( from
Viswanadham B.V.S et al 2009 )

Figure 18( Variation of heave with time for fiber content of .5 % ( from Viswanadham
B.V.S et al 2009 ))

The swelling pressures were calculated from e –log P curve(fig 16) and found that 105 kPa
for unreinforced oedometer sample and fro fiber-reinforced samples at aspect ratio of 15, 30
and 45 were 90 kPa, 85 kPa and 98 kPa, respectively. As the aspect ratio of 45 resulted in a
higher amount of heave compared to those of 15 and 30, the corresponding swelling pressure
was also higher at 98 kPa. The reduction in pressures was marginal by addition of fibers.
 33

The flexible polymeric fibers in the soil are stretched when expansion occurs and tension in
fibers resists the further swelling. Resistance offered by the fibers to swelling depends upon
the soil–fiber contact area.

Fig 19 ( variation of void ratio with swelling pressure at fiber content of .5% ( from
Viswanadham B.V.S et al 2009 ))

2.9 USE OF GEOFOAM FOR REDUCTION OF SWELLING PRESSURES IN

EXPANSIVE SOILS : Use of EPS geofoam rather than nonswelling cohesive materials or
chemical stabilizers between structures and expansive soil is much more effective in reducing
the potential impacts of swelling pressures (M. Aytekin et al 2008 ). Study of use of geo
foam for reduction of swelling pressures was done by (M. Aytekin et al 2009 ). Glass-fibre
insulation and card board were for a long time ( Hovarth 1998 ). But the stress-strain
behaviour of these materials is unpredictable and uncontrollable.Therefore to overcome this
new material was needed.

Expanded polystyrene (EPS) is a rigid cellular foam that has been used in a wide range of
geotechnical applications. The mechanical behavior, energy dissipation characteristics of
EPS blocks, and low density as well as low permeability of EPS are major reasons why this
material has been used in geotechnical applications. Geofoams used either alone or with
other geosynthetics and these offer new, cost-effective solutions to a wide variety of
geotechnical problems. The density of EPS geofoam is very less it as almost of 1% of
density of soil. the compressive stress–strain relationships of a typical EPS specimen shows
a linear elastic behavior for strains usually less than 1% (A. Ossa and M. P. Romo 2009).
 34

When subject to compression, the EPS deforms by bending, buckling and fracture of the cell
walls. Density strongly influences EPS behavior, the confining stress and deformation rate
also affect the compressive behavior of EPS (A. Ossa and M. P. Romo 2009).

Type Density (kg/m3)

I 15
II 22
VIII 18
IX 29
XI 12

Table 15 (Densities of EPS geofoam (from Horvarth et al 2003)

To study the effect of expanded polystyrene (EPS) geofoam in expansive soil, an

experimental study was performed by (M. Aytekin et al 2008) to determine the potential
decrease in swelling pressure as a result of the inclusion of different EPS geofoam thickness
between an expansive soil and a rigid wall using an experimental set up.

To examine the degree of reduction of swelling pressure of expansive soil, EPS geofoam
panels with different thicknesses were placed along the inside face of one side of the
experimental test box. Swelling pressures were measured

Figure 20 ( Variation of vertical swelling pressure with time for different thickness of
EPS (from M. Aytekin et al 2008)
 35

In all of the laboratory tests, which were performed with EPS geofoam, it was observed that
lateral and vertical swelling pressures reduced as EPS geofoam thickness increased. the main
aim of this laboratory study was to study the reduction of lateral swelling pressure, it was
observed that vertical swelling pressure was also reduced.

Studies have been done recently by (M. Aytekin et al 2009 ) for reduction of swelling
pressure. Materials are used for expansive soils for testing (M. Aytekin et al 2009 ) are sand
and EPS geofoam. Bentonite with high swelling potential was used. Mixing of sand is most
common type for stabilizing expansive soils but mixing of sand with expansive soils in field
has difficulties so same amount of sand was placed on top of expansive soil and also tests
were done for blended sand – expansive soils to study the reduction of swelling pressures.
For comparion for methods. Tests were done using bentonite with a high swelling
potentialfor finding out the the reduction on swelling pressure. Two stages of tests were
done.The first stage consisted of two series of tests where, in the first series the sand was
mixed with the bentonite and in the second series the same percentage of sand as that used in
the first series was placed on top of the bentonite and not mixed in.

Property Value
Liquid limit % 461.5
Plastic limit % 28.5
Plasticity index % 433
Optimum moisture content OMC % 8.35
Maximum dry unit weight MDD KN/ m3 12.4
UCSC CH

Table 16 (Properties of soil used for experimentation (from M. Aytekin et al 2009))

In both series, the reduction percentages of swelling pressures were determined. In the
second stage tests, EPS geofoam was used in place of sand to determine which of these
materials were most effective in reducing swelling pressure. These experiments were
performed using different thicknesses of EPS geofoam which were same as those of sand
layers on bentonite.

The density of EPS geofoam used is 12 kg/m3 which is type XI in ASTM C-578. Swelling
pressure tests were performed by modified consolidation tests according to ASTM D 4546.
 36

Tests were performed in consolidation ring of 50.8mm diameter and 20 mm thick. In the first
series of experiment bentonite at optimum water content determined by proctor compaction
test was mixed with sand in proportions of 20% . 40 %, 60% and 80%. Then they were
placed in consolidometer. The specimens were maintined at constant volume by applying
load vertically after inundation with water for finding swelling pressure. Tests were stopped
when dial guage did not indicate any swelling movement.

In the second series of tests the same percentages of sand which was used in the first series
was employed but the sand and bentonite were not mixed together. The sand was placed on
the sample of bentonite and was compacted at optimum water content. In this series of tests,
the weights of bentonite and sand in the confining ring for each percentage of sand were
equal to the weights of bentonite and sand used in the first series.

The second stage of test was done by using EPS geofoam. Different thicknesses of EPS
geofoam were placed on the sample of bentonite. These thicknesses were same as the
thicknesses of sand that were placed on the sample of bentonite in the first stage experiments.

First stage Second stage

First series Second series
Bentonite-sand mixture Sand placed on
bentonite EPS geofoam placed on bentonite
100%B + 0% S 100%B + 0% S B
80 %B + 20 % S 80 %B + 20 % S B + 2mm G
60%B + 40 % S 60%B + 40 % S B + 6mm G
40%B + 60 % S 40%B + 60 % S B + 11.2 mm G
20%B + 80 % S 20%B + 80 % S B + 14.6 mm G
Table 17(Percentage of sand-bentonite mixtures, thicknesses of sand and EPS geofoam
(from M. Aytekin et al 2009))

Inferences from Results : The effect of sand on swelling pressure for bentonite can be seen
from figure 17 and 18. The swelling pressure of bentonite is 422 kPa. The swelling pressure
was decreased from 422 to 286 kPa as the percentage of sand was increased from 0 to 80%
for sand mixed with bentonite. In the second series of test of the first stage, the swelling
pressure was decreased from 422 to 274 kPa as the percentage of sand was increased
(figure 21).
 37

Figure 21 Decrease of swelling pressure for sand mixed with bentonite

(from M. Aytekin et al 2009))

Figure 22 ( Decrease of swelling pressure for sand placed on bentonite

(from M. Aytekin et al 2009)).

In the second stage of tests the swelling pressure was decreased from 422 to 73 kPa for
different thicknesses of EPS geofoam placed on the bentonite. The reduction in swelling
pressure as a function of sand or EPS geofoam is shown in figure 19.
 38

Fig 23 ( Reduction of swelling pressure with time for EPS geofoam placed on bentonite
(from M. Aytekin et al 2009)).

Experiments Soil sample Swelling pressure in Reduction of

First stage KPa pressure in (%)

First series 100%B + 0% S 422 0

80 %B + 20 % S 392 7.11
60%B + 40 % S 252 16.56
40%B + 60 % S 331 21.56
20%B + 80 % S 286 32.22
Second series 100%B + 0% S 422 0
80 %B + 20 % S 363 13.98
60%B + 40 % S 335 20.61
40%B + 60 % S 301 28.67
20%B + 80 % S 274 35.07
Second stage
B 422 0
B + 2 mm G 403 4.5
B + 6 mm G 242 42.65
B + 11.2 mm G 114 72.99
B + 14.6 mm G 73 82.70
Table 18 (Reduction of swelling pressures for different combinations of soil and
bentonite and EPS geofoam (from M. Aytekin et al 2009)).
 39

Figure 24 (Influence of sand and EPS geofoam on swelling pressure

(from M. Aytekin et al 2009 )

Figure 25( Influence of sand on swelling pressure from M. Aytekin et al 2009 )

In the second stage experiments, when EPS geofoam was used it was observed that swelling
pressures were reduced as the EPS geofoam thickness was increased. When equal thickness
of sand and EPS was placed on expansive soil. The reduction with usage of EPS geofoam
was more when compared with sand palced on expansive soil. The swelling pressure was
reduced by about 50% when a 6 mm thick layer of EPS geofoam was used,which was half the
thickness of expansive soil. By this studies it is cleary evident that use of EPS geofoam is
very much effective and significantly reduces swelling pressure when compared with other
methods.
 40

Chapter 3
Summary
Expansive soils have high content of mineral montmorillonite which absorbs water during
monsoon and undergo swelling as a consequence. During summer, the water evaporates and
cause shrinkage of the soil. This alternate swelling and shrinkage with moisture fluctuations
causes strains in the structures built in them and, as a result, the structures are distressed.
Single storey and two-storey buildings, pavements, canal beds and linings, retaining walls are
some of the structures which undergo distress. This damage is estimated at £150 million in
UK and $1000 million in the United States. In India one-fifth of the country’s land is
occupied by these soils.

Various methods have been adopted to address the problems associated with expansive soils
which include provision of sand cushion,CNS method, physicochemical stabilization,
chemical stabilization, mechanical stabilization,usage of granular pile anchor foundation and
use of geofoams in expansive soils.These methods have their relative advantages and
disadvantages.
Large-scale laboratory studies and field investigations (Katti, 1979) it was found that, in an
expansive soil bed development of cohesive bonds takes place upon saturation which helps
to inhibit heave in the soil below a depth of 1.0 m to 1.2 m. But the soil in the top 1.0 m to
1.2 m does swell. It was felt that if an environment similar to the one which exists over this
thickness is produced and the soil is not allowed to swell, it should be possible to arrest heave
in the expansive soil. By replacing the soil in the top 1.0 –1.2 m with a cohesive non-
swelling soil (CNS), this kind of environment can be produced. The specifications for CNS
material, placement conditions and thickness requirements have been standardized by the
Bureau of Indian Standards (IS: 9495-1994).But later studies (Subba Rao, 2000) revealed that
the swell-shrink behaviour of a CNS cushioned expansive clay is effective only in the first
cycle and that it becomes less effective after that.
Rao et al. (2001) studied the impact of cyclic wetting and drying on the swelling behaviour
of lime-treated expansive clays. The beneficial effects of lime stabilization were partially
lost.
 41

Leaching problmes can also be occur in case chemical stabilization methods. Studies were
done by (Srirama Rao et al., 2007) for granular pile anchor foundations for expansive soils
and found that heave of expansive clay beds can be reduced significantly by reinforcing them
The frictional resistance at the interface between the granular pile and the soil helps in
reducing the heave in soil. But studies on usage of granular piles in field for expansive soils
have to be carried out.

Reduction of swelling pressures in expansive soils by EPS geofoam have found to be

effective. EPS geofoam is a light weight material of very low density. Usage of this
compressible inclusion can reduce swelling pressures significantly. The problems associated
with EPS are they cannot be made into regularly shaped blocks and thus cannot be readily
used to fill an irregular volume. The stiffness of EPS blocks cannot be changed easily to suit
the properties of the soil on-site (Liu et al., 2006).

Providing horizontal and vertical moisture barriers to prevent excessive flow of water.
Construction of additional floors above the existing building can be done to increase the
loading on the foundation so that pressure woud be more than the existing swelling pressure.
These are some of simple techniques that can be adopted for small areas for reducing the
effect of expansive soils.
 42

REFERENCES :
1. Behaviour of saturated expansive soil and control methods By Ramanath Keshavarao
Katti, Dinesh Ramanath Katti, Anand Ramnath Katti Oxford and IBH publishing co.(1994)
2. SUBBA RAO K. S. (1999) , “Swell–shrink behavior of expansive soils: geotechnical
challenges”Proceedings of the Indian Geotechnical Journal, Calcutta, 1999, 30, No. 1, 1–69.
3. Phanikumar B.R and Radhey S.Sharma (2004) “Effect of Flyash on Engg properties of
Expansive Soil” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering Vol. 130, no
7,July, pp. 764-767.
4. Phanikumar B. R. & Sharma, R. S. (2007). Volume change behavior of fly ash-
stabilized clays. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 19, No. 1, 67–74.
5. IS:2720 (Part XL) 1977. IS code of practice for determination of free swell index.
6. IS :2720 ( Part XLI) 1977 IS code of practice for determination of swelling pressure of
soil
7. M. R. Rao , A. S. Rao , R. D. Babu (2008)“Efficacy of Cement-stabilized Fly Ash
Cushion in Arresting Heave of Expansive Soils ”, Proceedings of The institution of civil
engineers : ground improvement Volume: 161 Issue Number: GI1 ISSN: 1755-0750.
8.Yesuratnam G, Darga Kumar N, Ramadas T. L (2011), “Geotechnical characteristics of
three expansive soils treated with lime and flyash ”, International Journal of Earth Sciences
and Engineering ISSN 0974-5904, Volume 04, No 06 SPL, October 2011, pp. 46-49.
9. V. Ramana Murty and G. V. Praveen (2008), “Use of Chemically Stabilized Soil as
Cushion Material below Light Weight Structures Founded on Expansive Soils ” , Journal of
Materials in Civil Engineering. Volume 20 issue 5,ASCE, pp 392 (2008) .
10. Sridharan, A. & Gurtug, Y. (2004). Swelling behaviour of compacted fine-grained
soils. Engineering Geology, 72, No. 1–2, 9–18 .
11. Phanikumar, B.R., Sharma, R.S., Srirama Rao, A.S., Madhav, M.R (2004). “Granular
pile anchor foundation (GPAF) system for improving the engineering behaviour of
expansive clay beds”. Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM 27 (3), 279–287.
12. B.V.S. Viswanadham, B.R. Phanikumar, Rahul V. Mukherjee(2009), “Swelling
behaviour of a geofiber-reinforced expansive soil”, Geotextiles and Geomembranes,Volume
27, Issue 1, February 2009, Pages 73-76.
13. Ikizler, S.B., Aytekin, M., Nas, E (2008), “Laboratory study of expanded polystyrene
(EPS) geofoam used with expansive soils ” . Geotextiles and Geomembranes, volume 26 ,
page 189 – 195 .
 43

14. John S. Horvath (1997), “ The Compressible Inclusion Function of EPS Geofoam”
Geotextiles and Geomembranes volume 15 (1997) 77-120.
15. Ikizler, S. B., Aytekin, M. and Vekli, M. (2009). “Reductions in swelling pressure of
expansive soil stabilized using EPS geofoam and sand”. Geosynthetics International,16,
No. 3, 216–221.
16. Nelson J, Miller DJ (1997) “Expansive soils: problems and practice in foundation and
pavement engineering”. John Willey & Sons Ltd, New York.