See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256565224

The Active Zone for Heave of Expansive Soils

Conference Paper · March 2006

CITATIONS READS

0 1,348

2 authors, including:

Mohammed Yousif Fattah

University of Technology, Iraq
224 PUBLICATIONS 226 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

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

Dewatering Effect on Virtual Settlement of Pile Foundation: case study in Bab AL-Mudham area,
Baghdad-Iraq View project

Finite element View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohammed Yousif Fattah on 02 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Proceedings of the 4th Jordanian Civil Engineering Conference, 28-30 March 2006,
Amman - Jordan

The Active Zone for Heave of Expansive Soils

Dr. M. Y. Fattah1, Dr. F. A. Salman1

1
Building and Construction Engineering Department, University of Technology, Baghdad, Iraq

Abstract

The depth of active zone for swelling is defined as the least soil depth above which changes in
water content and soil heave may occur because of change in environmental conditions
following construction. Depending on the data obtained for the site of the University of Al-
Mosul, a set of parameters are selected and a parametric study is carried out to calculate the
potential heave and the excess pore water pressure. This is done through the computer
program (VDISPL). It was concluded that the most important factor effecting the
determination of the heave is the initial void ratio. The calculated heave and excess pore water
pressure increased greatly when the void ratio decreased. The compression index has no effect
on heave at shallow depths (less than 7 m), after this depth, the heave increases with the
increase of the compression index.

Keywords: swelling, parametric study, potential heave, void ratio, compression index

1 Introduction

Many types of soils change volume from causes different from elastic deformation,
consolidation, and secondary compression. These volume changes cause excessive total and
differential movements of overlying structures and embankments in addition to load induced
settlement of the soil. Such unstable conditions include the heaving of expansive clays and
collapse of silty sands, sandy silts, and clayey sands from alteration of the natural water
content.

The depth in a soil which periodic changes of moisture occur is usually referred to as the
active zone. The depth of the active zone varies, depending on location. In some clays and
clay shales in the western United States, the depth of the active zone can be as much as much
50 ft (15 m). The active zone depth can be easily determined by plotting the liquidity index
against the depth of the soil profile over several seasons, (Das, 1999). Figure 1 shows such a
plot for the Beaumont formation in the Houston area.
Proceedings of the 4th Jordanian Civil Engineering Conference, 28-30 March 2006,
Amman - Jordan

2 Heaving Soil

Expansive or swelling soils are found in many areas throughout the world. These soils change
volume within the active zone for heave from changes in soil moisture.

Liquidity Index
-1 0 1
0

Approximate depth
of seasonal change
1.67 m
2
Depth (m)

3 Range over
several seasons

Figure 1. Active zone in Houston area – Beaumont formation

(after O’Neill and Poormoayed, 1980).

3 Soils Susceptible to Heave

These soils consist of plastic clays and clay shales that often contain colloidal clay minerals
such as the montmorillonites or smectite. They include marls, clayey siltstone and sandstone,
and saprolites. Some soils, especially dry residual clayey soil, may heave on wetting under
low applied pressure, but collapse at higher pressure. Other clayey soils may initially collapse
on wetting, but heave over long periods of time as water slowly wets the less pervious clay
particles. Desiccation can cause expansive soil to shrink, (EM 1110-1-1904, 1990).

4 Depth of Active Zone

The depth of the active zone Za illustrated in Figure 1 is defined as the least soil depth above
which changes in water content, and soil heave may occur because of change in
environmental conditions following construction. The water content distribution should not
change with time below Za. Experience indicates that Za may be approximated following
guidelines in Table 1.
Proceedings of the 4th Jordanian Civil Engineering Conference, 28-30 March 2006,
Amman - Jordan

Table 1. Guidelines for estimating depth of the active zone (Za)

(from EM 1110-1-1904, 1990).
Relative to Guideline
Za will extend to depths of shallow groundwater levels  20 ft,
Water table
(6.10 m).
Za will be located within depths where  sj   fj  0 ,  sj  average
Swell pressure swell pressure of stratum j and  fj  total average vertical
overburden pressure after construction in stratum j.
Za will be within the depth of the natural fissure system caused by
Fissures
seasonal swell/shrinkage
Za, m
Humid 3.05
Climate
Semi-arid 4.57
Arid 6.10

5 Equilibrium Pore Water Pressure Profile

The pore water pressure beneath the center of the foundation is anticipated to reach an
equilibrium distribution; whereas, the pore water pressure profile beneath the perimeter will
cycle between dry and wet extremes depending on the availability of water and the climate.
Placement of a foundation on the soil may eliminate or reduce evaporation of moisture from
the ground surface and eliminate transpiration of moisture from previously existing
vegetation. Figure 2 illustrates three methods described below for estimating the equilibrium
pore water pressure profile uwf in units of tsf. If undisturbed soil specimens are taken from the
field near the end of the dry season, then the maximum potential heave may be estimated from
results of swell tests performed on these specimens, (EM 1110-1-1904, 1990).

1. Saturated profile (Method 1, Figure 2). The equilibrium pore water pressure in the
saturated profile within depth Za is:

u wf  0 (1-a)

This profile is considered realistic for most practical cases including houses or buildings
exposed to watering of perimeter vegetation and possible leaking of underground water and
sewer lines. Water may also condense or collect in permeable soil beneath foundation slabs
and penetrate into underlying expansive soil unless drained away or protected by a moisture
barrier. This profile should be used if other information on the equilibrium pore water
pressure profile is not available.

2. Hydrostatic with shallow water table (Method 2, Figure 2). The equilibrium pore water
pressure in this profile is zero at the groundwater level and decreases linearly with
increasing distance above the groundwater level in proportion to the unit weight of
water:

u wf   w ( z  Z a ) (1-b)

where
 w = unit weight of water, 9.81 kN/m3
z = depth below the foundation, m
Proceedings of the 4th Jordanian Civil Engineering Conference, 28-30 March 2006,
Amman - Jordan

This profile is considered realistic beneath highways and pavements where surface water is
drained from the pavement and where underground sources of water such as leaking pipes or
drains do not exist. This assumption leads to smaller estimates of anticipated heave than
Method 1.

3. Hydrostatic without shallow water table (Method 3, Figure 2). The pore water pressure
of this profile is similar to Method 2, but includes a value of the negative pore water
pressure uwa at depth Za.

u wf  u wa   w ( z  Z a ) (1-c)

a- Shallow groundwater level. b- Deep groundwater level.

Figure 2. Anticipated equilibrium pore water pressure profiles, (from EM 1110-1-1904).

6 Identification

Simple classification tests such as Atterberg limits and natural water content can most easily
identify soils susceptible to swelling. Two equations that have provided reasonable estimates
of free swell are:

log S f  0.0367 LL  0.0833wn  0.458 (2-a)

S f  2.27  0.131LL  0.27 wn (2-b)

where
S f = free swell, percent,
LL = liquid limit, percent, and
wn = natural water content, percent.

The percent swell under confinement can be estimated from the free swell by:

S  S f (1  0.72  f ) (3)

where
S = swell under confinement, percent
 f = vertical confining pressure, tsf (1 tsf = 95.76 kN/m2)

These identification procedures were developed by correlations of classification test results

Proceedings of the 4th Jordanian Civil Engineering Conference, 28-30 March 2006,
Amman - Jordan

with results of one-dimensional swell tests performed in consolidometers on undisturbed and

compacted soil specimens. Soils with liquid limit less than 35 percent and plasticity index less
than 12 percent have relatively low potential for swell and may not require swell testing, (EM
1110-1-1904, 1990).

7 Calculation of Potential Heave from Void Ratio

The anticipated heave is:

n n e fj  eoj
S max   S max j   .H j (4-a)
j 1 j 1 1  eoj

where
S max = maximum potential vertical heave, ft (1 ft = 0.3048 m),
n = number of strata within the depth of heaving soil,
S max j = heave of soil in stratum j , ft (1 ft = 0.3048 m),
Hj = thickness of stratum j , ft (1 ft = 0.3048 m),
eoj = initial void ratio of stratum j.
e fj = final void ratio of stratum j, and

The initial void ratio, which depends on a number of factors such as the maximum past
pressure, type of soil, and environmental conditions, may be measured by standard
consolidometer test procedures. The final void ratio depends on changes in soil confinement
pressure and water content following construction of the structure. It may be anticipated from
reasonable estimates of the equilibrium pore water pressure uwf, depth of active zone Za, and
edge effects by rewriting Equation 4-a in terms of swell pressure shown in Equation 4-b
below.

8 Calculation of Potential Heave from Swell Pressure:

The anticipated heave in terms of swell pressure is:

n C sj  sj
S max   . log10 .H j (4-b)
j 1 1  eoj  'fj

where
C sj = swell index of stratum j,
 sj = swell pressure of stratum j , tsf (1 tsf = 95.76 kN/m2),
 fj = final or equilibrium average effective vertical pressure of stratum j ,  fj  u wfj , tsf (1
tsf = 95.76 kN/m2),
 fj = final average total vertical pressure of stratum j , tsf (1 tsf = 95.76 kN/m2), and
u wfj = average equilibrium pore water pressure in stratum j , tsf (1 tsf = 95.76 kN/m2).

The number of strata (n) required in the calculation is that observed within the depth of the
active zone for heave.
Proceedings of the 4th Jordanian Civil Engineering Conference, 28-30 March 2006,
Amman - Jordan

Swell pressure: The swell pressure of soil in each stratum may be found from the results of
consolidometer swell tests on undisturbed specimens as described in ASTM D 4546.
Preliminary estimates of swell pressure may be made from:

log10  s  2.1423  0.0208LL  0.01065 d  0.0269 wn (5-a)

where
 s = swell pressure, tsf (1 tsf = 95.76 kN/m2), and
 d = dry density, lbs/ft3 (1 lbs/ft3 = 0.157 kN/m3).

An alternative equation is:

2
C 
 s  0.00258 * PI 1.12    0.273 (5-b)
 wn 

where
PI = plasticity index, percent, and
C = clay content, percent less than 2 microns.

9 Magnitude of Differential Heave

The difference in potential heave between locations beneath a foundation can vary from zero
to the maximum potential vertical heave. Differential heave is often the anticipated total
heave for structures on isolated spot footings or drilled shafts because soil beneath some
footings or portions of slab foundations may experience no wetting and no movement (EM
1110-1-1904, 1990).
1. A reasonable estimate of the maximum differential movement or differential potential
heave (ΔSmax) is the sum of the maximum calculated settlement (ρmax) of soil beneath a
nonwetted point of the foundation and the maximum potential heave (Smax) following
wetting of soil beneath some adjacent point of the foundation separated by the distance
(l). If all of the soil heaves, then (ΔSmax) is the difference between (Smax) and (Smin)
between adjacent points where (Smin) is the minimum heave.
2. The location of (Smax) may be beneath the most lightly loaded portion of the foundation
such as beneath the center of the slab.
3. The location of maximum settlement (ρmax) may be beneath columns and consist only of
immediate elastic settlement (ρi) in soil where wetting does not occur or will be (Smin) if
wetting does occur in expansive soil.
4. The deflection ratio is (ΔSmax/L) where (L) may be the distance between stiffening
beams.

10 Application

The data were obtained from field and laboratory tests carried out on the site of the University
of Mosul project in 1967. In order to carry out these tests, a total of 244 boreholes were
drilled. The types of tests conducted are (Al-Alusi, 1967):
 Consolidation tests (stress controlled) on cohesive samples.
 Determination of grain size sample.
 Determination of liquid and plastic limits.
 Determination of specific gravity.
Proceedings of the 4th Jordanian Civil Engineering Conference, 28-30 March 2006,
Amman - Jordan

 Determination of moisture content and unit weight.

 Determination of shear strength.
 Determination of swelling pressure.
 Determination of swelling pressure under no external load.

The results of the tests are shown in Figures 3 to 8, (Al-Alusi, 1967). Figure 3 shows the
variation of the percent of swelling with depth while Figure 4 shows the variation of the
compression index. In Figures 5 and 6, the change of the undrained shear strength (Cu) and
the plasticity index is presented, respectively. Figure 7 shows the distribution of the
unconfined compressive strength (qu) with depth while Figure 8 shows the variation of the
swelling pressure with depth.

The active zone for heave is estimated to extend 20-ft (6.096 m) below ground surface. The
maximum anticipated heave (Smax) and differential heave (ΔSmax) are to be estimated beneath
portions of the foundation. The heave calculations assume a zero stiffness foundation.
Computer program VDISPL is useful for calculating potential heave beneath footings and mat
foundations in multi-layered expansive soil. VDISPL also considers heave in an excavation
from changes in pore water pressure.

% Swelling Compression Index

0 5 10 15 20 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0 0

5 5

10 Depth (m) 10
Depth (m)

15 15

20 20

25 25

30 30
Figure 3. Variation of percent swelling with Figure 4. Variation of compression index with
depth. depth.

Cu (kN/m2) Plasticity Index

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 25 50 75 100
0 0

5 5

10 10
Depth (m)

Depth (m)

15 15

20 20

25 25

30 30
Figure 5. Variation of undrained shear strength Figure 6. Variation of plasticity index with
with depth. depth.

11 Calculation of Potential Heave

1. Maximum potential heave (Smax): The maximum heave is anticipated beneath unloaded
portions of the foundation. The potential heave is estimated assuming the equilibrium
Proceedings of the 4th Jordanian Civil Engineering Conference, 28-30 March 2006,
Amman - Jordan

pore water pressure uwf  0 or the soil is saturated; therefore, the final effective
pressure  f   f or the final total pressure.
2. Most heaves occur at depths less than 5-dt (1.524 m) below the flat portion of the
foundation. Replacing the top 4-ft (1.2192 m) of expansive soil with non-expansive
back-fill will reduce (Smax) to 0.115 ft or 1.4 inch (36 mm), (EM 1110-1-1904, 1990).
3.
qu (kN/m2) Swelling Pressure (kN/m2)
0 500 1000 1500 25 50 75 100 125 150
0 0

5 5
Depth (m)

Depth (m)
10 10

15 15

20 20

25 25
Figure 7. Variation of unconfined compression Figure 8. Variation of the swelling pressure
strength with depth. with depth.

12 The Computer Program VDISPL

This program, (Vertical DISPLacements), was developed to assist in the calculation of

vertical displacements beneath shallow foundations for various types of multi-layered soils.
The two types of foundations considered are rectangular footings or mats and long strip
footings. These foundations are assumed flexible. Models available in this program are
immediate settlement of granular soil from cone penetration data, immediate settlement of
granular soil from both cone penetration and dilatometer data, immediate settlement of an
elastic soil using the Boussinesq pressure distribution and Young’s elastic soil modulus,
consolidation or swell of a cohesive soil (ASTM D 4546), and settlement of a collapsible soil.

13 Analysis and Results

From the discussion of the previous section, it can be concluded that the main factors
affecting the determination of the active zone depth and the excess pore water pressure in the
heaved soil are:
 The compression index, Cc,
 Dimensions of the foundation, L and B, and the shape of the footing: rectangular or
strip,
 The load applied on the foundation, Q,
 The swelling index, Cs,
 The swelling pressure,
 The initial void ratio, e,
 Expected active zone depth,
 The water content, w, and
 The depth of the water table.

Depending on the data obtained for Al-Mosul and presented in Figures 3 to 8, a set of the
required parameters are selected and a parametric study is carried out. It is intended here to
have an indication about the factor that has the greatest effect on determination of the active
Proceedings of the 4th Jordanian Civil Engineering Conference, 28-30 March 2006,
Amman - Jordan

zone depth; Table 2 presents the different parameters used in the analysis. The constant values
in this table represent the values considered constant when the other variables are changed in
the program.

Figures 9 and 10 show the effect of the supposed active zone depth on the calculated values of
heave and excess pore water pressure. It can be seen that this factor has no effect on
calculations.

Figures 11 and 12 present the effect of the compression index on calculated heave and
expected pore water pressure. It can be observed that Cc has no apparent effect on the excess
pore water pressure. On the other hand, Cc also has no effect on heave at shallow depths (less
than 7 m), after this depth the heave increases with the increase of Cc.

Figures 13 and 14 show that the shape of the foundation has no effect on calculated heave and
excess pore water pressure. Besides, Figures 15 and 16 show that the ratio of the foundation
length to its width also has no effect on the calculated values of heave and excess pore water
pressure.

Figures 17 to 20 show that both the foundation load (pressure), Q, and the swelling index, Cs,
has no apparent effect on heave and excess pore water pressure.

Figures 21 and 22 present the effect of swelling pressure on heave and excess pore water
pressure. It can be seen that approximately a uniform increase in the calculated heave and
excess pore water pressure are obtained when decreasing the swelling pressure.

The major factor that has the great effect on heave is the initial void ratio as seen in Figures
23 and 24 through which both the calculated heave and excess pore water pressure increased
greatly when decreasing the void ratio. On the other hand, the heave and the excess pore
water pressure increase rapidly with depth for all values of the void ratio.

A uniform increase in heave and excess pore water pressure with increase of water content
can be seen in Figures 25 and 26. The effect of water content on the heave starts
approximately at a depth of (5 m).

Finally, the calculated heave increases with increase of water table depth as shown in Figure
27. The depth of water table has no effect on the excess pore water pressure, as shown in
Figure 28.

Table 2. Parameters used in the analysis.

Case
Parameters
No.
1 Foundation shape
2 Water content
3 Void ratio
4 Depth of water table
5 Foundation pressure
6 Length
7 Swelling pressure
8 Swelling index
9 Compression index
10 Active zone depth
Standard
Units Range of values
values
- Rectangular Rectangular and long
strip footings
% 25 15, 20, 25, 30, 35
- 0.75 0.75, 1.00, 1.25, 1.50
m 0.0 0.0, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5
kN/m2 50 10, 20, 50, 100
m 1.0 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5
kN/m2 60 40, 60, 80, 100
- 0.03 0.02, 0.03, 0.04, 0.05
- 0.15 0.10, 0.15, 0.20, 0.25
m 6.0 3.0, 4.5, 6.0
Proceedings of the 4th Jordanian Civil Engineering Conference, 28-30 March 2006,
Amman - Jordan

14 Conclusions

In this paper, calculations of potential heave of expansive soil are carried out. The data
analyzed through the computer program VDISPL is obtained from Al-Mosul City. The
following conclusions can be obtained:
1. The most important factor affecting the determination of the heave and excess pore
water pressure is the initial void ratio of the soil. The calculated heave and excess
pore water pressure increased greatly when the void ratio decreased. The heave and
the excess pore water pressure increase rapidly with depth for all values of the void
ratio.
2. The compression index has no effect on heave at shallow depths (less than 7m),
after this depth the heave increases with the increases of the compression index
which has no effect on the excess pore water pressure.
3. The estimated active zone depth, the foundation shape, the ratio of the foundation
length to width, the applied pressure on the foundation, and the swelling index have
no effect on the calculated heave and excess pore water pressure.
4. The increase of the water content and the swelling pressure cause a uniform
increase in the heave and excess pore water pressure. The calculated heave
increases with increase of water table depth.

Heave (m) Excess Pore Pressure (kN/m )

-0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200
0 0

5 5

10 10
Depth (m)

Depth (m)

15 15
Active zone Active zone
depth depth
20 20
10 m 10 m
25 15 m 25 15 m
20 m 20 m
30 30
Figure 9. Effect of active zone depth on Figure 10. Effect of active zone depth on
calculated heave. excess pore water pressure.

Heave (m) Excess Pore Pressure (kN/m2)

-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 -300 -200 -100 0 100
0 0

5 5

10 10
Depth (m)

Depth (m)

15 15
Cc=0.10 Cc=0.10
20 20
Cc=0.15 Cc=0.15
25 Cc=0.20 25 Cc=0.20

Cc=0.25 Cc=0.25
30 30

Figure 11. Effect of compression index on Figure 12. Effect of compression index on
calculated heave. excess pore water pressure.
Proceedings of the 4th Jordanian Civil Engineering Conference, 28-30 March 2006,
Amman - Jordan

Heave (m) Excess Pore Pressure (kN/m2)

-0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 -300 -200 -100 0 100
0 0

5 5

10 10
Depth (m)

Depth (m)
15 15

20 20

25 Rectangular footing 25 Rectangular footing

Long strip footing Long strip footing
30 30

Figure 13. Effect of foundation shape on Figure 14. Effect of foundation shape on
calculated heave. excess pore water pressure.

Heave (m) Excess Pore Pressure (kN/m2)

-0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 -300 -200 -100 0 100
0 0

5 5

10 10
Depth (m)

Depth (m)
15 15
L/B=1.0 L/B=1.0
20 20
L/B=1.5 L/B=1.5
25 L/B=2.0 25 L/B=2.0
L/B=2.5 L/B=2.5
30 30

Figure 15. Effect of foundation length on Figure 16. Effect of foundation length on
calculated heave. excess pore water pressure.

Heave (m) Excess Pore Pressure (kN/m2)

-0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300
0 0

5 5

10 10
Depth (m)

Depth (m)

15 15
Q= 10 kN/m2 Q= 10 kN/m2
20 20
Q= 20 kN/m2 Q= 20 kN/m2
25 Q= 50 kN/m2 25 Q= 50 kN/m2

Q=100 kN/m2 Q=100 kN/m2

30 30

Figure 17. Effect of foundation pressure on Figure 18. Effect of foundation pressure on
calculated heave. excess pore water pressure.
Proceedings of the 4th Jordanian Civil Engineering Conference, 28-30 March 2006,
Amman - Jordan

Heave (m) Excess Pore Pressure (kN/m2)

-0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200
0 0

5 5

10 10
Depth (m)

Depth (m)
15 15
Cs = 0.02 Cs = 0.02
20 20
Cs = 0.03 Cs = 0.03
25 Cs = 0.04 25 Cs = 0.04
Cs = 0.05 Cs = 0.05
30 30

Figure 19. Effect of swelling index on Figure 20. Effect of swelling index on excess
calculated heave. pore water pressure.

Heave (m) Excess Pore Pressure (kN/m2)

-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 -300 -200 -100 0 100
0 0

5 5

10 10
Depth (m)

Depth (m)
15 Swelling Pressure 15 Swelling Pressure

40 kN/m2 40 kN/m2
20 20
60 kN/m2 60 kN/m2
25 80 kN/m2 25 80 kN/m2
100 kN/m2 100 kN/m2
30 30

Figure 21. Effect of swelling pressure on Figure 22. Effect of swelling pressure on
calculated heave. excess pore water pressure.

Heave (m) Excess Pore Pressure (kN/m2)

-0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 -300 -200 -100 0 100
0 0
e=0.75 e=0.75

5 e=1.00 5 e=1.00
e=1.25 e=1.25
10 10
e=1.50 e=1.50
Depth (m)

Depth (m)

15 15

20 20

25 25

30 30

Figure 23. Effect of void ratio on calculated Figure 24. Effect of void ratio on excess pore
heave. water pressure.
 Proceedings of the 4th Jordanian Civil Engineering Conference, 28-30 March 2006,
Amman - Jordan

Heave (m) Excess Pore Pressure (kN/m2)

-0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 -300 -200 -100 0 100
0 0

5 5

10 10

Depth (m)

Depth (m)
15 W.C.=15 % 15 W.C.=15 %
W.C.=20 % W.C.=20 %
20 20
W.C.=25 % W.C.=25 %
25 W.C.=30 % 25 W.C.=30 %
W.C.=35 % W.C.=35 %
30 30

Figure 25. Effect of water content on Figure 26. Effect of water content on excess
calculated heave. pore water pressure.

Heave (m) Excess Pore Pressure (kN/m2)

-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 -300 -200 -100 0 100
0 0

5 5

10 10
Depth (m)

Depth (m)
15 15
W.T. = 0.0 m W.T. = 0.0 m
20 20
W.T. = 0.5 m W.T. = 0.5 m
25 W.T. = 1.0 m 25 W.T. = 1.0 m
W.T. = 1.5 m W.T. = 1.5 m
30 30

Figure 27. Effect of water table on calculated Figure 28. Effect of water table on excess pore
heave. water pressure.

References

Al-Alusi, A.F. 1967. Soil conditions for the University of Mosul project. Unpublished Report
No. 262.
American Society for Testing and Materials Standard Methods of Test D 4546. One-
dimensional swell or settlement potential of cohesive soils. Available from American
Society for Testing and Materials, 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
Das, B.M. 1999. Principles of Foundation Engineering. 4th, PWS Publishing Company.
EM 1110-1-1904. 1990. Settlement Analysis. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Fattah, M.Y., and Salman, F.A. 2003. Swelling analysis of Al-Mosul expansive soil. 5th
Scientific Conference of the College of Engineering, University of Baghdad, 1st sector,
259-269.
O’Neill, M. W. and Poormoayed, N. 1980. Methodology for foundations on expansive clays.
Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, American Society of Civil Engineers,
Vol. 106, No. GT12, 1345-1367.

View publication stats