Modelling Expansive Soil FEM PDF

FINITE ELEMENT MODELING OF LATERAL SWELLING
PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION BEHIND EARTH

RETAINING STRUCTURES
by
MUSTAFA AYTEKIN, B . S . C . E . , M.S.C.E.
A DISSERTATION
IN
CIVIL ENGINEERING
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty
of Texas Tech University in
Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for
the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Approved
Accepted
December, 1992
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank Dr. Warren Kent Wray for his endless encouragement, valuable
guidance through the course of this work, and for the time in proofmg the manuscript. I
also thank Dr. C. V. Girija Vallabhan for his valuable guidance during the development of
the finite element modeling of the problem. Thanks are expressed to Dr. James R.
McDonald, Dr. Necip Giiven, and Dr. Priyantha W. Jayawickrama for their suggestions,
and serving in my committee.
Thanks to Mr. Hsiu-Chung Lee for his help on the format preparation of the figures
and the tables.
Gratitude expressed to my wife, Leyla, for her support, patience and belief in me.
Special thanks are extended to my daughters Gizem and Gbrkem.
Finally, I thank my parents for their constant encouragement, and moral support
without which this study would not be done. I dedicate this study to the honor of my
mother, Elmas, and to memory of my father, Bekir, who passed away while I was
working on this study far from my parents.
u
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii
ABSTRACT vi
LIST OF TABLES viii
LIST OF FIGURES ix
I. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. Discussion of the Present Problem 1

1.2. Objectives of the Study 5
II. REVIEW OF THE TECHNICAL LITERATURE 6
2.1. Clay Minerals and Expansive Soils 6
2.2. Moisture Environment for Expansive Soils 15
2.3. Mechanisms of Swelling in Expansive Soils 18
2.4. Soil Water Potential 29
2.5. Soil Suction 30
2.6. Swelling Pressure in the Lateral Direction 40
2.6.1. Principally Theoretical Analyses 41
2.6.2. Principally Experimental Analyses 54
2.7. Prediction Methods for Lateral Pressures in Expansive Soils 67
2.7.1. The Skempton Method 68
2.7.2. The Katri Method 71
IIL STRAINS AND STRESSES IN EXPANSIVE SOILS 74
3.1. The Model of Expansive Soils 75
3.2. Determination of Modulus of Elasticity of Soil 77
3.3. Strains and Stresses 80
m
3.4. Strain-Displacement Matrix of the Element 82
3.5. The Element Stiffness Matrix 91
3.6. Distributed Body Forces and Equivalent Nodal Loads 95

3.7. Calculation of Stresses 97
IV. COMPUTER PROGRAM LATEXP2D 98
4.1 Problem Geometry 98
4.2 Boundary Loads 100
4.3 Body Forces 100
4.4 Swelling Forces 101
4.5 Capabilities of LATEXP2D 103
4.6 Subroutines of LATEXP2D 103
V. RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION 106
5.1. Simulation of Large-Scale Experiments 106
5.1.1. Expansive Soil Backfill Only 108
5.1.2. CNS Soil Backfill Only 112
5.1.3. Expansive Soil with Different Thicknesses of CNS Soil
Backfills 117
5.2. Hypothetical Considerations 119
5.2.1. Case One
Rectangular Backfill 129
5.2.2. Case Two
Triangular BackfiU 140
5.2.3. Case Three
Trapezoidal Backfill 148
5.2.4. Case Four
Stepped Backfill 157
VL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 166
IV
6.1. Conclusions 166
6.2. Recommendations 168
LIST OF REFERENCES 170

APPENDICES
A. SOIL SUCTION CONVERSION FACTORS 181

B. SOURCE LISTING OF LATEXP2D 184
C. A TYPICAL INPUT FILE FOR LATEXP2D 216
D. A TYPICAL OUTPUT FILE FOR LATEXP2D 220
E. USER'S GUIDE FOR LATEXP2D 226
F. SOURCE LISTING OF SUCENV 233
G. SOURCE LISTING OF MESH 237
ABSTRACT
Expansive soils swell laterally as well as vertically. Lateral volume changes w ill be
accommodated by the cracks and fissures if there are cracks and fissures in the soil mass.
However, when there are no cracks or the cracks are very small and close up without
accommodating all of the volume increase that is required by the expansive soil, the
swelling soil becomes restrained in the lateral directions. The result of this restrained case
is the development of a lateral swelling pressure. In well compacted high plasticity clay
fills, the process of swelling is likely to continue for many years. Thus, classical methods
cannot be used to estimate the lateral pressure of expansive soils behind a retaining
structure.
In this study, a new finite element modeling of swelling behavior of expansive soil is
made by using an analogy between the thermal expansion of the solid material and swelling
of the expansive soil. Soil suction profiles for the driest and the wettest steady-state
conditions are produced by using static soil suction theory. Thus, a suction envelope can
be produced. The validity and applications of the study are investigated by considering
several experimental works. Then, some hypothetical considerations that depend upon
moisture changes in expansive soil, and in cohesive nonswelling soil (CNS) with different
thicknesses and geometries as the backfill behind a retaining stmcture have been analyzed.
The parameters that affect the transmitted lateral pressure on retaining stmctures are
investigated. The results from the numerical modeling compare closely with the results of
large-scale laboratory tests. The results also show that the swelling behavior of expansive
soils is dependent upon soil suction change of the soil media.
Since the numerical model considers backfill materials with different properties, for
example, each finite element in the system can have its own modulus of elasticity,
vi
Poisson's ratio, soil unit weight, and soil suction all can change from point to point in
a soil mass; thus, soils with different properties can be simulated as backfill material
behind the retaining stmcture in this model. In the hypothetical cases, effect of size,
shape, material, density, and moisture conditions of a backfill on the transmitted lateral
pressure are investigated. A comparison of the cases that are simulated in the numerical
model are made with results from full-scale tests done by others in order to evaluate the
best size, shape, material, or soil moisture condition for transmitting the least lateral
pressure to, say, a basement wall.
vu
LIST OF TABLES
2.1 Proposed Classification Scheme for Phyllosilicates Related to Clay

Minerals 8
2.2 Values of pore-pressure parameter, Af 70
5.1 Properties of soils used in Katti's experimental work 107
vm
LIST OF FIGURES
1.1 The distribution of different proportions of Al and A2 horizons areas of

the world 2
2.1 Sketch of kaolinite, 1:1 dioctahedral phyllosilicate 9
2.2 Sketch of smectite 10
2.3 Basic stmcture of clay minerals 12
2.4 Typical X-ray diffraction (XRD) pattem for kaolinite 13
2.5 Typical X-ray diffraction (XRD) pattem for illite 14
2.6 Typical X-ray diffraction (XRD) pattem for smectite 16
2.7 The clay micelle in pure water 20
2.8 Pressures between two clay particles 21
2.9 Representation of osmotic pressure 24
2.10 Double layers around clay particles 26
2.11 Chart of prediction of suction compressibility index (Yh) 38

2.12 Observed lateral pressures with depth for cohesive nonswelling soil
(CNS) only, swelling expansive soil only, and swelling expansive soil
with various thicknesses of CNS between the wall and the swelling soil
(backing) 51
with various thicknesses of CNS on top of the swelling soil (cover) 52
with various thicknesses of CNS both as cover and backing 53
2.15 Capillary pressure and the effective stress in the specimen before
shearing 69
3.1 Gibson's model for change in the modulus of elasticity of soils with
depth 76
3.2 Four-node quadrilateral element with natural coordinates (s and t) 83
IX
3.3 Integration of a square region using two-point Gauss quadrature 94
4.1 Numbering of the finite elements and the nodal points (a) Coordinate axes
of a problem, and (b) Local numbering sequence of nodes of the element 99
4.2 The initial and the fmal values of soil suction at the nodal points of an
element 102
5.1 Shear strength distriburion of MRBC-76 with depth 109
5.2 Comparison of transmitted lateral pressures from the numerical model
and the experimental investigation for expansive soil only Ill
5.3 Assumed displacement distribution of the wall in Katti's experiment 113
5.4 Comparison of transmitted lateral pressure distribution from the
experimental work and the deflected wall in the numerical model 114
5.5 The relationship between the soil suction and the water content for the
CNS soil and the expansive soil 116
5.6 Comparison of transmitted lateral pressures from the numerical model
and experimental investigation for CNS soil only 118
5.7 Comparison of transmitted lateral pressures from the numerical model and
experimental investigation for 100 cm CNS backfill 120
5.8 Comparison of transmitted lateral pressuresfromthe numerical model and
5.9 Comparison of transmitted lateral pressuresfromthe numerical model and
5.10 Comparison of transmitted lateral pressuresfromthe numerical model
and experimental investigation for 20 cm CNS backfill 123
5.11 The soil suction envelope for two extreme static conditions (the wettest
and the driest) developed by SUCENV 125
5.12 The variation of the modulus of elasticity of the expansive soil as a
function of the moisture content and the depth of soil 128
5.13 The boundary conditions and the dimensions of the soil system for the
hypothetical cases 130
5.14 The finite element mesh and the dimensions of the rectangular backfill 132
5.15 Lateral pressure distributions for the rectangular wet backfills 133
X
5.16 Lateral pressure distributions for the CNS soil rectangular backfills 134
5.17 Lateral pressure distributions for the sand rectangular backfills 135
5.18 Lateral pressure distributions for the rectangular backfills with different
densities 136
5.19 Comparison of lateral pressure distributions for the narrow-rectangular
backfills with different soils and moisture contents 137
5.20 Comparison of lateral pressure distributions for the wide-
rectangular backfills with different soils and moisture contents 138
5.21 The finite element mesh and the dimensions of the triangular backfill 141
5.22 Lateral pressure distributions for the wet triangular backfills 142
5.23 Lateral pressure distributions for the CNS soil triangular backfills 143
5.24 Lateral pressure distributions for the sand triangular backfills 144
5.25 Lateral pressure distributions for the triangular backfills with different
densities 145
5.26 Comparison of lateral pressure distributions for the narrow-triangular
backfills with different soUs and moisture contents 146
5.27 Comparison of lateral pressure distributions for the wide-triangular
5.28 The finite element mesh and the dimensions of the trapezoidal backfill 150
5.29 Lateral pressure distributions for the wet trapezoidal backfills 151
5.30 Lateral pressure distributions for the CNS soil trapezoidal backfills 152
5.31 Lateral pressure distributions for the sand trapezoidal backfills 153
5.32 Lateral pressure distributions for the trapezoidal backfills with different
densities 154
5.33 Comparison of lateral pressure distributions for the narrow-trapezoidal
5.34 Comparison of lateral pressure distributions for the wide-trapezoidal
5.35 The finite element mesh and the dimensions of the stepped backfill 158
5.36 Lateral pressure distributions for the wet stepped backfills 159
xi
5.37 Lateral pressure distributions for the CNS soil stepped backfills 160
5.38 Lateral pressure distributions for the sand stepped backfills 161
5.39 Lateral pressure distributions for the stepped backfills with different
densities 162
5.40 Comparison of lateral pressure distributions for the narrow-stepped
5.41 Comparison of lateral pressure distributions for the wide-stepped backfills
with different soils ancJ moisture contents 165
xu
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Discussion of the Present Problem

Expansive soils are found in almost all parts of the world. The distribution of these
soils can be seen in Fig. 1.1 (Dixon and Weed, 1977). Clay soils in semiarid areas shrink
during dry periods forming cracks, and swell during wet periods causing a considerable
amount of damage to lightly loaded stmctures.
Commonly, a pavement or building is constmcted when the top soil layer is relatively
dry. Further evaporation is prevented by the stmcture covering the soil. Subsequently, the
water content of the soil increases due to capillarity; then the soil may swell (Holtz and
Kovacs, 1981). The swelling of highly plastic clays has resulted in severe damage to
lightly loaded stmctures, such as houses, apartments, warehouses, small industrial
buildings, and pavements in several areas of the world. Problems due to expansive soils
are present worldwide. They exist especially in the United States, Australia, Africa, the
Middle East area, and India. In 1973, researchers surmised that 60 percent of all residential
foundations built on expansive soils would experience some degree of distress because of
differential foundation movement (Brown, 1987). For instance, in the U.S.A., volume
changes of expansive soils resultingfrommoisture variations caused some estimated
annual damages as follows: $1.7 billion on streets and highways (Snethen, 1979), $7.0
billion (Krohn and Slosson, 1980), and more than $9.0 billion (Jones and Jones, 1987) on
all structures on expansive soils. Also, in Sudan (Africa), expansive soils have caused an
estimated annual damage of $6.0 million to irrigation systems, water lines, sewer lines,
buildings, roads, and other stmctures (Charlie et al., 1984). The cost associated with
damage due to swelling soils is more than double the cost associated with damage from
fioods, hurricanes, tornadoes, and earthquakes (Rao et al., 1988; HoUz, 1984). The
damages will be much greater in coming years if expansive soils are not recognized before
builders start to build stmctures in/on expansive soils.
Expansive soils swell laterally as well as vertically. Lateral volume changes will be
accommodated by the cracks andfissuresif there are cracks andfissuresin the soil mass.
However, when there are no cracks or when the cracks are very small and close up without
accommodating all of the volume increase that is required by the expansive soil, the
swelling soil becomes restrained in the lateral directions. The result of this restrained case
is the development of a lateral swelling pressure. The magnitude of this swelling pressure
could be very high; Chen (1975) reports lateral swelling pressure as high as 20 tsf. The
lateral swelling pressure might be twice that of the vertical swelling pressure (Andy, 1989);
a lateral swelling pressure ten times larger than the vertical swelling pressure at a depth of
11 in. (0.28m.) has been reported (Joshi and Katti, 1980).
Prediction of lateral earth pressures has been a problem to civil engineers for a long
time. The first rational approach by which lateral earth pressures could be estimated was
proposed by Coulomb (1773). This approach was followed by Rankine's theory (1857).
These two methods use different assumptions to simplify the problem. Although a number
of subsequent prediction methods have been proposed, Columb's and Rankine's methods
are more simple and practical, and they have come to be known as the classical methods of
prediction of lateral earth pressure.
In the classical earth pressure analyses, the retaining stmcture is generally assumed to
yield in such a way as to develop active pressures. Whenrigidstmctures are considered,
the at-rest earth pressure is sometimes used in the design of stmctures, although there is
little guidance on the values to adopt; estimates arefrequentlybased on the at-rest
coefficient for normally consolidated deposits (Jakky, 1944). If soils are compressed by a
retaining stmcture and there is sufficiently large movement of the stmcture into the soil, this
strain condition is known as the passive state. Most retaining walls or stmctures, with the
exception of fully embedded retaining walls, require placement of backfill material adjacent
to the wall. This placement can be accomplished by one or the other of two methods. In
the first method, the walls can be constmcted in the excavation; then the g ^ left between
the completed stmcture and the natural ground can be filled. In the second method, the
walls are constmcted above the original ground level, and then the fiill height of the
stmcture is backfilled.
It has conventionally been considered wise to backfill with granular materials because
of their good drainage and self-settlement characteristics and because their strength
properties are not time dependent. However, in several areas of the world,freedraining
granular material is scarce and its price is set by its value as a constituent of concrete
(Clayton et al., 1990). The use of cohesive materials as backfill introduces additional
uncertainties into the retaining wall design since there is little information allowing
estimation of the pressure produced by volume changes occurring after constmction.
The pore water pressures are not likely to be in equilibrium with boundary values
immediately following placement of a clay fill. When a clay fill is placed in a relatively
wet, low strength condition, then residual pore water pressures can be expected to be
positive, and consolidation will commence. When a clay fill is placed in a relatively dry,
high strength condition, higher suction will exist. Swelling may only start once water
becomes available at the boundaries of the fill. The rate at which pore water pressure
equilibration occurs will be controlled by the bulk permeability of a fill. In well compacted
high plasticity clay fills, the process of swelling is likely to continue for many years.
Therefore, classical methods cannot be used to estimate the lateral pressure of expansive
soils behind aretainingstmcture. There is no reliable method presently available that
allows the designer to predict the pressures onretainingstmctures or basement walls due to
swelling soils despite many methods available to design professionals by which they can
predict the lateral earth pressures expected to be acting on a stmcturefromnonexpansive
soils.
1.2. Objectives of the Study

In this study, the main objectives are to estabUsh a fmite element model to simulate the
lateral swelling behavior of expansive soils as a function of soil suction change in the
domain, and to findreliableanswers to the following questions by using the established
finite element model.
1. What parameters affect the magnitude of the transmitted lateral swelling pressure on
aretainingstmcture?
2. What is the effect on lateral pressure magnitude if granular or cohesive non-
swelling soil (CNS) is used as backfill?
3. What is the effect of the geometrical shape and size of backfill adjacent to the
retaining stmcture on the transmitted lateral swelling pressure?
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE TECHNICAL LITERATURE
Expansive soils cause problems with stmctures erected on or in these kinds of soils
because the soils change in volume when subjected to variations in moisture content. The
annual damages due to volume changes of expansive soils during wet and dry seasons have
been discussed in Chapter L When the moisture content increases, the soil swells.
Similarly, a decrease in the moisture content makes the soil shrink. In most problems,
there are two causes of volume change. One is extemal loading, a factor that has been well
studied since the beginning of soil mechanics. The second one is moisture content
changes, a factor that has only recently been given much attention. Most of the standard
methods of foundation design do not address such shrink-swell behavior.
During the last four decades, several organizations around the world have devoted
significant effort to the study of the behavior of expansive soils and have suggested
solutions. The objective in earlier studies was to understand thereasonsfor swelling and
the development of swelling pressures in expansive soils (Aitchison and Holmes, 1953;
Komomik and David, 1969; Komomik and Zeitlen, 1970; Robertson and Wagener, 1975;
Massarch, 1975). Theresultsrevealed that potential swell or shrinkage of such soils is
related to two major factors: first, the type and content of clay mineral present in the soil
and, second, the moisture environment of the expansive soil. These two major factors will
be discussed below.
2.1. Clay Minerals and Expansive Soils
In general, the term clay implies a natural,fine-grainedmaterial which develops
plasticity when mixed with a limited amount of water. The effects of particle size of the
7
clay are such that volume change of the soil is increased when the clay mineral size is
decreased. Therefore, the expansion of a soil is strongly controlled by the amount of such
clay minerals present; these minerals are often called expandable-layer minerals. Grouping
clay minerals according to crystalline stmcture and stacking sequence of layers is
convenient since the members of the same group have somewhat similar engineering
properties. The clay minerals are small hydrous layer silicates and they are part of the
phyllosilicate family. The classification scheme for layer silicates recommended by the
Nomenclature Committee of the Clay Minerals Society was developed on this basis and is
shown in Table 2.1 (Mitchell, 1976). The layer silicates are constmcted of planes of atoms
forming tetrahedral and octahedral sheets arranged in various combinations (Weaver,
1989). The tetrahedral sheets are composed of tetrahedral units linked with adjacent
tetrahedra by the sharing of oxygen ions at three comers. The fourth tetrahedral oxygen of
all tetrahedra is perpendicular to the sheet and forms part of the adjacent octohedral sheet
(Fig. 2.1). The tetrahedral cations are Si and Al, and infrequently Fe3+. The octahedral
sheet consist of cations (Al, Fe, Mg) that are octahedrally coordinated by shared oxygens
plus unshared hydroxols (OH) that lie at the center of the hexagonal hole formed by the
shared oxygens. The combination of one tetrahedral sheet and one octahedral sheet is
called a 1:1 layer. One octahedral sheet sandwiched between two tetrahedral sheets is
termed a 2:1 layer (Fig. 2.2).
Clay minerals can be classified into three groups: two-layer, three-layer, and mixed-layer
minerals (Moore and Reynolds, 1989). In civil engineering, three families of clay minerals
are commonly identified withrespectto the volumetric activity of the mineral. These are
the kaolin, illite, and smectite families. In these families, the minerals are composed of
layers of silica tetrahedra and octahedral aluminum gibbsite sheets stacked in various
configurations. The kaolin minerals include four distinct species: kaolinite, dictite, nacrite,
and halloysite. The exploitation of white clay for the for the fabrication of ceramic ware
8
NO rN-w^
«i o
4>I i 4J
C
1 - -if
o
•3 C
o
o
CO 8 g
C CO S H s S 2 0
3 §
i 6
.a 1 ?
3 00
g s
3
CO
c
Q
c a. I -31 a I I1II I
•S C ••- C -jj c
S CO d? H Q CO H 5 Q H Q H Q H
C
.2:
§
c
o
c y 'g a §
1
§ ...
5J § ^
2:1 Pyrophy lli
I
o ,u
2 9
'c ISo •a
x-(0
ua P .-^
^ .S
Saponite
Smectite
x-0
"C f^
o 3 K > K O
<N «S
O Oxygens
@ Hydroxyls
0 Aliminums
»O Silicons
.1. Sketch of kaolinite, 1:1 dioctahedral phyllosilicate (Grim, 1968).

Fig. 2
10
Smectite Chlorite
exchangeable cations (nHjO)
O =02-
e =0H-
• = Al^ Fe^. Fe2+. Mg2*
• = Si^ (occasionally Al^)
Fig. 2.2. Sketch of smectite (Grim, 1968)

11
seems to have originated in China (Giese,1988). Kaolinite is a 1:1 physil composed of a Si

tetrahedral sheet and an Al octahedral sheet combined. Thus, the oxygens at the apex of the
Si tetrahedra extend into the octohedral sheet and they are part of the octohedral sheet.
Adjacent 1:1 layers are held together by hydrogen bonds extending from one plane of OH
ions forming one side of the octohedral layer to the shared oxygen of the tetrahedrons of
the adjacent layer. A diagrammatic sketch of the 1:1 kaolinite layer is shown in Fig. 2.3.
The kaolin minerals do notreactwith solvation; they do not have an expanding lattice and
interlayer cations to solvate. All kaolin minerals give basalreflectionsat approximately 7.2
o o
A and 3.6 A in the air dried condition or solvated condition. Figure 2.4 shows X-Ray
Diffraction (XRD) patterns that are generated with Cu Ka radiation.
o
Although illite is described as "a mica-type clay mineral with a 10 A c-axis spacing
which shows substantially no expanding-lattice characteristic," (Moore and Reynolds,
1989, p. 206), most minerals referred to as illites contain some expanded layers. The illite
layer occurs as an octahedral sheet sandwiched between two tetrahedral sheets. It has a 2:1
type layer configuration. In illite, there is a deficiency of cations carrying positive electric
charges in the silica layers so that the mineral surfaces are negatively charged. High
attractive forces are exerted on the positive ions of potassium that are strongly attached to
the surface of the mineral. Due to these forces, illite sheets are held together. A typical
XRD pattem for illite is shown in Fig. 2.5 (Eslinger and Pevear, 1988). The smectite
family is a very important family of clays because of their larger volume change
characteristics. The name "smectite" is derived from the Greek word smectos that means
soap (GUven, 1988). Pure smectite clay, such as bentonite, is able to change in volume as
much as 2000 percent (Zoukage, 1985). Smectites consist of 2:1-type layers with a
12
00
NO
ON
CQ
O
.5
CO
I o
a
i4
3r
CO
sa, 5 a + 4 00
O o < « c;5
II I II
o0e o •
13
Kaolinite
3.57 A 7.15 X
ethyleneglycol I
DMSO
550*^
Fig. 2.4. Typical X-ray diffraction (XRD) pattern for kaolinite.

14
lO.lX
3.36A
30 25 20 15 10 5 **2e
Fig. 2.5. Typical X-ray diffraction (XRD) pattem for iUitc.

15
stmcture similar to that of ilhte. In general, the layers are stacked in a random manner.
The average layer charge is approximately 0.35/Oio(OH)2 (Weaver, 1989). As a result of
this lower charge, smectite is not able to bond interlayer cations with sufficient force to
cause adjacent layers to contract. Clays that belong to this family are extremely fine
grained, and their layers can be dispersed to the unit cell level. Smectite is used in the
technology because of its catalytic, hydration, and swelling characteristics (Guven, 1988).
The layers can be dispersed to the unit cell level. Smectites are easily identified by the ease
with which these layers contract and expand. Smectites, like vermicuhte, have two water
o o
layers and a 14 A -15 A spacing under 40-60 percent humidity conditions (Eslinger and
Pevear, 1988). The spacing varies somewhat from mineral to mineral due to variations in
layer charge and in humidity. Unlike illite, the charge deficiency is in the octahedral layer
in smectite. Therefore, when the location of the charge deficiency is far from the mineral
surface, weak attractive forces are exerted on extemal positive ions. In this case, hydrated
ions, such as sodium, are attracted to the surface of the mineral instead of potassium.
Water molecule which acts as dipoles are also attracted. Figure 2.6 shows a typical XRD
pattem of smectite.
In summary, kaolinite minerals with fixed crystal lattices have very small hydration
and cation adsorptive capacities. Smectite minerals, on the other hand, are completely
different. Smectites have expanding crystal lattices that are the main cause of considerable
hydration and cation adsorption. Dipolar water molecules and available cations are
adsorbed both on the exterior and the interior surfaces of the smectite unit cell. Illite
minerals lie somewhere between kaolinite and smectite in their expansion behavior.
2.2. Moisture Environment for Expansive Soils
The amount of water available to the clay depends on various environmental factors. The
most important factors affecting expansive soils are climate and the relationship between
16
Smectite
I—I—I I I I I I—nr"]—mi—r "T I I I I j I T ' I ' • 1

30 25 20 15 10 5 2 °2e
Fig. 2.6. Typical X-ray diffraction (XRD) pattem for smectite.

17
rainfall and rate of evaporation (James and James, 1980). This may be expressed in terms
of the Thomthwaite moisture index (Thomthwaite, 1948):
Tl = J 0 ( L | ^ 1 0 D ^2.1)
where TI = the Thomthwaite moisture index, dimensionless

S = surplus of water, in inches
D = deficit of water, in inches
PE = potential evapotranspiration, in inches.
The Thomthwaite moisture index, TI, is used on an annual basis to provide an
indication of the overall potential evaporation and rainfall balance. A positive index value
on the index indicates a net surplus of soil moisture characteristic of a wet climate whereas
a negative index value shows a net soil moisture characteristic of dry climate. Regions with
a Thomthwaite index between -20 and -40 are classified as semiarid areas, and a
Thomthwaite index of less than -40 indicates arid areas (Fredlund, 1987). About 33
percent of the earth's surface is considered arid and semiarid (Dregne, 1976). In areas
where the seasonal climatic changes are greatest (i.e., long droughts alternating with
excessive rainfall), expansive soils are very active in shrinking and in swelling. On the
other hand, in areas where the climatic changes are not great, and soils are kept wet
throughout the year, very little or no volume change of expansive soils may occur. Other
very important environmental sources or losses of soil moisture are mostly related to the
urban and suburban development of an area. Vegetation, especially trees, with high
demand for water, can dry out a clayey soil, causing shrinkage. It is mentioned that deep
rooting plants can extract water from a gradually increasing depth of up to 2-3m (Ravina,
1984). Leaking subsurface water and sewage lines or local watering of lawns and gardens
18
can adversely affect ambient moisture conditions (Snethen, 1975). The presence of a
covered area, such as a building or a pavement, may reduce the rate of water
evapotranspiration from the foundation soil, thereby affecting the moisture content and,
therefore, soil volume change.
2.3. Mechanisms of Swelling in Expansive Soils

Capillarity arises due to the surface tension forces generated between the water
molecules and soil solids. The magnitude of the force depends upon the pore size and
concavity of the menisci at the entrance to the pore.
Van der Waal forces, including London forces and hydrogen bonding, are weak
attractive electrical forces which develop on the surface of clay minerals. The forces exist
between adjacent clay mineral surfaces and tend to bond the surfaces together. These
forces, in both the dry and the wet conditions, control the sorption of water. The forces
play a small part in bonding the water molecules to the clay surface after sorption begins.
Van der Waal forces include three types of weak electrical attractive forces, namely dipole-
dipole attraction forces, induction effect forces, and London forces (Snethen, 1979).
Dipole-dipole attraction forces develop between polar molecules having permanent
moments, and they are at least partly responsible for the orientation of water molecules and
their bonding to the clay mineral surface.
Induction effect forces are similar to dipole-dipole attraction and they occur between
imoriented molecules by the interaction between one dipole and the polarized electrons of
another dipole. London forces also termed "dispersive" forces, occur in all molecules or
extremely small particles including nonpolar (zero dipole moment) varieties. The forces
originate from the development of an instantaneous, nonpermanent dipole moment between
two particles when they come into close proximity to each other. The influence of van der
Waal forces is rapidly overcome by the development of the double layer (White, 1979)
19
under conditions where water is attracted to the clay mineral. The measurement of the
phenomenon mentioned above is very difficult. Even if this measurement can be done, it
provides little or no practical information. Thus, the number of microscale mechanisms
responsible for volume change has been reduced to three: clay particle attraction, cation
hydration, and osmotic repulsion. In most cases, these three mechanisms are primary
sources of expansion. It has been concluded that for samples compacted wet of optimum
water content, swelling is caused by osmotic repulsive pressures, and for samples
compacted dry of optimum water content, swelling is influenced by factors, such as cation
hydration and attraction of the clay particle surface for water, London van der Waal forces,
elastic rebound, particle orientation, and presence of air, in addition to osmotic pressures
(Ladd, 1960). Ladd also points out a type of categorization of the range of the basic
mechanisms in a very general sense. In other words, his concept of osmotic repulsion
controlling volume change above optimum water content and cation hydration and clay
particle attraction plus the other less significant factors having greater influence below
optimum water content was a major step toward a better understanding of the volume
change phenomenon.
Any volume increase in the saturated clay can be considered as an equal increase in the
volume of water in clay. In Fig. 2.7, a clay particle is inmiersed in pure water. Sufficient
exchangeable cations surround the particle in order that the cations plus the particle
constitute an electrically neutral system. This system is designated the clay "micelle." The
ions and water within the micelle constitute the double layer. The variation in cation and
anion concentration in a suspension of clay in water can be calculated from principles of
colloidal chemistry as a function of the distancefromthe surface of a clay particle.
Pressures between clay particles basically responsible for swelling are R, the
repulsive pressure which arisesfromthe interaction of the double layers associated with
thetwo clay particles, and A, the total attractive pressure (see Fig. 2.8).
20
Boundary of
double layer
/ Q
/ O ©
\ ®
Exchangeable cations
Fig. 2.7. The clay micelle in pure water (After Ladd, 1960)
21
A A
R R
LJ
2d
Fig. 2.8. Pressures between two clay particles (After Ladd, 1960)
22
The magnitude of rebound around specimen in a standard consolidation test is
directly related to the decrease in effective stress. The effective stress can be related to
physico-chemical forces acting between clay particles:
^=R-A (2.2)
where G = effective stress.
The value of R must be greater than the value of A for swelling to occur in an
expansive soil. It is generally believed that this repulsive pressure has several components:
1. The most important component is caused by an osmotic pressure arising from the
higher ion concentration in the double layer of the clay micelle than in the free pore water.
This component will be discussed later.
2. The effect of secondary valance or London van der Waal's forces on the water
surrounding clay particles.
3. The effect of the negative electric field on the double layer of water.
There are no data in the technical literature from which definite conclusion can be
drawn relative to the magnitude of influence of the last two factors on swelling.
The presence of solutes in soil water affects its thermodynamic properties and lowers
its potential energy. Solutes also lower the vapor pressure of soil water. These reductions
on water potential energy may not affect liquid flow significantly, but it becomes important
whenever a membrane or diffusion barrier is present which transmits water more readily
than salts.
23
Figure 2.9. is a schematic representation of a pure solvent (e.g., water) separated
from a solution (e.g., salt cations in water) by a semipermeable membrane. The solvent
will pass through the membrane and enter the solution compartment, driving the solution
level up the left-hand tube until the hydrostatic pressure of the column of dilute solution on
the left is sufficient to counter the diffusion of the solvent molecules drawn into the solution
through the membrane. When solvent molecules are crossing the membrane in both
directions at equal rates, the hydrostatic pressure at equilibrium is the osmotic pressure of
the solution. It is not necessary to wait until the column of water on the left side ceases to
rise. As depicted in the right side of Fig. 2.9, the pressure which would adequately
balance the levels of water in both the left andrightcolumns, is equal to the osmotic
pressure of the solution.
The semipermeable membrane is essential for osmotic pressure to be generated^The

membrane may consist of a large number of fine capillarities not wetted by the liquid
solution, but through which the membrane molecules of solvent can pass in the vapor
phase. Air voids are a good source of semipermeable membranes because water molecules
vaporize in the air voids, leaving the solute behind. The clay micelle also acts as a
semipermeable membrane.
When an aqueous solution is separatedfrompure water by a semipermeable
membrane, which allows the passage of water but not that of the solute in the solution,
water tends to pass through the membrane into the solution. This phenomenon is called
osmosis. The pressure that must be applied to the solution in order to prevent the flow of
water into the solution through the semipermeable membrane is called the osmotic pressure
of the solution (Fig. 2.9). There are formulas for calculating osmotic pressures. One of
the simplest of these is the van't Hoff equation, which yields,
Po = RTc (2.3)
24
P = Osmotic Pressure
o
y////////////////A
• ' •
Soludo n "^—
(such as sug<M in water) i

Pure Water
Semipermeable
membrane
Fig. 2.9. Representation of osmotic pressure.

25
where Po = osmotic pressure (g/cm^)
R = gas constant
T = absolute temperature (RT = 2.5xl0'7 gem per mole for 20^50

c = concentration of solute (moles per cc of solution).
Osmotic pressure can reach very large magnitudes. For instance, 130 g of sugar per
liter of aqueous solution exerts an osmotic pressure of about 10 tsf Of course, osmotic
pressure can be developed between two solutions of unequal concentration so that,
Po = RT(ca-cb) (2.4)
where c^ and C5 refer to the solute concentration on either side of a semipermeable
membrane. Osmotic pressure would act in clays since (1) the differences exist in solute
concentrations in this case, ions are the solute, and (2) the electric field around the
negatively charged clay particle acts as a semipermeable membrane.
The exchangeable cations are attracted to the clay particles by the net negative electric
field arisingfromthe negative charge on the particles. Thus, the electric field acts as a
semipermeable membrane which allows water to enter the double layer but does not allow
the exchangeable cations to leave the double layer. The boundary line in Fig. 2.10 shows
this "semi-permeable membrane."
In Fig. 2.10, the water would like to flow from region fl to regions. Effective
stress, C, and the attractive pressure of A are required to prevent an increase in interparticle
spacing, or swelling. If O+A is reduced, then water flows from region a to region ft,
thus, decreasing the ion concentration at a. In other words, the double layer is expanded
until the correspondingly lower osmotic pressure is again in equilibrium with the effective
and attractive pressures.

26
Double layers overlap

Imaginary semi-permeable
membrane surrounding
clay particles
Higher ion concentration

in the double layer.
Lower ion concentration

in the free water
Fig. 2.10. Double layers around clay particles (After Ladd, 1960)
27
The ion concentration differential that determines the osmotic repulsive pressure
between particles is the ion concentration at the midplane between particles (that is, point
a) minus the ion concentration in the free water. Thus, based on the van't Hoff equation,
the osmotic pressure becomes:
Po=RT(c,-c^) (2.5)
where c^. and c^ refer to the total ion (both cation and anions) concentration (moles per cc)
at the midplane and in the free pore water, respectively. The ion concentration in the free
pore water, CQ, can be easily measured. The midplane concentration, c^, must be computed
from a theory relating ion concentration with distancefromthe clay particle surface. For
certain ideal cases, the Gouy-Chapman theory has been used and the calculated osmotic
pressures have been checked experimentally. The data show that the compression-swelling
curves based on osmotic pressures computed from the Gouy-Chapman theory agreed
qualitatively and in some cases almost exactly with the observed curves (Warkentin et al.,
1957).
The rest of the mechanisms that affect the swelling phenomenon are cation hydration,
capillary imbibition, and elastic relaxation. Physical hydration of cations are substituted
into or attached to the clay particle. When cations hydrate, their ionic radii increase,
resulting in a net volume change of the soil mass. Movement of water into a mass of clay
is called capillary imbibition. Compressive forces are applied to the clay particles by the
menisci of the water in the pores. When free water becomes available to the unsaturated
clay mass, the pore water menisci begin to enlarge and compressive forces exerted on the
clay particles are relaxed. The capillary film will enlarge and result in a volume change of
soil or act as water source for one of the other swelling mechanisms. The last mechanism
affecting the swelling of clays is elastic relaxation, which is a readjustment of clay particles
28
due to some change in the diagenetic factors. Because of particle reorientation and changes
in soil stmcture, volume changes of soil mass occur.
In the field, most of the processes involving soil-water interaction occur while the soil
is in unsaturated condition. The formulation and solution of unsaturated soil problems very
often require the use of indirect methods of analysis, based on approximations or numerical
techniques. For this reason, the development ofrigoroustheoretical and experimental
methods for treating these problems was rather late in coming.
The principle of soil water potential was conceived by soil physicist Buckingham
(1907). The concept was developed by Gardner (1920) in that he related the soil water
potential to the soil water content. The importance of this development was that the
principal form of energy responsible for the movement of water in unsaturated soils was
recognized.
Two of the classical forms of energy are kinetic energy and potential energy. Kinetic
energy is typically considered to be negligible because water movement in soil is very slow
(Darcy's law) and kinetic energy is proportional to the velocity of the matter squared.
Potential energy, which is due to the position of water or its internal condition, is important
in determining the state and movement of water in the soil. The spontaneous and universal
tendency of all matter in nature is to adjust in volume to that elusive state of equihbrium
where all particles surrounding a particular particle have the same energy as that particle.
Differences in potential energy of the water cause the water to flow in the soil. Water will
always move from an area of highôtential^toân area of ]ow potential.^ The rate of
decrease of potential energy with distance is in fact the moving force causing the flow. A
knowledge of therelativepotential energy state of the soil water at each point within the soil
mass can allow the forces acting on soil water in all directions to be evaluated and to
determine how far the water in the soil isfromequilibrium.

29
An energy increment can be viewed as the product of a force and a distance increment,
so the ratio of a potential energy increment to a distance increment can also be viewed as
constituting a force. Thus, a force acting on soil water, directed from a zone of higher to a
zone of lower potential, is equal to the negative potential gradient, - (d<I>/dx), which is the
change of potential energy, <P, with distance, x. The negative sign shows that the force
acts in the direction of decreasing potential.
When the soil is saturated and its water is at a hydrostatic pressure greater than that of
the atmospheric pressure, such as below the groundwater table, the potential energy level
of that water will be greater than that of free water, and the soil water wUl move from the
soil into an area of a lower potential. On the other hand, if the soil is moist but unsaturated,
its water will no longer be free to move toward a reservoir at atmospheric pressure. To the
contrary, the spontaneous tendency will be for the soil to draw water from such a reservoir
if placed in contact with it, just as a blotter draws ink.
2.4. Soil Water Potential
Under hydrostatic pressure greater than atmospheric, the potential of soil water is
greater than that of free waterândjsjconsider^d_positive^_^ unsaturated soils, the water is
constrained by capillary and adsorptive forces. Therefore, its energy is considered negative
since its equivalent hydrostatic pressure is less than that of free water, which is the
reference state.
Thermodynamically, energy potential can be regarded in terms of the difference in
partial specific fiee energy between soil water and standard water. A soil physics
terminology committee of the Intemational Soil Science Society defined the total potential
of soil water as "The amount of work that must be done per unit quantity of pure water, in
order to transport reversibly and isothermally an infinitesimal quantity of water from a pool
30
of pure water at a specific elevation at atmospheric pressure to the soil water (at the point
under consideration)" (Aslyng, 1963, p. 5).
Soil physicists have been using the concept of soil water potential for many years to
describe the energy of soil water everywhere in the soil-plant-atmosphere continuum. Soil
water potential concept provides a useful tool for quantifying the moisture in the soil. The
total potential of water is defined as the sum of the various components of energy and can
be stated as:
^t= O m + ^ n +<Pn + ^ o + <I> r.v+ . • . (2.6)

m g - ^ ov
where <Pl = Total potential
Orn = Matric potential
<Pp = Pneumatic potential
<PQ = Osmotic potential
<Po = Gravitational potential
<I>ov = Overburden pressure potential.
In Eq. (2.6), the dots indicate that additional terms may theoretically be possible .
2.5. Soil Suction
Total soil suction is a special case of water potential in which only the osmotic and
matric potentials are considered. Therefore, the total soil suction, h, consists of two
components, matric suction (hm), and osmotic or solute suction (hs), and is represented
algebraically as:
h = hm + h (2.7)
31
Matric suction resultsfromthe soil's capillary suction which depends on pore size and
attractive forces due to the negative surface electrical charge of the clay particle, attracting
dipole soil water. Capillarity arises because of the surface tension forces generated between
the water molecules and soil solids. The magnitude of the force depends on the pore size
and concavity of the menisci. When soil water is at a pressure lower than atmospheric , the
matric potential is called suction. Osmotic suction is due to dissolved cations (salts) in the
soil water which affect its thermodynamic properties and lowers its potential energy. The
Review Panel of the Moisture Equilibria Symposium in 1965 defined total soil suction
(Aitchison, 1965, p. 21) as: "The negative gage pressure relative to the extemal gas
pressure on the soil water to which a pool of water must be subjected in order to be in
equilibrium through a semi-permeable membrane with the soil water." Soil suction is
described as a measure of the soil's affinity for water in layman's term (Wray, 1984).
Thus, when soil suction is greater, the soil's attraction for water would be greater. In
engineering practice, soil suction is expressed as a positive value in units of pF, which is
defined as the logarithm of head in centimeters of water. The pF scale first introduced by
Schofield (Schofield, 1935) by analogy with pH. The symbol "p" indicates the logarithmic
character, while the symbol "F" stands forfreeenergy difference measured on a gravity
scale.
h(pF) = logio(ht) (2.8)
where ht = total suction of the soil in centimeters of water.
The usage of unit pF avoids the use of larger numbers. Soil suction can be expressed
in many units of stress; Appendix A indicates the various conversion factors for units that
are often used in the technical literature. The interaction of soil water and soil particles that
causes volume changes in expansive soils can be described by two approaches (Snethen et
32
al., 1977). These are the mechanistic and the thermodynamic (energy) approaches. The
mechanistic approach uses the effective stress concept to estimate volume changes in
unsaturated soils. Terzaghi's classical effective stress equation (Terzaghi, 1936), shown as
Eq. (2.9), relates the state of stress in a saturated soil to the pore water pressure.
G = a - uw (2-9)
where G = effective stress
G = total stress
Uw = pore water pressure.
The volume change in saturated soils can be expressed as:
^ = c AG (2.10)
dV
where - -y- = volumetric strain
AG = changes in effective stress
c = volume compressibility.
Bishop (1961) extended tiie Eq. (2.9) to a general formula that considers partiaUy
saturated soils:
G = G-Ua + X(Ua-Uw) (2.11)
where Ua = pore air pressure

X = an empirical parameter which is equal to zero when the soil is
saturated and equal to 1 when the soil is completely dry.

33
Attempts to link the deformations of an unsaturated soil with Bishop's effective stress
equation have not been successful (Jennings and Burdland, 1962; Matyas and
Radhakrishna, 1968; Barden et al., 1969; Bmckley, 1971).
The energy approach was developed by using Kelvin's equation that relates energy to
thermodynamic variables :
h = RTlogc^ (2.12)
where h = total potential
p = vapor pressure of the pore water in the soil

po = vapor pressure of free water
R = Universal gas constant, (8.3144 J/mol.K)
T = absolute temperature
-^ = relative humidity,
po
Eq. (2.12) describes the relationship between the total potential and vapor pressure. Total
suction of a soil can be calculated by using the above equation. Thus, the heave process
can be modeled by the energy approach because moisture movement is in vapor form in the
most unsaturated soils. Since the total suaion can be calculated by this approach, a third
approach of using soil suction to predict the volume change capacity could be added. There
are many proposed models which use the soil suction concept to estimate the volume
changes of expansive soils. However, only three of them have received major attention
(Bratton, 1991). These are the Mitchell and Avalle model, Uie Lytton-Gardner-McKeen
model, and Wray's model. These three models are very similar to each other. The first
two models have the same general form, and the last one is an extension and adaptation of
the second model. Since Wray's model has had much success on heave predictions
34
(Bratton, 1991), the Lytton-Gardner-McKeen, and Wray's models will be presented as
follows.
The Lytton-Gardner-McKeen model to estimate expansion behaviorfromsoil suction

was developed through the individual efforts of each of the three investigators. In 1958,
Gardner developed a concept that related suction to permeability, Eq. (2.13):
k=-- (2.13)
IT!" + b
where k = unsaturated permeability
r- = saturated permeability
|T| = absolute value of the suction causing water movement

n = an exponent which varies with grain size (larger for coarse grains).
In 1970, the concept was further developed and presented by Lytton (Desai and
Christan, 1977). Lytton started with the equation for total potential, \|f, which is:
f = -h + X3 ± n (2.14)
where h = total suction

X3 = the gravitational potential
n = soil overburden pressure.
For partially saturated soils, the moisture flow can be expressed in a form of Darcy's
equation as:
v = -kg (2.15)
35
where v = velocity of flow
k = coefficient of permeability.
If n is neglected, then Eq. (2.15) can be rewritten as:
\l
[^H•^)
., a( -h + )^) j^^^,^^^-- ^ - K
^=-^—a^,— • AK (2.16)
For a steady flux, v, and a known value of suction (such as the equilibrium suction), h,
Eq. (2.16) can be combined with Eq. (2.13) and numerically integrated suchtiiatthe
permeability at any nodal point ( i ) is represented by:
•^'=1 +a'lhJ"
1"
(2.17)
where ko = saturated permeability

ki = coefficient of permeability at a depth of i.
a = Gardner's nondimensional constant (a soil property = 1x10^^ )
n = a soil property determined by testing or estimatedfromDesai
and Christan, 1977.
The soil parameters a and n are notfirmlyrelated to any of the common engineering
properties of soil (Austin, 1987). Lytton (1970) determined the soil parameters a and n
by solving numerous problems using different values of the constants in different
combinations with each other. He found that the values for the constants, a and AI, for a
specific soil condition should be 1x10"^ and 1.0 - 3.0, respectively. Both of these
constants are dimensionless.

36
Using finite difference techniques, the change in suction in the vertical direction, Ahj,
can be written as shown below.
Ahi = Ax3 + A x 3 - ^ (2.18)
where X3 = change in position or gravitational potential,

V3 = velocity of moisture flow, and
hj = soil suction at level i.
The suction at nodal point i+1 above position / can then be computed as:
hiî = Ahi + hi (2.19)
By substituting Eq. (2.19) into Eq. (2.17), a new value for the suction at new nodal
point / is determined. This calculation is repeated until the suction at each nodal point in
the vertical profile is determined. McKeen (1977) extended the work of Lytton by
developing the following strain equations:
Kaolinite:
YJ^ = 0.00018 (% of clay) - 0.000098, (2.20)
Illite:
y^ = 0.00047 (% of clay) - 0.00351 , (2.21)
Montmorillonite:
y^ = 0.00056 (% of clay) - 0.00433 , (2.22)
37
where y^ is termed the coefficient of suction change compressibility and percent of clay
(<0.002 p.m) is calculated witii respect to the total sample, y^ was expressed by Lytton
(1977) as:
AV
Yh = - ^ (2.23)
log lOh;
where Yj^ = suction compression index

AV
-y— = volume change with respect to initial volume
hf, hj = final and initial soil suction values, respectively.

Determination of Y^^ requires a measured volume change and a suction change over which
the volume change occurs. These data must cover the range of moisture suction expected
in the field environment. The measurements may take place in a one-dimensional
(oedometer) or a three-dimensional (unrestrained soil clods) configurations. Coefficient of
linear extensibility (COLE), which is used by U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil
Conversion Service, is a routine test for this purpose. However, the procedure described
above requires soil suction measurements to determine Yi^- Since there is no method
currently in use by civil engineers for measuring soil suction, a way to evaluate Y^. which
does not involve soil suction measurements was sought (McKeen, 1980). Thus, a chart
seen in Fig. 2.11 was developed. Usage of the chart involves determining the activity (Ac)
of the soil and cation exchange activity (CEAc) as follows:
A^=-%w- <'•''>
CEAc = ^^li^y me/100 g (2.25)

38
A n
^ .u
* X
COLE-0.220
o (a
lU O
2.0 mA
o COLE-
I
o lA 0.096
< COLE-0.033
UJ
o
> 1.0
-
> 0.6
mB
»- COLE-0.163
o 0.6 mA COLE-
< 0.096
COLE-0.061
UJ
O
z 0.4
< DCS
X
o B
COLE-0.061
X
Ui COLE-•0.033
z 0.2
o
<
o
n 1 1
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 2.0 4.0
ACTIVITY. Ac- -^^^-^y
Fig. 2.11 Chart for the prediction of Suction Compressibility Index C[^)
39
where PI = plasticity index
% Clay = clay content
CEC = cation exchange capacity.

The vertical strain is a function of suction compression index, y^, multiplied by the actual
suction change, ApF.
AH
I T = Yh^P^final-pFinitital) = Y h ^^P^^ • (2.26)
The required parameters for the Lytton-Gardner-McKeen model are the constants, a,
riy and v, velocity of flow in the soil mass, along with the ko, saturated permeability.
These four values are then used to determine the suction profiles. Since the constants a
and n have not been related to any common engineering tests, large uncertainties are
usually associated with the values that are selected because the values are selected by
relating the soil of interest with other soils that have been previously studied. Thus, errors
are easily compounded and uncertainty increases rapidly.
The other required parameter is the value of Y^ with depth. From the equations
developed by McKeen, YK can be determinedfromthe results of X-ray diffraction tests and
hydrometer tests. XRD tests are generally quite expensive and are rarely performed in
ordinary site investigations.
Wray starts with Eq. (2.26) which represents the volume change behavior and adds an
additional term, ApP, as shown in Eq.(2.27). This term, pP, represents the common
logarithm of the weight of the soil overburden. The sign is such that the term magnifies the
volume change behavior when the soil is shrinking and resists the volume change behavior
40
when tiie soil is swelling. The compressibility coefficient, Y^' is assumed to apply equally
to the overburden term and to the suction term.
^ = H[Yh(ApF)-Yu(ApP)] . (2.27)
Wray's method takes the Lytton-Gardner-McKeen model a step further by defining

how the model should be used to predict the maximum amount of swell that will occur at a
given site. Rather than selecting two suction profiles that exist at different times, as
suggested from the Lytton-Gardner-McKeen model, Wray uses the equations to determine
suction profiles for establishing the theoretical steady state wet and dry boundaries. In
order to calculate the maximum heave that could be expected, Wray uses the in situ suction
profile at a given time as pFmitiaL-™? profile is then used in Eq. (2.27) along with the
wet boundary (pFfjuaj) to determine the maximum amount of swell that is possible. To
determine the maximum amount of shrinkage that might occur, the dry boundary is used as
pFfinal-
2.6. Swelling Pressure in the Lateral Direction
Boundaries of an expansive soil must not be restrained if the soil is to increase in
volume, i.e., to swell. The ground surface increases in elevation as expansive soils swell
vertically. The ground surface also swells laterally as well as vertically. If the ground
surface is cracked and fissured, the lateral increase in volume is accommodated by the
cracks or fissures closing as the soil mass expands into the voids of the cracks. However,
when there are no cracks orfissuresor when they are very small, the soil becomes
41
restrained in the lateral directions. Thus, no volume change occurs and a lateral swelling
pressure develops.
Most of the publications in the technical literature that address the subject of lateral
swelling pressure can be divided into two groups. One is principally theoretical, the other
is principally experimental. Many of the theoretical papers used laboratory tests to evaluate
certain factors or the laboratory data were used to develop equations that could be used to
estimate future results. Many of the experimental analyses discussed below used remolded
or compacted soils in the experiments rather than in situ or undisturbed samples and did not
have predictive models.
2.6.1. Principally Theoretical Analyses
2.6.1.1. Bolt (1956). The author found a quantitative equation for swelling pressure
as a function of ion concentration, temperature, valence of adsorbed cation, void ratio,
charge density of clay mineral, specific surface area of the clay, and specific gravity of the
clay mineral. The equation is as follows:
P, = R T c „ ^ + ^ - 2 (2.28)
Ô '^C
where Pg = swelling pressure
R = gas constant
T = absolute temperature
CQ = concentration of solute in the bulk liquid pressed out from the system
Cc = cation concentration in the central plane.

42
It was also pointed out that when the plasticity4ndex increases, Uie free swell
increases. When the initial density was greater, the free swell was greater also, implying
more particles oriented perpendicularly to the extemal load.
2.6.1.2. Skempton (1961)- The coefficient of at-rest earth pressures, K^, and
effective lateral soil pressure were calculated by three separate methodsfromone of his
investigations, which was about a failure in a vertical wall in a deep excavation in an
overconsolidated soil. From the results of the investigation, Skempton made two important
observations.
a. The coefficient of at-rest earth pressures, K^, has a general tendency to decrease
with depth (for instance,froma maximum occurring at a depth of about 20 ft. over a total
depth of 110 ft. in his site).
b. In the top 10 ft., K^ is reduced due to weathering and softening of the upper soil
strata prior to deposition of the top stratum of postglacial clay, at least at his site.
After the investigation, Skempton reported some of thefindingsas well as some
theoretical considerations. These are as follows:
a. Swelling pressure is equal to the soil suction.
b. Swelling pressure can be deducedfromundrained strength tests.
2.6.1.3. Ranganatham and Satyanaravana (1965). To estimate the swelling potential
of an expansive soil, a predictive equation was given. The equation is
SP =41.13x10-5 X (SI)2.67 (2.29)
where SP = swelling potential
SI = shrinkage index (LL-PL).
2.6.1.4. Brooker and Ireland (1965). The authors found somerelationshipsbetween
at-rest earth pressure and some soil properties as theresultof a laboratory investigation.
43
They used remolded specimens at a water content corresponding to a liquidity index of
about 0.5, which was well above the optimum moisture content for all of the test soils.
Some of their conclusions are as follows:
a. Jakky's equation, K^ = 1 - sin O', for estimating KQ is probably more

representative for sand, whereas the relationship K^ = 0.95 - sin O' is more representative
of normally consolidated clays.
b. At overconsolidation ratios greater than 20, KQ approaches the coefficient of
passive earth pressure Kp. Therefore, overconsolidation ratio, OCR, is a factor in
evaluating KQ.
c. KQ initially increased as the effective angle of intemal friction, <P\ increased,

reaching a maximum at an OCR of approximately 20. When OCR increased beyond 20,
then KQ started to decrease. Thus, <!>' is also a factor in determining the value of K^. When
O'decreased, the plasticity index increased.
d. There appears to be an optimum condition at which the combination of cohesion

and friction retain the greatest radial stress and, consequently, the greatest K^ value. Low
to medium plasticity soils develop higher values of K^ than either cohesionless or high to
very high plasticity soils do, especially when OCR is greater than approximately 16.
2.6.1.5. Komomik and David (1969). A regression equation relating swelling
pressure, Ps, in terms of liquid limit LL, natural water content Wjj, and dry density y^j was
developed:
log Ps = 2.132 + 0.0208LL-I- 6.65 xlO-^ x J^ - 0.0269wn (2.30)
The coefficient of correlation for this equation was r = 0.60
2.6.1.6. Komomik (1969). He enumerates and then discusses some of the factors
affecting damage due to movements of expansive clays in the field. His experience
44
indicates that lateral earth pressures acting against vertical retaining walls and other buried
stmctures are far in excess of active and at-rest pressures for swelling clay backfills.
2.6.1.7. Navak and Christensen (1971). The authors found basic forms of
relationships that are derivedfromtheoretical considerations of the diffuse double layer and
the osmotic pressure for parallel clays using experimental datafromcompacted swelling
clay soils. Their general regression equation for swelling pressure, Pp, in psi is
Pp = (3.5817 X 10-2) (PI)1.12 x ^ + 3 . 7 9 1 2 (2.31)

Wi^
and their general regression equation for swelling potential, Sp, a percentage, is
Sp = (2.29 X 10-2) (PI)1.45 X — + 6.38 (2.32)

iV 1
where PI = plasticity index, in percent

C = clay content, by weight, as percentage
wi = initial moisture content, by weight, as a percentage.
2.6.1.8. Wroth and Vaughan (1973). Although the authors review the subject of
measuring lateral stresses in situ rather than presenting new methods or study results, they
report three important observations that are also reported by other authors.
a. When a normally consolidated, NC, soil is unloaded and becomes
overconsolidated, OC, the coefficient of at-rest, K^, increases,reachinga value of about
unity at an overconsolidation ratio, OCR, of approximately 5.
b. The value of the coefficient of lateral earth pressure at-rest, KQ, is only limited by
the state of passive failure which is reached at very high values of OCR.
45
c. When overconsolidated soil is reloaded from an OC state, the value of KQ rapidly
falls below unity, approaching the minimum value associated with normal consolidation
once the preconsolidation pressure is exceeded.
2.6.1.9. Pufahl. Fredlund. and Rahardjo (1983). In tfieir sUidy, the authors
formulated simple earth pressure equations in terms of total stresses using the Mohr-
Coulomb failure criteria and assumptions consistent with the Rankine earth pressure
theory. Lateral earth pressures produced by saturated clays are considered with negative
pore water pressures and unsaturated expansive clays with positive matrix suction from a
theoretical limit analysis standpoint The change in lateral earth pressures resulting from a
decrease in pore water pressure or an increase in matrix suction is shown. Also, the
change in lateral pressures resulting from a change in matrix suction is addressed under
conditions where walls are restrained from moving; this change depends upon the ratio KQ
of horizontal to vertical stress and the matrix suction of the backfill at the time that it is
placed behind the wall. The authors showed that the maximum lateral pressure that can be
developed m some cases is equal to the passive pressure of the soil when it is samrated.
They also showed that the vertical surface tension cracks have little effect on the design
conditions.
2.6.1.10. Duncan and Seed (1986). The authors presented analytical models and
procedures for the evaluation of peak and residual compaction induced lateral earth
pressures either in the free field or adjacent to vertical nondeflecting soil-stmcture
interfaces. They presented a hysteretic model for the stress generated by multiple cycles of
loading and unloading, along with reconwnendations regarding the determination of suitable
model parameters. Then the model was adapted to incremental analytical methods for the
evaluation of peak and residual earth pressures resulting from the placement and
compaction of soil. Compaction loading was considered as a transient moving surficial
load of finite lateral extent.
46
2.6.1.11. Uzan. Baker, and Fryman (1987). The authors had an approach which
was made up of two parts for estimating the response of a swelling soil profile to the
percolation of surface water. Thefirstpart of the approach was a model for the flow
regime to estimate the development of the wetted zone with time. It was used to predict the
lateral extent and vertical penetration of the wettingfrontfor a surface wetting source of
finite extent. The second part was a model for the swelling process under constrained
conditions. It was used to predict the surface heave as a function of extent of the wetted
zone, and induced lateral and vertical constraints. The authors gave the following
equations for radial and vertical strains for an axisymmetric case on the complete swelling-
elastic model:
ez= g (dOz - 2tLdar) - adeo (2.30a)
e^ = EQ = I [da^ - \L(daj + da^)] - ade^ (2.30b)
where E = modulus of elasticity,

G^ = vertical stress,
(5j = radial stress.
The parameters p., a and tiie function deo=deo(ain) were evaluated on the basis of
laboratory tests which were described in the authors' study.
2.6.1.12. Dhowian(1990). The author suggested a model to estimate heave of
expansive shale formation based on soil suction change. The prediction was fiirther
simpUfied by introducing a model that uses the moisture content variation to determine the
amount of heave. A term, moisture index, was defined as follows.

47
aGs
Cw = y - ^ ^ (2.34)
where Cw = moisture index
a = volume compressibility factor
Gs = specific gravity of solid particles
eo = initial void ratio.
The given equation to predict the heave is
AH
- j ^ = Cw(Wf-Wi) (2.35)
where Wf and wj are final and initial moisture contents, respectively.
2.6.1.13. Sattler and Fredlund (1990). The authors developed a numerical method to
relate matric suction changes and vertical heave. They considered one-dimensional ground
movements under open-vegetated fields subject to changing climatic conditions. They also
believe that the numerical model can also be used to predict seasonal ground movements
beneath light engineered stmctures. A reasonable agreement between measured and
predicted vertical ground movements was achieved using soil parameters that vary with
depth. For the model, the authors used a finite-difference numerical technique to solve the
transient-flow equation in terms of hydraulic head, subject to boundary conditions.
hi - h2 ^ K ^ 2 - 2io + h 3
w " \ • f
At ptt>g m^"" Ay
where h^ = total hydraulic head at time j and at depth k

48
h I = total hydraulic head at time j+1 and at depth k
h2 = total hydraulic head at time j and at depth k-l
h3 = total hydraulic head at time j and at depth k+1
Ay = increment of vertical depth
At = increment of time
Ptjj = density of water
g = acceleration due to gravity

W_ m^z . _ir-._. 1 L _^ss_
m, = coefficient of water volume change = Trl
10
i+e j(
a^s = the coefficient of compressibility with respect to suction
ejo = initial void ratio for layer i.
2.6.1.14. Xin and Ling (1992). In their study, the authors have made a very good
data collection from many site tests on the distribution of water content with depth. They
also have given a relationship between swelling pressure and water content The relation
has a shape of an inverse "S" with two knees. The upper knee is the shrinkage limit, Ws,
and the lower knee is the swelling (or expansion) limit, wjj. According to the authors, the
swelling pressure is a ftmction of the properties of soil, water content and its change, and
deformation of retaining stmcture. As a result of their study, the authors proposed an
equation to calculate the lateral swelling pressure distribution behind aretainingstmcture.
When the retaining stmcture is not deformable (the deformation on the retaining stmctures
is zero), the equation is as follows:
Pz = P.a, ^ . (2-37)
where Pz = lateral swelling pressure
Pjnax - maximum lateral swelling pressure

49
Awz = Aw^3^ e-^
AWmax = maximum difference of water contents
WH = swelling limit
Ws = shrinkage limit
z = depth
p
a = coefficient of water content a= p *
* max
Pw = lateral swelling pressure with natural water content.
The authors have given the lateral swelling pressure distributions behind a retaining
wall for three different cases. Case one considers a depth of active zone deeper than the
height of the retaining wall. Case two considers a depth of active zone equal to the height
of the retaining wall while case three considers a retaining wall with a height of larger than
the depth of active zone. According to the paper, the distributions of the lateral swelling
pressure in the three cases have given maximum lateral swelling pressure with a water
content change value of Awz equal to or greater than (WH-WS). The maximum lateral
pressure wouldremainas a constant value until Aw^ is less than WH-WS. Any further
decrease on Awz would make the lateral swelling pressure to decrease.
2.6.1.15. Aytekin(1992). The author discussed the paper which is summarized
above (under the paragraph 2.6.1.14). In the discussion, it is believed that the lateral
swelling pressure distributions which is determined by Eq. (2.37) may not be accurate
because of the following reasons. First of all, afinalwater content which is equal to or
greater than the liquid limit, LL, with a very low initial water content would give maximum
lateral swelling pressure if Eq. (2.37) is used to calculate the lateral swelling pressures.
Next, the lateral swelling pressure would be equal to the maximum lateral swelling pressure
rather than hydrostatic pressure even if thefinalwater content of the soil is greater than
liquid limit of the soil. The author claimed that the swelling pressure is nil in a soil which
50
has a water contenttiiatis equal to or greater than the liquid limit. Thus, Eq. (2.37) may
give some misleading results on the lateral swelling pressure calculations. The author gave
a couple of examples of experimental works which had been performed by others to
support his thoughts. For instance, some large-scale tests had been performed by Katti et
al. (1983) to measure lateral pressure distributions behind a tank wall using expansive soil
only, and different thicknesses of cohesive nonswelling soil (CNS) between the wall and
the expansive backfill. The measured lateral pressure distributions are shown in Figs.
2.12, 2.13, and 2.14. Similar lateral stress distributions are given by Sudhindra and Moza
(1987). As seen in Figs. 2.12, 2.13, and 2.14, the lateral pressure is equal to zero at the
surface of the soil which is saturated. The^ author believes that the reason forjhisîs^that the
modulus of elasticity of soil. Eg, which is a function of water content, decreases when the
water content is increased as seen in Eq. (2.38) (Barkan, 1962).
Es = E o ( l - ^ ) (2.38)
Wo''
where EQ is the value of modulus of elasticity for the clay sample with zero moismre
content and Wo is the moisture content of the clay for which modulus of elasticity is
theoretically equal to zero. In addition, the author believes that Es would be zero at the
surface of a saturated clay since the shear strength of the soil is zero at the surface, and
would increase with depth as aftinctionof the shear strength. He also mentioned some
works of oUiers such as Skempton and Henkel (1957) and Sudhindra and Moza (1987) to
support this idea.

51
CNS only
• - Expansive soil only
20 cm. CNS
40 cm. CNS
60 cm. CNS
100 cm. CNS
"T" T
3 4
Lateral Pressure (kg/cm2)
Fie 2 12 Observed lateral pressures witii depth for cohesive nonswelhng soil
' (CNS) only, swelling expansive soil only, and swelhng expansive
soil with various thicknesses of CNS between the wall and the
swelling soil (backing). (After Katti,et al., 1983)
52
-50 -
-100 -
-150 -
a
-200
-250 -
Expansive soil only
-• 60 cm CNS cover
-300 -
100 cm CNS cover
-»— CNS only

-350 -
20 cm CNS cover
-400 T"
2
Fig. 2.13. Observed lateral pressures with depth for cohesive nonswelling soil
(CNS) only, swelling expansive soil only, and swelling expansive
soil with various thicknesses of CNS on top of the swelling soU
(cover). (After Katti,et al., 1983)
53
-50 -
-100 -
•150 -
a
w .200
-250 -
CNS full depth

-300
100 cm. CtiS backing & ICO cm. CNS cover
-•— 60 cm. CNS backing & 100 cm. CNS cover
-350 -
20 cm. CNS backing & 100 cm. CNS cover
No CNS covering
-400 T
2
Fig. 2.14. Observed lateral pressures witii depth for cohesive nonswelling soil
(CNS) only, swelling expansive soil only, and swelling expansive
soil with various thicknesses of CNS botii as cover and backing.
(After Katti,et al., 1983)
54
2.6.2. Principally Experimental Analyses
2.6.2.1. Parcher and Liu (1965). Regardless of how the compaction was
accomplished, tiie authors found that the unit swelling in the lateral directions almost
invariably exceeded unit swelling in the vertical directions using a laboratory testing
program of compacted expansive soils. Then they related the results to soil stmcture and
double-layer phenomena. The authors cited eight factors that were affecting the magnitude
of the heave and the swelling pressure:
a. The mineralogical makeup of the soil constituents is of primary importance in

determining the potential of soil to shrink/swell.
b. Expansive soils that are initially dry and then are allowed to imbibe water will swell
more than when they are initially wet and then allowed to imbibe water. The opposite is
tme with respect to shrinking.
c. Soils in which the particles of clay platelets are arranged parallel to each other and
perpendicular to the swelling direction will exhibit greater amounts of swelling and larger
swelling pressures than those soils with particles arranged differentiy.
d. Of course, a source of free water must be available to the soil to result in an
increase in its volume. Also, the dissolved exchangeable cations in the pore water affect
the amount of water demanded by the swelling soil.
e. The degree ofrestraintto swelling imposed on the swelling soil actuallyrefersto
confining pressure. A significant dissipation of the swelling pressure occurs due to even
very small movements by the restraining device.
f. Specimens which have been prepared in the laboratory have to have a curing period
of time. In general, air-dry soils are prepared for testing, and free water of a desired
amount is added to the soil. Thus, die soil has a particular initial water content Allowing
the added water sufficient time to become thoroughly dispersed throughout the specimen is
required to ensure uniform soil water conditions before testing begins.
55
g. The soil stmcture and the mineralogical constituents of the specimen affect the rate
at which the added water is distributed throughout the specimen so that some initial
swelling may occur as a result of water distribution through slicensides or fissures
followed by additional swelling days or even weeks laterfromwater moving through the
tighter soil matrix bounded by the slicensides or fissures.
h. The thickness of the double layer as well as the rate of permeability is affected by
temperature. Increased temperatures allow water to permeate at a faster rate but increased
temperatures also result in thinner double layers.
2.6.2.2. Blight (1967). The author notes that KQ is dependent on the stress history
of the clay and that it increases when the overconsolidation ratio increases. KQ would be
greater than unity when the OCR exceeds about 5 or 6. Blight also summarized
Skempton's conclusions that have been cited before that the values of KQ for in situ clays
can be deduced by comparing the in situ effective overburden stress with the isotropic
effective stress in the soil after undisturbed sampling, which is to say that the lateral
effective stress approaches the passive pressureresistanceof the clay. The author
measured KQ on two South African soils. Hereachedthree conclusions from his study:
a. In situ lateral effective stresses in saturated lacustrine clay that has been
overconsolidated by desiccation and thenrewettedmay approach the passive pressure
resistance of the fissured clay
b. The lateral effective stress will decrease if die clay becomes desiccated owing to a
lowering of the water table and if shrinkage is large as die clay dries out
c. Lateral stresses at-rest in expansive clays with a lacustrine origin will generally be
lower than the minimum passive pressureresistanceof the clay even if die clay has fully
heaved beneath a covered surface.
2.6.2.3. Ahmed (1967). Arelationshipwas found to exist between lateral force and
the ratio of fill thickness-to-wall height The author performed laboratory experiments with
56
a retaining wall model. His study shows that there is no furtiier increase in lateral force
transmitted to the wall at a fill thickness-to-wall height ratio of approximately 0.5.
2.6.2.4. Komomik and Livneh (1968). From their laboratory investigation, the
authors reported that the amount of swell was greater parallel to the direction of
compaction. They thought that the reason for that was the plate stmcture of the
montmorillinitic clay which had been aligned perpendicular to the direction of compaction.
The authors also found that for the same amount of vertical swell, the lateral swelling
pressure mea.sured was smaller with a predominantly parallel orientation than with a
predominantiy perpendicular orientation. According to the authors, the significance of this
fmding is that if a compacted backfill is used behind a retaining stmcture, it will likely
experience a lesser lateral pressure than what was estimatedfromlaboratory testing using
an undisturbed sample. They also reported that anisotropy of soils was found to affect the
lateral swelling pressures between 40 and 50 percent in the case of low vertical pressures,
allowing vertical swell exceeding 1 percent. Finally, the authors concluded that the
orientation effect should be taken into account when testing clay in the vicinity of a
stmcture.
2.6.2.5. Saito and Yanai( 1969). Compacted specimens were soaked under laterally
confined conditions in their investigation. The authors measured swelling pressures during
a program of progressive loading. Some of the conclusions were as follows:
a. Maximum swelling pressure and percent of swelling at optimum moisture content

increased when the plasticity index increased.
b. When the plastic ratio (which was defmed as die ratio of the plasticity index, PI, to
the plastic limit, PL) was greater, die rate of change of swelling pressure as a function of
change in dry density was greater.
c. When the moldmg water content was on the wet side of the optimum water content,
soil compacted with a greater number of blowsresultedin lesser swelling.
57
d. When die plasticity index was greater, die difference in undrained strengtii was
greater before and after soaking.
2.6.2.6. Satvanarayan^flQf^Q) The authors investigated die effect of sand eiUier

mixed widi die expansive soil or used as a sand layer on die reduction of swelling pressure
of expansive soil. In the laboratory investigation, compacted Indian black cotton soil
specimens were used. The swelling pressure was measured by applied pressure loading
from a consolidation device. Some of die conclusions were as follows:
a. The reduction in swelling pressure in percentage was greater dian the added sand in
percentage.
b. The net swollen volume of the clay particles is responsible for die swelling
pressure developed. The clay acts as a filler in the voids formed by the sand particles at
lower percentages of sand. The clay particles tend to collect in pockets of about 50 percent
of soU and more, giving rise to some swelling pressure greater than that predicted by the
net swollen volume of clay particles.
c. Special attention is necessary to test details if interpretable measurements of
swelling pressures are to be made.
2.6.2.7. Komomik and Zeitlen (1970). The authors reported their results of a
laboratory investigation m which diey measured both the lateral and vertical pressures
developed by compacted clay under different placement conditions. Some of their
conclusions were as follows:
a. When specimens were compacted at a lower water content at a constant density, the
amount of swell was larger than that in those specimens which were compacted at a higher
water content, with the remaining other properties constant
b. When specimens were compacted to a high density, the amount of swell was larger
at constant water content.
58
c. When specimens have the same density, the swelling pressure associated with no
vertical movement did not show large differences with changes in water content.
d. When the density was higher, vertical swelling pressures were also higher,
regardless of die water content of the sample.
2.6.2.8. Kassiff Baker, and Ovadia (1973). The authors devised a laboratory test to
measure the effect of known pore water solute concentration on swelling. They discussed
hypothetical considerations for the rational formulation of therelationshipbetween volume,
pressure and suction changes. Then, they presented their experimental data based on the
hypothetical considerations and the interpretation of the data in terms of suction changes
against volume change. The authors concluded that the swell-pressure relationships at a
high density and a small suction change do not depend upon the imposed suction change,
but apparently upon the type of clay.
2.6.2.9. Brackley (1973). The author concluded from a laboratory test program
conducted on dynamically compacted South African expansive clay soils that swell
pressure was a function of void ratio only and suggested that swell pressure may be
estimated from the suction versus water content curve. In his study, an equation to
estimate the percentage of free swelling, FS, was proposed:
FS = n ? I ^ T ^ X 100 (2.39)
0 . 3 6 + mQ
where mQ = original water content

mg = compaction water content at which no swell occurs when the sample
is placed in water.
2.6.2.10. Snethen and Haliburton (1973). The objectives of die audiors were to
develop instmmentation for direct measurement of lateral swelling pressure of compacted
59
soils and to measurerelativemagnitudes of lateral swelling pressure for two Oklahoma
cohesive soils of moderate to high plasticity and swell potential, as influenced by initial
moisture content, dry density, compaction mode and energy, and lateral swell. They used
a device in which soil specimens were not allowed to deflect in the lateral direction as well
as in the vertical direction. For both soils, the vertical swelling pressure exceeded die
lateral swelling pressure for nearly all initial water content conditions. The swelling ratio of
lateral swelling pressure to vertical swelling pressure was found to be approximately 1.0
for the both soils at a moisture content of above optimum. Maximum lateral swelling
pressure was measured at approximately 6.5 psi.
2.6.2.11. Massarsch (1975). The author described a new method to measure the total
lateral stress in cohesive soils. He reported that the lateral effective stress, the stress
change, and coefficient of earth pressure at-rest KQ, can be calculated when used in
combination with pore pressure measurements. By using the new method, the author
calculated a value of KQ at 5 m depth between 0.58 - 0.62fromlateral total stress and pore
pressure measurements.
2.6.2.12. Katti and Kate (1975). The authors found from large-scale model
laboratory tests that there will be no heave when an overlying cohesive nonswelling soil
with a thickness of approximately 1.0 to 1.2 meters is used for underlying Indian black
cotton expansive soil. Their studies indicated that die lateral pressure of the underlying
expansive soil below an adequate thickness of the cohesive nonswelling layer was equal to
the lateral pressure in the "no volume change" depths in expansive soils.
2.6.2.13. Joshi and Katti (1980). The authors, using Indian black cotton soil to
measure lateral swelling pressures, conducted large scale model laboratory tests. Some of
their conclusions were as follows:
a. Lateral and vertical swelling pressures after saturation were about the same in
triaxial testing.
60
b. Below 3 ft., lateral swelling pressure remained approximately constant, although it

increa.sedfromthe surface to a depth of about 3 ft.
c. After saturation, lateral swelling pressure increased with time. It reached a

maximum at approximately 20 to 30 days, then decreased slightiy, and dien remained
almost constant
d. KQ decreased when surcharge increased but tended to reach a minimum of
approximately 2.0.
e. Development of lateral pressure was fairly linear and rapid under increasing
surcharge to approximately 2 tsf, and then continued to increase but not as rapidly.
f. The increase in lateral pressure appears to be similar to that of nonexpansive soil
beyond the swelling pressure rate.
2.6.2.14. Komomik. Livhen, and Smucha (1980). The authors reported the
development of laboratory equipment for testing compacted clay samples for their swell and
triaxial shear strength. For the stress relations, the authors used following equation:
a-TiA =aa-SM-^ss (2.40)
where G = extemal pressure

SM = matrix suction of soil
TCss = osmotic pressure of soil water due to the salts present
TCA = pressure of osmotic solution

a = coefficient for determining component of extemal pressure acting on
the soil.
In Eq. (2.40), die audiors omitted Kss because die salt concentration would be equally
distributed in their osmotic solution and the soil water.

61
They developed the following correlations:
a. Under partially saturated conditions, they found a correlation between the amount
of swell and swelling pressures developed in the clay samples at the equilibrium stage.
b. Another correlation was found between soil suction and the strength that was found
in undrained triaxial testing after equilibrium swelling occurred.
They also concluded that there was a linear relationship between the swell pressure and
the suction at equilibrium under partial saturation.
2.6.2.15. Sudhindra and Moza (1982). The authors gave empiricalrelationsfor
lateral pressure and vane shear strength variations with depth in expansive soils based on
large scale test data of various soil samples. For lateral pressure with depth, their equation
is as follows:
d^
Qsw A
p= f- (2.41)
where p = lateral pressure corresponding to depth, d, kPa

^sw = swelling pressure, kPa
d = depth, cm
do = unit depth, cm
-^ = depth ratio
° . (d/do) d
a = intercept of die best fit straight line for ^ . ^ versus ^ or
(d/do) versus T" plot define die equation of die best fit
(3Cu/qsw) ^0
hyperbola.
(d/do) d
b = slope of die best fit straight line for jz-r^ versus j - .
62
They found that die intercept "a" reasonable matches die clay content (finer dian 2ft)
and that die slope "b" is found to be 0.6 for all die three soils diat diey had tested. Thus,
according to die audiors, b=0.6 may be considered as a constant parameter for expansive
soils, so that the empirical equation may be written as follows:
P= d~ (2.42)
(a+0.6 ^ )
where a = clay content (finer dian 2fJL), and die odiers are same as in Eq. (2.41).
In their laboratory work, they found the relation of vane shear strengdi variations widi
depth. The relation is as follows:
d_
Qsw d
Cu= J^ (2.43)
3(a4)
where c^ = vane shear strength corresponding to depth, d, kPa
Qsw = swelling pressure, kPa

a = clay content (finer than 2fi)
d = depth, cm
do = unit depth, cm.
2.6.2.16. Katti. Bhangale. and Moza (1983). By a very comprehensive large scale
model laboratory test, the authors investigated the effect of nonswelling cohesive soils
(CNS) and sand on swelling pressure of Indian black cotton soil. They reported their
observations, findings, and conclusions. In the laboratory model, the wall was not
allowed to move, so that the valuesfromthe tests represent the conditions of earth
63
pressure at-rest, KQ conditions. Their preliminary results indicated that die expansive black
cotton soil required about 45 days widi free access to water to become completely
saturated. However, in order to make sure diat die soil was saturated, the authors allowed
the soil to imbibe for 70 days. In die present study, diis writer will compare his numerical
modelling results to Katti et al.'s lateral pressure distribution widi depdifromthe large
scale model laboratory testing program in Chapter V. Some of die conclusions that were
reached by Katti et al. may be summarized as follows:
a. Jakky's equation, KQ = 1 - sin O', was valid for dry, loosely placed ("fUled up")
soil but it was not accurate for compacted soils.
a. 1. The values of KQ foundfrommeasurements of lateral pressures for
fiUed up air dry sand, filled up air dry CNS, and filled up black cotton soil were 0.63,
0.48, and 0.26, respectively. KQ values calculated using Jakky's equation were 0.625,
0.48, and 0.59 for the same soils, respectively.
a.2. The values of KQ were measured to be in excess of 1.0 for each soil
type when the air-dry soils were compacted. The values of KQ were 2.33 for sand, 1.16
for the CNS, and 1.1 for the expansive black cotton soil.
a.3. The values of KQ for the sand and the CNS increased slightly from
2.33 to 2.58 for the saturated sand, and from 1.16 to 1.50 for the saturated CNS when the
compacted soils were saturated.
a.4. The lateral pressure distribution was found to be linear with depth for
eight of the nine test conditions, which were filled up air dry sand, filled up air dry CNS,
filled up air dry expansive soil, compacted air dry sand, compacted air dry CNS,
compacted air dry expansive soil, saturated compacted sand, and saturated compacted
CNS. All of the measured lateral pressure data points were connected with straight lines as
a fimction of depth in Figs. 2.12 to 2.14.
64
b. For compacted expansive soil which is permitted to swell, die relationship between
measured lateral pressure and depth was found to be nonlinear, increasing very rapidly
from the surface to a depth of approximately 145 cm. Below this depth, die lateral pressure
continued to increase, but not at the same rate.
c. It was found that the greatest lateral swelling pressure occurred at some degree of
saturation less than 100 percent.
d. In order to determine the influence of varying thicknesses of the CNS, three
different test series were performed: (1) CNS placed on top of the expansive soil (cover);
(2) that of the CNS placed between the wall and the expansive soil (backing); and (3) that
of the CNS placed as a combination of cover and backing. The results were as follows:
d. 1. The magnitude of the measured lateral pressure decreased and
approached that of the saturated compacted CNS by itself when the thickness of of the
backing increased from zero to one meter.
d.2. The magnitude of the measured lateral pressure did not measurably
decrease, but the magnitude of the vertical heave decreased and approached a condition of
no heave when the thickness of of the backing increasedfromzero to one meter.
d.3. When the thickness of of the backing increasedfromzero to one
meter, both the measured lateral pressure and the magnitude of the vertical heave decreased
in a manner similar to that observed when only eidier condition was included by itself in the
test.
e. In all of the cases on their measurements, measured lateral pressures in excess of
overburden and surcharge vertical loadings ("locked in" lateral pressures) were observed.
2.6.2.17. Sridharan. Sreepada Rao, and SivapuUaiah (1986). The authors performed
some laboratory experiments to compare the results of diree mediods which were used to
estimate the swelling pressures of clays. The methods were: (1) die conventional
consolidation procedure (2) die method of equilibrium void ratios at different

65
consolidation pressures, and (3) die constant volume mediod. These mediods yielded a
value considerably differentfromone anodier. The audiors stated diat there appeared to be
no definite relationship between die values from die diree mediods. However, the first
method gave the highest value, the second method gave the least value and the third method
were yielded a value between those of the odier two. The audiors gave in tabular form die
swelling pressure values that were measured by using die three methods. The swelling
pressure found by the first method was approximately 4 times greater dian the swelling
pressure found by the second method.
The authors concluded that the third method was quick to perform and had an
advantage over the other two methods since it required only one specimen. However, the
results of this method are sensitive to both loading increment and rate of loading. They
foimd that slower rates of loading or smaller loading increments resulted in higher
maximum swell magrutudes. The second method can be performed more quickly than the
first method but has the disadvantage of requiring three identical specimens. They also
reported the following findings: (1) in determining the swelling pressure, the effect of the
stress path is significant; (2) swelling pressure is primarily dependent on the initial dry
unit weight or void ratio of the soil; (3) the effect of the initial water content has less
influence on swelling pressure than do die other two factors; and (4) time versus swelling
magnitude and time versus swelling pressure (constant volume) could be reasonably
represented by a rectangular hyperbola.
2.6.2.18. Svmons. Clayton, and Darlev (1989). The authors described a pilot scale
study of compaction and swelling pressures developed by a clay backfill against two
experimental retaining walls. They divided die experiments into three main stages. During
stage 1, the clay was placed in an "as dug" condition and compacted in layers to a depth of
66
3 meters. The measured total lateral pressures were considerably in excess of die calculated
"active" and "at-rest" values on completion of filling. Stage 2 was a four-week rest period
during which significant reductions in lateral pressure were measured. After sand drains
were installed, the clay was soaked until the water level maintained constant at the surface
of the fill for 20 months (stage 3). In stage 3, the authors reported that their measured
lateral pressure over the upper 1.0-1.5 meters was substantially in excess of the calculated
limiting passive values.
2.6.2.19. Clayton. Svmons. and Hiedra-Cobo (1991). The authors had an

opportunity to perform small-scale and pilot-scale experiments to measure lateral pressures
developed during three main stages: placement, compaction, and burial; horizontal total
stress reduction at constant moisture content; and swelling or consolidation under
approximately constant vertical stress using clays of intermediate and high plasticity. They
recorded lateral swelling pressures of up to 375 kPa, and approximately 322 kPa greater
than the imposed vertical stress. It was mentioned that if large lateral swelling pressures
are to be avoided, cohesive fills need to be placed at or wetter than a moisture content that
will yield a pore pressure after compaction in equilibrium with its long term value for a
given depth of burial.
2.6.2.20. Day (1991). The author investigated the effect of gravel-size particles,
which are typically excluded from swell test procedures, on a compacted gravelly clay. As
a result of his study. Day concluded that the swelling behavior of die compacted gravelly
clay was based solely on a reduction in volume caused by die presence of gravel for diose
swell tests at a constant matrix dry density. For those swell tests at a constant compactive
effort, the gravel particles interfered with compaction, which caused a lower dry density of
the soil matrix as the gravel content increased.
67
2.6.2.21. Dif and Blumel (1991). The audiors developed an approach to study the
swell-shrinkage behavior of expansive soil samples in the laboratory under the action of the
actual load to which die soil will be subjected in die field. They described in detail the
modified oedometer used in their investigation and the testing procedure adopted. As a
result of their investigation, they reached some conclusions some of which are as follows:
a. There were an upper limit and a lower limit of water content in which swelling and
shrinkage of expansive soils took place. The lower limit was less than the "shrinkage
limit," and die upper limit was less dian the "full saturation" condition. After each drying
and wetting cycle for the soil tested, die next decrease in volume became smaller until an
equilibrium was reached where swelling and shrinkage occured between constant limits.
b. The impression of the authors was that the fatigue of expansive soils after cyclic
drying and wetting was due mainly to diree factors: (1) continuous rearrangement of the
soil particles; (2) after cracks occurred, the development of loss of lateral confinement; and
(3) type of clay mineral in the soil.
2.7. Prediction Methods for Lateral Pressures in Expansive Soils

After reviewing and analyzing the available literature, it appears that three methods of
estimating lateral pressure on a basement wall by expansive soils have sufficient potential
for providing the desired earth pressures (Wray, 1987a). These three methods are the
Skempton method, the Fredlund method, and die Katti method. Since the Fredlund
method is applicable only to the active and passive failure conditions and does not address
the at-rest condition, the other two methods will be summarized in the two sections below.
2.7.1. The Skempton Method ^^
Skempton defines the term pk as the capillary pressure in a soil specimen before it is tested
and sheared. Change in pore water pressure, Auf, is the difference between the O3 and
pk as seen in Fig. 2.15. Therefore,
Pk = 03 -f Auf. (2.44)
In the unconfined compression test, O3 = 0. Thus,
Auf = Af -f I AOi - A03 If = Af (2c). (2.45)
So, substituting Eq. (2.45) into Eq. (2.44) yields
Pk = 03 + Af(2c) (2.46)
where Af is the pore pressure parameter (at failure) that can be evaluatedfromlaboratory
tests. Table 2.3 shows some value of Af with respect to the soil condition. Skempton said
diat die sweUing pressure is equal to the total suction. In sod, vertical soil stress is
calculated as:
and horizontal stress can be calculated by multiplying Oy by die coefficient of at-rest eardi
pressure, KQ,
Oh = (Ov - UO)KQ + Uo (2.48)
or
Oh = pKo+Uo (2.49)
69
Fig. 2.15 Capillary pressure and the effective stress in the specimen before shearing
(After Skempton, 1961)
70
Table 2.2. Values of pore-pressure parameter at failure, Af (Lambe and Whitman, 1969)
MATERL\L (S=100%) Af (AT FAILURE)
Very loose fine sand 2 to 3

Sensitive Clay 1.5 to 2.5
Normally Consolidated (NC) Clay 0.7 to 1.3
Lightly Overconsolidated (OC) Clay 0.3 to 0.7
Heavily (X: Clay -0.5 to 0.
MATERIAL (S=100%) Af (FOR FOUNDATION

SETTLEMENT)
Very sensitive soft Clays >1

NC Clays 0.5 to 1.0
OC Clays 0.25 to 0.50
Heavily OC Sandy Clays 0. to 0.25
where p = effective vertical stress in situ
g = unit weight of soil
z = height of soU column

Uo = pore water pressure
KQ = coefficient of at-rest earth pressure.
Finally, Skempton gets Eq. (2.50) as follows :
Ko - ( 1 . A,) (2.50)
where A^, die pore pressure parameter, is evaluated from triaxial testing, p is calculated
from site investigation results, and pk is calculated using Eq. (2.46) or evaluated from
oedometer testing as well as from strengdi testing. However, die easiest method to
determine pk is usage of soil suction techniques. Accordmg to Skempton, the swelling
pressure is equal to die soil suction, whereas Lytton's opinion ( Lytton, 1980), is diat soil
suction has not been equal to swelling pressure and will not be.
In order to apply this method, the effective vertical stress, the in-situ capdlary pressure or
soil suction, and the pore pressure parameter, A, must be evaluated.
2.7.2. The Katti Mediod
Katti has found that pressures transmitted to stmctures due to swelling of soils could be
reduced by placing a nonswelling clay soil between the stmcture and the expansive sod
(Katti, Bhangale, and Moza, 1983). Katti et al., performed several series of tests to
estimate the transmitted lateral swelling pressure to aretainingwall when nonswelling clay
soil is used as backfill between the wall and natural expansive soil. The experimental tests
were conducted under conditions of no lateral wall movement so diat at-rest earth pressure
conditions are provided in the experiments. They used three different soils, each of which
72
was tested under different conditions of placement: (1) air-dry soil placed under specified
standardized free fall conditions without any mechanical compaction; (2) air-dry compacted
sod; and (3) compacted saturated sod. To ensure uniformity in the test soils, moisture
content measurements were taken every 7.5 cm while the soils were placed in die test
tanks. The lateral pressures were measured using reaction jacks and provingringsplaced
at 60 cm vertical intervals. Fig. 2.12 shows the results of testing the expansive sod. The
figure shows the effect of increasing the thickness of nonswelling clay soil material
(backing) on the measured lateral swelling pressures transmitted to the wall. Lateral
pressure due to swelling became increasingly less curvilinear, and approached the linear
pressures measured in the cohesive nonswelling (CNS) material when it was tested in the
tank by itself with thicknesses of backing greater than 40 cm. Fig. 2.14 shows the effect
on the lateral swelling pressures due to increasing the depth of CNS covering. As it is
seen, lateral swelling pressures increased immediately beneath the CNS cover soil, and
there is no reduction on the lateral swelling pressure any more. Fig. 2.15 iUustrates the
combined effect of 1 meter of CNS material cover with varymg thicknesses of CNS
backing. This figure shows that the combination has little effect if any, on reducing die
lateral swelling pressures acting on die wall. However, comparing results of this test series
to those obtained in the first test series which involved expansive sod with no CNS cover
and increasing thicknesses of backing, it can be seen that the combination is not as
successful in reducmg the lateral swelling pressures acting on the wall as using only
increasing diicknesses of CNS backing. On the odier hand, die heave at die surface of die
test soils decreased in spite of die cover has no effect on reducing die lateral pressure. The
heave at the surface of the test decreased to zero with 1 meter of CNS cover diickness.
Eventually, the coefficients of at-rest earth pressure and passive eartii pressure were
calculated for several depths for the various combinations of cover thickness and backing
thickness. For all of die cases in die large-scale tests, die coefficient of at-rest earth
pressure was smaller than the coefficient of passive earth pressure. For example, for
73
expansive soil only, the coefficient of at-rest earth pressure and die coefficient of passive
earth pressure were measured as 9.43 and 13.00, respectively, at a depth of 85 cm. Katti
et al. introduced an equation that allows the designer to predict a design lateral pressure:
PL = PCNS + 0.2(qsw - PcNs) (2.51)
where PL = design lateral pressure (kg/cm^)
PcNS = lateral pressure of CNS material for the corresponding depth (kg/cm^)
qsw = swelling pressure of oven-dry expansive soil at no volume change
condition (kg/cm^).
As a conclusion to be drawn from this very extensive laboratory testing program is that
inserting another cohesive sod material of a specified minimum thickness between the
expansive sod and the wall can effectively reduce the lateral pressure transmitted to the wall
from the expansive soil.

CHAPTER m
STRAINS AND STRESSES IN EXPANSIVE SOILS
As described in the previous chapters, expansive sods can have a large magnitude of
volume change when the moisture content is changed. The soil would swell when its
moisture content is increased and it would shrink as its moisture content is decreased. As
swelling deformation is opposed by the extemal loads (e.g., foundation loads), and the
adjacent sod, a retaining waU or a basement wall, stresses are induced within the sod mass.
The more the sod is restrained againstfreedeformation, the higher are the vertical pressures
on the foundation. Therefore, the estimation of the magnitude of stresses and deformations
is an important problem in expansive soils. In general, stress and deformation response of
the soil consists of a component due to extemal loading such as surcharge and foundation
loads, and a second component due to the moisture or suction change of the sod mass. The
study reported herein accounts for both types of loadings. The development of the
formulation of this problemrequiresthat extemal loads are considered static, while those
generated by the suction changes may be time-dependent (unsteady flow case). The
deformation character of the medium may be classified as expansion (or swelling) with
increase in volume upon an increase in the moisture. A computer program that considers
both types of stresses (stresses due to swelling and stresses due to extemal loading) has
been developed. The detads about how a user can use die program are given on Appendix
E. In order to mn the program, the user should foUow the steps that are given in the
appendix.
74
75
3.1. The Model of Expansive Soils
There are too many factors that are encountered in analyzing soil volume change due to
suction changes for die purpose of determining die magnitude of swelling and swelling
pressures using a numerical modeling method. Theoretically, an expansive soil is regarded
as a three-phase porous medium of water, air, and solids. The classical continuum
mechanics approach is not applicable in this medium because the approach treats only one
constituent medium (Sharabi, 1975). Nonlinearities are inherent in almost all aspect of die
process of soil expansion such as geometric nonlinearity due to large strains, stress
dependent soil properties, and soil permeability variations with deformation. Because of
these factors and their complex interaction, development of a practical means of estimation
is very difficult, if not impossible, without reasonable simplifying assumptions. For
instance, evaluation of modulus of elasticity of soil is very important. The value of Eg can
be estimated by a number of testing procedures. The value of Eg is affected by its stress
history, stress level, soil type, type of loading, soil disturbance, and time (Gunalan, 1986).
Therefore, the value of Eg needs to be evaluated on a site by site basis. A variation of Eg
value with depth was first considered by Gibson (1967). To estimate the value of Eg,
Gibson introduced the following equation, which is now called Gibson's model:
Es = Eo + m z (3.1)
where Eg = modulus of elasticity of soil

EQ = modulus of elasticity of sod at surface
m = slope
z = depth
Fig. 3.1 is a representation of Gibson's model.

76
Footing
'?'.•'.•'.•'/'/'/'/'/''•'.
>;^%^'.^'.^'.^'.^»>'.v.v.v.^\%\s\%\viv
'.•'.•'-•'.•'.•'-•<-•'/<''.
•îîfcCiCi^^^SSSSai^
'.•'.•'.'•''.•'.•'/'/"'•/'jvj ^..:J
CJ.'^f
<> ^^ ^
E,
>'.S«%-%»%»%-^«%«S»%«.S\%'
i:i:i:i:i:i:w:f:'r:f:^:'r:'r:'r:^:^;^:<:
Equivalent
Clay sod constant
model for
E.
Gibson
model
Fig. 3.1. Gibson's model for change in die modulus of elasticity widi
depdi (Gibson, 1967)
77
In this study of the state of stress and deformation in an expansive soil, the real soil is
replaced by the simplest mathematical model of a finite, homogeneous, isotropic, and
lineariy elastic medium with a variable value of Eg with depth. In the smdy reported herein,
modulus of elasticity is taken as a function of soil's shear strength which varies with depth
of die soil media to simulate die large-scale laboratory tests by Katti et al. (1983) because
the distribution of the shear strength of the soil was known. However, in the hypothetical
considerations a modified equation (Eq. 5.3 in Chapter V) is used to determine the values
of Eg with depth, and also with moisture content.
3.2. Determination of Modulus of Elasticity of Soil

There are many testing procedures that can be used to determine the modulus of
elasticity of soils. Commonly available procedures are uniaxial compression (triaxial) test,
unconfined compression test, plate bearing test, Califomia bearing ratio test, pressuremeter
test, static cone test, standard penetration test, and shear test.
1. Triaxial Compression Test Eg is obtained stress-strain curve of the soil. The
slope of the tangent drawn to the initial point of the curve is called the initial tangent
modulus, and the slope of the line connecting any two separate points is called die secant
modulus. The secant modulus value is obtained by picking the initial point and another
point which depends on die stress level diat is expected to be experienced by the soil. In
general, second point cortesponding to 1/2 or 1/3 of the peak deviator stress has been
recommended to be used (Gunalan, 1986). A designer should decide which modulus must
be used by considering the expected stress and settlement level of the foundation.
2. Unconfined Compression Test. The value of Eg is assumed to correspond to one-

half the ratio between the fadure stress and its corresponding strain (Simons, 1957).
78
3. Plate Bearing Test. A curve is drawn between measured settlement and loading
from a series of plate bearing tests using same shape but different size of plates. Then die
slope of this curve is related to Eg (Bowles, 1988) as follows:
l-ll2 s
i r ^ = qB (">
where s = settlement, in
q = loading on footing, psi

B = width of footing, in
Es= modulus of elasticity of soil, psi
It = Poisson's ratio of soil
I = influence factor which depends on shape of footing and itsrigidity(I

values can be takenfromTable 5.4 of reference Bowles, 1988).
4. Pressuremeter Test. Eg is obtainedfromthis test using the equation below (Lukas
and Bussey, 1976):
Eg =aEsp (3.3)
where a = stmctural coefficient (2/3 for clays, and 1/2 for silts)
Eg = modulus of elasticity of soil, tsf
Egp = spherical modulus of elasticity, tsf
5. Static Cone Test. The results of the static cone test are related to Eg by die
following relation (Schmertmann, 1970):
Eg=2qc (3.4)
79
where Eg = modulus of elasticity of soil, kg/cm^
qc = cone resistance value, kg/cm^.
6. Standard Penetration Test. The blow countsfromthe standard penett-ation test
have a relationship with Eg as follows (Bowles, 1988):
Eg = lO(N-i-15) for sands (3.5a)

Eg = 6 (N-i-5) for clayey sands (3.5b)
where Eg = modulus of elasticity of soil, k.sf

N = field blow count/foot.
7. Califomia Bearing Ratio Test Califomia bearing ratio in situ is related to Eg by

(Crossley and Beckwith, 1978):
Eg = 500xCBR (3.6)
where Eg = modulus of elasticity of soil, psi
CBR = Califomia Bearing Ratio, dimensionless.

8. Clegg Impact Test The result of Clegg impact test has arelationshipwith Eg
which is given by (Clegg, 1983):
Eg = 0.07 (CIV)2 (3.7)
where (CIV) = Clegg impact value, dimensionless.
Beyond the testing procedures for determining the modulus of elasticity of sod, Skempton
and Henkel (1957) gave arelationshipbetween shear strength and modulus of elasticity of
80
London clay which had a plasticity index of about 50 percent (Cooling and Skempton,
1942). The relation is as follows:
Eg=140xc (3.8)
where c = shear strength of soil.
In the present study, a more complicated model could be used instead of the simplest
mathematical model of a finite, homogeneous, isotropic, and linearly elastic medium with a
variable value of Eg with depth. However, the simpler the model, the fewer and simpler
are its mechanical properties. On the other hand, a complicated model requires a greater
number of mechanical parameters. EventuaUy, the calculations and test procedures used
for measuring these parameters become so difficult as not to be feasible. Furthermore,
since the present study deals with deformations and stresses due to the combined action of
extemal loads and suction changes in the soil, an analogy may be established between
swelling and thermal stresses.
Volume changes of expansive clays are linearly dependent on sod suction and thus are
analogous to thermal expansion of solids (Aitchison and Woodbum, 1969). Therefore, to
describe swelling or expansion behavior of a sod mass, two-dimensional thermoelastic
expansion theory can be used.
3.3. Strains and Stresses
The total strains at each point of an expansive soil subjected to suction variations may
be considered as being made up of two components. Thefirstcomponent is a uniform
expansion proportional to the suction variations with equal expansion in aU directions for
an isotropic sod. Thus, there would arise only normal strains and no shearing strains. The
81
strain in any direction for plane strain condition can be obtained from Eq. (3.9) as
follows.
_ Yh(ApF)
tswell= 2 • (^-^^
The second component of the total strain comprises that required to maintain the
continuity of the soil mass as well as that arising due to extemal loads. These strains are
related to the stresses by Hooke's law. The total strains are die sum of the two
components. Thus, it is seen that the total strains at each point in an expansive soil consist
of two parts: the expansion due to suction change and the strains dependent upon the stress
state in the soil mass.
In the present study, to predict the stresses and deformations (especially the stresses in
the lateral direction) in the expansive sod mass, thefiniteelement method (FEM) is used
since the method is applicable for different shapes and geometries. In the model, an
isoparametric four-node quadrilateral element is also used because this element has greater
capabdity than the three-node triangular element in determiningflexumralstresses
(Grandin, 1986).
The load-stifftiess-displacement relationship for an element is given as foUows:
{Q} = [k]{q} (3.10)
where {Q} = element nodal load vector

tk] = element stiffness matrix
{q} = element nodal displacement vector.
82
3.4. Strain-Displacement Matrix of the Element

Picture an isoparametric four-node quadrilateral element, (Fig. 3.2). The nodes have been
numbered as 1, 2, 3, and 4 in counterclockwise sequence as shown. A nonorthogonal
intersection of two lines defined as the natural coordinate axes, s and t has been
superimposed on the element. Interpolation formulas for displacements and global
coordinates, and the shape functions are the same for each set of equations. The natural s-t
coordinates are the independent variables for all equations. The equations (assumed
displacement functions) are as follows:
For displacements in the global X and Y directions:
u (s,t) = NjUi + N2U2 + N3U3 + N4U4

(3.11)
V (S,t) = NiVi -H N2V2 + N3V3 + N4V4
For global coordinates:

X (s,t) = NjXi + N2X2 + N3X3 + N4X4
(3.12)
Y (s,t) = NiYi -H N2Y2 + N3Y3 + N4Y4
where Nj = ^ ^2- 4
^ (Us)(l+t) N .(ksXI+t)
N3 = ^ ^4 - 4
Nj, N2, N3, and N4 are the shape functions (interpolation polynomial coefficients) for two
independent variables and a four-node region.
Since die displacementftinctionhas been specified for die element in Eq. (3.11), die
derivation of die matrix [B], which defines die strain in terms of die node displacements,
can be developed.
83
y4
/ "3 A
/ 7®
/ *
A/
^7
o" T^'^
Fig. 3.2. Four-node quadrdateral element with natural coordinates (s and t)

84
Partial differentiation of the displacement functions with respect to die global
coordinates is required for the determination of strain. Displacement functions in Eq.
(3.11) are written in terms of the natural coordinates. On the other hand, the required
derivatives can be solved as follows:
au_aii_ax auax
as" ax as •*" aY as
w h e r e s is t h e independent variable, and
au au ax au aY
at" ax at "^ aY at
where t is the independent variable. The above equations can be shown in matrix form as
follows:
rax aYi f^^ rau^

as as lax as (3.13)
ax aY \du r 1 auf
at at J laYj [atj
After the solution o f the spatial derivative terms, the equation would appear as foUows:
r aY aYn rau^
at as las ^ (3.14)
IJl ax ax iauf
• at as J latj
w h e r e IJl i s the Jacobian determinant.
IJI =
aY ^ aY ax
at as ' as at *
If Eq. (3.12) is differentiated, it yields:

85
a s - as ^ l ^ " a ^ ^ 2 + - a ^ x 3 + - ^ x 4
4
ax_ y dN,
ds - .ff as î
Similarly,
4 4
aY _ y o N i a x y a N i ^ a Y V o N i ^
as
The derivatives of the shape functions are:
aN^ -1 aNi -1
-a^=T(i-^> -ar=T(i-^>
^Nj 1 ,, , aN2 -1
(3.16)
aN3 1 „ , aN3 1
^^4 -1 ,. ,, ^N4 1 ^, ^
Now an expression for the Jacobian determinant can be developed.
IJl =
aY ax aY ax
at as " as at
86
4
IJl = I
i=l
oNj
at 1
i=l
oNj
as X; -
i=l
oNj
as Y: ^
i=l
;^* ^ i
at
4 4
IJl = aNâNî 1
as at J ^ i i (3.17)
This form can be written as a matrix product.
rXn
IJl = [ Yi Y2 Y3 Y41 tal i (3.18a)
•iJ
aN: aN: aN: aN:

where ^'j at as " as at (3.18b)
by solution for the [a] matrix entries yields
aNi aNi aNi aNi

^11 - at as • as at = 0
aNj dNj^ aNi aN2

^12- at as "as at
= ^[(l-s)(l-t) + (l-t)(l+s)] = - ^
aNi aN3 aNi aN3 t-s

a i 3 - at as • as at - " 8
aNi aN4 aNi aN s-i

and so on
^1*- at as • as at - • 8
87
Therefore, matrix [a] can be written as follows:
r ^ i-t t-s s-l

1 t-i 0 s+1 -s-t
[a] = - ^
8 s-t -s-l 0 t+1 (3.19)
L i-s s+1 -t-1 0
From Eqs. (3.14) and (3.11), the equations below can be written:
au if aY au aY au
ax - IJl L at as • as at ]
IJl L
au
as I cNj
as U;
au
at I ^'
i=l
at
U;
i=l
and using Eq. (3.15), the following equations can be obtained:
4 4
au 1 V \ Lr m ^1 aNi ^\
ax " IJl pf ^1 iîiat as as at ]«,}
or in matrix form.
U2
e x - ^ - U | I Y , Yj Y3 Y4]la]< U3
> . (3.20)
.U4.
Consider again Eq. (3.14).
au _ 4 1 ax au a x au
aY - IJl I a as " as at
88
au
aY IJl itr jti t^^Lar-a^ - "ar-a^J "J/
In matrix form.
rui^
E. =
au IXi X j X3 X4llaH
U2
(3.21)
X"aY IJl U3
"4^
Equation (3.20) defines the strain 8,^, and Eq. (3.21) defines one term of the shear strain
function. T h e preceding steps must be repeated to determine the Y displacement, v, the
only change being the substitution of v for the X displacement, u. When this change is
done, the following relationship is obtained:
dw ') r ^ aY-i f d\ ^
ax 1 1 at " as J as (3.22)
dw f '- IJl ax ax 1 av
dY J " at as J UJ
^ _ L \ ^ av aY av
ax - IJl L a as " as at ]
VO
g4tî^2Y3Y4][a]];^ (3.23)
V4^
where IJl is defined by Eq. ( 3 . 1 7 ) and [a] is defmed by Eq. ( 3 . 1 9 ) .

89
On the other hand, the expression for the strain By can be obtained:
av _ _-if dX dy^ dX dx^

IJl LL at as " as at ]
dY "" IJl
aY
vo
|j|[X, X2 X3 X4][a]tB]^;2 (3.24)
^'yaY
The expressions for the derivatives of the displacements relative to the global
coordinates are seen in Eqs. (3.21) and (3.24). The next task is to assemble the
relationships of these equations to determine the strain vector. The shear strain is defined
as foUows (Boresi and Sidebottom, 1952):
_ au av_ (3.25)
T^xy - aY •*• a x
This equation is the sum of Eqs. (3.21) and (3.16).
rul^
vi
'^x'*" swell *^swell Eswcll
V2
{£} = ty+Cgêll = [ B ] Û3
„:^+ ^swcll = [B]{q}+ ^swcll (3.26)
Txy
0 J Lo
V3
U4
V.V4^
where {q} is the nodal displacement vector. From Eq. (3.20), B, jCan be identified as
follows:
Bt ( 2 j - l )
1
IJl I
i=l
Ai j=l,2,3,4 (3.27a)
90
^1J=(^ j=2,4,6,8. (3.27b)
FromEq. (3.16),
4
B2,2j=-ij| Zf Xjaj^ j=l,2,3,4 (3.27c)
1=1
^2j=0 j=l,3,5,7. (3.27d)

From Eqs. (3.21) and (3.15),
B3j =^2.0+1) j=l,3,5,7 (3.27e)

^3j =Bi.(j.i) j=2,4,6,8. (3.27f)
When diese summation terms are expanded, and the simpltfied notation is substittited
Y =Y -Y
the entries in the IB] matrix are
^11 " ^32 = gjji (Y24 + SY43 + tY32 )
Bl3 = B34 = g^(Y3i-HsY34-htYi4)
Bl5 = B36 = 8Jj|(Y42+ SY12+ tY4i )
Bl7 = B38 = gjji (Yi3 + SY21 + tY23 )
B22 = B31 = gjji (X42 + SX34 + tX23 ) (3.28a)
B24 = B33 = gjjj (^13 + SX43 + tX4i )
B26 = B35 = gjji (X24 + SX21 + tXj4 )
B28 = B37 = gjj^ (X31 + sXi2 + 1X32 ).
Due to sweUing of expansive sod,tiierewould be some initial strains that could be

predicted by using Eq. (3.9). The initial strains wiU be placed in matrix [B] as the ninth
column.
B19 = £swell
B29 = EsweU (3.28b)

91
B39 = 0.
Since swelling of sod wiU not create any shear stress in die media, B39 = 0. The Jacobian
determinant is
0 1-t t-s s-l

t-1 0 S4-1 -s-t
IJl = g I Xi X2 X3 X4] (3.29)
s-t -s-l 0 t-i-1
1-s s+1 -t-1 0 .
3.5. The Element Stiffness Matrix
Summation of strain and potential energies for a four-node quadrdateral element is
given as follows:
^=1 J{e}TiD]{e} dn+ jy-, (3.30)
where {£} is known in terms of the nodal displacement vector {q}, and force potentials are
derived for the body forces, surface tractions, and joint loads in terms of the nodal
displacement vector and shape functions N^. V Vi is total potential energy extemal loads
i
and their deflections. [D] is the constitutive matrix that is defined as foUows. For plane-
stress condition.
r 1 ft 0
[D] = 1^ 1 0
l-li2 (l-lL/2)
0 0
92
For plane-strain condition.
\-\L ^L 0
ID] = ^^ i-ii 0
(l+li) (1-2^)
0 0 (l-2^LV2
where E and p. are die modulus of elasticity and Poisson s ratio of expansive soil,
respectively. WTien {£} is substimted for by die IB]{q} product and differentiation of total
energy, O, with respect to {q} and setting it equal to zero yields die force displacement
relation for the element The displacement vector is found to be.
[k]= JlBlT[DHB] dn. (3.31)

n
The determination of the stiffness matrix, [k], requires integration of the matrix product
over the volume, h dA, of the element Here, two problems must be solved. The first
problem is that the matrix [B] has entries that involve ratios of functions of the natural
coordinates s and t The second problem is that the differential area dA can easdy be
expressed as dXdY, but this integration variable is not the same as the [B] matrix variable,
so a change of variable must be undertaken.
In order to solve the two problems, first of aU. the integration would be done
numericaUy, and secoiKi, the coordinates of the differential area would be changedfromthe
physical X and Y to the natural s and t by application of the Jacobian determinant of the
transformation equations for the two coordinate systems. The numerical double-integration
and change-of-variable techniques would be used. Theresultof the derivation is as
follows:
93
dO = h dX dY = h IJl ds dt (3.32)
where IJI=^ ^ - ^ ^ 4
at OS as at '
Therefore, the foUowmg equation can be written.
[k]=h J[B]TlD][B] dXdY= h J[B]TlDnBllJI * dt. (3.33)

A A*
Equation (3.33) can be integrated over the area by using Gauss quadrature (Fig. 3.3).
In the present study, the two point formula is elected to use since it is easy to use and it
yields good results for the four-node quadrilateral element (Grandin, 1986). The
application of the formula yields the following.
JlB]T[DnB]IJI (k dt = WiWitB(si,ti)]T[D]lB(si,ti)]IJ(si,ti)l
A*
+WiW2lB(si,t2)]T[D]lB(si,t2)]IJ(si,t2)l (3.34)
-t-W2Wi[B(S2,ti)]T[D][B(S2,ti)]IJ(S2,ti)l
+W2W2[B(S2,t2)]T[D][B(S2,t2)]IJ(S2,t2)l
where Sj = - 0.5773503 ti = - 0.5773503

S2 = + 0.5773503 tj = + 0.5773503 Wi = W2= 1.0.
By foUowing the process described above, summation of the product at four points
can be calculated. For instance, an integral over a squareregion(Fig. 3.3), can be
calculated as follows:
1
1= fx2y ckdy (3.35a)
-1
94
Fig. 3.3. Integration of a squareregionusing two-point Gauss quadrature

95
la = WiWiXi2yi-f-WiW2Xi2y2-HW2W,X22yi+W2W2X22y2 (3.35b)
= (l)(l)(-0.5773503)2(-0.5773503) -h (l)(l)(-0.5773503)2(0.5773503)
+ (l)(l)(0.5773503)2(-0.5773503)-h(l)(l)(0.5773503)2(0.5773503)=0.
When die result is multiplied by die thickness, h, die stiffness matrix of die element is
produced.
3.6. Distributed Body Forces. Swelling Forces, and Equivalent

Nodal Loads
In the four-node quadrilateral element the equivalent nodal forces for the distributed
body force is defined in symboUc form as follows:
rF^x^
vi 'lY
U2 ;2x
J[B]T[D][B] dCl^ y2 I
V
J p'2Y >+h J[N]T{^x},A,hf[N]T{^x} dS
'3 3X
n V3 F3Y
U4 P4X
^V4j LF4YJ
J[B]T[D]{Egweu}IJI ckdt (3.36a)
or
[k] {q} = {Q}NF+ { Q } B F + { Q ) T + {QlsF (3.36b)
where {QINF = appUed extemal nodal loads vector,
(QIBF = force veaor resulting from die distributed body force, and
{Q }T = force vector of surface traction of an element.

{QlsF = Swelling force vector,
IJl = Determinant of the Jacobian matrix.
96
Here, only distributed body forces wUl be defmed since in the present smdy no surface
traction has been considered, and swelUng forces would be described in Chapter FV.
{QIBF = h JIN^ | ^ x | ^^ ^jy . (3.37)
The variable of integration could be changed to the natural coordinates, s and t, since
the matrix [N]T is in terms of die namral coordinates.
1 1
{QIBF = ^ J J IN]T{^^ | ,j, ^j^ ^^ (3 38^
-1 -1
The expression above is so complicated that an approximation is essential by using the

integration with Gauss quadrature. The two point formula is good enough to yield good
results for the four-node quadrilateral element. By using Eq. (3.35b), the equivalent nodal
forces can be obtained as follows:
2 2
{QIBF = ^ , X !^ WiWj[N(Si,tj)F|B^|': ; | j | | IJ(Si,tj)l. (3.39)
The weighting functions W,, and W2 are unity, and the Gauss points are located at s and t
equal to ±0.5773503 for die element used in diis study. The distiibution of die nodal
forces is dependent on the shape of die quadrilateral element.

97
3.7. Calculation of Stresses
The stresses in the quadrdateral element,
{O} = IDllB] {q} (3.40)
are not constant within the element unlike the constant strain triangular element. They are
functions of natural coordinates, (s and t), and consequently vary within the element. In
here, the stresses are evaluated at the centroid of each element (s=0, t=0) which are also the
points used for numerical evaluation of Ikl, element stiffness matrix, where they are found
to be accurate.
CHAPTER IV
COMPUTER PROGRAM LATEXP2D
Since one of die main objectives of die present study is to estimate die lateral
expansion and lateral swelUng pressure of cohesive backfills behind a retaining waU or a
basement waU, a computer program was developed called LATEXP2D diat stands for
LATeral EXPansion in 2 Dimensions (2D). The program has been written in FORTRAN
77 source language for the solution of transmitted lateral swelling stresses produced by
cohesive backfiU on retaining stmctures such as basement walls and retaining waUs for
both plane stress and plane strain conditions. In the program thefiniteelement solution
technique with an isoparametric four-node quadrilateral element is used. Volume changes
of expansive soils are taken as dependent on sod suction in pF units. Therefore, an
analogous comparison to thermal expansion of soUds is made.
CompUcations which LATEXP2D is programmed to handle include the foUowing:
each finite element may have its own modulus of elasticity, Poisson's ratio, and unit weight
different from each other. The program considers initial strains due to sweUing of sods as
well as the strains due to extemal loads. Body forces, and surcharge boundary loadings (if
there is any) are also taken into account. Chapter ni explains the procedures and theory
that have been used in LATEXP2D. Some capabiUties of die program are explained later in
this chapter. A user's guide for LATEXP2D has been prepared and is presented in
Appendix E.
4.1 Problem (jfeometrv
In order to start off, it is essential to plot die geometry of the problem to scale on a
rectangular coordinate grid. Coordinate axes must be chosen carefuUy such diat the total
problem is defmed widiin die first quadrant (Fig. 4.1a). This enables die user to prepare
98
99
l^ N: Nimiber of nodal points

n : Number of elements
n
p
i
D
1 2 3 10
0^ C2)C3)(D
(a)
node number
i element number
(b)
Fig. 4.1. Numbering of die finite elements and die nodal points (a) Coordinate axes of
a problem, and (b) Local numbering sequence of nodes of die element.
100
input without any trouble. It is suggested that one nodal point of the problem's geometry
should be in the origin of the rectangular coordinate axes. The nodal points of an element
must be numbered in sequence counterclockwise. This is the standard local node
numbering scheme in the program (Fig. 4.1b). Also, each element must have an assigned
number which is called an element number. Sometimes, plotting the geometry of the
problem to scale, numbering the elements and their nodal points, and giving xy-coordinates
for each element are somewhat time consuming. To make this work easier, another small
computer program called MESH has been developed to generate a fmite element mesh for
the geometry of the problem in the hypothetical cases. The program can be used for
different geometries of other problems tf Uttle modifications are made for each different
geometries. In usage of MESH, a user does not have to plot the geometry of the problem
to scale. Only a schematic plotting of the problem is enough. The source Usting of MESH
is given in Appendix G.
4.2 Boundary Loads
Before beginning analysis using the program, distributed boundary loads applied to
the ground surface or at any other locations in the sod system must be calculated as
equivalent nodal forces, and must be applied on specified nodal points by defining their
direction of appUcation. The direction of application must be horizontal or vertical. No
inclined line of action is acceptable to LATEXP2D. Inclined forces must be divided in two
components diat are vertical and lateral.
4.3 Body Forces
Body forces of each element are determined by the procedure given in Chapter HI. In
die calculation of die body forces, two-point Gauss quadrature formula is used. In die
formula, the weighting functions are unity and the Gauss points are located at natural
101
coordinates (s and t equal to tO.5773503) of die four-node quadrilateral element. The
equation that is used to determine die body forces is as follows:
{Q}BF=h [[NFJ^xJ^^ (4 1)
4.4 SweUing Forces

First of all, swelling strains must be determined to calculate the swelUng forces of each
element. In order to calculate the swelling strains of an element, variations of soil suction
in extreme cases (the driest and wettest sessions of an average year) must be known. Once
the initial and the final sod suction values are known for every nodal point on an element
as seen in Fig. 4.2, average soil suction change for the element can be calculated as
follows:
(ApF) = i [(hi-hf)i +(hi-hf)2 +(hi-hf)3 +(hi-hf)4] (4.2a)
or
4
(ApF) = ^ S (hi-hf)k (4.2b)
^ k=l
where hi and hf are die initial sod suction and die final sod suction in pF , respectively.
Then using Eq. (3.9) in Chapter III, as seen below, die strain of an element is calculated:
_ Yh(ApF)
^swell — 2
102
Fig. 4.2. The initial and the final values of soil suction at the nodal points of an
element.
103
where Egêii = strain due to swelling of soil,
Yh = suction compression index,

ApF = the difference between initial and fmal soil suctions widiin die
element, in pF units.
By using the following equation, sweUing forces at nodal points are determined:
{Q}SF= J[BFtD]{egweu}IJI (kdt (4.3)
where {QlsF = Swelling force vector,

IJl = Determinant of the Jacobian matrix.
4.5 Capabilities of LATEXP2D

Although LATEXP2D has been developed to estimate transmitted lateral swelling
pressures generated by a cohesive backfUl acting on retaining stmctures, it has other
capabilities too. For instance, the program can be used to solve the thermal expansion of
soUd materials with known boundary conditions. On the other hand, the material does not
have to be homogeneous, the modulus of elasticity may vary within the domain, and
problems in a domain that has composed materials can be solved by the computer program,
LATEXP2D, with or without an expansion.
4.6 Subroutines of LATEXP2D
As mentioned earlier, LATEXP2D has six subroutines namely; CLN, DMATRIX,
QUAD4, SHAPE, BOUND, and SOLVE. These subroutines are introduced briefly
104
below. Subroutine CLN is used to clear the screen of the computer if a user uses the
program interactively. It has nodiing to do widi eidier calculations or format of die output.
DMATRDC is used to establish the constitutive matrix [D], the elasticity mattix, for each
element as many times as needed. Matrix [D] for an element in plane-stress, and plane-
strain conditions is as follows:
For plane-stress condition.
0
1 It 0
[Dl = \^ 1 (4.3)
1-^L2 Hi
0 0 2
and for plane-strain condition.
0
E 0
[D] = ^L l-^L (4.4)
(i+\L) (l-2^L) 1-2^1
0 0 2
where E and |i are the modulus of elasticity, and Poisson's ratio of expansive sod,
respectively.
In subroutine SHAPE, shape functions which are given in Chapter III and their
derivatives are determined using two-point Gauss quadrature. The Jacobian, its
determinant and its inverse are also calculated. Then matrix IBl is estabUshed. Eventually,
initial strains due to swelling of sod are placed in matrix [B] as the ninth column.
105
Subroutine QUAD4 is used to calculate [B]T[D] matrix multipUcation, and to add body
forces and swelling forces to the nodal load vector. Also, it is used to establish die element
stiffness matrix.
Subroutine BOUN modifies the transformation matrix for boundary conditions.

Modification is made according to the boundary conditions of nodal points. Nodal points
might be totally fixed, totally free, or fixed in one du-ection andfreein the other direction.
In subroutine SOLVE, established matrix equations are solved for displacements of each
nodal point in the domain.
CHAPTER V
RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION
5.1. Simulation of Large-Scale Experiments

In this chapter, vaUdity and applications of die study are investigated by considering
several experimental works. Then, some hypothetical considerations diat depend upon
moisture changes in expansive soil, and in cohesive nonswelling soil (CNS) widi different
thicknesses and geometries as the backfiU behind a retaining stmcture have been analyzed.
First, the conditions of the Katti et al. (1983) experimental works, which hereinafter will be
referred to as Katti's work, which also had been summarized by Wray (1987a), have been
modeled in the computer program, LATEXP2D. Katti had tested and measured lateral
sweUing pressures of swelling soil only, swelling sod with 20 cm, 40 cm, 60 cm, and 1(X)
cm CNS soil between the wall and expansive sod, and CNS soil only. These conditions
have been simulated in the numerical model, and the respective problems have been solved.
For each case, the results of the experimental work and the product of the numerical models
have been compared. The properties of the expansive soil and the CNS soil that were used
in experimental work by Katti are seen in Table 5.1. Katti had performed his experiments
in stiffened, rigid tanks ranging from 3 to 4m. (9.8 to 13.8 ft.) in height, 0.9 to 1.35m.
(3.0 to 4.4 ft.) in width, and 1.25 to 2.45m. (4.1 to 8.0 ft.) in depth. It was assumed that
the tests were conducted under conditions of no lateral waU movement which resulted in at-
rest earth pressure conditions being duplicated in die experiments.
In the computer model, the dimensions of die tank for all of the cases were assumed
diat 3.05m. (10.0 ft.) in height, 1.22m. (4.0 ft.) in width, and 1.22m. (4.0 ft.) in depth
since the dimensions were not known exactly for each experiment
106
107
Table 5.1. Properties of Soils Used in Katti's Experimental Woric (Wray, 1987a)
Selected SoU Properties Expans. SoU CNSsoU Sand
Physical Properties
Liquid Limit, % 71.4 48

Plastic Limit, % 42 24
Shrinkage Limit, % 10.4 15
Specific Gravity 2.64 2.74 2.8
Free SweU, % 105
Differential Free SweU, % 137
SweU. Pres. of Oven Dry sod at e=1.0 kg/cm2 2.25 0.03
Textural Composition
Gravel, ( > 2.00 mm), % 4.8 16 18

Sand, (2.00 - 0.06 mm), % 11.2 29 81.5
Silt, (0.06-0.002 mm), % 29 20 0.5
aay,(<2.0),% 55 35
AASHTO aassification A-7-6 A-2-7 A-1-6
Engineering Properties
Standard Proctor Density, gr/cm3 1.46 1.88

Optimum Moisture Content, % 29 15
PermeabiUty, cm/sec 1x10-7 2x10-4 3x10-2
Chemical Properties
pH 8.1 7 -
Organic Matter Content, % 0.63 0.25
Base Exchange Capacity
5m Qay Fraction, meq/100 mg 97 35 -

2m Clay Fraction, meq/lOOmg 124 37
108
5.1.1. Expansive Sod BackfiU Only
In die Katti's experiment, black cotton sod, which is diought to be die so-called
Malaprabha Right Bank Canal Km No. 76 (MRBC-76) Kamataka State, India, since die
properties of die sod match with one anodier (Katti and Katti, 1987), was used to measure
the lateral sweUing pressure on therigidwaU which can be assumed as at-rest condition
because there would be no lateral movement of die wall. In die experiment, MRBC-76 was
placed in the tank in air dry condition. Then, it was soaked until saturated. During this
period, the lateral pressures were measured using reaction jacks and proving rings placed at
60 cm. (24 in.) vertical intervals. The pertinent measurements and results are summarized
in Chapter H.
In the numerical model, modulus of elasticity. Eg, and Poisson's ratio, \L^, of each
element are required to analyze the problem. However, these properties of MRBC-76 were
not cited in Katti's work. Therefore, Es, and lig, had to be estimated by using some known
properties of MRBC-76. For instance, Es values were calculatedfromthe design shear

strength, c, of MRBC-76. The vane shear strength (Cy ) distribution of MRBC-76 with
depth, seen in Fig. 5.1, is used to get the distribution of Es with depth using Eq. (3.8) in
Chapter HI. Since the vane shear strength of the soU is given in Fig. 5.1, a correction
factor, X, which is a function of plasticity index (PI) of the sod, must be used to get the
design shear strength, c, of the soil (Bowles, 1988). Thus, Eq. (5.1) is used to estimate
values of design shear strength. Then, Es values varying with depth have been calculated
using design shear strength, c, values.
c=Xcv (5.1)
where c = design shear strength,

Cy = vane shear strength.
109
-9 -
10 I I t 1 I i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i | i i i i
250 500 750 1000 1250 1500

Vane shear strength, Cv* (psf)
Fig. 5.1. Shear strength distribution of MRBC-76 widi depUi.

110
X = correction factor, a function of PI (X = 0.92 for MRBC-76).
For an expansive clay, a typical value of Poisson's ratio, ^Ls=0.3 (Amir, and Sokolov,
1980) was used since there was no datafromwhich a value of \Ls could be predicted.
On the other hand, in order to calculate the stresses transmitted to the retaining
stmcmre, die computer program, LATEXP2D, also requires the difference of die initial and
the final soil suction distributions over the depth of the soil. Since the soil was placed in
air-dried conditions, then soaked until saturated condition occured in Katti's experiments,
it is assumed that both the initial suction and the fmal suction would be constant over the
depth of the soil. The two extreme conditions, which are the driest and the wettest states of
soil at its surface, have suction values of about 6.0 pF (Russam and Coleman, 1961) and
2.0 pF, respectively (Aitchison and Richards, 1969). Therefore, the maximum difference
in change of soil suction value is 4.0 pF (6.0 pF - 2.0 pF). A value of 3.0 pF for the sod
suction change was taken over the depth of the sod used in the experimental tests because
the sod in Katti's test could not experience the extreme conditions during the tests.
Another parameter which also has to be given to LATEXP2D is the coefficient of
suction change compressibility, Yj^, that can be calculated as a function of the type and
amount of clay in die sod by using Eqs. (2.20 - 2.22) in Chapter H. Some audiors, such
as McKeen and Hamberg (1981), refer to this coefficient as "suction compression index,"
SCL In Katti's experiment die expansive sod, MRBC-76 had a 55 percent clay content as
seen in Table 5.1. The value of Yj^ for 55 percent kaoUnite, dlite, and smectite are 0.0098,
0.022, and 0.026, respectively. Since die composition of die clay nuneralogy was
unknown, it was assumed to be a mixture of smectite, illite and kaolinite. Thus, the value
of die coefficient of suction change compressibdity, or SCI, was taken to be Y^ = (^020.
A comparison of lateral sweUing pressure of MRBC-76 between die experimental

observations and the numerical data is shown in Fig. 5.2. There is a difference between
the curves from experimental work and the numerical modeling as seen in Fig. 5.2. It is
Ill
Experimental
Numerical Model
•100 -
-200 -
-300 T "T"
2 4
Lateral Pressure (kg/cm^)
Fig. 5.2. Comparison of transmitted lateral pressures from the numerical model and
the experimental investigation for expansive sod oidy.
112
beUeved that one of die reasons for this is diere was likely some lateral deflections in the
wall of die tanks that had been used in Katti's experiments. U is well known that even
minute displacement of a wall in the lateral direction wUl result in a very large relief of
lateral swelling pressure. However, in die numerical model, the lateral deflections of die
tanks have been assumed as zero over the entire depth. In order to see die distribution of
lateral pressure distribution for a deflected waU, some lateral displacement (about 1.0 inch)
at the top of the waU decreasing with depth was assumed as seen in Fig. 5.3. Then the
lateral pressure distribution were recalculated. The recalculated lateral pressure distribution
from the deflected wall in the numerical model and the observed lateral pressure distribution
in Katti's test are almost same as seen in Fig. 5.4. Another reason for this lateral pressure
difference between experimental observations and that of the numerical modeling might be
the differences between the dimensions of the tank that was used in Katti's experiments and
that assumed in the numerical model. In addition to these reasons, the soU suction change
over the depth of Katti's tank was not reported so that the soil suction change may not be a
constant in the tank unlUê the estimation in the numerical model. Thus, the lateral
pressures were foimd to be larger in the numerical model than in the experimental work.
5.1.2. CNS Sod BackfiU Only
In the CNS soil backfill only, Katti used the tank that had been used for the expansive
sod only. Thus, in this case of the simulation of CNS sod backfill only in the numerical
modeling, the dimensions of experimental setup are taken same as in the case of expansive
sod only. In die numerical model, die distribution of die modulus of elasticity of CNS sod
(CNS soil of Byahatti) over the depdi of die sod is taken as Unear widi a value of zero at die
surface and a value of 180,000 psf at a depdi of 10 ft UnUke die expansive soil backfUl
only, there was no datafromwhich the distribution of the modulus of elasticity, Es, with
113
a
Q
-10 -9
2.0
Deflection (in)
Fig. 5.3. Assumed displacement distribution of die waU in Katti's experiment

114
Experimental
Numerical Model
•100 -
-200 -
-300
3 4
Fig. 5.4. Comparison of transmitted lateral pressure distribution from the

experimental work and the deflected waU in the numerical model.
115
depdi could be estimated. A value of Poisson's ratio of lis=0.3 is also taken for the CNS
soil as it was for the expansive soil.
Figure 5.5 was plotted by using some relationships between the moismre content and
the sod suction. In general, the soil suction is about 6.0 pF in the driest state (Russam and
Coleman, 1961). Also, the soil suction values are about 3.3 pF and 0.1 pF for plastic limit
and liquid limit, respectively (Croney and Coleman, 1954). Thus, using these soil suction
values, and the properties given in Table 5.1 for the CNS soil and the expansive sod that
are used in Katti's experiments. Fig. 5.5 was plotted. The soil suction is about 4.5 pF for
a moisture content of 15 percent as seen in Fig. 5.5. Therefore, the soil suction change,
which is 2.0 pF, can be found by Eq. (5.2).
(ApF)cNS = pFwiS - 2.5 pF (5.2)
where (ApF)cNS = soil suction change in CNS soil, in pF.

pFî5 = soil suction of CNS soil at 15 percent water content, in pF.
Since LATEXP2D requires the soil suction change, which is (pFinjâi - pFf^jai)' over the
depth of the soil, there was no need to estimate the initial and the final suction distributions
of soil in Katti's experiment to calculate the lateral pressures transmitted on the retaining
stmctures. Instead of assumption of the two sod suction (the initial and the final soil
suction) distributions in Katti's experiment, only the difference of these two distributions
was estimated by using Fig. 5.5 and Eq. (5.2).

Another parameter, which had to be predicted, was Yh ^^r die CNS soil. In Katti's
experiment it wasreportedthat the CNS soil had 35 percent clay component. However,
mineralogical composition of the clay was not reported. Thus, Yi,-values for the CNS soil
have been calculated for kaolinite, dlite, and montmoriUonite as 0.006, 0.013, and 0.015,
respectively using die strain equations diat are given in Chapter II as seen below:
116
Expansive soil
CNSsoH
5 -
3 4-
e
•*m
9 3 -
O
2 -
1 -
80
water content (%)
Fig. 5.5. The relationship between die sod suction and the water content for die CNS
sod and the expansive sod.
y^
y
117
Kaolinite:
Yh = 0.00018 (% of clay) - 0.000098 .
(Z.ZU)
niite:
Yh = 0.00047 (% of clay)-0.00351 ; ^2 21)
MontmoriUonite:
Yh = 0.00056 (% of clay) - 0.00433
Therefore, the coefficient of suction change compressibility, Yii=0.(X)6 was taken for
the CNS soil, because it is expected that the volume change potential of the selected CNS
soil for the purpose of Katti's test must have very low volume change with the variation of
its moisture content.
A comparison of the lateral sweUing pressure between the experimental measurements
from CNS soil of Byahatti by Katti and the numerical data are shown in Fig. 5.6. As seen
in Fig. 5.6, the experimental and numerical results are very nearly the same.
5.1.3. Expansive Soil with Different Thicknesses of CNS

Sod BackfiUs
Katti tested four different diicknesses of the CNS sod backfiUs in his large-scale
laboratory investigation. The thicknesses of the CNS soU, which Katti caUed "backing,"
between the expansive sod and the tank wall were 100 cm, 60 cm, 40 cm, and 20 cm. In
the present study, the same thicknesses of backings are simulated in the numerical model.
118
"O—— Experimental
• Numerical Model
-100 -
-200 -
-300 -r
2 4
experimental investigation for CNS sod only.
119
The comparison of transmitted lateral pressuresfromthe numerical model and Katti's
experiment for the thicknesses of 100 cm, 60 cm, 40 cm, and 20 cm can be seen in Figs.
5.7, 5.8, 5.9, and 5.10, respectively. As seen in Fig. 5.7, the experimental and the
numerical plots give similar values of transmitted lateral pressure for 100 cm. thickness of
CNS soil (or 100 cm. backing). The values are very close to one another. However, the
numerical model gives more conservative lateral pressure values (i.e., larger values) over
the depth of the soil with respect to the experimental study for the thicknesses of 60 cm, 40
cm, and 20 cm of CNS soil (Figs. 5.8, 5.9, and 5.10). The larger difference between die
experimental data and the datafromthe numerical model for a maximum lateral pressure
occurs for 40 cm backing. The transmitted lateral pressures at a depth of 220 cm (7.22 ft)
for 40 cm backing are 1.14 kg/cm^ and 1.85 kg/cm^fromdie experimental and the
numerical model, respectively. The differences are smaUer than this difference for the rest
of the experiments. The reasons for these differences can be due to the deferences in die
soil suction profile that used in the numerical model and the soil suction profde in the sod
that was used in the experiments. On the other hand, there might be some small lateral wall
deflections which make a larger stress reUef in die lateral direction as it was pointed out
earlier. Also, it is possible that the lateral waU deflections and the sod suction profUes
could be different from each other for the each experiment
5.2. Hypothetical Considerations
Several hypothetical cases are considered in this section. The purpose of considering
cases is that to evaluate the effect of shape, size, material, and moisture condition of the
backfill behind a retaining stmcture. For this purpose, four backfiU shapes each with two
different dimensions are considered. The backfiU cases considered were: wide
rectangular, wide trapezoidal, wide triangular, wide stepped, narrow rectangular, narrow
120
Experimental
Numerical Model
-100 -
a
Q
-200 -
-300 -1 r -r
1 2 3 4
Fig. 5.7. Comparison of transmitted lateral pressuresfromthe numerical model and

experimental investigation for 100 cm CSS backfiU.
121
Experimental
Nunr>erical Model
-100 -
-200 -
-300 -i "T
1 2 3 4
experimental investigation for 60 cm CNS backfiU.
122
•Q Experimental
• Numerical Model
-100 -
-200 -
-300
2 3
123
Experimental
Numerical Model
-100 -
-200 -
-300 "T T
2 3 4
124
trapezoidal, narrow triangular, and narrow stepped as seen on pages 132, 141, 150, and
158. In addition to these considerations, two moisture conditions of backfills and natural
soils are also considered: moisture contents the same as the natural soil and moisture
content wetter than the natural soil. Also, two density conditions of the backfiUs were
considered: more dense or less dense than the natural soil (i.e., loosely compacted or
densely compacted backfill).
In real conditions, the modulus of elasticity of clays, E^, is dependent on water content
(Barkan, 1962), and depth of sod (Gibson, 1967). Thus, in the calculations, the modulus
of elasticity is assumed to be a value equal to that of the soil's wet state since the larger
swelling pressure would occur when the soil is in the wet state, and E^ varies with depth as
a function of moisture content in the active zone and the depth of the sod. Whde E^ values
used here were being estimated, the moisture content distribution, which was needed to
estimate E^ values, was calculated by using the final soil suction profile used in the
calculation of lateral pressure distribution in Fig. 5.11 and therelationship,which can be
different for each sod, between the sod suction and water content in Fig. 5.5.
Boundary values of sod suction in static equilibrium at the surface are suggested to be
taken as approximately 6.0 pF (Russam and Coleman, 1961) for die dry boundary
condition, and 2.0 pF (Aitchison and Richards, 1969) for the wet boundary condition.
Therefore, by using these values and a measured equilibrium suction at the depth of the
active zone, a static equdibrium soil suction envelope can be estabUshed (Wray, 1992). In
order to do numerical modeling of die backfiU cases described above, a typical sod suction
envelope is produced using static sod suction dieory from Eqs. (2.17) - (2.19) given in
Chapter n. Since the production of the sod suction envelope is sensitive for depth
increment (Ax) in Eq. (5.18), Ax-increment must be made very carefuUy. A Ax-increment
of approximately 30 cm gives acceptable results (Wray, 1989). To make estimation easier,
a short computer program, called as SUCENV, which stands for SUCtion ENVelope, was
125
Final soil suction
Initial soil suction
a
Q
-10 -
-12
4 5
Soil Suction (pF)
Fig. 5.11 The soil suction envelope for two extreme static conditions (die wettest and
die driest) developed by SUCENV.
126
developed for producing static equdibrium soil suction boundary curves for dry boundary
conditions. The source listing of the program is given in Appendix F. Soil suction
boundary curves for wet boundary conditions can also be estimated by substiuiting +dh(i)
for -dh(i) in die SUCENV program with proper boundary soil suction values. A value of
2x10-6 cm/sec was assumed for bodi die coefficient of saturated permeabiUty, k^,, and flow
velocity, v, in Eqs. (2.17) - (2.19) in Chapter II (Wray, 1989). The depth of the active
zone was taken as 10 ft in die hypothetical examples.
The relationship between soil suction and moismre content as seen in Fig. 5.5 has
been used. The assumptions and estimations that have been described to this point are
applied for all of the 32 hypothetical cases, which are eight backfill shapes with two
moisture, and two density conditions. However, in a real case, the acmal relationship
between soil suction and moisture content must be generatedfromlaboratory andfieldtests
(i.e., the thermocouple psychrometers or Agwa-II) because every soil has its own
relationship between suction and water content The relationship is also dependent on
whether or not the soil is drying or wetting. When the soil is wetting up, the sod suction is
higher at the same moisture content than that of the drying soil because more energy must
be applied on the soil during the wetting up the sod. One of thereasonsfor the needed
more energy is that there are air bubbles in the pore that must be pushed out on the wetting
soils unlike that of drying soil. The relationship is also dependent upon repeated wetting
and drying cycles, which is called hysteresis. When drying and wetting cycles are
numerous, the difference between the wetting and drying curves becomes smaller (Croney
and Coleman, 1954).
The soil suction envelope in static equiUbrium for natural soU, which is generated by
SUCENV, can be seen in Fig. 5.11. The distribution of the modulus of elasticity of the
soil with depth has also been calculated by using the relationship between soil suction and
127
moismre content shown in Fig. 5.5, and die relationship between moismre content and the
modulus of elasticity is diat provided by Eq. (5.3). The calculated values of die modulus
of elasticity are seen in Fig. 5.12. In die calculations of Es widi depdi, Eq. (2.38) in
Chapter n, and Eq. (3.1) in Chapter in were combined into one equation to take into
account Gibson's model (Gibson, 1967) in addition to the effect of die soil water content
variation with depth. The combined equation is as follows:
Es(z) = E d ( z ) ( l - ^ ) (5.3)
WQ
where Es(z) = modulus of elasticity of sod at a depth of z with a moisture content of
W(z)
Ed(z) = modulus of elasticity of sod at a depth of z in dry conditions (found from

Gibson's equation)
W(z) = moisture content of sod at a depth of z
Wo = moisture content of soil at which the modulus of elasticity of sod is
theoreticaUy zero.
Gibson's model considers the influence of depth on the modulus of elasticity of soil.
The equation for Gibson's model is:
Es = Eo + m z . (3.1)
Gibson (1967) proved that die coefficient m in his equation is equal to hatf of die modulus
of subgrade reaction of the soil:
m=^ (5.4)
128
0 -Q
ja -10 -
a
Q -12 -
14 -
•16 -
-18 -
-20 - T « 1 ' 1 ' r

200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000
Modulus of Elasticity, E„ (psf)
Fig. 5.12 The variation of the modulus of elasticity of the expansive soil as a function
of die moisture content and the depth of soil.
129
Typical k^ values are given for dtfferent densities of soils in the technical literature (e.g.,
McCarthy, 1988). Some of the ks values are seen in Table 5.2 as a function of density of
the soil. For example, if a soil has a density of between 90 pcf and 110 pcf, its subgrade
reaction modulus, ks, would be between 15x10^ pcf and 30x10^ pcf In die hypodietical
examples, kg is taken as a value of 10x10* pcf since the soil would have smaller subgrade
reaction modulus, k^, in the wet condition. In the technical literature (e.g., McCarthy,
1988), some reductions on ks values are suggested to be made when the ground water
table is close to the foundations.
Using die equations and the parameters that have been cited so far, die 32 hypothetical
examples are solved to evaluate the effect of backfUls with different shapes, sizes, moisture
content, densities, and materials. In all of the examples, a retaining stmcture, which might
be a retainmg wall or a basement wall, in an expansive sod has been considered. The
geometry and dimensions of the retaining stmcture are presented in Fig. 5.13. For this
retaining stmcture transmitted lateral pressures are calculated for the hypothetical cases and
presented in sections 5.2.1 - 5.2.4. The properties of die expansive sod and die CNS soil
are taken to be same as the soils used in Katti's experimental work. The unit weights of the
expansive sod and the CNS sod are taken 110 pcf for both soils. The results of the
examples are compared to each other, and some conclusions are reached.
5.2.1. Case One: Rectangular BackfiU
In this case, the retaining stmcture has been considered in an expansive sod. Active
and passive earth pressure distributions of natural-expansive sod without considering any
expansion are determined. Then, transmitted lateral swelling pressure distributions due to
expansion of the natural soU on the retaining stmcture with various rectangular backfills
and without any backfUl, all with no wall movement being permitted have been estimated.
130
^ ^ ^ ^ ^
'I
o
(/)
>
en
c
Q.
X
I 5
B
4>
GO
• ••4
O
M
I
o 5
O
o
c
E
k\\^\^ 1
c
o
6 4>
II
O
CN
if
^ • =
m
\^ *n
to
131
First, the transmitted lateral pressure on the retaining stmcture due to in situ expansive
sod widiout any backfUl was calculated. Then, the same sod (aU properties except sod
moismre content remained the same) but in a wetter condition was used as a backfill, and
die problem was solved widi narrow (2-ft) and wide (5-ft.) of backfill (depdi remained a
constant 10 ft.). The shape and size of die narrow and wide backfills are seen in Fig. 5.14.
The finite element mesh, which is used in LAREXP2D, for rectangular backfill is also
seen in Fig. 5.14. Simdar calculations were performed widi sand backfdl and cohesive
nonswelling (CNS) soil backfill with narrow and wide shapes. Also, a backfiU more dense
(with a unit weight of 120 pcf) dian die nattiral sod (unit weight of 110 pcf) and anodier
backfdl less dense (witii a unit weight of 100 pcf) than the natural sod were considered.
The lateral pressure distributions for each case were determined.
In Figs. 5.15 - 5.20, the transmitted lateral pressure distributions on the retaining
stmcture for active and passive pressures as well as the lateral pressure distributions that
are generated by the several different backfdl conditions, e.g., cohesive nonswelling
(CNS) soil, sand, more dense, less dense, and wet backfills with narrow, and wide
shapes, can be seen.
The transmitted lateral pressure distributionsfromeach of the different backfiU
problems are shown to have values somewhere between the active earth pressure
distribution and the passive earth pressure distribution of the no swelling condition. In
general, the transmitted lateral pressure distributions are calculated to be very close to the
passive earth pressure distribution over the top 1.5-2.0 ft of depth. However, the
transmitted lateral pressures due to swelling of die expansive sod are much smaUer than the
passive earth pressure below a depth of approximately 2.0 ft
In the case of wet backfUl (i.e., no sod suction changes inducing heave at any time
within the backfiU which was placed in the wet state), wide-wet backfUl is found to provide
good reduction in the transnutted lateral pressure distributions on theretainingstmcture as
132
2.0 ft vide backfiU Hatural-ExpansLve Soil

5.0 ft vide backfiU FvS
Retaining structure Retaining stmcture
.. ^ , V w« Wide-rectangular backfUl
Nanov-rectangular backfiU *
Retalnins^ structure
"•'^^,,^^^
^"*'**^,.^^
^^
10'
10'
20' 30"
Fig. 5.14 The finite element mesh and the dimensions of the rectangular backfiU
133
1000 2000 3000 4000

Lateral Pressure (psf)
Fig. 5.15. Lateral pressure distributions for Uie rectangular wet backfiUs
134
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Lateral pressure (psf)
Fig. 5.16. Lateral pressure distributions for die CNS sod rectangular backfiUs
135
1000 2000 3000 4000

Fig. 5.17. Lateral pressure distributions for the sandrectangularbackfills

136
1000 2000 3000 4000

Fig. 5.18. Lateral pressure distributions for dierectangularbackfiUs widi different

densities.
137
1000 2000 3000 4000
Fig. 5.19. Comparison of lateral pressiu-e distributions for the narrow-rectangular

backfills with different sods and moisture contents.
138
5-ft wet
Expansive soil only

Passive pressure (nat. soil)
Active pressure (nat. soil)
5-ft CNS
5-ft SAND
1000 2000 3000 4000

Fig. 5.20. Comparison of lateral pressure distributions for the wide-rectangular

backfUIs with different soUs and moisture contents.
139
seen in Fig. 5.15. If a 5.0-ft width of sod behind the retaining stmcture could be protected
from moisture changes and maintained at its placement moisture content (i.e., wet), die best
reduction of die transmitted lateral pressure could be achieved. On die odier hand, sand
backfill with a widdi of 5.0-ft. also reduces transmitted lateral pressure as well as die wide-
wet backfUl as seen in Fig. 5.17. hi Fig. 5.17, the narrow-sand backfill creates some
transmitted lateral pressure slightly greater dian die passive earth pressure of die natural-
expansive soil by distributing die lateral pressures from die lower part of the wall to the
upper part of die wall. However, it does not mean that the transmitted lateral pressure is
larger than the passive eardi pressure of the soil media for that case. When the effect of
sand backfiU is taken into account in the calculation of the passive eartii pressure
distribution, the passive earth pressure distribution of the sand backfiU is larger than tiie
transmitted lateral pressure on the upper part of the waU as seen in Figs. 5.17 and 5.19. A
sindlar transmitted lateral pressure distribution is also seen for wide-sand backfdl condition
in Fig. 5.17. Since the lateral stress distribution generated by the expansion of the sod in
the domain would be smaller in locations that have some distance from the retaining
stmcture, no passive failure condition would occur in the expansive soil media when sand
is used as backfiU. Similar stress conditions would happen for the other three cases. There
is Uttle difference between the transmitted lateral pressures of the wide-sand backfdl and
that of the wide-wet backfill (Fig. 5.20). These two options could be used equally weU
with respect to the field conditions. If water gets into the sand backfiU and flows into die
natural-expansive soil, there might be a Uttle increment in the transmitted lateral pressure
distribution at the bottom part of the wall different from the transmitted lateral pressure
shown in Fig. 5.17 since die difference between the final and initial soil suction profiles
would be a Uttle bit larger than what is estimated in Fig. 5.11. When a granular soil source
is available, it is suggested that granular backfiU be used between the retaining stmcture and
expansive-namral sod since keeping cohesive soil in its placement moisture content is very
140
difficult, if it is not impossible. In addition, nartow-sand backfUl reduces die transmitted
lateral pressure slightly more than narrow-wet backfill does, as seen in Fig. 5.19.
If neidier of die two options are applicable for afieldcondition, atiiirdoption of using
cohesive nonswelling soil (CNS) could be used to reduce die transmitted lateral pressure,
hi die case of using CNS or sand as die backfill,tiierewould be no need to protect die
backfill from moisttire changes since natural soil would also be good if moismre changes
could be protected.
Anodier interesting point is when sand is used as the backfUl, die shape of the lateral
pressure distribution becomes more uniform behind die retaining stmcture. This behavior
is explained by the sand backfill having a higher modulus of elasticity than the namral
expansive sod in the wet case. Thus, the larger lateral pressures on the lower part of the
wall are distributed to the upper part of the wall. On die otiier hand. Fig. 5.18 shows that
backfiU density has littie or no effect on the transmitted lateral pressures.
5.2.2. Case Two: Triangular Backfill

The same retaining stmcture, the same expansive sod, and the same soil moisture
conditions as in Case One but with a different size and shape of backfiU are considered in
Case Two. The shape and size of the backfill, and the finite element mesh for this
problem are shown in Fig.5.21. The narrow-triangular backfiU has a width of 1.0 ft at
the top of theretainingstmcture. The wide-triangular backfiU has a width of 5.0 ft at the
top as seen in Fig. 5.21. The transnutted lateral pressure distributions on the retaining
stmcture for active and passive earth pressures as well as the lateral pressures generated by
die different backfills as calculated from LATEXP2D are plotted in Figs. 5.22 - 5.27. As
can be seen in Figs. 5.22 - 5.27, the transmitted lateral pressures are somewhere between
the active earth pressure distribution and the passive earth pressure distribution.
141
Natural-Expansive SoU
5 ^ 0 ^ .
Retaining structure Retaining structure
Nanov-triangular backfdl Wide-triangular backfiU
1 Jf
/I
Retaining structure 111 ////
//
111 /// ///
10'
( / - / -
10'
20' 30'
Hg. 5.21 The finite element mesh and the dimensions of the triangular backfiU
142
Narrow-wet backfill
Expansive soil only
Wide-wet backfill
1000 2000 3000 4000
Fig. 5.22. Lateral pressure distributions for die wet triangular backfills
143
Expansive soil only
Nairow-CNS backfill
Wide-CNS backfill
1000 2000 3000 4000
Fig. 5.23. Lateral pressure distributions for die CNS sod triangular backfills
144
1000 2000 3000 4000
Fig. 5.24. Lateral pressure distributions for the sand triangular backfiUs
145
1000 2000 3000 4000
Fig. 5.25. Lateral pressure distributions for die triangular backfdls widi different
densities.
146
a
Q
1000 2000 3000 4000
Fig. 5.26. Comparison of lateral pressure distributions for the narrow-triangular

backfiUs with different soUs and moisture contents.
147
Expansive soil only

-2 -
Wide-wet backfill
Wide-sand backfill
Wide-CNS backfill
^ -4 - Passive pressure (sand)
a
o -6 -
-10
1000 2000 3000 4000
Fig. 5.27. Comparison of lateral pressure distributions for die wide-triangular

backfiUs with different soils and moisture contents.
148
The best reduction on die transmitted lateral pressure occured when using the wet wide-
triangular backfill, as seen in Fig. 5.27. A simUar reduction in lateral pressure is observed
for the wet wide-rectangular backfUl. The sand wide-triangular backfdl gives a reduction
on die transmitted lateral pressure slightiy less than die wet wide-diangular backfiUs. The
CNS soil backfiU gives the least reduction in transmitted lateral pressure.
The transmitted lateral pressure distributions for wet natural soil, CNS sod, sand, and
different densities of backfill soils are seen in Figs. 5.22 - 5.25, respectively. Using less
dense or more dense triangular backfdls results in almost no reduction of transmitted lateral
pressure with respect to in sim expansive soil as seen in Fig. 5.25. A comparison of
narrow triangular backfiUs with different soil materials and moisture contents are seen in
Fig. 5.26. As seen in Fig. 5 .26, the sand backfdl distributed the lateral pressure more
uniformly behind the retaining stmcture than the other backfUIs because sand is more rigid
than the others. A simdar comparison of the lateral pressure distributions for wide-
triangular backfUIs are made in Fig. 5.27. As happened for the rectangular backfills, the
transmitted lateral pressuresfromthe sand wide-triangular backfiU gives larger lateral
pressures than the passive earth pressure values over the upper 2.0 ft of the retaining
stmcture. The reason for this is sand has a higher modulus of elasticity than the expansive
sod. Also, therigidityof sand is much higher than that of expansive sod in the wet state.
When the passive pressure distribution of sand backfill is plotted on the samefigure,that
pressure distribution is larger than the transmitted lateral pressiu-efromthe sand backfiU
(Figs. 5.24 and 5.26)
5.2.3. Case Three: Trapezoidal BackfiU
The same retaining stmcmre as in Cases One and Two was considered in an expansive
soil, as before, and transmitted lateral pressures with various backfiUs, active, and passive
149
eartii pressure distributions on the retaining stmcture have been estimated using
LATEXP2D. The shape and size of die backfill, and the fmite element mesh for tiiis
problem are shown in Fig.5.28. The nartow-trapezoidal backfill has die dimension of 1.0
ft at the bottom and 2 ft at die top of the retaining sttoictiu-e. The wide-ti-apezoidal backfiU
has the dimensions of 2.0 ft at the bottom, and 5.0 ft at die to of die retaining sttiicttu-e as
seen in Fig. 5.28. The transmitted lateral pressure distributions on the retaining stmcture
for the active and the passive earth pressures as well as the lateral pressures generated by
different backfills are seen in Fig. 5.29 - 5.34 to have values between the active pressure
distribution and the passive pressure distribution.
The best reduction of the transmitted lateral pressure resulted with wet wide-
trapezoidal backfiU, as seen in Fig. 5.34. A similar reduction also occurs for the wet
wide-rectangular backfiU too. The sand wide-trapezoidal backfiU gives a reduction on the
transmitted lateral pressure slightiy less than the wet wide-trapezoidal backfUl. The CNS
soil backfiU yielded the least reduction in the transmitted lateral pressure.
The transmitted lateral pressure distributions for wet namral soU, CNS soil, sand, and
different densities of backfills are seen in Figs. 5.29 - 5.32, respectively. Using eidier less
dense or more dense of triangular backfiUs results in negUgible reduction in die transmitted
lateral pressure withrespectto the m situ expansive sod as seen in Fig. 5.32. A
comparison of narrow trapezoidal backfills with different sod materials and moisttire
contents are seen in Fig. 5.33. As seen in Fig. 5 .33, die sand backfiU disdibuted die
lateral pressure more uniformly behind the retaining stmcturetiiantiieother backfiUs
because sand is morerigiddian the odiers. A simdar comparison of die lateral pressure
distributions for wide-trapezoidal backfiUs are shown in Fig. 5.34. As was found for die
rectangular backfdls and triangular backfills, die transmitted pressuresfromthe sand wide-
trapezoidal backfill gives larger dian the passive earth pressure values above approximately
2.0 ft of depth (sand has the higher modulus of elasticity than expansive sod). Also, the
150
Naturel-Expansive SoU
1.0'
Retaining structure
Retaining structure
Nanov-trapezoidal backfUl Wide-trapezoidal backfUl
Retaining structure \
\
\ 1
\
10' \
\
t
-f
10"
20' 30'
Fig. 5.28 The finite element mesh and the dimensions of die trapezoidal backfill
151
Expansive soil only
Wide-wet backfill
Narrow-wet backfiU
1000 2000 3000 4000

Fig. 5.29. Lateral pressure distributions for the wet trapezoidal backfills
152
passive pressure (nat. soil)
Active i»es8ure (nat. soil)
Expansive soil only
Narrow-CNS backfill
Wide-CNS backfill
1000 2000 3000 4000
Fig. 5.30. Lateral pressure distributions for die CNS sod trapezoidal backfUIs
153
Pusive pressure (nat. soil)

Expansive soil only
Narrow-sand backfill
Wide-sand backfill
Passive pressure (sand)
1000 2000 3000 4000

Fig. 5.31. Lateral pressure distributions for die sand trapezoidal backfills
154
1000 2000 3000 4000
Fig. 5.32. Lateral pressure distributions for the trapezoidal backfiUs with different
densities.
155
1000 2000 3000 4000
Fig. 5.33. Comparison of lateral pressure distributions for the nanow-trapezoidal

backfills with different soils and moisture contents.
156
Expansive soil only
Wide-wet backfill
Wide-sand backfill
Wide-CNS backfUl
Passive pressure (sand)
1000 2000 3000 4000
Fig. 5.34. Comparison of lateral pressure distributions for the wide-trapezoidal

backfiUs with different soils and moisture contents.
157
rigidity of die sand is much higher than tiiat of the expansive soil in a wet state. The
distribution of the passive earth pressure of sand backfill on die retaining stmcmre is
plotted on the same figure, tiiat pressure distribution is larger tiian tiie transmitted lateral
pressure from the sand backfill.
5.2.4. Case Four: Stepped BackfiU
Case Four considers the same retaining stmcture with the other variables the same as
in Case One-Two-Three except a stepped backfiU condition is evaluated. The shape and
size of the backfiU and the fmite element mesh for this problem are shown in Fig. 5.35.
The method of analysis is the same as in the other three cases. The narrow-stepped backfiU
has the dimension of 1.0 ft at die bottom and 2ft at the top of die retaining stmcture. The
wide-stepped backfiU has the dimensions of 2.0 ft at the bottom, and 5.0 ft at the top of the
retaining stmcmre as seen in Fig. 5.35. The transmitted lateral pressure distributions on
the retaining stmcture for active and passive earth pressures as well as the lateral pressures
generated by different backfills as calculated by LATEXP2D are seen to have values
between the active earth pressure distribution and the passive earth pressure distribution.
The best reduction of the transnutted lateral pressureresultedfromthe wet wide-
trapezoidal backfUl as seen on page 165. The sand wide-stepped backfiU gave a reduction
of the transmitted lateral pressure on sUghtiy less tiian tiie wet wide-stepped backfill. The
CNS sod backfiU gave die least reduction of diett-ansmittedlateral pressure.
The transmitted lateral pressure distributions for wet nattiral sod, CNS soil, sand, and
different densities of backfiUs are seen in Figs. 5.36 - 5.39, respectively. Using eidier less
dense or more dense stepped backfiUs makes negligible reduction in die transmitted lateral
pressures with respect to the in sim expansive sod; this result was similar to tiiat of tiie first
158
Natureil-Expanslve SoU
5.0'
5.0'
2.0'
Retaining structure Retaining structure
NairoV stepped backfUl Wide-stepped backfiU
/ /
/ /
/ /
Retaining structure / ft
If
10' If
IfIf
JJ-—
"Y
—-—--
10'
20' 30'
Fig. 5.35 The finite element mesh and die dimensions of die stepped backfiU
159
1000 2000 3000 4000

Fig. 5.36. Lateral pressure distributions for die wet stepped backfdls
160
1000 2000 3000 4000

Fig. 5.37. Lateral pressure distributions for the CNS sod stepped backfills
161
1000 2000 3000 4000
Fig. 5.38. Lateral pressure distributions for the sand stepped backfiUs
162
Active Pressure (nat. soil)

Passive Pressure (nat. soil)
Less dense narrow-backfill
More dense narrow-backfill
Less dense wide-backfill
More dense wide-backfill
1000 2000 3000 4000
Fig. 5.39. Lateral pressure distributions for die stepped backfdls widi different
densities.
163
three cases. A comparison of thett-ansmittedlateral pressure disttibutions are seen in Figs.
5.40 and 5.41 for nartow-stepped backfills and wide-stepped backfills, respectively. As
seen in Fig. 5 .40, the sand backfill distributed die lateral pressure more uniformly behind
the retaining stmcture than die other backfills because, as before, sand is more rigid than
the others. A simUar comparison of the lateral pressure disttibutions for wide-stepped
backfills are made in Fig. 5.41. As it happened in die three previous cases, the transmitted
pressures from the sand wide-stepped backfills are larger than the passive values over the
top 2.0 ft of the retaining stmcture. The reasons for this are the same as before, i.e., the
sand has a higher modulus of elasticity than expansive soil and rigidity of the sand is much
higher than that of the expansive soU in a wet state. The distribution of the passive earth
pressure of the sand backfill on the retaiiung stmcture is plotted on the same figure, that
pressure distribution is seen in Figs. 5.38 and 5.40.

164
1000 2000 3000 4000
Fig. 5.40. Comparison of lateral pressure distributions for the narrow-stepped

bacIdiUs with different soUs and moisture contents.
165
-2 -
^ -4 -
a
a -6 -
-8 -
-10
1000 2000 3000 4000
Fig. 5.41. Comparison of lateral pressure distributions for the wide-stepped

backfUIs with different soils and moisture contents.
CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
hi this smdy, a new numerical model is established to model tiie lateral swelling
behavior of expansive soils using die finite element method. In thefiniteelement model, an
analogy between die diermal expansion of solid material and die swelling of expansive sod
is made. Some conclusions and recommendations can be drawnfromthe study as follows.
6.1. Conclusions
The results from the numerical modeling andfromseveral large-scale laboratory tests
(performed by others) compare quite favorably. The close comparison of die results
indicates that the swelling behavior of expansive sods is dependent upon the soil suction
change in the soU media.
In order to estimate the lateral sweUing pressure transmitted to a retaining stmcture by

swelling soU, the sod suction envelope must be known over the depth of die active zone.
In this study, using static soil suction theory and proper boundary values for the driest and
the wettest conditions, which are 6.0 pF and 2.0 pF, respectively, at the surface and the
equilibrium soil suction value at a depth of active zone, a soil suction envelope was
generated by SUCENV.
Since the computer program LATEXP2D is sensitive to the modulus of elasticity of
soil, determination of the modulus of elasticity distribution in a sod media is very
important. Also, whUe determining the moismre content of die sod mass in dtfferent
locations, these locations must be chosen carefully to represent the soU mass as accurately
as possible. Otherwise, the modulus of elasticity of the sod might be miscalculated so that
the transmitted lateral pressure estimations can be farfromthe acmal pressures in the field.
166
167
However, the program is not that much sensitive to die Poisson's ratio of soil. For
example, die transmitted lateral pressures at a depth of 8.5 ft are 806 psf, 943 psf, and
1101 psf for the Poisson's ratio values of 0.25, 0.30, and 0.35, respectively.
Another very important parameter in die calculation of thettansmittedlateral pressure

is the surtion compressibiUty index, y^, which is a function of die clay content and the
mmeralogical composition of the sod mass. The clay percentage and die composition of the
clay mineralogy must be determined to estimate the lateral pressure as close as possible.
Another way to predict y^ values is to use the chart given in Fig. 2.11. Thus, practising
engineers do not have to deal with the determination (i.e., performing X-ray diffraction
test) of clay mineralogy and the amount of clay in a sod media.
From the lateral pressure distributions found in the hypothetical examples, the
foUowing conclusions can be reached. First, the transmitted lateral pressure distributions
that are generated by several different backfdl soils of different densities and sod moismre
conditions and with different backfdl geometries are found to have values between the
active earth pressure distribution and the passive earth pressure distribution of natural-
expansive soil. However, sand backfills were found to give slightly larger lateral pressure
distributions than the passive earth pressure distribution of namral-expansive sod in the top
2.0 ft of die backfiU since the modulus of elasticity of sand sod is larger than that of
expansive sod in a wet state. When sand was used as backfdl, diettansmittedlateral
pressure is more uniformly distributed behind the retaining stmcmre because sand is more
rigid than the expansive soil under wet conditions. However, when the passive earth
pressure distribution of sand backfdl is plotted, it is largertiiantiiettansnuttedlateral
pressure of sand backfdl even over the upper part of the wall.
Second, the transmitted lateral pressure distribution ui almost every case is very close
to the passive earth pressure distributionfromnatural-expansive sod over the depth of
168
1.5-2.0 ft. However, below approximately 2.0 ft, the transmitted lateral pressures due to
swelling expansive soil are much smaUer dian the passive eardi pressure distribution.
Third, if a backfiU is placed in a wet condition, i.e., essentiaUy saturated conditions,
and it is not allowed to change in moismre content, i.e., no additional heaving occur, the
wide-wet natural backfdls give significant reduction on the transmitted lateral pressure
distributions acting on the retaining stmctures. Over all, die best reduction in the
transmitted lateral pressures is provided by rectangular shaped backfills with compared to
the triangular, trapezoidal, and stepped backfills.
FinaUy, after considering the reductions in thettansmittedlateral pressure distributions

in the hypothetical examples evaluated in this study, it can be concluded that to get the best
reduction in lateral pressure resultedfromsweUing soUs: (a) a rectangular-shaped backfill
geometry should be used; (b) the namral (expansive) soil should be compacted in a
condition weU wet of optimum and the backfiU must not be aUowed to change its placement
moisture content; and (c) the width of the backfiU should be 5 ft or more. However, if
protectionfrommoisture change in the backfUl is not possible, an altemative option is to
use sand or cohesive nonswelling sod (CNS). When sand is used as backfiU material, the
reduction on thettansmittedlateral pressure would be sUghtiy lower than that of the namral-
expansive sod but when CNS soil is used as die backfiU, the reduction would not be as
much as that of sand or wet -expansive sod material.
6.2. Recommendations
Altiiough tiie extreme moismre conditions (the driest and die wettest conditions
resultingfromclimatic influence only) are considered whUe producing die soil suction
envelope in diis study, die writer beUeves that more realistic soil suction profiles should be
used to calculate die sweUing pressures. Finally, several fumre smdies, which wdl use die
present smdy as die first step, could be suggested. Since the numerical model is sensitive
169
for the modulus of elasticity of die soil in the present study, an investigation on die
determination of die modulus of elasticity under swelUng can be performed. Then, die total
stresses can be determined as the sum of two sttess components. The fttst stress
component is the stt-esses due to only swelling of die soil for which die modulus of
elasticity is determinedfromthe suggested investigation above. The second sttess
component is the sttesses due to surcharge and die extemal loads iftiiereare any. For the
second stress component, the modulus of elasticity of the soil must be calculated by using
the combined equation, which is Eq. (5.1) in this smdy, if the distribution of the modulus
of elasticity cannot be determined experimentaUy.
Another advanced study might be an investigation of the effect of suction compression
index Cf^) on the transmitted lateral pressure distributions. Then, some relationship among
the transnutted lateral pressure, suction compression index (y.), and sod suction change
(ApF) might be found.

LIST OF REFERENCES
Ahmed, H. I., 1967, "Theoretical and experimental analysis of the bin effect on lateral
earth pressure," Thesis presented in partial fulfillment of tiie requirements for the
degree of master of science in civil engineering. University of Washington, Seattle,
WA.
Aitchison, G. D., 1965, "Statement of the Review Panel: Engineering concepts of

moismre equilibria and moisture change in soils," in Moisture Equilibra and Moisture
Changes in Soils beneath Covered Areas. Butterworths, Australia: Butterworth &
Company.
Aitchison, G. D., and Holmeas, J. W.,1953, "Aspects of swelling in the soil profile,"
Division of S o i k C SIR o , Adelaide, AustraUa.
Aitchison, G. D., and Richards, B. G., 1969, "The fundamental mechanisms involved in
heave and soil moismre movement and the engineering properties of soils which are
important in such movement," Proceedings. 2nd intemational conference on expansive
soils.
Aitchison, G.D., and Woodbum, J.A., 1969, "Sod suction in foundation design,"
Proceedings. 7th Intemational Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Vol 2, pp. 1-9.
Amir, J. M., and Sokolov, M.S., 1980, "Analog model for piles in expansive clay,"
Proceedings. 4th Intemational Conference on expansive soils, Denver, CO, pp. 582-
595.
Andy, B.F.,1989, "Laboratory evaluation of lateral swelling pressure," Joumal of

Geotechnical Engineering . ASCE , Vol. 115, No.lO, pp. 1481-1486.
Aslyng, H.C, 1963, "Soil Physics Terminology," Intemational Society of Soil Science
Bulletin. Vol. 22, p. 5.
Austin, S. W., 1987, "Estimating shrink/swell in expansive sods using soil suction,"
M. S. Thesis, Department of CivU Engineering, Texas Tech University, Lubbock,
TX.
Aytekin, M., 1992, "Discussion on-A new method for calculating lateral swelling pressure
in expansive soils-by Xin, and Ling, 1992," Proceedings. 7th intemational conference
on expansive sods, Dallas, TX, Vol. 2.
Baker, T. D., 1980 "Swell characteristics of remolded clays," ASCE Texas section spring
meeting, San Antonio, TX.
Barden, L., Madedor, A. O., and Sides, G. R., 1969, "Volume change characteristics of
unsaturated clay," Joumal of the SoU Mechanics and Foundation Division. ASCE,
VoL 95, No. SMI, January, pp. 33-51.
170
171
^^*^2"' ^' ^" 1962, Dynamics of ba.ses and fnyndafinnc, Translated from the Russian by
Drashevska, L., and edited by Tschebotarioff, G. P., McGraw-Hill Series in Soils
Engmeenng and Foundations, New York, pp. 1-53.
Bjemim, L., and Andersen, K. H., 1972, "In-sim measurement of lateral pressure of
clay. Proceedings, 5th European Conference of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engmeenng, stmcmres subjected to lateral forces. Vol. 1, Madrid, Spain, pp. 11-20.
Blight, G. E., 1967, "Horizontal stresses in stiff andfissuredlacustrine clays,"
Proceedings, 4th regional conference for Africa of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Cape Town, Soutii Africa, December, pp. 95-99.
BoU, G. H., 1956, "Physico-chemical analysis of tiie compressibdity of pure clays,"

Geotechnique. Vol. 6, pp. 86-93.
Boresi, A. P., and Sidebottom, O. M.,1952, Advanced Mechanics of Materials. John

Wiley and Sons, New York, Fourth edition, pp. 43-44.
Bowles, E. J., 1988 "Foundation Analysis and Design", Fourtii edition, McGraw-Hill,
New York, pp. 156.
Bozozuk, M., 1963, "The modulus of Elasticity of Leda ClayfromField Measurements,"

Canadian Goetechnical Journal. VoL 1, No. 1, pp. 43-51.
Brackley, L J. A., 1971, "Partial coUapse in unsamrated expansive clay," Proceedings. 5tii
regional conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, South Africa, pp.
23-30.
Brackley, I. J. A., 1973, "Swell pressure and free sweUing a compacted clay,"
Proceedings. 3rd Intemational Conference on Expansive Soils, Vol. 1, Haifa, Israel,
pp. 169-176.
Brackley, I. J. A., 1975, "SweU imder load," Proceedings. 6th regional conference for
Africa of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, Durban, South Africa,
September, pp. 65-70.
Bratton, W. L., 1991," Slab-on-ground foundations constmcted over expansive clay:

Parameters to predict volume change potential," Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of
Civil Engineering, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX.
Brooker, E. W., and Irelend, H. O., 1965, "Earth pressures ar rest related to stress
history," Canadian Geotechnical Joumal. VoL 2, No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Brown, R. W., 1987, "Foundation repairs in expansive soils," Progressive Builder. Vol.
12, pp. 30.
Bucher, F., and SaiUe, E. L., 1984, "SweUing behavior of tropical black clays,"
Proceedings. 8thregionalconference for Africa of Soil Mechaiucs and Foundation
Engineering, Harare, pp. 81-86.
172
Charlie, Wayne A., Osman, Mohamed. A., Ali, Elfatih M.,1984, "Constmction on
Expansive Sods in Sudan", Joumal of Constmction Engineering and Management.
Vol n o . No. 3, September, ASCE, pp. 359-374.
Che-Hung Tsai, B. E., 1986, "A smdy of stiffened and unstiffened slab on ground
performance over swelling soil," M. S. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering,
Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX.
Chen, F.H., 1975, "Foundations on expansive sods," Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co.,
New York.
Clayton, C. R. I., Symons, I. F., and Hiedra-Cobo, J. C , 1991, "The pressure of clay
backfill against retaining stmcmres," Canadian Geotechnical Joumal. Vol. 28, pp.
282-297.
Clegg, B., 1983, "Design compatible control of base course constmction," Australian
Road Research. Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 112-122.
Cooling, L. F., and Skempton, A. W., 1942,"A laboratory study of London clay,"
Joumal of Instimtion of CivU Engineers.. VoL 17, pp. 251-276.
Cox, D. W., 1978, "Volume change of compacted clay fUl," Instimtion of Civil
Engineers. London, pp. 79-86.
Croney, D., and Coleman, J. D., 1954, "SoU stmcmre in relation to soU suction (pF),"
Joumal of SoU Science. VoL 5, No. 1, pp. 75-84.
Crossley, R. W. and Beckwidi, G. H., 1978, "Subgrade elastic modulus for Arizona
pavements," Executive summary submitted to Arizona Department of Transportation,
Highways Division.
Day, R. W., 1991, "Expansion of compacted graveUy clay," Joumal of Geotechnicql
Engineering. ASCE, Vol. 117, No. 6, June, pp. 968-972.
Desai, C. S., and Christan, J. T., 1977, "Foundations on Expansive Soils," Numerical
Mediods in Geotechnical Engineering." McGraw-Hdl Book, Chapter 13, New York,
pp. 427-433.
Dhowian, A. W., 1990, "SimpUfied heave prediction model for expansive shales,"
Geotechnical Testing Joumal, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 323-333.
Dif, A. E., and Blumel, W. F., 1991, "Expansive soUs under cycUc drying and wetting,"
Geotechnical Testing Joumal. Technical Note, Vol. 14, No, 1, March, pp. 96-102.
Dixon, J. B., and Weed, S. B., Co-editors,"Minerals in sod environment," Soil Science
Society of America. Madison. WI, pp. 847-884.
Dregne, H. E., 1976, Soils of arid regions. American Elsevier PubUshing, New York.
Duncan, J. M., and Seed, R. B., 1986, "Compaction-induced earth pressures under Ko-
conditions," Joumal of Geotechnical Engineering. ASCE, Vol. 112, No. 1,
January, pp. 1-21.
173
Eslinger, E., and Pevear, D.,1988, Clay Minerals for Petroleum! Geologists and
Engineers, Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists. SEPT Short
Course, No. 2.
Finn, W. D., and Strom, B., 1958, "Nature and magnitude of swell pressure,"
Proceedings. Highway Research Board. Vol. 37, pp. 493-505.
Fredlund, D. G., 1987, "The stress state for expansive soils," Proceedings. 6th
Intemational Conference of Expansive Soils, Vol..2, New Delhi, India, Nov. 28-Dec.
4, pp. 524-534.
Fredlund, D. G., and Morgenstem, N. R., 1976, "Constitutive Relations for volume
change of unsaturated soils," Canadian Geotechnical Joumal. Vol. 13, pp. 261-276.
Gibson, R. E., 1967, "Some results conceming displacements and stresses in a non-
homogeneous elastic half-space," Geotechnique, Vol. 17. No.I, pp. 58-67.
Giese, R. F. Jr., 1988, "Kaolin Minerals: Stmctures and StabUities," Reviews in
Mineralogy. Vol. 19, pp. 29-66.
Grandin, H. Jr., 1986, Fundamentals of the Finite Element Method. MacmiUan
Publishing, New York,
Gunalan, K. N„ 1986, "Analysis of industrial floor slabs-on-ground for design
purposes," Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of CivU Engineering, Texas Tech
University, Lubbock, TX.
Guven, N., 1988, "Smectites," Reviews in Mineralogy. Chapter 13, MacmiUan
Publishing, New York, Vol. 19, pp. 497-559.
Hillel, D. 1980, Inttoduction to SoU Phvsics. Department of Plant and SoU Sciences.
University of Massachusetts, Andierst, MA pp. 57-90.
Holtz, R. D., and Kovacs, W.D., 1981 An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering,
Prentice-Hall CivU Engineering and Engineering Mechanics Series, Prentice-HaU,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 186-190.
Holtz, W. G., 1984, "The influence of vegetation on die swelling and shrinking of clays in
the United States of America," The influence of vegetation on clays, Thomas Tetford
Ltd. London, pp. 69-73.
Hwai-Ping Hsu, B. E., 1988, "A smdy of crack propagation and die deptii of tiie active
zone in expansive clay soils," M. S. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Texas
Tech University, Lubbock, TX.
Jayawardane, N. S., and Greacen, E. L., 1987, "The namre of swelling in soils,"
Australian Joumal of SoU Research., Vol. 25, pp. 107-113.
Jennings, J. E., and Burland, J. B., 1962, "Limitations to die use of effective stresses in
partially saturated sods," Geotechnique. Vol. 12, No. 2.
174
Jones a Earl Jr.Jones, Karen A. 1987. "Treating Expansive Sods", Civd Engineering.
ASCE, Vol. 57, August, pp. 62-65
Joshi R. P., and Katti, R. K.,1980 "Lateral pressure development under surcharges,"
Proccedmgs, 4th Intemational Conference on expansive soils, Denver, CO, pp. 227-
Kassiff, G., and Shalom, A., 1971, "Experimental relationship between swell pressure
and suction," Geotechnique. Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 245-255
Kassiff, G., Baker, R., and Ovadia, Y., 1973, "SweU-pressure relationships at constant
suction changes," Proceedings. 3rd hitemational Conference on Expansive Soils, Vol.
1, pp. 201-208.
Katti, R. D., and Katti, R. K., 1987, "Studies on passive resistance development in
saturated expansive soU," Proceedings. 6th intemational conference on expansive
soils. New DeUii, India, Vol. 1, pp. 61-66.
Katti, R. K., Bhangle, E. S., and Moza, K. K.,1983, "Lateral pressure of expansive sod
with and without a cohesive non-swelling soil layer- AppUcations to earth pressures
of cross drainage stmctures of canals and key waUs of dams (studies of Ko-
condition)," Central Board of Irrigation and Power. Technical Report No. 32, New
Delhi, India.
Katti, R. K., Moza, K. K., and Katti, D. R., 1984, "Unconventional behavior of
expansive soils," Proceedings. 6th Conference of SoU Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Budapest, pp. 137-146.
Kavazanjan, E., and Mitchell, J. K., 1984, "Time dependence of lateral earth pressure,"
Joumal of Geotechnical Engineering. ASCE, Vol. 110, No. 4, April, pp. 530-533.
Keissar, I., Uzan, J., and Baker, R., "Of the characterization of suction of sweUing clay,"
Transportation Research Record. No. 1277, Transportation Research Board,
Washington D. C , pp. 1-7.
KjeaUander, R. et al., 1988, "Double-layer ion correlation forces restrict calcium-clay

sweUing," Joumal of Phys. Chem.. ACS, Vol. 92, pp. 6489-6492
Knight, R., Chapman, A., and Knoll, M., 1990, "Numerical modeUing of microscopic
fluid distribution of porous media," Joumal of Applied Physics. Vol. 68, No. 3,
August, pp. 994-1001.
Komomik, A., 1969, "Factors affecting damage due to movements of expansive clays in
the field," Proceedings. 2nd Intemational Conference on Expansive Clay Sods, Texas
A&M Univ., CoUage Station, TX, pp. 37-65
KomomUc, A., and David, D., 1969 "Prediction of sweUing pressure of clays,*' Joumal of
the SoU Mechanics and Foundation Engineering Division. ASCE, VoL 95, No.SMl,
pp. 209-225.
175
Komomik, A., and Livneh, M., 1968, "The effect of anisotropy on swelling of a
compacted clay," Proceedings. 3rd Asian Regional Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Vol. 2, pp. 181-185.
Komomik, A., and Zeithlen,J. G., 1970, "Laboratory determination of lateral and
vertical stresses of compacted swelling clay," Joumal of Materials. Vol. 5, No. I,
March, pp. 108-128.
Komomik, A., Livneh, M., and Smucha, S., 1980,"Shear strength and swelling of clays
under suction," Proceedings. 4th Intemational Conference on Expansive Soils,
Denver, CO, Vol. 1, pp. 206-226.
Krohn, J. P., and Slosson, J.E.,1980,. "Assessment of Expansive Soils in the United
States," Proceedings.. 4 th Intemational Conference on Expansive Soils, Denver,
CO, ASCE, New York, Vol.1, June, pp. 596-608
Ladd, CC, 1960, "Mechanisms of swelling by compacted clay," Bulletin of the Highway
Research Board. No. 245.
Lambe, T. W., 1958a, "The stmcture of compacted clay," Joumal of the Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering Division. ASCE, VoL 84, No. SM2, May, pp. 1654.1-
1654.34.
Lambe, T. W., 1958b, "The engineering behavior of compacted clay," Joumal of the Sod
Mechanics and Foundation Division. ASCE, Vol. 84, No. SM2, May, pp. 1655.1-
16.55.35.
Lambe, T. W., and Whitman, R. V., 1969, Soil Mechanics. Series in Sod Engineering,
John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 395.
Lee, H. C , 1991, "An evaluation of insttiiments to measure sod moismre condition,"
M. S. Thesis, Department of Civd Engineering, Texas Tech University, Lubbock,
TX.
Lukas, R., G., and de Bussey, B. L., 1976, "Pressuremeter and laboratory test
correlations for clays," Proceedings of ASCE. Joumal of die Geotechnical
Engineering Division, No. GT9, Vol. 102, pp. 945-962
Lytton, R. L., 1980, "Panel Speech," Proceedings. 4di Intemational Conference on
expansive sods, Denver, CO.
Lytton, R. L., 1977, "The characterization of expansive sods in engineering," presentation
at die symposium on water movement and equdibrium in swelling soils, Amencan
Geopysical Union, San Francisco, CA.
Lytton, R. L., and Ramesh, K. K., 1970, "Prediction of moisture movement in expansive
clays," Research Report 118-3. Center for Highway Research, University of Texas at
Austin.
Massasch, K. R., 1975, "New mediod for measurement of lateral earth pressure in
cohesive soils," Canadian Geotechnical Joumal. Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 142-146
1 Ifs
Matyas, E. L., and Radhakrishna, H. S., 1968, "Volume change characteristics of partially
saturated soils," Geotechnignp. Vol. 18, pp. 432-448
McCarthy, D. F., Essentials of Soil Mechanics and Foundations: Basic Geotechnics. 3rd
edition. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 194-195
McKeen R.,G., 1980, "Field smdies of airport pavements on expansive clay,"
Proceedinds, 4th intemational conference on expansive soils, Denver, CO, Vol. 1, pp.
242-261.
McKeen, R. G., and Hamberg, D. J., 1981, "Characterization of expansive soils,"

Transportation Research Rp^ôrH No. 790, Transportation Research Board,
MitcheU, J. K., 1976, "Clay-water electtolyte system." Fundamentals of Soil Behavior.

Series in Soil Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, New York, Berkeley, CA, Chapter 7,
pp. 112-134.
Mitchell, J.K., 1986 "Practical problemsfromsurprising soU behavior," Joumal of

Geotechnical Engineering. ASCE, Vol. 112, No.3, March, pp. 259-289.
Moore, D. M., and Reynolds, R. C. Jr., 1989, X-ray diffraction and tiie identification and
analysis of clay minerals. Oxford University Press.
Mustafayev, A. A., and El -Hansy Rouby, M. M., 1984, "The dieory of heredity of die
clayey soil deformations of swelling," Proceedings. 6di conference of Sod
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Budapest, pp. 213-220.
Nayak, N. V., and Christensen, R. W., 1971, "Swelling characteristics of compacted

expansive soils," Clays and Clay Minerals. Vol.19, pp. 251-261.
Retry, T. M. and Armstrong, J.C, 1989, "Stabilization of Expansive Clay Soils,"
Transportation Research Record 1219. Geotechnical Engineering, Transportation
Research Board National Research Councd, Washington, D.C.
Poulos, H. G., and Davis, E. H., 1974, Elastic solutions for soil and rock mechanics.
Series in soil engineering, John Wdey and Sons, Chapter 9, pp. 193-198.
Pufahl, D.E., Fredlund, D. G., and Rahardjo, H., 1983, "Lateral earth pressures in
expansive clay soils," Canadian Geotechnical Joumal. Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 228-241.
Ranganatham, B. V., and Satyanarayana, B., 1965, "A rational method of predicting
swelling potential for compacted expansive clays," Proceedings. 6th Intemational
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, Montreal, pp. 92-
96.
Rao, R. R., Rahardjo, H., and Fredlund, D. G., 1988, "Closed-form heave solutions for
expansive soils," Joumal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 114, No. 5,
May, pp. 573-588.
Ravina, L, 1984, The influence of vegetation on moismre and volume changes. The
influence of vegetation on clays, Thomas Telford Ltd. London, pp. 62-68.
177
Richards, B. G., and Kurzeme, B. E., 1973, "Observations of earth pressures of a
retainmg wad at Gouger Street Mail exchange, Adeliade," Austtalian Geomechanics
iQurnal, pp. 21-27-
Robertson, A. M. G., 1975, "Design criteria for lateral pressures of expansive clays,"
Proceedings, 6di regional conference for Africa of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engmeering, Vol. 2, Durban, pp. 169-173.
Robertson, A. M. G., and Wagener, F. V. M., 1975, "Lateral swelling pressures of active
clay,' Proceedings, 6th regional conference for Africa of Sod Mechanics and
Foundation Engineermg, Vol. 1, Durban, pp. 107-114.
Russam, K., and Coleman, J. D., 1961, "The effect of Climatic Factors on subgrade
moismre conditions," Geotechnique. Vol.2, No.l, pp. 22-28.
Saito, T., and Yanai, K., 1969, "Some swelling characteristics of compacted soils,"
Transactions, Japanese Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 1, Part 2, pp. 397-404.
Salas, J. A. J., 1987, "Basical data for calculation of sttesses in foundations of swelling
clays," Proceedings. 6tii intemational conference of expansive sods. Vol. 2, New
DeUii, India, pp. 615-620.
Sattler, P. J., and Fredlund, D. G., 1991, "Numerical modeUing of vertical ground
movements of expansive soils," Canadian Geotechnical Joumal. Vol. 28, pp. 189-
199.
Satyanarayana, B., 1969, "Behavior of expansive sod treated or cushioned widi sand,"
Proceedings. 2nd Intemational Conference on Expansive Clay Soils, Texas A&M
University, CoUege Station, TX, pp. 308-316.
Schmertmaim, J. H., 1970, "Static cone to compute static settlement over sand,"
Proceedings. Joumal of soil mechanics and foundations, ASCE, Vol. 96, p. 1011.
Schofield, R. K., 1935, "The pF of the water in sod," Transactions. 3rd Intemational
Congress of Soil Science, Vol. 2, pp. 37-48.
Sharabi, M.N., 1975, "Finite element solution of nonlinear coupled flow-sttess problems
based on mixture theory," TICOM Report 75-4, University of Texas, Austin.
Shiming, H., 1984, "An experimental apparams for three dimensional soil expansion,"
Proceedings. 8tii regional conference for Africa of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Harare, pp. 139-142.
Simons, N., 1957, "Settlement smdies on two stmctures in Norway," Proceedings. 4th
intemational conference on soil mechanics and Foundation engineering, London, pp.
431.
Skempton, A. W., 1961, "Horizontal stresses in an over consoUdated Eocene clay,"

Proceedings. 5th Intemational Conference on Soil Mechaiucs and Foundation
Engineering, Vol. 1, Paris, pp. 351-357.
178
Skempton, A. W., and Henkel, D. J., 1957, "Tests on London clay from deep borings at
Paddmgton, Victoria and South Bank," Proceedings. 4tii intemational Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, London.
Snethen, D. R., 1972, "Lateral swelling pressure relationships for two Oklahoma clays,"
Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Oklahoma, Stillwater, OK.
Snethen, D. R., 1975, "A review of engineering experience with expansive soils in
highway subgrades," U. S. Armv Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Soils and
Pavements Laboratory, Vicksburg, MS.
Snethen, D. R., and Haliburton, T. A., 1973, "Lateral swelling pressures in compacted
Oklahoma cohesive soils," Highway Research Board Bulletin No. 429. Washington
D.C, pp. 26-28.
Snethen, D. R.,1977, "An investigation of namral microscale mechanisms that cause

volume change in expansive clays," U. S. Army Engineer Experiment Station. Soil
and pavement Laboratory, Vicksburg, MS.
Snethen, D.R.,1979, "Technical guidelines for expansive soils in highway subgrades,"

FWHA-RD-79-51. Federal Highway Administtation, Washington D.C.
Sowers,G.B., Sowers, G.F., 1970 Introductory soil mechanics and foundations.
MacMdlan Publishing Co. New York.
Sridharan, A., and Jayadeva, M. S., 1982, "Double layer theory and compressibility of
clays," Geotechnique. Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 133-144.
Sridharan, A., and Rao, G. V., 1973, "Mechanisms conttoUing volume change of
saturated clays and the role of the effective sttess concept," Geotechnique. Vol. 23,
No. 3, pp. 359-382
Sridharan, A., Rao, A.S., and SivapuUaiah, P. V., 1986, "Swelling pressure of clays,"
Geotechnical Testing Joumal. VoL 9, No. 1, pp. 24-33
Sridharan, A., Rao, S. M., and Murthy, N. S.,1986, "A rapid mediod to identify clay
type of soils by the free swell technique," Geotechnical Testing Joumal. Vol. 9, No.
4, December, pp. 198-203.
Stepkowska, E. T., 1984, "Problems of particle delimitation of clay swelling,"
Proceedings. 6tii conference of Sod Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Budapest, pp. 265-272.
Sudhindra, C , and Moza, K. K., 1987, "An approach for lateral pressure assessment in
expansive soils," Proceedings. 6th intemational conference of expansive soils. Vol.
1, New DeUii, India, pp. 67-70.
Symons, I. F., Clayton, C. R. I., and Darley, P., 1989, "Earth pressures against af
experimentalretainingwall backfUled with heavy clays," Transport and Road
Research Lab.. Research Report No. 192, Crowthome, Berkshine.
179
Terzaghi, K., and Peck, R. B., 1967, Soil mechanics in engineering practice. John Wiley
and Sons, New York.
Thomtwaite, C. W., 1948, "An approach toward a rational classification of climate," The
Geographical Review. Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 55-94.
Tsytovich, N. A., Ter-Martirosyan, Z. G., and Karapetov, G. Y., 1980, "Stressed-

strained state of expansive soil massifs," Proceedinds. 4th intemational conference on
expansive soils, Denver, CO, Vol. 1, pp. 867-879.
Uppal, H. L., 1969, "The laboratory testing of expansive soils," Proceedings. 2nd
intemational conference of expansive soils. College Station, TX, pp. 121-123.
Uzan, J., Baker, R., and Frydman, S., 1987, "Characterization of constrained swelling of
clays," Transportation Research Record, No. 1137, Transportation Research Board,
Vallabhan, C. V. G., and Sathiyakumar, N., 1987, "A computer program for analysis of
transient suction potential in clays," A report submitted to U.S army corps of engineer
waterways experiment station, Vicksburg, MS.
Warkentin, B. P., Bolt, G. H., and Miller, R. D., 1957, "Swelling pressure of
montmorillonite," Soil Science Proc. Vol. 21, pp. 495-496.
Weaver, C. E., 1989, Clays, muds, and shales. Developments in Sedimentology 44,
Elsevier Science Publishers B. V. New York, pp. 46-57.
White, R. E.,1979, Introduction to the principles and practice of soil science. John Wiley
& Sons, New York.
Wray, W. K., 1984, "The principle of sod suction and its Geotechnical Engineering
applications," Proceedings. 5th intemational conference of expansive soils,
Adelaide, South Austtalia, May, pp. 114-118.
Wray, W. K., 1987a, "A study of lateral pressure on basement walls due to swelling
sods," Department of the Army US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C.
Wray, W. K., 1987b, "Evaluation of static equilibrium soil suction envelopes for
predicting climate-induced soil suction changes occuring beneath covered surfaces,"
Proceedings. 6th intemational conference of expansive soils. New Delhi, India,
December, pp. 235-240.
Wray, W. K., 1989, "Mitigation of damage to sttaictures supported on expansive sods,"
Final Report, NSF Critical Engineering systems Natural and Man-Made Hazard
Mitigation, Washington, D.C, Vol.1, pp. 249-271.
Wray, W. K., 1992, "Comparison of predicted heave to field measurements,"
Proceedings. 7th intemational conference on expansive sods, DaUas, TX, Vol. 1, pp.
331-336.
180
Wroth, C P., and Vaughan, P. R., 1973, "Methods of assessing Ko in situ," hifonnal
discussion, British Geotechnical Society. Nov. 14, 11.
Xin, J. Z., and Ling, Q. X., 1992, "A new method for calculating lateral swelling pressure
in expansive soils," Proceedings. 7th intemational conference on expansive soils,
Dallas, TX, Vol. 1. pp. 233-238.
Zoukage, M., 1985, "Moismre diffusion and generated stresses of expansive soils by
boundary element method," Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Missouri, Rolla, MO.
APPENDIX A
SOIL SUCTION CONVERSION FACTORS
181
182
Soil Suction Conversion Factors (After Lee. 1991)
Ibar 0.987 atm

= 1,019.784 cm of water
= 14.503 psi
^ 100.000 kPa
= 1.013 dyne/cm2
1 cm of water 9.678 X 10-"^ atm

^ 9.806 X 10-"^ bar
= 1.422x10-2 psi
= 9.806 X 10-2 kPa
= 9.806 X 102 dyne/cm2
1 psi 6.805 X 10-2 attn

:= 70.314 cm of water
= 6.895 X 10-2 bar
= 6.985 kPa
— 6.895 X 104 dyne/cm2
IkPa 0.869 X 10-3 atm

^— 10.198 cm of water
= 0.145 psi
=: 0.010 bar
^^ 0.0001 dyne/cm2
Note: To convert N suction units (bar, psi, kPa, or any odier suction units not
listed above) to the pF units:
1. pF = log (N suction units x cm of water/suction unit), or
2. Use Table A. 1 provided on die next page.

A.l. Table of Conversion (After Lee, 1991). 183
cm of water t)ar8 psi kPa dyne/cm atm

10 .^4
7 n 10' 1 10 10^ ^ 10 -q 10 tl
10^ -=.
6 -
.6
10" -^ 10" -z 10^ -d 10^ loN
10* -i
10 - 100 1 10* -i 10^ 100-3

5 -
10^ -d
•-
10 - 10 - lO^d 10 -
4 - 10* -4
100 -
-lOOO — 0.981 —= 14.2 98.1 -980,600-=-0.968-?•

10
2 - 100 - 0.1 - 10 - loN 0.1-

1 -z
1.0 -z 10% 0.01-

1 - 10 - 0.01 7
0.1 -z
1 J 0.001 -» ».1 J lo'-i 1.001 J

0 -• 0.01 -J
APPENDIX B
SOURCE LISTING OF LATEXP2D
184
185
C
c * *
c * *
C * TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY *
C * *
C * DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING *
C * *
C * GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING DIVISION *
C * *
C * *
Q *********************************************************
C
c
c * *
c * *
C * BASEMENT OR RETAINING WALL DESIGN IN EXPANSIVE SOIL *
C * USING FOUR-NODE QUADRILATERAL FINITE ELEMENT *
C * *
C * BY *
C * MUSTAFA AYTEKIN *
C * *
C * DECEMBER 19 92 *
C * *
C
C
Q y e * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
C *
C *
C
C * MAIN VARIABLES IN THE PROGRAM *
C * *
C * *
186
*
C
c * TITLE TITLE OF THE PROBLEM (MAX. 20 CHARACTERS) *
c * NELM THE NUMBER OF QUADRILATERAL ELEMENTS *
c * NODES TOTAL NUMBER OF NODAL POINTS IN THE SYSTEM*
c * NBOU NUMBER OF NODES WHERE DISPLACEMENTS ARE *
c PRESCRIBED *
c * NCON NUMBER OF NODES WHERE CONCENTRATED
c *
FORCES ARE PRESCRIBED
c • NCASE =1, PLANE STRAIN
c * =2, PLANE STRESS
c * NGRPS NUMBER OF GROUPS OF ELEMENTS WHICH HAVE
c • SAME YOUNG"S MODULUS & POISSON"S RATIOS
c * NGRP(I) NUMBER OF ELEMENTS IN EACH GROUP
c * WHICH HAVE SAME YOUNG"S MODULUS &
c * POISSON"S RATIOS
c * NEL(I) ELMENTS NUMBERS FOR EACH GROUP OF ELEMENTS*
c * ELAS(I) YOUNG"S MODULUS OF ELEMENT
c * PR(I) POISSON"S RATIO OF ELEMENT *
c * T THICKN. OF ELEMENT (T=l FOR PLAIN STRAIN)

c * GAMA(I) DENSITY OF EACH ELEMENT
c • SCI SUCTION COMPRESSIBILITY INDEX (SCI)
c * NOD(I,J) NODAL NUMBERS FOR EACH ELEMENT
c * NF (I) NODES CORRESPONDING TO PRESCRIBED
c * DISPLACEMENT
c * NBO(I, J) =1, DISPLACEMENT IS PRESCRIBED
c * =0, FREE
c * BU(I, J) VALUE OF PRESCRIBED DISPLACEMENTS
*
c * F(I) SYSTEM FORCE VECTOR
*
c * F1(I) ELEMENT FORCE VECTOR (FORCES DUE TO
c * SWELLING AND BODY FORCES)
c • SUCI(I) INITIAL SOIL SUCTION AT NODAL POINTS
FINAL SOIL SUCTION AT NODAL POINTS *
c * SUCF(I)
c * DSUC(I) THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FINAL AND INITIAL *
c * SUCTION VALUES
c * EV(I) VALUME STRAINS AT NODES DUE TO SWELLING
187
C * KNOT(I) : COEFFICIENT OF EARTH PRESSURE AT REST *
C * KACT(I) : COEFFICIENT OF ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE *
C * KPAS(I) : COEFFICIENT OF PASSIVE EARTH PRESSURE *
C * *
C ********•****•****•*•*************••**••*•*•****••*****•*
c
c
c
PROGRAM LATEXP2D
c
COMMON/SUCTION/
1 DSUC(500) ,SUCF(500),SUCI(500) , EV(500) , DV,Fl(8)
COMMON/FORCE/
1 SHP(4),GAMA(500),DETJAC
COMMON/MESH/
1 NUM,MBAND,NELM,NBOU,NN,NF(500) ,NBO(500,2) ,BU(500,2)
2 ,SM(8,8) ,T,NOD(500,4) ,X(500) ,Y(500) ,A(800,500),F(1000)
3 ,D(3,3),XL(4),YL(4) ,B(3,9)
COMMON/CONS/COUNT
COMMON/DMAT/
1 NAMEl (3,2) ,LM(3) ,PR(500) , ELAS (500) ,BTC(8) ,AR(500)
2 ,NGRP (500) ,NEL(500) , EL (500) ,PRT(500)
3 , XI (500) ,Y1(500) ,AA(4,4) ,B9(8) ,U(8) ,EX(3) ,ST(3)
4 ,SA(500) ,SV(500) ,SP(500) ,SR(500) ,SSWELL(500) ,
5 ,EPX(500), EPY(500)
6 ,HI (500) ,HF(500) ,DUMY(500,3) , SCI (500)
7 ,GAM(500) ,SIC(500) ,POIS(500)
REAL KNOT(500),KACT(500),KPAS(500)
188
CHARACTER*20 INPUT,OUTPUT,NAME2
CHARACTER CHECK,TITLE*50
DATA NAMEl,NAME2
l/'PLAN','E-ST','RAIN','PLAN','E-ST',
2'RESS','QUADRILATERAL'/
CALL CLN
C ********
C
50 WRITE(*,*)'TYPE 1, IF THERE IS SWELLING'
WRITE(* *)'TYPE 0, IF THERE IS NO SWELLING'
WRITE(* * ) ' I
READ(*,*) SWELL
WRITE(* *)'YOU HAVE TWO OPTIONS TO GIVE DATA'
WRITE(* * ) ' '
WRITE(* *)'1-Y0U HAVE A DATA FILE FOR THE PROGRAM'
WRITE(* *)'2-Y0U WILL TYPE DATA FROM THE SCREEN'
WRITE (* * ) ' '
WRITE (* *)'WHICH ONE DO YOU PREFER? (1 OR 2 ) '
READ(*,*) NOPT
CALL CLN
IF(NOPT.EQ.l) THEN
WRITE(*,*)' IS DATA FILE READY ? (Y/N)'
READ(*,11) CHECK
CALL CLN
IF(CHECK.EQ.'N' .OR. CHECK.EQ.'n') STOP' Please prepare
*datA file.'
WRITE(*,*)' PROVIDE A FILE FOR INPUT AND A FILE FOR
*OUTPUT'
WRITE(*,*)' (EACH FILENAME CAN BE MAXIMUM 20
*CHARACTERS)'
WRITE(*,*)' After each name, hit <RETURN>.'
READ(*,51)INPUT,OUTPUT
189
OPEN (UNIT=5, FILE=INPUT, STATUS=' OLD' )
OPEN (UNIT=6,FILE=0UTPUT,STATUS='NEW')
ELSE IF(NOPT.EQ.2)THEN
WRITE(*,*)'PROVIDE A FILE FOR OUTPUT [MAX. 20
*CHARACTERS] '
READ(*,51) OUTPUT
OPEN(UNIT=6,FILE=0UTPUT,STATUS='NEW')
ELSE
CALL CLN
WRITE(*,170) NOPT
170 FORMAT(' OPTION CANNOT BE',13,///)
GO TO 50
END IF
C
C
C NCASE = 1 : PLANE STRAIN.
C 2 : PLANE STRESS.
C
C
PI= 3.1415926
COUNT = 0 . 0
100 CONTINUE
C
IF(NOPT.EQ.1) THEN
READ(5,52,END=2000) TITLE
READ(5,*) NELM,NODES,NBOU,NCON,NCASE,T
READ(5,*) (ELAS(K), K=1,NELM)
105 WRITE(*,*)'TITLE OF THE PROBLEM (MAXIMUM 50
* CHARACTERS):?'
READ(*,52) TITLE
WRITE(*,*)'NUMBER OF FINITE ELEMENTS :?'
READ(*,*) NELM
WRITE(*,*)'NUMBER OF NODES :?'
READ(*,*) NODES
190
WRITE (*,*) 'NUMBER OF BOUNDARIES AT WHICH DISP.
*PRESCRIBED:?'
READ(*,*) NBOU
WRITE(*,*)'NUMBER OF NODES AT WHICH THERE ARE CONC.
*LOADS:?'
READ(*,*) NCON
33 WRITE(*,*)'TYPE OF THE PROBLEM 1:PLANE STRAIN'
WRITE(*,*)' 2:PLANE STRESS'
READ (*,*) NCASE
IF(NCASE.EQ.1.0R.NCASE.EQ.2)G0 TO 37
WRITE(*,*)' YOU CANNOT TYPE',NCASE
WRITE(*,*)' PLEASE SELECT ONE OF THE FOLLOWING NUMBERS'
WRITE(*,*)' '
GO TO 33
37 CONTINUE
WRITE(*,*)'THICKNESS OF THE ELEMENTS (1.0 FOR PLANE
* STRAIN):?'
READ(*,*) T
13 WRITE(*,*)'IS EVERYTHING CORRECT ? (Y/N)'
READ(*,11) CHECK
CALL CLN
11 FORMAT(A4)
IF(CHECK.EQ.'N')THEN
WRITE(*,*)'PLEASE RE-TYPE FOLLOWING VALUES'
WRITE(*,*)' '
GO TO 105
END IF
IF(CHECK.EQ.'N'.OR.CHECK.EQ.'Y')GO TO 43
WRITE(*,*)'YOU MUST TYPE "Y" OR "N" NOTHING ELSE'
WRITE(*,*)' '
GO TO 13
43 CONTINUE
END IF
191
IF(COUNT.EQ.l.) WRITE(6,910)
1 TITLE,NELM,NODES,NBOU,NCON,T
2 ,(NAMEl(K,NCASE),K=1,3),NAME2
C
C
C READ&PRINT THE YOUNG"S MODULUS,POISSON"S RATIO & DENSITY
C OF EACH ELEMENT
Q *********************************************************
C
IF(COUNT.EQ.1.0) WRITE(6,490)
IF(NOPT.EQ=1) READ(5,*) NGRPS
107 CONTINUE
C
IF(NOPT.EQ.2) THEN
WRITE(*,*)'NUMBER OF ELEMENT GROUPS THAT HAVE SAME
* PROPERTIES:?'
READ(*,*) NGRPS
END IF
C
IF(NGRPS.EQ.l) THEN
IF(NOPT.EQ.l) READ(5,*) PRA,GMA, SCIN
C
IF(NOPT.EQ.2) THEN
WRITE(*,*)'TYPE: YOUNG"S MODULUS, POISSON"S RATIO AND
* DENSITY'
WRITE (*,*)' (psf)
*(pcf) '
READ (* , * ) ELA, PRA, GMA
WRITE(*,*)'IS EVERYTHING CORRECT (Y/N)'
READ(*,11) CHECK
CALL CLN
IF(CHECK.EQ.'N') GO TO 107
END IF
192
DO 200 1=1,NELM
PR(I)=PRA
GAMA(I)=GMA
SCI (I) = SCIN
KNOT(I)=PR(I) / (l-PR(I) )
PHI = ASIN(0.95-KNOT(I))
KACT(I) = (TAN(PI/4.-PHl/2.) ) **2
KPAS (I) = (TAN(PI/4.+PHl/2.) ) **2
200 CONTINUE
ELSE IF(NGRPS-GT.l) THEN
DO 300 1=1,NGRPS
IF(NOPT.EQ.l) THEN
READ(5,*)
1 NGRP (I) ,PRT(I) ,GAM(I) ,sic(i) , (NEL(J) , J=1,NGRP (I) )
ELSE IF(NOPT.EQ.2) THEN
2 05 WRITE(*,*)'NUMBER OF ELEMENTS IN GROUP',I
READ(*,*) NGRP(I)
WRITE(*,*)'YOUNG"S MODULUS OF GROUP (psf)',I
READ(*,*)EL(I)
WRITE(*,*)'POISSON"S RATIO OF GROUP',I
READ(*,*) PRT(I)
WRITE(*,*)'UNIT WEIGHT OF GROUP (pcf)',I
READ(*,*)GAM(I)
WRITE(*,*)'Suction compressibility index of group',I
READ(*,*) SIC(I)
WRITE(*,*)'NUMBERS OF ELEMENTS IN GROUP',I
DO 288 L=1,NGRP(I)
WRITE(*,*)'ELEMENT NUMBER :?'
288 READ(*,*)NEL(L)
WRITE(*,*)'IS EVERYTHING CORRECT ? (Y/N)'
READ(*,11) CHECK
CALL CLN
END IF
193
DO 305 J=1,NGRP(I)
JJ=NEL(J)
GAMA(JJ)= GAM (I)
PR(JJ) = PRT(I)
SCI(JJ) = SIC (I)
KNOT(JJ)= PR(JJ)/(1-PR(JJ) )
PHI = ASIN(0.95-KNOT(JJ))
KACT(JJ)=(TAN(PI/4.-PHl/2.))**2
KPAS(JJ)=(TAN(PI/4.+PHI/2.))**2
305 CONTINUE
300 CONTINUE
END IF
C
IF (COUNT.EQ.l.)THEN
DO 5 J=1,NELM
5 WRITE (6,500) J,ELAS(J),PR(J),GAMA(J),SCI(J)
END IF
C
C
C
C READ AND PRINT THE COORDINATIONS OF THE NODAL POINTS
C & SUCTION VALUES AT NODES
Q *****************************************************
C
c
IF(COUNT.EQ.l.) WRITE(6,930)
DO 110 I = 1, NODES
IF (NOPT.EQ.l) READ(5,*) J,X(J) ,Y(J) , SUCI (J) ,SUCF(J)
C
IF(NOPT.EQ.2) THEN
IF(I.GT.l) GO TO 108
WRITE(*,*)'TYPE THE COORDINATIONS OF THE NODAL POINTS'
WRITE(*,*)' AND SUCTION VALUES AT NODES'
108 WRITE (*,*)'NODE NUMBER, X-COOR. , Y-COOR. , INT-SUC. , FIN-SUC .
* • 9'
194
^ ^ T E (*,*)' (ft) (ft) (pF) (pF)'
READ(*,*) J,X(J),Y(J)
WRITE(*,*)'IS EVERYTHING CORRECT (Y/N):?'
READ(*,11) CHECK
END IF
C
IF(COUNT.EQ.1.0) WRITE(6, 950)
*J,X(J) ,Y(J) , SUCI (J) ,SUCF(J)
110 CONTINUE
C
C
C
C READ AND PRINT THE NODE NUMBERS OF EACH ELEMENT
Q ***********************************************
C
C
IF(COUNT.EQ.l.) WRITE(6, 960)
DO 12 0 I = 1, NELM
IF(NOPT.EQ.l)READ(5,*)
*J,NOD (J, 1) ,N0D(J,2) ,N0D(J,3) , NOD (J, 4)
C
IF(NOPT.EQ.2) THEN
IF(I.GT.l) GO TO 122
121 WRITE(*,*)'TYPE NODE NUMBERS OF EACH ELEMENT'
122 WRITE(*,*)'ELEMENT NUMBER,NODE1,NODE2,NODE3,NODE4 : ?'
READ (*,*)J,NOD(J,1) ,NOD(J,2) ,NOD(J,3) ,NOD(J,4)
WRITE(*,*)'IS EVERTING CORRECT (Y/N) ?'
READ(*,11) CHECK
IF (CHECK.EQ.'N') GO TO 121
END IF
C
IF(COUNT.EQ.1.)WRITE(6,970) J,NOD(J, 1) ,N0D(J,2) ,N0D(J,3) ,
*NOD(J,4)
120 CONTINUE
195
C
C
C
C
C READ AND PRINT THE BOUNDARY NODAL POINTS AND THEIR
C PRESCRIBED DEFLECTIONS
c **************************************************
C
C
IF (COUNT.EQ.l.)WRITE (6,980)
DO 130 I = 1, NBOU
C
IF(NOPT.EQ.l) THEN
READ (5,*) NF(I) ,NB0(I,1) ,NB0(I,2) , BU (1, 1) , BU (1, 2)
WRITE(*,*)'BOUND. NODES AND THEIR PRESCRIBED
*DEFLECTIONS'
127 WRITE(*,*)'NODE NUM, X-COND., Y-COND., X-DEF., Y-DEF.:?'
WRITE(*,*)'(integer),(1 or 0),(1 or 0) (ft) (ft)'
READ(*,*) NF(I),NBO(1,1),NBO(I,2),BU(I,1),BU(I,2)
WRITE(*,*)'IS EVERYTHING CORRECT (Y/N) ?'
READ(*,11)CHECK
END IF
C
IF(COUNT.EQ.1.0)WRITE(6,10 0 0)NF(I)
*, NBO (1,1) ,NB0(I,2) ,BU(I,1) ,BU(I,2)
130 CONTINUE
C
C
C
NUM = 2 * NODES
C
C
C
19c
C READ&PRINT THE BOUNDARY POINTS ON WHICH THERE ARE EXTERNAL
C LOADS ALSO PRINT VALUES OF EXTERNAL LOADS IN VERTICAL &
C LATERAL DIRECTIONS
Q *********************************************************
C
C
IF(NCON.EQ.O) GO TO 160
IF (COUNT.EQ.l.) WRITE (6,1010)
DO 150 1 = 1 , NCON
IF(NOPT.EQ.l) READ(5,*) K,F(2*K-1) ,F (2*K)
IF(NOPT.EQ.2)THEN
WRITE(*,*)'BOUNDARY POINT, LATERAL LOAD VERTICAL LOAD'
WRITE(*,*)' (POUNDS) (POUNDS)'
153 READ(*,*) K,F (2*K-1) ,F (2*K)
WRITE(*,*)'IS EVERYTHING CORRECT (Y/N) ?'
READ(*,11) CHECK
IF(CHECK.EQ.'N')THEN
WRITE(*,*)'RETYPE LAST LINE'
GO TO 153
END IF
END IF
C
DUMY(1,1) =K
DUMY(I,2)=F(2*K-1)
DUMY(I,3)=F(2*K)
IF(COUNT.EQ.1.0)WRITE(6,1020) K,F(2*K-1) ,F(2*K)
150 CONTINUE
C
C
C END OF THE INPUT
r ****************************
C
C
160 CONTINUE
DO 165 1=1,NUM
197
F(I)=0.0
165 CONTINUE
IF(NCON.NE.O) THEN
DO 168 1=1,NCON
K=DUMY(1,1)
F(2*K-1)=DUMY(I,2)
F(2*K)=DUMY(I,3)
168 CONTINUE
END IF
IF (COUNT.EQ.0.0) THEN
DO 302 K=l,NODES
HI (K)=SUCI (K)
HF(K)=SUCF(K)
SUCI(K)=0.0
SUCF(K)=0.0
302 CONTINUE
ELSE IF(COUNT.EQ.1.0.AND.SWELL.EQ.l.0) THEN
DO 303 K=l,NODES
SUCI (K)=HI (K)
SUCF (K) =HF (K)
303 CONTINUE
END IF
IF(SWELL.EQ.l.) WRITE(*,151)
IF(SWELL.EQ.O.) WRITE(*, 154)
151 FORMAT(15(/) ' ... SWELLING ... SOIL...**...SWELLING
* SOIL. . . ' ,15(/) )
154 FORMAT(15(/)'
*. . .NO. . .SWELLING- ..**.. .NO. . .SWELLING. . . ' ,15(/) )
C
C
C
C DETERMINE HALF BAND WIDTH
Q *************************
C
c
198
MBAND = 0
DO 190 1 = 1 , NELM
II = MAXO(NOD(I,1) ,N0D(I,2) ,N0D(I,3) ,N0D(I,4))
JJ = MINO(NOD(I,1) ,N0D(I,2) ,N0D(I,3) ,N0D(I,4) )
MBANDS = II - JJ
IF ((MBANDS-MBAND) .GT. 0) MBAND = MBANDS
190 CONTINUE
MBAND = (MBAND + 1) * 2
C
C
C INITIALIZATION
Q **************
C
DO 280 I = 1, NUM
DO 280 J = 1, MBAND
A(I,J) = 0.0
280 CONTINUE
C
C
C
Q *****************************************************
C * ASSEMBLY THE GLOBAL FORCE VECTOR *
C * (BODY FORCES + EXTERNAL LOADS + SWELLING FORCES) *
C * AND *
C * ASSEMBLY THE GLOBAL STIFFNESS MATRIX *
Q *****************************************************
c
c
DO 270 NN= 1, NELM
POIS(NN) = PR(NN)
C
C
C CALCULATION OF THE D-MATRIX FOR EACH ELEMENT
Q ********************************************
c
199
CALL DMATRIX (NCASE)
C ********************
C
C CALCULATE SWELLING STRAINS FOR EACH ELEMENT
C *******************************************
C
C
DSUC(NN)=0.0
EV(NN)=0.0
C
IF(SWELL.EQ.1.)THEN
DO 8 N=l,4
MM=NOD(NN,N)
DSUC(NN)=DSUC(NN)+(SUCI(MM)-SUCF(MM))
8 CONTINUE
DSUC(NN)=DSUC(NN)/4.
EV(NN)=SCI(NN)*DSUC(NN)
END IF
C
CALL QUAD4
Q **********
C
M1=N0D(NN,1)
M2=N0D(NN,2)
M3=N0D(NN,3)
M4=N0D(NN,4)
C
C
C ADD BODY& SWELLING FORCES TO SYSTEM LOAD VECTOR
Q ************************************************
C
F(2*M1)=F(2*M1)+F1(2)
F(2*M2)=F(2*M2)+F1(4)
F(2*M3)=F(2*M3)+F1(6)
F(2*M4)=F(2*M4)+F1(8)
200
F(2*M1-1)=F(2*M1-1)+F1(1)
F(2*M2-1)=F(2*M2-1)+F1(3)
F(2*M3-1)=F(2*M3-1)+F1(5)
F(2*M4-1)=F(2*M4-1)+F1(7)
DO 220 1 = 1 , 4
LM(I)= 2 * (NOD(NN,I) - 1 )
220 CONTINUE
C
DO 260 1 = 1 , 4
DO 260 K = 1 , 2
II = LM(I) + K
KK = 2 * (I-l) -I- K
DO 230 J = 1 , 4
DO 230 L = 1, 2
JJ = LM(J) + L - II + 1
LL = 2 * (J-1) + L
IF (JJ .GT. 0) THEN

A(II,JJ) = A(II,JJ) + SM(KK,LL)
END IF
230 CONTINUE
2 60 CONTINUE
27 0 CONTINUE
C
CALL BOUN
Q *********
C
CALL SOLVE
Q **********
C
DO 275 NN = 1 , NELM
PR(NN) = POIS(NN)
201
C
C ********************************************
C
CALL DMATRIX (NCASE)
C ********************
C
DO 450 N=l,4
LN=NOD(NN,N)
XL(N)=X(LN)
YL(N)=Y(LN)
450 CONTINUE
PXI=0.
PET=0.
C
CALL SHAPE
Q **********
C
DO 510 N=l,4
II=NOD(NN,N)
IJ=2*N-1
U(IJ) =F (2*11-1)
U(IJ+1)=F (2*11)
510 CONTINUE
C
C
C DETERMINE STRAINS FOR EACH ELEMENT DUE TO EXTERNAL
C LOADING
Q ***************************************************
C
DO 2 0 N=l,3
EX(N)=0.
DO 2 0 IR=1,8
EX (N) =EX (N) +B (N, IR) *U (IR)
20 CONTINUE
202
C
C ADD SWELLING STRAINS TO THE STRAINS DUE TO EXTERNAL
C LOADING TO EACH ELEMENT
C ****************************^^yf^^^^yr^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
C
DO 25 N=l,2
EX(N)=EX(N)-EV(NN)/2.
25
CONTINUE
C
IF(COUNT.EQ.1.0) THEN
EPX(NN)=EX(1)
EPY(NN)=EX(2)
END IF
C
C DETERMINE STRESSES FOR EACH ELEMENT
C
DO 30 N=l,3
ST(N)=0.
DO 30 IR=1,3
ST(N) =ST(N)+D(N,IR)*EX(IR)
30 CONTINUE
C
IF(COUNT.EQ.O.0) THEN
SA(NN)=ST(2) *KACT(NN)
SR(NN)=ST(2)*KNOT(NN)
SP (NN) =ST (2) *KPAS (NN)
SV(NN)=ST (2)
SSWELL(NN)=SR(NN)
ELSE IF(COUNT.EQ=1.0.AND.SWELL.EQ.l.) THEN
SV(NN)=ST (2)
SSWELL(NN)=ST(1)
END IF
C
C PRINT STRAINS AND STRESSES AT THE CENTROID OF EACH
203
^ ELEMENT
C ***************************************************
C
275 CONTINUE
IF(COUNT.EQ.0.0)THEN
C0UNT=1.0
REWIND 5
GO TO 100
END IF
IF(COUNT.EQ.1.0)THEN
WRITE(6,1025)
WRITE(6,899)
END IF
899 FORMAT(/2X,' ELEMENT NO. EPS.X EPS.Y ',
I'SIG-Y SIG.ACT. SIG.RST. ','SIG-PAS '
2, 'SIG.SWELL',' MOD.OF ELAS.',
3 /43X,'(PSF) (PSF) (PSF)
4' (PSF) (PSF) (PSF)',/)
DO 901 NN=1,NELM
IF(COUNT.EQ.1.0)WRITE(6,90 9)NN,EPX(NN),EPY(NN),
*SV(NN),SA(NN),SR(NN),SP(NN),SSWELL(NN),ELAS(NN)
901 CONTINUE
909 F0RMAT(5X,I5,3X,8E13.4)
IF(NOPT.EQ.l) GO TO 100
IF(NOPT.EQ.2) THEN
WRITE(*,*)' THIS PROBLEM HAS BEEN FINISHED'
WRITE(*,*)' DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER PROBLEM (Y/N) ?'
READ(*,11) CHECK
IF(CHECK.EQ='Y') GO TO 50
END IF
2000 STOP
C
C F O R M A T S
Q *******************
C
204
51 FORMAT(A20)
52 FORMAT (A50)
4 90 FORMAT(
1//' -MATERIAL PROPERTIES OF EACH ELEMENT'//,
2 ' ELEMENT YOUNG"S POISSON"S UNIT
* sue.COMP.'/,
3 ' NUMBER MODULUS RATIO WEIGHT
* INDEX'/
4 ' — (psf) — (pcf)'/)
500 FORMAT(I7,3X,4F13.3)
900 FORMAT (6I5,4F15.3)
905 FORMAT(5X,15,IX,6(3X,Ell.4),3F10.2)
910 FORMAT
1 ('1',/7X,A50/
2 /' NUMBER OF ELEMENTS
* ' ,15
3 /' NUMBER OF NODES
* ' ,15
4 /' NUMBER OF NODAL DISPLACEMENT BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
* ' ,15
5 /' NUMBER OF NODAL FORCE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
* ' ,15
6 /' ELEMENT THICKNESS
* (ft) ' ,F13.3
8 /' PROBLEM TYPE
* ' , 3A4
9 /' ELEMENT TYPE
* ' ,A20)
930 FORMAT(
1/' -COORDINATES OF NODAL POINTS & SUCTION VALUES AT
* NODES'/
2/' NODE X- Y- INITIAL
* FINAL'
3/' NUMBER COORDINATES COORDINATES SUCTION
* SUCTION'
205
4/' — (ft) (ft) (pF)
* (pF)'/)
940 F0RMAT(I5, 2F10.2)
950 FORMAT( 6X,15,5X,F8.2,6X,F8.2, 3(3X, F8 . 2) )
960 FORMAT(
1/' -NODAL NUMBERS OF EACH ELEMENT'/
2 /' ELEMENT FIRST SECOND THIRD
*FORTH'
3 /' NUMBER NODE NODE NODE
* NODE'/)
970 FORMAT(2X,5(4X, 15) )
980 FORMAT(
1/' -BOUNDARY POINTS AND BOUNDARY CONDITIONS'/
2 /' BOUNDARY BOUNDARY BOUNDARY BOUNDARY
* BOUNDARY '
3 /' POINT COND. (X) COND. (Y) DISP. (X)
* DISP. (Y) '
4 /' ~ — ~ (ft)
* (ft)'/)
990 FORMAT (315, 5E10.3)
1000 FORMAT(4X,15,2(7X,15),2(7X,F6.1))
1010 FORMAT(
1/' -BOUNDARY POINTS AND BOUNDARY FORCES'/
2 /' BOUNDARY BOUNDARY BOUNDARY'
3 /' POINT FORCE(X) FORCE(Y) '
4 /' — (pounds) (pounds)'/)
1020 FORMAT( 6X,I5, 7X, F8.1, 5X,F8.1)
1025 FORMAT(
1//' -STRAINS AND STRESSES AT THE CENTROID OF EACH
* ELEMENT'/)
END
C
C
C
SUBROUTINE CLN
206
C **************
c
DO 10 1=1,25
10 WRITE (*,*) ' '
RETURN
END
C
C
C
SUBROUTINE DMATRIX (NCASE)
C **************************
C
C
COMMON/MESH/
1 NUM,MBAND,NELM,NBOU,NN,NF(500) ,NBO(500,2) ,BU(500, 2)
2 ,SM(8,8) ,T,NOD(500,4) ,X(500) ,Y(500) , A(800, 500) , F (1000)
3 ,D(3,3) ,XL(4),YL(4),B(3,9)
C
C
COMMON/DMAT/
1
NAMEl (3,2) ,LM(3) ,PR(500) , ELAS (500) ,BTC(8) ,AR(500)
2 ,NGRP(500),NEL(500),EL(500),PRT(500)
3 ,X1 (500) ,Y1 (500) ,AA(4,4) ,B9 (8) ,U(8) ,EX(3) ,ST(3)
4 ,SA(500) ,SV(500) ,SP (500) ,SR(500) , SSWELL (500) ,
5 ,EPX(500), EPY(500)
6 ,HI(500),HF(500),DUMY(500,3),SCI(500)
7 ,GAM(500) ,SIC(500) ,POIS (500)
C
C
C
Q ********************************************
C
DO 10 IM=1,3
207
DO 10 IN=1,3
10 D(IM,IN)=0.0
C
IF (NCASE.EQ.l) THEN
C = PR(NN) / (l.-PR(NN))
BB = (l.-2.*PR(NN) ) / (2.* (l.-PR(NN) ) )
EBARS=ELAS(NN) * (l.-PR(NN) ) / (1 .+PR (NN) ) / (1 . -2.*PR(NN))
ELSE IF(NCASE.EQ.2) THEN
C = PR(NN)
BB = 0.5 * (l.-PR(NN))
EBARS = ELAS(NN) / (1. - PR(NN)**2 )
ELSE
WRITE(*,15 9) NCASE
STOP 'Please run the program again'
END IF
D (1,1)=EBARS
D (1,2)=C*EBARS
D(2, 1)=C*EBARS
D (2,2) =EBARS
D (3,3)=BB*EBARS
159 FORMAT(//' W A R N I N G : NCASE MUST BE 1 OR 2
NOT',13,////)
RETURN
END
C
C
SUBROUTINE QUAD4
****************
COMMON/SUCTION/
1 DSUC(500) ,SUCF(500) , SUCI (500) ,EV(500) ,DV,F1 (8)
COMMON/FORCE/
208
COMMON/MESH/
1 NUM,MBAND,NELM,NBOU,NN,NF(500),NBO(500,2),BU(500,2)
2 ,SM(8, 8) ,T,NOD(500,4) , X (500) , Y (500) , A(800, 500) , F (100
3 ,D(3,3) ,XL(4) ,YL(4) ,B(3,9)
c
c
DIMENSION BTD(8,3),PLACE(2)
PLACE(1)=-.57735026918962 6
PLACE(2)= -PLACE(1)
WGT=1.
DO 5 N=l,4
LN=NOD(NN,N)
XL(N)=X(LN)
YL(N)=Y(LN)
5 CONTINUE
DO 10 K=l,8
Fl (K)=0.0
DO 10 L=l,8
10 SM(K,L)=0.0
DO 90 NA=1,2
PXI=PLACE (NA)
DO 80 NB=1,2
PET=PLACE(NB)
CALL SHAPE
**********
c
c
DV=WGT*T*DETJAC
C
C CALCULATION OF BTD
c
DO 30 J=l,4
209
L=2*J
K=L-1
DO 20 N=l,3
BTD(K,N)=B(1,K)*D(1,N)+B(3,K)*D(3,N)
20 BTD(L,N)=B(2,L)*D(2,N)+B(3,L)*D(3,N)
C
C
C ADD FORCES FROM BODY FORCE TO NODAL LOAD VECTOR
C ***********************************************
C
Fl(L)=F1(L)-SHP(J)*GAMA(NN)*DV
30 CONTINUE
C
DO 70 NR0W=1,8
DO 40 J=l,3
C
C
C ADD FORCES FROM SWELLING STRAINS TO NODAL LOAD VECTOR
Q *****************************************************
c
4 0 Fl(NROW)=F1(NROW)+BTD(NROW,J)*B(J, 9) *DV
DO 60 NCOL=NROW,8
DUM=0.0
DO 50 J=l,3
50 DUM=DUM+BTD(NROW,J)*B(J,NCOL)
60 SM(NROW,NCOL)=SM(NROW,NCOL)+DUM*DV
7 0 CONTINUE
80 CONTINUE
90 CONTINUE
C
C
C FILL IN LOWER TRIANGLE OF THE ELEMENT STIFFNESS MATRIX
C BY SYMMETRY
Q *******************************************************
C
210
DO 100 K=l,7
DO 100 L=K,8
100 SM(L,K)=SM(K,L)
RETURN
END
C
C
SUBROUTINE SHAPE
C ****************
c
COMMON/SUCTION/
COMMON/FORCE/
COMMON/MESH/
2 ,SM(8,8) ,T,NOD(500,4) ,X(500) , Y (500) , A (800 , 500) , F (10
3 ,D(3,3) ,XL(4) ,YL(4) ,B(3,9)
C
C
DOUBLE PRECISION NXI(4),NET(4),JAC(2,2)
C
REAL XII(4),ETI(5)
C
EQUIVALENCE (XII(1),ETI(2))
C
DATA ETI /-I.,-1.,+1.,+1.,-1./
C
C
C SHAPE FUNCTIONS AND DERIVATIVES
Q **************************^*^^^
C
211
DO 10 L=l,4
DUM1=(1.+XII(L)*PXI)/4.
DUM2=(1.+ETI(L)*PET)/4.
SHP(L)=4.*DUM1*DUM2
NXI(L)=XII(L)*DUM2
10 NET(L)=ETI(L)*DUM1
C
C
C CLEAR ARRAYS JAC & B
C ********************
C
DO 20 L=l,2
DO 2 0 M=l,2
20 JAC(L,M)=0.
DO 25 L=l,3
DO 25 M=l,9
25 B(L,M)=0.
C
C
C FIND THE JACOBIAN, ITS DETERMINANT & ITS INVERS
Q ***********************************************
C
DO 30 L=l,4
JAC(1,1)=JAC(1,1)+NXI (L) *XL(L)
JAC(1,2)=JAC(1,2)+NXI (L) *YL (L)
JAC(2,1)=JAC(2,1)+NET(L)*XL(L)
30 JAC(2,2)=JAC(2,2)+NET(L) *YL(L)
DETJAC=JAC(2,2)*JAC(1,1)-JAC(2,1)*JAC(1,2)
DUM1=JAC(1,1)/DETJAC
JAC(1,1)=JAC(2,2)/DETJAC
JAC(1,2)=-JAC(1,2)/DETJAC
JAC(2,1)=-JAC(2,1)/DETJAC
JAC(2,2)=DUM1
212
C
C
C ESTABLISMENT OF B-MATRIX
C ************************
C
DO 4 0 J=l,4
L=2*J
K=L-1
B(1,K)=JAC(1,1) *NXI (J)+JAC(1,2) *NET (J)
B(2,L)=JAC(2,1) *NXI (J)+JAC(2,2) *NET (J)
B(3,K)=B(2,L)
40 B(3,L)=B(1,K)
C
C
C INITIAL STRAINS DUE TO SWELLING OF SOIL
Q ***************************************
C
B(l, 9) =EV(NN) /2.
B(2, 9)=EV(NN) /2.
B(3, 9)=0.0
RETURN
END
C
C
C
SUBROUTINE BOUN
Q ***************
C
COMMON/SUCTION/
1 DSUC(500),SUCF(500),SUCI(500),EV(500),DV,F1(8)
COMMON/FORCE/
COMMON/MESH/
213
2 ,SM(8, 8) ,T,NOD(500,4) ,X(500),Y(500),A(800,500)
3 ,F(1000),D(3,3),XL(4),YL(4),B(3,9)
C
C
C MODIFY THE MATRIX FOR BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
Q *****************************************
C
DO 52 0 I = 1, NBOU
N = 2 * (NF(I) -1) + 1
DO 520 L = 1, 2
IF ( NBO(I,L)) 507, 517, 507
507 FF = BU(I,L)
508 DO 515 M = 2,MBAND
K = N-M+1
IF (K) 510, 510, 509
509 F(K) = F(K) - A(K,M) * FF
A(K,M) = 0.0
510 K = N+M-1
IF ( NUM - K) 515, 512, 512
512 F(K) = F(K) - A(N,M) * FF
A(N,M) = 0.0
515 CONTINUE
A(N,1) = 1.0
F(N) = FF
517 N = N+1
520 CONTINUE
RETURN
END
C
C
SUBROUTINE SOLVE
P ****************
C
COMMON/SUCTION/
214

C
COMMON/FORCE/
C
COMMON/MESH/
2 ,SM(8, 8) ,T,NOD(500,4) , X (500) , Y (500) , A (800, 500) , F (100
3 ,D(3,3),XL(4),YL(4),B(3,9)
C
COMMON/CONS/COUNT
C
C
C SOLVE BANDED MATRIX
Q *******************
C
DO 650 N = 1, NUM
IF (A(N,1)) 610, 650, 610
610 F(N) = F(N) / A(N,1)
DO 64 0 L =2, MBAND
IF (A(N,L)) 620, 640, 620
620 AA = A(N,L) / A(N,1)
I = N+L-1
J = 0
DO 630 K = L,MBAND
J = J+1
630 A(I,J) = A(I,J) - AA * A(N,K)
F(I) = F(I) - A(N,L) * F(N)
A(N,L) = AA
64 0 CONTINUE
650 CONTINUE
C
C
C BACKSUBSTITUTION
P ****************
215
DO 601 M =2, NUM

N = NUM + 1 - M
606 DO 608 K = 2, MBAND
L = N + K - 1
IF ( L- NUM ) 607, 607, 601
607 F(N) = F(N) - A(N,K) * F (L)
608 CONTINUE
601 CONTINUE
IF(COUNT.EQ.1.)WRITE (6,900)
DO 615 1 = 1 , NUM , 2
J = (I+l) / 2
IF(COUNT.EQ.l.)WRITE (6,910) J , F(I) , F(I+1)
615 CONTINUE
RETURN
C
C F O R M A T S
Q *************
C
900 FORMAT(
1/'-DISPLACEMENTS AT EACH NODAL POINT'/
2 /' NODE X- Y- '
3 /' NUMBER DIRECTION DIRECTION'
4 /' ~ (ft) (ft)'/)
910 F0RMAT(7X,I3,7X,E9.3,5X,E9.3)
END
APPENDIX C
A TYPICAL INPUT FILE FOR LATEXP2D
216
217
KATTI'S EXAMPLE ** CNS only ** DELTA pF=(2.0)

30 42 18 0 1 4.
165000. 165000. 165000. 165000. 165000.
135000. 135000. 135000. 135000. 135000.
105000. 105000. 105000. 105000. 105000.
75000. 75000. 75000. 75000. 75000.
45000. 45000. 45000. 45000. 45000.
15000. 15000. 15000. 15000. 15000.
1
0.3 110. 0.006
1 0.00 0.00 5.0 3.0
2 0.656 0.00 5.0 3.0
3 1.312 0.00 5.0 3.0
4 1.968 0.00 5.0 3.0
5 3.280 0.00 5.0 3.0
6 4.000 0.00 5.0 3.0
7 0.000 1.67 5.0 3.0
8 0.656 1.67 5.0 3.0
9 1.312 1.67 5.0 3.0
10 1.968 1.67 5.0 3.0
11 3.280 1.67 5.0 3.0
12 4.000 1.67 5.0 3.0
13 0.000 3.33 5.0 3.0
14 0.656 3.33 5.0 3.0
15 1.312 3.33 5.0 3.0
16 1.968 3.33 5.0 3.0
17 3.280 3.33 5.0 3.0
18 4.000 3.33 5.0 3.0
19 0.000 5.00 5.0 3.0
20 0.656 5.00 5.0 3.0
21 1.312 5.00 5.0 3.0
22 1.968 5.00 5.0 3.0
23 3.280 5.00 5.0 3.0
24 4.000 5.00 5.0 3.0
218
25 0. 000 6.67 5.0 3.0
26 0. 656 6.67 5.0 3.0
27 1. 312 6.67 5.0 3.0
28 1. 968 6.67 5.0 3.0
29 3. 280 6.67 5.0 3.0
30 4.,000 6.67 5.0 3.0
31 0.,000 8.33 5.0 3.0
32 0.,656 8.33 5.0 3.0
33 1,.312 8.33 5.0 3.0
34 1,.968 8.33 5.0 3.0
35 3,.280 8.33 5.0 3.0
36 4,.000 8.33 5.0 3.0
37 0 .000 10.00 5.0 3.0
38 0 .656 10.00 5.0 3.0
39 1 .312 10.00 5.0 3.0
40 1 .968 10.00 5.0 3.0
41 3 .280 10.00 5.0 3.0
42 4 .000 10.00 5.0 3.0
1 1 2 8 7
2 2 3 9 8
3 3 4 10 9
4 4 5 11 10
5 5 6 12 11
6 7 8 14 13
7 8 9 15 14
8 9 10 16 15
10 11 17 16
9
11 12 18 17
10
11 13 14 20 19
12 14 15 21 20
13 15 16 22 21
14 16 17 23 22
15 17 18 24 23
16 19 20 26 25
219
17 20 21 27 26
18 21 22 28 2-7
19 22 23 29 28
20 23 24 30 29
21 25 26 32 31
22 26 27 33 32
23 27 28 34 33
24 28 29 35 34
25 29 30 36 35
26 31 32 38 37
27 32 33 39 38
28 33 34 40 39
29 34 35 41 40
30 35 36 42 41
1 1 1 0. 0.
2 0 1 0. 0.
3 0 1 0. 0.
4 0 1 0. 0.
5 0 1 0. 0.
6 1 1 0. 0.
7 1 0 0. 0.
12 1 0 0. 0.
13 1 0 0. 0.
18 1 0 0. 0.
19 1 0 0. 0.
24 1 0 0. 0.
25 1 0 0. 0.
30 1 0 0. 0.
31 1 0 0. 0.
36 1 0 0. 0.
37 1 0 0. 0.
42 1 0 0. 0.
APPENDIX D
A TYPICAL OUTPUT FILE FOR LATEXP2D
^ ^ ^
2^
221
KATTI'S EXAMPLE ** CNS only ** DELTA pF=(2.0)
NUMBER OF ELEMENTS 30
NUMBER OF NODES 42
NUMBER OF NODAL DISPLACEMENT BOUNDARY CONDITIONS 18
NUMBER OF NODAL FORCE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS 0
ELEMENT THICKNESS (ft) 4.000
PROBLEM TYPE PLANE-STRAIN
ELEMENT TYPE QUADRILATERAL
-MATERIAL PROPERTIES OF EACH ELEMENT
ELEMENT YOUNG"S POISSON"S UNIT sue.COMP.

NUMBER MODULUS RATIO WEIGHT INDEX
—^ (psf) — (pcf)
1 165000.000 0.300 110.000 0.006

2 165000.000 0.300 110.000 0.006
3 165000.000 0.300 110.000 0.006
4 165000.000 0.300 110.000 0.006
5 165000.000 0.300 110.000 0.006
6 135000.000 0.300 110.000 0.006
7 135000.000 0.300 110.000 0.006
8 135000.000 0.300 110.000 0.006
9 135000.000 0.300 110.000 0.006
10 135000.000 0.300 110.000 0.006
11 105000.000 0.300 110.000 0.006
12 105000.000 0.300 110.000 0.006
13 105000.000 0.300 110.000 0.006
14 105000.000 0.300 110.000 0.006
15 105000.000 0.300 110.000 0.006
16 75000.000 0.300 110.000 0.006
17 75000.000 0.300 110.000 0.006
18 75000.000 0.300 110.000 0.006
19 75000.000 0.300 110.000 0.006
20 75000.000 0.300 110.000 0.006
21 45000.000 0.300 110.000 0.006
22 45000.000 0.300 110.000 0.006
23 45000.000 0.300 110.000 0.006
24 45000.000 0.300 110.000 0.006
25 45000.000 0.300 110.000 0.006
26 15000.000 0.300 110.000 0.006
27 15000.000 0.300 110.000 0.006
28 15000.000 0.300 110.000 0.006
29 15000.000 0.300 110.000 0.006
30 15000.000 0.300 110.000 0.006
-COORDINATES OF NODAL POINTS & SUCTION VALUES AT NODES
NODE X- Y- INITIAL FINAL

[UMBER COORDINATES COORDINATES SUCTION SUCTION
— (ft) (ft) (pF) (pF)
22
1 0.00 0.00 5.00 3.00

2 0.66 0.00 5.00 3.00
3 1.31 0.00 5.00 3.00
4 1.97 0.00 5.00 3.00
5 3.28 0.00 5.00 3.00
6 4.00 0.00 5.00 3.00
7 0.00 1.67 5.00 3.00
8 0.66 1.67 5.00 3.00
9 1.31 1.67 5.00 3.00
10 1.97 1.67 5.00 3.00
11 3.28 1.67 5.00 3.00
12 4.00 1.67 5.00 3.00
13 0.00 3.33 5.00 3.00
14 0.66 3.33 5.00 3.00
15 1.31 3.33 5.00 3.00
16 1.97 3.33 5.00 3.00
17 3.28 3.33 5.00 3.00
18 4.00 3.33 5.00 3.00
19 0.00 5.00 5.00 3.00
20 0.66 5.00 5.00 3.00
21 1.31 5.00 5.00 3.00
22 1.97 5.00 5.00 3.00
23 3.28 5.00 5.00 3.00
24 4.00 5.00 5.00 3.00
25 0.00 6.67 5.00 3.00
26 0.66 6.67 5.00 3.00
27 1.31 6.67 5.00 3.00
28 1.97 6.67 5.00 3.00
29 3.28 6.67 5.00 3.00
30 4.00 6.67 5.00 3.00
31 0.00 8.33 5.00 3.00
32 0.66 8.33 5.00 3.00
33 1.31 8.33 5.00 3.00
34 1.97 8.33 5.00 3.00
35 3.28 8.33 5.00 3.00
36 4.00 8.33 5.00 3.00
37 0.00 10.00 5.00 3.00
38 0.66 10.00 5.00 3.00
39 1.31 10.00 5.00 3.00
40 1.97 10.00 5.00 3.00
41 3.28 10.00 5.00 3.00
42 4.00 10.00 5.00 3.00
-NODAL NUMBERS OF EACH ELEMENT
ELEMENT FIRST SECOND THIRD FORTH

NUMBER NODE NODE NODE NODE
1 1 2 8 7
2 2 3 9 8
223
3 3 4 10 9
4 4 5 11 10
5 5 6 12 11
6 7 8 14 13
7 8 9 15 14
8 9 10 16 15
9 10 11 17 16
10 11 12 18 17
11 13 14 20 19
12 14 15 21 20
13 15 16 22 21
14 16 17 23 22
15 17 18 24 23
16 19 20 26 25
17 20 21 27 26
18 21 22 28 27
19 22 23 29 28
20 23 24 30 29
21 25 26 32 31
22 26 27 33 32
23 27 28 34 33
24 28 29 35 34
25 29 30 36 35
26 31 32 38 37
27 32 33 39 38
28 33 34 40 39
29 34 35 41 40
30 35 36 42 41
-BOUNDARY POINTS AND BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
BOUNDARY BOUNDARY BOUNDARY BOUNDARY BOUNDARY

POINT COND.(X) COND.(Y) DISP.(X) DISP. (Y)
__^ — (ft) (ft)
1 1 1 0. 0 0.0
2 0 1 0. 0 0.0
3 0 1 0. 0 0.0
4 0 1 0. 0 0.0
5 0 1 0. 0 0.0
6 1 1 0. 0 0.0
7 1 0 0. 0 0.0
12 1 0 0 0 0.0
13 1 0 0 .0 0.0
18 1 0 0 .0 0.0
19 1 0 0 .0 0.0
24 1 0 0 .0 0 .0
25 1 0 0 .0 0.0
30 1 0 0 .0 0.0
31 1 0 0 .0 0.0
36 1 0 0 .0 0.0
37 1 0 0 .0 0.0
42 1 0 0 .0 0.0
,24
DISPLACEMENTS AT EACH NODAL POINT
NODE X- Y-
NUMBER DIRECTION DIRECTION
— (ft) (ft)
1 0.OOOE+00 0.OOOE+00
2 0.326E-08 0.OOOE+00
3 -.594E-08 0 .OOOE+00
4 0.698E-08 0.OOOE+00
5 -.198E-08 0.OOOE+00
6 0.OOOE+00 0.OOOE+00
7 0.OOOE+00 0.673E-02
8 -.256E-08 0.673E-02
9 0.675E-08 0.673E-02
10 -.629E-08 0.673E-02
11 0.233E-08 0.673E-02
12 0.OOOE+00 0.673E-02
13 0.OOOE+00 0.134E-01
14 0.186E-08 0.134E-01
15 -.815E-08 0.134E-01
16 0.373E-08 0.134E-01
17 -.442E-08 0.134E-01
18 0.OOOE+00 0.134E-01
19 0.OOOE+00 0.202E-01
20 -.559E-08 0.202E-01
21 0.233E-08 0.202E-01
22 -.792E-08 0.202E-01
23 0.396E-08 0.202E-01
24 0.OOOE+00 0 .202E-01
25 0.OOOE+00 0.269E-01
26 0.326E-08 0.269E-01
27 -.512E-08 0.269E-01
28 0.466E-08 0.269E-01
29 -.419E-08 0.269E-01
30 0.OOOE+00 0.269E-01
31 0.OOOE+00 0.336E-01
32 -.442E-08 0.336E-01
33 0.536E-08 0.336E-01
34 -.256E-08 0.336E-01
35 0.489E-08 0.336E-01
36 0.OOOE+00 0.336E-01
37 0.OOOE+00 0.403E-01
38 0.652E-08 0.403E-01
39 -.466E-09 0.403E-01
40 0.745E-08 0.403E-01
41 -.151E-08 0.403E-01
42 0.OOOE+00 0.403E-01
225
0> W O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
U.
U. (0
O Oi
o o o o o o d d d d d d d d o d d o ' d d d d d d d d d d d d
o c s c a c p o o c p o d d c J c p d d d d c p d d d d d d d d d d d d d
a, CO
• Ck<
0 0 0 0 0 ( N r M ( M C M < N . T V . » « « i r ) l O I O i n i n « « « « « ( N < M ( M r 4 ( N
O '-'
M
P ) n r n f n f n t M C N < M f > 4 < N C N N C M C N « N i H r H r H r t r H 0 O « a ) e D 0 O ( N f M < N N « N
CO
I * < I > I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
o n n CO n rn n r) o m fO ro m m m m <»> en n CO n <n r> d m CM CM (M CM (M

u o o o o o o O
+ + + + + + + +
o o o o o o o
+ + + + + + +
O o O
+ •••
o+ o o o o o o o o o O O
+ + + + + + + + + •f •^ •«•
ed M u falu u u U ta u td u u H u M M H u H cd u u u u u H tt
u Vu CO
H
rH fH iH iH •H ^C vc vc \o vo fH rH r^ rH rH to to to « e n fn Ot Ol Ol Ot Ot vo VO
fN CM CM <N (N fO ro in
m m in in
rn in « rH rH r - (^ r» n ro m m vo V0 le lO
1^ m m>- m i~ l~ r»i
fO M n ro m lO m in
r» r- t
Ot Ol Ol
r- Ot ot r^ rH rH Ol Ol Ot Ol Ol
g • CO
f ^ V ^ ^ O m n fn f»> CM (M CM CM CM r) m <*) m f)
o (j cu o o o O o O o o 1 1 1
o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
w 1 1 1 1
s
H3 CO ^^ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Bd
r o c n n c i f o n r o c n r o c i o i r o c n f o r o n f o c n D C i c M C M C M C M C M C M C M C M C M C M
X o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + H- + + + + H- + + H-
B a u H U u u D a u u H i d u u u u i i a u B a o a H H U M U U M U H H u
g EH
r H r H r H r H r H i n i n i n i n m O t O t O l O t O l r H r H r H r H r H O O O O O O t O t O t O l O l
p^r*r*r^r*ototoiototrHrHrHrHrH^^^^îninininineDOD®a)<c
r H r H r H r H r H i n m i n m i n O O O O O « « « « « V O t O V O V O V O e O O C D O O O D
o o ~
i< b. r O r O r n c n c n C M C M C M C M r M C M C M C M C M r M r H r H r H r H r H O D O O C O O O O D C M C M f M C M C M
• CO
Q U OK
tH '-'
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o d
H
CO I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
o
o: * * •w * V c»> CO en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en CM CM CM CM <M
g
u
o
+ +
o o
+
o
+ +
o O o o o o O o
+ + + + + + +
O o o o o o O O O O o o O o o o o o
+ + + + + + + + + •¥• + + + ••• + H- + H-
o H
u u M u
ta pa ta
«a CM u u (d u H Id u Id Dd Pi Ld pa
u rH pa pa »a pa pa pa pa ta
00 00 00 OlCb OO
Ot 00 CM
o o O o O CD 00 rH rH
00 o o o o o in
m m in in
u O
o m in
oin rH iH
'9 V
rH rH 00 00
o o in in t-{
« 00 in in in
m m 00 to « 00 a
a o o CM CM
oCM « o« * tn
o in CM CM
m in in r-
r- r- i~ r- rH f t rH rH rH
• u.
rH t-t
a CD eo VO VO vo VO VO * *
rH rH rH 00 OO ^ * •w CN CM CN CM CN Ot ot Ot Ol Ol
EH
EH U CO o o o o o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o O O O O o o o o O o
•< H Oi 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 I 1 1 1 1
CO ^ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
CO CM CN CM CM CM CM CM CN CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CN CM CN CN CM CM CM CN CN CM CM CM CM CM CM
u
CO o o o o o o O O o o o O o o o o O o O o o o o o o o o o o O
CO u H na u u u u u H H M u u H ca u na u pa pa pa pa PI Pd pa Pl pa M Pd Pl
s >H t^
VO
1-
VO
r- t^ r- 00 00 00 00 CO O o
to to vo to vo vo vo vo r~ r
o O^ o
~ r- r r-
vo vo
v
to
o vo Ol
vo vo a e a
vo v
00
o vo vo vo vo v
s r~ r- r- t~ t^
o to Ol
r- r r- e~
» Ol r~
CO CO Ol Ot Ot ot Ol Ot Ot Ot Ol ot Ot Ot Ol Ot Ot Ot Ot ot Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol ot ot ov Ol
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1
CM CM CM CM CM CN CM CM CN CN CM CN CM CM CM CN CN CM CM CN CM CM CN CN CM CM CM CM CM CN
o o o o o O o o o o O o O o O o O o o o o O o o o o o o o o
M u M u H u ta H u Da H sa ea H u aa U H pa pa pa pa pa pa pa pa pa pa pa pa
o o O o O o o O o
o o O o o O o o O o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o O o o o o
o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o oo o o o o o o
o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
CO vo vo
vo vo vo vo VOvo vo vo
vo vo to vo vo to
vo vo vo to vo to vo to vo to
vo vo vo vo
pa o o o o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1
en .» in vo r«- 00 O r H C M e n * i n v o r - c o 91 O rH e n « i n v o r > o o o t o
rH CM CM C M C M C M C M M C M C M C n
APPENDIX E
USER'S GUIDE OF LATEXP2D
226
227
E.l. Introduction
Operation of the program, LATEXP2D, is very simple since users have two options to
work with. One option is to work on computer interaaively, and the other is to create a
data file before running the program. The program can be run on either a VAX terminal or
an IBM compatible personal computer. The data that must be given to the program will be
asked from the screen of the computer. However, this is sometimes time consuming if the
user wants to rerun the program because s/he has to retype all of the data required by the
program for each run. Thus, this way is not suggested. Second, a user can create a data
file in which there would be required data by the program before running it.
E.2. Operation of LATEXP2D with a Created Data File

When a user chooses to work with either a VAX terminal or an IBM compatible
personal computer, following information would be required by the program. Once a user
loads the program and types run LATEXP2D;
Step 1 - Type 1, if there is sweUing
Type 2, if there is no swelling
If the user types 1 followings will be asked:
Step 2- You have two options to give data
1- You have data file for the program
2- You will type data from the screen
Which one do you prefer (1 or 2 )
When the user chooses 1, the program will ask whether the file isreadyto use to make sure
there is a data file for it.

Step 3- Is data file ready? (Y/N)
228
If answer is "N", the program will stop with a warning statement that says "Please prepare
a data file" on the screen. In this case, the user has to create a data file for input required by
the program, and rerun it. If the answer is "Y", followings will be asked.
Step 4- Provide a file for input and a file for output.
(eachfilenamecan be maximum 20 characters)

After eachfilename,hit <RETURN>
First, the user must type thefilenamethat has the data for the program. Second, s/he also
has to type anyfilenamethat s/he wants to get as an output file from the program. After
this, the program will work and the following statement will.appear on the screen twice.
"...Swelling...Soil...**...Swelling...Soil..."
Then the program will be terminated if data file was prepared correctly.
In step 1, if the user types 2 instead of 1, which means no expansion would occur, same
information would be required as shown from step 2 to step 4 except that the last statement
on the screen would appear on the screen like seen as follows:
...No...Swelling...**...No...Swelling...
Then, theresultscould be gotten from the output file that wasnamed by the user at step 4.
E.3. Creation and Preparation of Input File for LATEXP2D

Input files may be created using a line editor, text editor, or a word processor with
nondocument option. Input files for LATEXP2D utilize free format data entry. Although
free format is used in the input file, there are certain rules that must be followed. In order
to run the program, LATEXP2D, correctly, the input file must be prepared as follows:
Data 1. Character : Title of the problem. Maximum 50 characters onfirstdata line.
Data 2-7.Integer : The number of elements, the number of nodal points in the
domain, the number of boundary nodes, the number of nodes at which there are
concentrated extemal loads, type of the problem (1= plane strain, 2=plane stress).
229
Thickness of the elements in the domain (this value must be a real number). As many lines
as needed can be used.
Data 8-Real : Young's modulus of each element in the domain. The number of data
is equal to the number of finite elements in the domain. The user can use as many lines as
s/he needs.
Data 9-Integer : The number of materials that have different properties in the domain.
Data 10-Integer : The number of finite elements, Poisson's ratio (real), unit weight
(real), coefficient of suction compressibility, and element numbers of one type of material
in the domain. As many lines as needed can be used.
Data 11-Real: The nodal number (integer), x-coordinate, y-coordinate, initial suction
value,finalsuction value. There should be one line for each nodal point in the domain.
Data 12-Integer : The element number, and the nodal numbers of the element (four
numbers). There should be one line for each element in the domain.
Data 8-Real : Boundary node number (integer), its condition in x direction, its
condition in y direction, deflections in x direction , deflections in y direction (l=fixed,
0=free to move). There should be one line for each boundary nodal point.
There must be at least one blank column between two data in a line for all of the data
explained so far.
E.4. Interactive Usage of LATEXP2D

When a user chooses to work interactively with either a VAX terminal or an IBM
compatible personal computer, following information would berequiredby the program.
Once a user loads the program and types run LATEXP2D;
Step 1- Type 1, if there is swelling
Type 2, if there is no swelling
If the user types 1 followings will be asked:
230
Step 2- You have two options to give data
1- You have data file for the program
2- You will type data from the screen
Which one do you prefer (1 or 2 )
When the user chooses 2, the program will ask the data required by the program.
Step 3- Provide a file for output (max. 20 characters)
Step 4- Title of the problem (maximum 50 characters)
Step 5- Number of finite elements : ?
Step 6- Number of nodes : ?
Step 7- Number of boundaries at which disp. prescribed :?
Step 8- Number of nodes at which there are cone, loads : ?
Step 9- Type of the problem 1: Plane strain
2: Plane stress
Step 10- Thickness of the elements (1.0 for plane strain):?
At this point, the program will ask whether or not the data typed in so far are correct before
going any further.
Step 11- Is everything correct? (Y/N)
If the user has made any mistake, s/he is able to go back and correct his/her mistake.
When "N" is typed in, following statement will appear on the screen,
"Please re-type following values"
and the questions started from step 4 to step 11 will be asked again. When the user has
no mistake s/he has to type "Y" after step 11.
Step 12- Number of element groups that have same properties : ?
At this step, if the domain contains different materials which have different modulus of
elasticity, Poisson's ratio and/or unit weight, the user has to type the number of these
materials that have different properties from each other. In the domain, as many different
231
materials as the user wants can be used. However, the number of different materials must
be typed in correctiy. When the domain has more than one material, the program asks
Number of elements in group 1, 2, 3.... so on. Also, it would ask Young's modulus,
Poisson's ratio, density, suction compressibility index (Yh) of materials , number of
elements in each group and make the user check his numbers by asking the question seen at
step 11. If a user does not have different materials in the domain s/he should type 1.
Step 13- Type: Young's modulus, Poisson's ratio and density
(psf) -- (pcf)
After typing the properties of materials (soils in the present study) in the domain asked
above, the program asks again the question seen at step 11 to make sure the data typed so
far are correct. If answer is "N", the required data that starts from step 12 will be asked
again. Otherwise, following data will be required.
Step 14- Type the coordinations of the nodal points and suction values
at nodes
Node number, X-coor., Y-coor., Int-suc, Fin-sue. : ?
(ft) (ft) (pF) (pF)
The program checks whether or not the user has made any typing mistake by asking the
question seen at step 11. If the answer is "N" required data are asked again. Otherwise,
same questions arerepeateduntil all of the nodal points are finished.
Step 15- Type nodal numbers of each element.
Element number, nodel, node2, node3, node4 : ?
Here, the nodal numbers must be typed in the direction of counterclockwise starting from
lower number to higher one. Otherwise, stiffness would be mixed up and the results
would not be correa at all. After typing the data for an element, the program asks again the
question appears at step 11. The procedure is repeated till all of the elements are finished.
Step 16- Boundary nodes and their prescribed deflections.

232
Node num., X-cond., Y-cond., X-def., Y-def., : ?
(integer) (1 or 0) (1 or 0) (ft) (ft)
Here, the nodes on the boundaries must be introduced to the program by typing node
numbers, whether the node numbers are fixed in X, or Y, or in both X and Y directions.
Numbers 1 and 0representthe fixed conditions, and free conditions, respectively. Also, if
there are deflections in X and/or Y directions, they must be typed in. Then, the question at
step 11 will be asked again. The procedure would be repeated until all of the boundary
nodal points that have been typed in at step 7 are finished.
Step 17- Boundary point. Lateral load. Vertical Load
(pounds) (pounds)
At this step, nodal numbers of the nodes that have extemal loads must be typed in. Also,
the intensities of the loads in lateral and vertical directions must be typed in. Positive
directions for extemal loads would be same as the X-Y coordinate system. While the
program is nmning, following statement would appear on the screen twice;
...Swelling...Soil...**...Swelling... Soil...
At step 1, if the user types 2 instead of 1, which means no expansion would occur, same
information would be required as shown from step 2 to step 17 except that the last
statement on the screen would appear on the screen like seen as follows:
...No...Swelling...**...No...Swelling...
Then, the results could be gotten from the output file that has been named by the user at
step 3.
APPENDIX F
SOURCE LISTING OF SUCENV
233
34
c * Program to estimate Soil suction profiles with depth *

c * in wet state *
c * *
c * by
c * *
c * Mustafa AYTEKIN *
c * December - 1992 *
c
PROGRAM SUCENV
Dimension h(500),dh(500),pF(500),z(500)
Real n,Ko,k(500)
c
Q ********************************************************
c * *
c * Main variables that are used in the program *
c
*
c
c * Depth : The depth of active zone (cm) *
* *
c
c * Ko : The saturated permeability of soil *
c * Ko(cm/sec) *
c * hs : The suction value at surface of the soil *
c * (cm_H20) *
•
I c
c
*
*
h(l) : The equilibrium suction of soil (cm_H20)
v3 : The velocity of moisture flow in soil *
c * (cm/sec)? *
c * dh(i) : Increments in soil suction (cm) *
* *
c
c * dx : Change in elevation or gravitational *
c * potential(cm)
*
c
*••**•****•**•**••••*•***•**•**•*•*•***********•••*****•
235
character*10 input,output
print *, 'Type input filename...(limit 10
charecters)'
Read(*,11)input
11 format(alO)
print *, 'Type output filename...(limit 10
charecters)'
Read(*,ll) output
Open(unit=5,file=input,status='old')
Open(unit=6,file=output,status='new')
c The depth of active zone (cm) ?
Read(5,*) Depth
c The saturated permeability of soil, Ko(cm/sec)=?
Read(5,*) Ko
c The suction value ^surface of the soil
(cm_H2-0)=?
Read(5,*) hs
c The equilibrium suction of soil (cm_H2-0)=?
Read (5,*) h(l)
c The velocity of moisture flow in soil (cm/sec)?
Read(5,*) v3
do 5 dx=10,90,2
c The number of levels at which suction values will

c be estimated
levels=depth/dx + 1
n =1.0
3 n = n + 0.0001
if(n.gt.4) stop 'no results have been reached'
Do 10 i=l,levels-l
k(i) = ko/(l + le-9*abs(h(i) ) **n)
Dh(i)= dx + dx * v3/k(i)
H(i + 1) = h(i) - dh(i)
10 Continue
h(levels)=loglO(h(levels))
236
hslo=loglO(hs)
If(abs(h(levels)-hslo).It.0.01) then
d2=0
print *,' '
Write(6,*)' Depth(cm) Suction(cm_H20)
Depth(ft) Suction(pF)'
Print *, ' Depth(cm) Suction(cm_H20)
Depth(ft) Suction(pF)'
write (6,*)' '
write(6 *)'n =',n,' dx =',dx
write(6 * ) ' '
print *
print * I r^n=',n,'
—r
dx=',dx
print * r r
h(levels)=10**h(levels)
Do 20 i=l,levels
pF(i)=loglO(h(i))
dzf=(depth-dz)/30.48
Write (6,*) (depth-dz) ,h(i) ,dzf,pF(i)
Print *, (depth-dz) ,h(i) ,dzf,pF(i)
20 dz=dz+dx
else
goto 3
end if
5 continue
stop
End
APPENDIX G
SOURCE LISTING OF MESH
237
258
c *
C * PROGRAM FOR CALCULATIONS OF COORDINATES AND NODE *
C * NUMBERS OF EACH *
C * RECTANGULAR FINITE ELEMENT FOR RECTANGULAR *
C * SYSTEMS TO CREATE A *
C * FINITE ELEMENT MESH DATA FILE *
C *
C *
C * BY
C * MUSTAFA AYTEKIN *
C * December - 1992 *
PROGRAM MESH
DIMENSION X(500) ,Y(500) ,NODE(50 0,4)
REAL NODX(500),NODY(500)
CHARACTER* 2 0 INPUT,OUTPUT,TITLE
WRITE(*,*)'PROVIDE FILE FOR INPUT,FILE FOR OUTPUT:
READ(*,10)INPUT,OUTPUT
10 FORMAT (A20)
OPEN(UNIT=5,FILE=INPUT,STATUS='OLD')
0PEN(UNIT=6,FILE=0UTPUT,STATUS='NEW' )
c
c NELM NUMBER OF ELEMENTS IN THE MESH
c NODES NUMBER OF NODES IN THE MESH
c NBOUN NUMBER OF BOUNDARY POINTS
c NCON NUMBER OF NODES ON WHICH THERE ARE
CONSANTRATED LOADS
c NCASE : 1-PLANE STRAIN, and 2-PLANE STRESS
c T :THICKNESS OF THE ELEMENT (=1 FOR PLANE STRAIN)
c POIS rPOISSON'S RATIO
c GAMA :UNIT WEIGHT
c GH :SUCTION COMPRESSION INDEX
239
C ELAS :MODULUS OF ELASTICITY OF SOIL
C
READ(5,10) TITLE
WRITE(6,10) TITLE
READ(5,*) NELM,NODES,NBOUN,NCON,NCASE,T
READ(5,*) POIS,GAMA,GH,ELAS
READ(5,*) NGRPS
C
WRITE(6,*) NELM,NODES,NBOUN,NCON,NCASE,T
DO 11 K=1,NELM
11 WRITE(6,*) ELAS
WRITE(6,*) NGRPS
WRITE(6,*) POIS,GAMA,GH
C
C
C FOR BOTTOM PART OF SYSTEM
C
C NX:THE NUMBER OF COLUMNS OF NODES ON X-DIRECTION
C NY:THE NUMBER OF ROWSOF NODES ON Y-DIRECTION
C N :TOTAL NUMBER OF NODES ON THE SYSTEM
C NR:THE NUMBER OF RECTANGULAR ELEMENS
C
C
C FOR TOP PART OF SYSTEM
C
C NX2:THE NUMBER OF COLUMNS OF NODES ON X-DIRECTION
C NY2:THE NUMBER OF ROWSOF NODES ON Y-DIRECTION
C N2 :TOTAL NUMBER OF NODES ON THE SYSTEM
C NR2:THE NUMBER OF RECTANGULAR ELEMENS
C
READ(5,*) NX,NY
NR=(NX-1)*(NY-1)
N=NX*NY
READ(5,*) (X(I) ,I=1,NX)
READ (5,*) (Y(I) ,1 = 1, NY)
240
KS=1
NEX=NX
25 K=0
DO 30 I=KS,NEX
READ(5,*) TITLE
K=K+1
30 NODX(I)=X(K)
KS=NEX+1
NEX=NEX+NX
IF(NEX.LE.N) GOTO 25
KS=1
K=0
NEX=NX
35 K=K+1
DO 4 0 I=KS,NEX
40 NODY(I)=Y(K)
KS=NEX+1
NEX=NEX+NX
IF(NEX.LE.N) GOTO 35
DO 80 1=1,N
80 WRITE (6,85)I,NODX(I) ,NODY(I)
NEL=NX-1
NEX=NEL
KS=1
K=0
95 CONTINUE
DO 100 I=KS,NEX
K=K+1
NODE(I,1)=K
N0DE(I,2)=K+1
N0DE(I,3)=NX+K+1
100 NODE(I,4)=NX+K
K=K+1
KS=NEX+1
NEX=NEX+NEL
241
IF(NEX.LE.NR) GOTO 95
85 format(110,4flO.2)
C
READ(5,*) NX2,NY2
NR2=(NX2-1)*(NY2-1)
N2=NX2*NY2
KS=N-NX2+1
READ(5,*) (X(I),I=KS,KS+NX2-1)
READ(5,*) (Y (I) ,I=KS,KS+NY2-1)
NEX=NX2
26 Kl=nx-nx2
DO 31 I=KS,NEX+KS-1
Kl=Kl-hl
31 N0DX(I)=X(K1)
KS=KS+Nx2
NEX=NEX+NX2
IF(NEX.LE.N2) GOTO 2 6
KS=N-NX2+1
Kl=ks-1
NEX=NX2
36 K1=K1+1
DO 41 I=KS,NEX+KS-1
41 N0DY(I)=Y(K1)
KS=KS+NX2
NEX=NEX+NX2
IF(NEX.LE.N2) GOTO 36
DO 81 I=N+1,N+NX2*NY2-NX2
81 WRITE(6,85)I,NODX(I),NODY(I)
NN=NR+NR2
NEL2=NX2-1
NEX=NEL2
KS=N-NX2+1
K=KS-1
Idum=nr+1
NM=NEX+NR
242
9 6 CONTINUE
DO 101 I=Idum,NM
K=K+1
NODE(I,1)=K
N0DE(I,2)=K+1
NODE(I,3)=NX2+K+l
101 NODE(I,4)=NX2+K
K=K+1
Idum=Idum+nx2-1
NEX=NEX4-NEL2
NM=NEX+NR
IF(NEX.LE.NR2) GOTO 96
DO 151 1=1,NN
151 WRITE(6,*)I,NODE(I,1) ,NODE (1,2),NODE(I,3) ,NODE(I,4)
STOP
END

Modelling Expansive Soil FEM PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Modelling Expansive Soil FEM PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

FINITE ELEMENT MODELING OF LATERAL SWELLING

PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION BEHIND EARTH

LIST OF TABLES viii

1.1. Discussion of the Present Problem 1

3.2. Determination of Modulus of Elasticity of Soil 77

3.3. Strains and Stresses 80

3.6. Distributed Body Forces and Equivalent Nodal Loads 95

6.2. Recommendations 168

LIST OF REFERENCES 170

A. SOIL SUCTION CONVERSION FACTORS 181

pressure to, say, a basement wall.

2.1 Proposed Classification Scheme for Phyllosilicates Related to Clay

5.1 Properties of soils used in Katti's experimental work 107

1.1 The distribution of different proportions of Al and A2 horizons areas of

2.11 Chart of prediction of suction compressibility index (Yh) 38

1.1. Discussion of the Present Problem

1.2. Objectives of the Study

2.1. Clay Minerals and Expansive Soils

In general, the term clay implies a natural,fine-grainedmaterial which develops

.1. Sketch of kaolinite, 1:1 dioctahedral phyllosilicate (Grim, 1968).

exchangeable cations (nHjO)

Fig. 2.2. Sketch of smectite (Grim, 1968)

seems to have originated in China (Giese,1988). Kaolinite is a 1:1 physil composed of a Si

Fig. 2.4. Typical X-ray diffraction (XRD) pattern for kaolinite.

Fig. 2.5. Typical X-ray diffraction (XRD) pattem for iUitc.

The average layer charge is approximately 0.35/Oio(OH)2 (Weaver, 1989). As a result of

2.2. Moisture Environment for Expansive Soils

I—I—I I I I I I—nr"]—mi—r "T I I I I j I T ' I ' • 1

Fig. 2.6. Typical X-ray diffraction (XRD) pattem for smectite.

where TI = the Thomthwaite moisture index, dimensionless

2.3. Mechanisms of Swelling in Expansive Soils

The magnitude of rebound around specimen in a standard consolidation test is

physico-chemical forces acting between clay particles:

where G = effective stress.

This component will be discussed later.

surrounding clay particles.

The semipermeable membrane is essential for osmotic pressure to be generated^The

(such as sug<M in water) i

Fig. 2.9. Representation of osmotic pressure.

T = absolute temperature (RT = 2.5xl0'7 gem per mole for 20^50

where c^ and C5 refer to the solute concentration on either side of a semipermeable

negatively charged clay particle acts as a semipermeable membrane.

this "semi-permeable membrane."

and attractive pressures.

Double layers overlap

Higher ion concentration

Lower ion concentration

determine how far the water in the soil isfromequilibrium.

acts in the direction of decreasing potential.

if placed in contact with it, just as a blotter draws ink.

2.4. Soil Water Potential

greater than that of free water^andjsjconsider^d_positive^_^ unsaturated soils, the water is

Thermodynamically, energy potential can be regarded in terms of the difference in

under consideration)" (Aslyng, 1963, p. 5).

^t= O m + ^ n +<Pn + ^ o + <I> r.v+ . • . (2.6)

where <Pl = Total potential

Orn = Matric potential

<Pp = Pneumatic potential

<PQ = Osmotic potential

<Po = Gravitational potential

<I>ov = Overburden pressure potential.

2.5. Soil Suction

h(pF) = logio(ht) (2.8)