International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

ISSN: 1938-6362 (Print) 1939-7879 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yjge20

Site characterisation for residential slabs and

footings – Australian practice

Nagaratnam Sivakugan, Jay Ameratunga & Braja M. Das

To cite this article: Nagaratnam Sivakugan, Jay Ameratunga & Braja M. Das (2018): Site
characterisation for residential slabs and footings – Australian practice, International Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, DOI: 10.1080/19386362.2018.1432523

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2018.1432523

Published online: 07 Feb 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yjge20
International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2018.1432523

Site characterisation for residential slabs and footings – Australian practice

Nagaratnam Sivakugana  , Jay Ameratungab and Braja M. Dasc
a
College of Science & Engineering, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia; bGolder Associates, Brisbane, Australia; cCalifornia State University,
Sacramento, CA, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Expansive soils, known as reactive soils in Australia, pose serious threat to low-rise buildings, roadworks and Received 10 January 2018
other infrastructure. Expansive soils are encountered in all capital cities. The purpose of this technical note Accepted 21 January 2018
is to summarise the Australian practice of site classification, especially when expansive soils are present.
KEYWORDS
The expected vertical movement at the ground level due to seasonal changes in moisture content is used Expansive soils; reactive soils;
as the basis for site classification. This is computed on the basis of the depth within which the moisture soil characterisation; site
changes are expected and the maximum suction expected at the ground level. classification; shrink-swell;
suction

Introduction pad footings to more sophisticated engineered designs that

include waffle slabs, stiffened rafts, suspended slabs and deep
Expansive clays, also called reactive clays in Australia, are clays
foundations.
which can swell when in contact with water and shrink when
The discussion herein applies mainly to residential slabs and
dry. Therefore, seasonal variations leading to fluctuations in the
footings. The moisture content fluctuation is of concern mainly
soil moisture content can lead to swell-shrink cycles in the soil
within the top few metres near the ground surface.
profile, especially near the ground surface. When swelling occurs,
an upward pressure is exerted on the building foundations and
pavements. The repeated wetting-drying cycles can make the Site classification in Australia
buildings and roads crack. Billions of dollars’ worth of damage
Based on the expected ys, AS 2870 classifies the sites as in Table 2.
are reported annually worldwide. This problem was first recog-
If deep seated (>3 m) moisture variation is expected, it is recom-
nised in 1950s.
mended to include ‘−D’ after the symbol for M, H and E sites (e.g.
Reactive clays contain significant fraction of montmorillonite
M-D, H1-D, H2-D, E-D). Once the site is classified, the engineer can
clay minerals which are highly reactive. The weak van der Waal’s
select the appropriate foundations for the structure. In sites classified
bond between the structural units of montmorillonite allows
as E-D, ground movements in excess of 100 mm have been reported.
them to separate easily when water gets in between the layered
AS 2870 further specifies that site works, such as filling and
units. Sometimes illitic clays can also be reactive. Austroads
cutting, be taken into account when these are known at the time
(2008) classifies expansive soils as given in Table 1.
of classification.
The expansive soils in Australia are widely distributed, cov-
ering as much as 20% of the surface area (Richards, Peter, and
Emerson 1983). They affect the foundations of residential build- Swell-shrink index Iss
ings in most of the capital cities. As a result, Australian Standard
Soil suction
2870 (2011) ‘Residential Slabs and Footings’ was introduced in
1986, with many updates, seminars and workshops since then. When a clay is unsaturated, there are capillary pressures within
Fityus, Smith, and Allman (2004) instrumented an expansive the clay matrix which result in suction within the soil. When
soil site in Newcastle, Australia, for seven years and found that the moisture content decreases, the soil suction increases. The
the design methods are satisfactory. suction is quantified in the unit of pF (for picofarad), which is
The vertical movement at the ground level is called the char- the logarithm of the negative head of water in cm. For example,
acteristic surface movement, denoted by ys. Larger the expected
–10 cm of water = 1.0 pF = −0.982 kN/m2
ys, greater the potential damage. A proposed construction site is
–100 cm of water = 2.0 pF = −9.81 kN/m2
classified based on ys (see section ‘Site classification in Australia’),
and there are simple methods to estimate this ys (see section This can be generalised as
‘Swell-shrink index Iss’). The site classification is the basis for
selecting appropriate foundations which can range from simple suction in kN/m2 = 9.81 × 10pF−2 (1a)

CONTACT  Nagaratnam Sivakugan  Siva.Sivakugan@jcu.edu.au

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2   N. SIVAKUGAN ET AL.

Table 1. Austroads classification of expansive soils. of 25 kN/m2 representing light footing pressure. If the specimen
PI × % is reactive, it will heave and reach equilibrium with heave of ΔH.
Expansive Liquid limit Plasticity finer than Potential The swell strain is given by
nature (%) index (PI) 0.425 mm swell (%)
Very high >70 >45 >3200 >5.0 ΔH
High >70 >45 2200–3200 2.5–5.0
𝜀sw (%) =
H0
× 100 (2)
Moderate 50–70 25–45 1200–2200 0.5–2.5
Low <50 <25 <1200 <0.5 The surcharge 25 kN/m2 can be varied to represent the expected
in situ stresses.
Shrink test – Oven-dry condition: A 38–65  mm diameter
Table 2. AS 2870 site classification. specimen with length/diameter ratio of 1.5–2.0 is air dried for
Class Subsoil ys (mm) two days, followed by oven drying for 24 h. The shrinkage strain
A Non-reactive or stable (e.g. sands, rocks) 0 is given by
S Slightly reactive 0–20
M Moderately reactive 20–40 ΔH
H1 Highly reactive 40–60
𝜀sh (%) =
H0
× 100 (3)
H2 Highly reactive 60–75
E Extremely reactive 75+ where, H0 = initial height and ΔH = reduction in height. The two
P Problem site (Can’t classify under any of the above)a  
shrink-swell tests cover the range of moisture contents from full
a
e.g. Mine subsidence regions, uncontrolled fills, coastal erosion, soft clays, loose saturation to oven-dry state. This represents suction change of 1.8
sands, landslides. pF. The shrink-swell index Iss is defined as (AS 1289.7.1.1 2003;
Fityus, Cameron, and Walsh 2005)
Table 3. Values of Δu and Hs for different regions in Australia. 0.5𝜀sw + 𝜀sh
Iss (%∕pF) = (4)
Location Influence depth Hs (m) 1.8
Adelaide 4.0
Albury/Wodonga 3.0 The coefficient 0.5 is introduced to account for the lateral
Brisbane/Ipswich 1.5–2.3 restraint in the oedometer which exaggerates the vertical strain.
Gosford 1.5–1.8 The shrink-swell index Iss is also the percentage of the vertical
Hobart 2.3–3.0
Hunter valley 1.8–3.0 strain per unit change of suction in pF.
Launceston 2.3–3.0
Melbourne 1.8–2.3
Newcastle 1.5–1.8 Determination of ys
Perth 1.8
Sydney 1.5–1.8 The first step here is to estimate the zone of influence where
Toowoomba 1.8–2.3 the moisture variation can affect the surface movements. This is
shown by depth Hs in Figure 1. This depth is larger in arid regions.
The upper part of this zone is generally cracked and hence is not
restrained laterally for future movements. The shrinkage cracks
enable the clay to expand in the three dimensions. The lower part
is uncracked and hence restrained laterally for future movements
allowing only one-dimensional expansion. The soil below the
depth Hs has no influence on the surface movements.
AS 2870 specifies the value of Hs for the different climate zones
within Australia along with the recommendation for the cracked
zone depth. The influence depth Hs specified is reproduced in
Table 3. For locations not listed (e.g. Townsville), values assumed
on the basis of local experience are used. For example, for the
temperate regions of North Queensland, Boddie et al. (2001) sug-
gests that the cracked zone depth be taken as 0.4 Hs and that Hs
for Townsville is 2.3 m. The depth of cracked zone is taken as 0.75
Hs in Adelaide and Melbourne, and as 0.5 Hs in other places. AS
2870 specifies that for reactive clay in controlled fill placed less
than 5 years prior to building construction, the depth of cracked
zone to be taken as zero. Further it recommends that where a site
Figure 1. Soil profile. has been cut less than two years prior to building construction,
the depth of cracked zone be reduced by the depth of cut.
The soil within the depth Hs can be subdivided into several
suction in pF = log suction in kN/m2 + 1.01 (1b)
( )
sublayers, where the expected contribution to the surface move-
Laboratory swell-shrink test ment can be computed and summed up. For each sublayer, the
surface movement contribution can be computed as
Swell test – Saturated condition: An oedometer specimen of I
height H0, is submerged in water and placed under a surcharge dys = 𝛼 ss Δudz
100 (5)
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING   3

H H

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 2. Soil suction profile: (a) soil depth exceeds Hs (b) bedrock within Hs (c) water table within Hs.

Figure 3. Cracked and uncracked zones in the example problem.

where, α = lateral restraint factor, in the range of 1–2, Iss = Shrink- Solution

swell index in percentage per pF, Δu = average soil suction in pF,
From Table 3, Hs = 2.3 m, and from Figure 2, Δu = 1.2 pF at the
and dz = sublayer thickness. In the cracked zone, α = 1. In the
ground level.
uncracked zone, it is taken as
The depth of the cracked zone is 0.4Hs  =  920  mm. The
z soil profile to the depth of Hs (=2.3 m), showing the cracked
𝛼 =2− (6)
5 and uncracked zones, subdivided into four layers, is shown
in Figure 3. The values of suction Δu and the lateral restraint
where, z is the depth below the ground level. αIss is referred to as
factor α at the centre of the sublayers are also shown in the
the instability index Ipt in AS 2870.
figure.
Applying Equation (5) to the four sub-layers
Soil suction profile
Iss
To compute the surface movement ys, it is required to know the dys = 𝛼 Δu dz
100
suction (Δu) profile within the depth Hs. The maximum value of
suction in pF, which occurs at the surface, is specified as 1.2 pF in (2.4) (2.4)
ys = (1) (1.08)(460) + (1) (0.84)(460)
AS 2870 for all regions in Australia. It is assumed that Δu decreases 100 100
linearly with depth, as shown in Figure 2 for the three possible cases. (2.4) (2.4)
+ (1.75) (0.54)(690) + (1.61) (0.18)(690)
Example: The shrink-swell index Iss of a natural clay sample 100 100
collected at shallow depth at a site in Townsville, Australia, was
ys = 41.6 mm
measured in the laboratory as 2.4%. Assuming the layer is con-
sistent and no interference by bedrock or water table, estimate
As per Table 2, the site would be classified as H1.
the characteristic surface movement ys and classify the site.
4   N. SIVAKUGAN ET AL.
Foundation maintenance
AS 2870 clearly states that it limits the foundation moisture varia-
tions to those caused by seasonal and regular climatic effects and
not abnormal/extreme conditions. Abnormal conditions such as
effects of trees, drains, ponds, dams etc. should be either taken
into account by the designer or taken care of by the use of proper
maintenance.
Summary
Expansive soils, also known as reactive soils, cause significant
damage to low-rise buildings and infrastructure worldwide. To
mitigate the problem, the Australian practice is to carry out a
site classification and provide appropriate foundations. The site
is classified based on the characteristic surface movement at the
ground level, which can be in the range of 0-100+ mm. This
technical note summarises the simple but rational method prac-
tised in Australia and implemented through AS 2870. A simple
example has been provided to illustrate the method.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on contributors
Nagaratnam Sivakugan is an associate professor at James Cook University,
Australia. His writings include 8 books, 140 refereed journal papers, 90
refereed conference papers and more than 100 consulting reports. He is a
fellow of the American Society of Civil Engineers and Engineers Australia,
and a registered professional engineer of Queensland. He does substantial
consulting work for geotechnical and mining companies in Australia and
overseas and Worldbank.
Jay Ameratunga is a principal engineer at Golder Associates, Brisbane,
Australia and has been practicing geotechnical engineering for more than
35 years. He works closely with universities in major research projects,
and mentors PhD students and young engineers. He has co-authored a
book and 50 technical papers on soft clays, land reclamation and ground
improvement.
Braja M. Das is the dean emeritus of the College of Engineering and
Computer Science at California State University, Sacramento. He is the
author of several best-selling books in geotechnical and foundation engi-
neering and more than 300 technical papers. He is widely recognised in
his field where he has served in the editorial boards of some prestigious
journals and has delivered many keynote lectures.
ORCID
Nagaratnam Sivakugan   http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3714-6068
References
AS 1289.7.1.1. 2003. Method 7.1.1: Soil Reactivity Tests – Determination of
the Shrinkage Index of a Soil – Shrink-Swell Index, Methods of testing
soils for engineering purposes. Australian standard, Standards Australia.
AS 2870. 2011. Residential Slabs and Footings. Australian standard,
Standards Australia.
Austroads. 2008. Technical Note – Lime Stabilisation Practice.
Boddie, K. A., J. Eckersley, L. C. Johnstone, P. Murray,  and T. Slogrove.
2001. Recommended Procedures for the Classification of Foundation Soils
in the Townsville and Surrounding Areas, 1–4. Townsville: Footing Sub-
Committee Engineers.
Fityus, S. G., D. A. Cameron, and P. F. Walsh. 2005. “The Shrink Swell Test.”
Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM 28 (1): 1–10.
Fityus, S. G., D. W. Smith, and M. A. Allman. 2004. “Expansive Soil Test
Site near Newcastle.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE 130 (7): 686–695.
Richards, B. G., P. Peter, and W. W. Emerson. 1983. “The Effects of
Vegetation on the Swelling and Shrinking of Soils in Australia.”
Geotechnique 33 (2): 127–139.