241
ESTIMATING SHRINK/SWELL IN EXPANSIVE
SOILS USING SOIL SUCTION
by
SYDNEY WARREN AUSTIN, B. Eng.
A THESIS
IN
CIVIL ENGINEERING
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN
CIVIL ENGINEERING
Approved
Accepted
May, 1987
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would Ifke to record my sincere apprecfatfon to
Dr. Warren K. Wray. v/ho served as my major advfsor, for
hts guldance durtng the research and preparatfon of thfs
thesfs. I would also Ifke to thank the other roembers of
my thesfs commfttee, Dr. Bflly Claborn, and Dr. Rfchard
Zartman for thefr helpfuî suggestfons.
Thanks to Mr. Wesley Bratton and Mrs. Dee Hardfn
for the graphfc presentatfon and aîso to Mr. Norman
McCleodf Mr. Cesar Garcfa. Mr. Lfm Boon, and Mr. Wf11fam
Escajeda for performfng laboratory tests and ffeld mea-
surements.
To my wffe Denfse for her support, patfence. and
belfef fn me. Specfal apprecfatfon to my mothei—fn-law,
Mrs. Alma Hector, for her assfstance and support.
The research on whfch thfs thesfs fs based was
ffnanced under a Natfonal Scfence Foundatfon Grant No.
ECE-8320493.
iî
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS î i
TABLE OF CONTENTS f f f
ABSTRACT . vfi
LIST OF TABLES vfff
LIST OF FIGURES x
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION l
Dîscussîon of the Problem 1
Objectfves and Scope 6
CHAPTER II. BACKGROUND: STATE OF THE ART . . . . 7
Theory of Sof1 Suction and Water
Mfgratfon 10
So î 1 Suct i on 10
Mechan i st i c Approach . . . . II
Thermodynamic Approach . . . 14
Water Migration 14
Equ i1i br i um Suct i on Prof i1es . . 15
Predictive Methods 16
Oedometer Test 19
Empirical Procedure 24
Suction Methods 28
Lytton-Gardner-McKeen Model 28
Snethen Model (1980a) . . . 32
f f f
CHAPTER III
CHAPTER IV.
Mftchel1 and Aval1e
Model (1984) 34
Dffferentfal Heave 36
FIELD AND LABORATORY
INVESTIGATIONS 39
General . . . . . . . . 39
Descrfptfon of Sftes. . . . . . . . . 40
Amarfllo . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
College Statfon 40
Sof 1 Stratfgraphy 41
Amar f 11 o 41
College Statfon 43
Ffeld Investfgation 45
Slab Model 45
Intrumentatfon and Ffeld
Measurements 54
C1 fmate 59
Amar f 1 1 o 59
College Statfon 63
Laboratory Studfes 65
Calfbratfon Curves 73
Psychrometers 73
Mofsture Cel 1s ' . 76
PESULTS AND ANALYSIS 80
Dfscussfon of Results 80
Inftfal Suctfon Proffles . . . . 80
Inftfal Mofsture Proffles . . . . 82
fv
Observed Surface Heave 84
Amarf 1 1o 84
Co11ege Stat f on 92
Elevation of Deep Benchmarks . . 99
Amarf 1 1o 99
Co11ege Stat f on 99
Soîl Suction Profiles 101
Amarillo 101
College Station 108
Edge Moisture Variation
Distances 111
Analysis of Results 114
Mitchell and Avalle Model . . . . 114.
Amar i 11 o 115
College Station 115
Lytton-Gardner-McKeen Model . . . 115
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . 125
Conclusions 125
Recommendations for Further
Research 126
LIST OF REFERENCES 128
APPENDICES APPENDIX A: 2- AND 3-DIMENSIONAL
ELEVATION PLOTS . . . . 137
APPENDIX B: LABORATORY TEST DATA . . 158
APPENDIX C: TYPICAL SOIL SUCTION PROFILES 173
APPENDIX D: RESULTS AND COMPLETE LISTING OF COMPUTER PR0GRAM,S0ILSUK2 . . . . 180
APPENDIX E: FIELD MEASUREMENTS OF SOIL SUCTION 211
vi
ABSTRACT
A field and laboratory study was started fn 1985
to evaluate the engîneering behavior of expansive clay
soils. The work was sponsored by the National Science
Foundation (NSF) in order to provîde a data base to im-
prove the design techniques for structures founded on
expansive soils. The preliminary results of this study
(for two research sites of contrasting c1imates) were
used to test the universality of a recently developed
soi1 suction method to estîmate soi1 movement beneath
slab-on-ground foundations. The soi1 suction method was
also tested with respect to different climatic condi-
tions. In addition, the relationshîp between the theo-
retîcal edge moisture variation distance and climate was
evaluated.
vif
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
2-1 Summary of Some Heave Predîction Procedures 20
3-1 Mean Soi1 Properties at Various Depths for the Amarillo Site 67
3-2 Mean Soîl Properties at Varîous Depths for the College Station Site 68
3-3 In Sttu Sotl Mofsture Content and Sotl Suctfon Values for the Amartllo Sfte . . . 69
3-4 In Sftu Soil Moisture Content and Soî1 Suction Values for the College Station Site 70
3-5 Percentages of Clay Minerals fn Clay Frac-tion from the X-Ray Diffractfon Analysfs for the Amarfllo Site 71
3-6 Percentages of Clay Minerals in Clay Frac-tion from the X-Ray Diffraction Analysts for the College Station Stte 72
4-1 Predicted and Observed Heave (Shrink) for Selected Points on the Longttudinal Centerline of the Slab Model, Using the Mitchel1 and Avalle Procedure for the Amarillo Site 116
4-2 Predicted and Observed Heave (Shrink) for Selected Points on the Longitudinal Centerline of the Slab Model, Usîng the Mitchell and Avalle Procedure for College Station Site , 117
4-3 Summary of Predîcted Total and Differentfal hleave, Using the Lytton-Gardner-McKeen Model for the Amarillo and College Statfon Sites 120
B-1 Conversion Table for Vartous Unfts of Sofl Suctton 159
vtt i
B-2 Reported Soi1 Classifîcatton and Physical Properties of Randal1 and Lufkîn Clay Sertes from United States Department of Agriculture, Soîl Conservation Service . . 160
B-3 In Sttu Sotl Properttes for Amartllo Sfte— Boring Number 39 161
B-4 In Sftu Soil Properttes for Amarillo Stte— Bortng Number 45 162
B-5 In Situ Soil Properties for Amarillo Site— Boring Number 51 . . . . , 163
B-6 In Sttu Soîl Properties for College Station Site—Boring Number 40 164
B-7 In sttu soil properties for College Station site—Boring Number 45 165
B-8 In Situ Soîl Properties for College Statton site—Boring Number 51 166
B-9 Initial In Situ Soi1 Suction for the Amarillo Site 167
B-10 Initial Sot1 Moisture Content for the Amarillo Site 168
B-11 Initial In Situ Soi1 Suction for the College Station Site 169
B-12 Initial Soi1 Moisture Content for the College Station Site 170
B-13 Soi1 Parameters Used tn Mitchel1 and Avalle Procedure to Predict Total Heave for the Amarillo Site 171
B-14 Soîl Parameters Used in Mitchel1 and Avalle Procedure to Predict Total Heave for the College Station Site 172
E-1 Monthly Soi1 Suction Measurements for the Amarillo Site 212
tx
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
2-1 Theoretical Relattonshtp Between Effecttve Stress Parameter, X, and Degree of Saturation, S , and Results for a Cohesfonless bîlt 13
2-2 Types of Suctfon Proftles as a Functton of Conftguratton of Impermeable Covered Surface 17
2-3 Pore Water Pressure Profiles Beneath an Impermeable Covered Surface as a Func-of Location of Water Table 18
2-4 Laboratory Relationship Between Void Ratio and Effective Pressure 22
2-5 Soi1 Pressure Diagram as a Function of Depth 23
2-6 Potential Expansiveness of a Soi1 as a Function of PI of Whole Sample and Clay Fraction of Whole Sample 26
2-7 Curve Showing Relattve Change tn Potentîal Heave with Depth 27
2-8 Instability Index as a Functton of Plastictty Index 37
3-1 Soi1 Stratigraphy for the Amartllo Stte Showîng Soi1 Type, Atterberg Ltmits, In Sttu Natural Moisture Content, and Per-cent of Clay 42
3-2 Soil Stratigraphy for the College Station Site Showîng Soi1 Type, Atterberg Limits, In Situ Natural Moisture Content, and Percent of Clay 44
3-3 Plan Vfew of Typtcal Slab Model Showtng the Arrangement of the Instrument Stacks (Bortngs 1-34), Locatton of Bortngs Taken for Soi1 Classiftcation and Labora-tory Testfng (Borfngs 35-52), Model Dt-menstons, and Locatton of Perfmeter Grade Beam 46
3-4 Amarillo Slab Model Looking East Showtng Placement of the 2-ln. Thtck Sand Cover on the Plastic Membrane During Construction . . . . . 48
3-5 Completed Amarillo Slab Model Looktng West 48
3-6 Schematic of Elevation Point Construction . 50
3-7 Grid Layout of Elevatton Points on the Slab Model and Uncovered Soi1 Adjacent to the Covered Surface for the Amarillo Stte 51
3-8 Grid Layout of Elevation Points on the Slab Model and Uncovered Soî1 Adjacent to the Covered Surface for the College Statton Stte 52
3-9 Schematic of Deep Benchmark Construction . . 53
3-lOa Elevatton View of the Arrangement and Dîstribution of Subsurface Instrumenta-tion Along the Ltne of Boring Numbers 1-17, for the Amarillo Stte . . . . . . . 55
3-lOb Elevatton Vtew of the Arrangement and Distribution of Subsurface Instrumenta-tton Along the Ltne of Boring Numbers 18-34, for the Amartllo Site 56
3-1la Elevation View of the Arrangement and Distribution of Subsurface Instrumentatfon Along the Line of Boring Numbers 1-17, for the College Station Site 57
3-1Ib Elevation Vtew of the Arrangement and Distribution of Subsurface Instrumentatfon Along the Lfne of Boring Numbers 18-34, for the College Station Site 58
xt
3-12 An Approxtmate Relattonship Between Thornth-waite Moîsture Index and Edge Moisture Vartatton Distance 61
3-13 Monthly Dtstributton of Prectpitatton and 44 Year Mean Monthly Ratnfal1 at the Amarillo Sfte 62
3-14 Monthly Dîstribution of Precfpitatfon at the College Statton Site 64
3-15 Soil Suction Versus Moisture Content Relationship for Soil at Selected Depths for the Amarillo Site 74
3-16 Sot1 Suction Versus Moisture Content Relationship for Soi1 at Selected Depths for the College Station Site 75
3-17 A Typtcal Calibratîon Curve for the Psy-chrometers 77
3-18 A Typical Calibration Curve for the Mois-ture Cells 79
4-1 Mean Initial Soi1 Suction Profiles for the Amarillo and College Statton Sites . . 81
4-2 Mean Initial Soîl Moîsture Content Pro-ftles Showing Soi1 Stratigraphy for the Amarillo and College Station Sites . . . . 83
4-3 2- and 3-Dtmensiona1 Representattons of the Changes in Relative Surface Eleva-tions After Months 1 and 12 with Respect to the Elevation at the Time of Stte In-stal latîon for the Annarillo Site 85
4-4 Monthly Changes of Surface Elevation for Months 1 to 12, of the Longitudinal Centerline, Section A-A, of Slab Model for the Amarillo Site 87
4-5 Monthly Changes in Surface Elevation of Indivîdual Points on the Longitudinal Centerline, Section A-A, of the Slab Model for the Amarillo Site 89
xi i
4-6 2- and 3-Dtmenstona1 Representattons of the Changes tn Relattve Surface Elevatfons After Months 2 and 12 wtth Respect to the Elevatton at the Tfme of Stte Installatfon for the College Station Site 93
4-7 Monthly Changes of Surface Elevattons for Months 2 to 12, of the Longttudtnal Centerline, Section B-B, of the Slab Model for the College Statton Stte 95
4-8 Monthly Changes tn Surface Elevatfon of Indfvtdual Pofnts on the Longttudtnal Centerltne, Sectton B-B, of the Slab Model for the College Statton Sfte 97
4-9 Monthly changes fn Elevatton of Deep Benchmarks for the Amartllo and College Statton Sftes 100
4-10 Monthly Changes fn Sotl Suctton wtth Depth for Instrument Stack No. 1, Located 3 ft Outstde the Covered Surface for the Amarfllo Site 102
4-11 Monthly Changes fn Sot1 Suctton wtth Depth for Instrument Stack No. 20, Located 2 ft Instde the Covered Surface for the Amartllo Stte 103
4-12 Monthly Changes fn Sof1 Suctton at Selected Depths for Stacks Nos. 1-9, for the Amartllo Stte 106
4-13 Monthly Changes fn Sof1 Suctton wtth Depth for Instrument Stack No. 1, Located 3 ft Outsîde the Covered Surface for the College Statton Stte 109
4-14 Monthly Changes fn Soî1 Suctton wtth Depth for Instrument Stack No. 11, Located 10 ft Instde the Covered Surface for the College Statton Stte 110
4-15 Monthly Changes fn Sofl Suctfon at Selected Depths for Stacks Nos. 9-17, for the College Statfon Stte 112
xt tt
4-16 Inîtfal Fîeld Suctfon Proffle for the Uncovered Surface and Equilibrium, Wet, and Dry Suction Profiles Beneath the Covered Surface at the Amartllo Sfte . . . 122
4-17 Inîtfal Fîeld Suctton Profile for the Uncovered Surface and Equfltbrium, Wet, and Dry Suctton Profiles Beneath the Covered Surface at the College Station Site . . . . , 123
A-1 2- and 3-Dtmenstona1 Representation of Changes tn Relative Surface Elevation After Month 2 with Respect to the Eleva-tion at the Time of Site Installation for the Amartllo Sfte 138
A-2 2- and 3-Dîmensiona1 Representation of Changes tn Relative Surface Elevatfon After Month 3 with Respect to the Eleva-tton at the Ttme of Site Installatton for the Amarillo Site . . , 139
A-3 2- and 3-Dimensiona1 Representatton of Changes in Relative Surface Elevation After Month 4 with Respect to the Eleva-tion at the Time of Site Installatîon for the Amarillo Site 140
A-4 2- and 3-Dimensiona1 Representatton of Changes in Relative Surface Elevatton After Month 5 with Respect to the Eleva-tion at the Time of Site Installation for the Amartllo Site 141
A-5 2- and 3-Dimensiona1 Representatton of Changes in Relative Surface Elevatton After Month 6 with Respect to the Eleva-tton at the Time of Site Installation for the Amarillo Site 142
A-6 2- and 3-Dîmensiona1 Representation of Changes in Relative Surface Elevation After Month 7 with Respect to the Eleva-tton at the Time of Site Installation for the Amarillo Site 143
X I V
A-7 2- and 3-Dtmensiona1 Representation of Changes tn Relative Surface Elevatfon After Month 8 with Respect to the Eleva-tfon at the Tîme of Sîte Installatîon for the Amarîllo Site 144
A-8 2- and 3-Dimensfona1 Representatfon of Changes fn Relative Surface Elevatfon After Month 9 wîth Respect to the Eleva-tfon at the Ttme of Sfte Installatfon for the Amartllo Stte . . » . , 145
A-9 2- and 3-Dimensîona1 Representatîon of Changes fn Relative Surface Elevatfon After Month 10 wtth Respect to the Eleva-tion at the Time of Site Installation for the Amarillo Stte 146
A-10 2- and 3-Dimensional Representation of Changes in Relatîve Surface Elevation-After Month 11 with Respect to the Eleva-tîon at the Time of Site Installatton for the Amarîllo Site 147
A-11 2- and 3-Dimensional Representation of Changes in Relative Surface Elevation After Month 4 wîth Respect to the Eleva-tion at the Time of Site Installation for the College Station Site 148
A-12 2- and 3-Dimensîona1 Representation of Changes in Relative Surface Elevation After Month 5 with Respect to the Eleva-tion at the Time of Site Installatton for the College Station Site 149
A-13 2- and 3-Dimensiona1 Representatîon of Changes tn Relative Surface Elevation After Month 6 with Respect to the Eleva-tion at the Time of Site Installation for the College Station stte 150
A-14 2- and 3-Dimensional Representation of Changes fn Relative Surface Elevation After Month 7 with Respect to the Eleva-tion at the Time of Site Installation for the College Station site 151
XV
A-15 2- and 3-Dimensiona1 Representation of Changes in Relative Surface Elevation After Month 8 wîth Respect to the Eleva-tfon at the Ttme of Sfte Installatton for the College Statton Stte 152
A-16 2- and 3-Dimensiona1 Representation of Changes fn Relattve Surface Elevatfon-After Month 9 with Respect to the Eleva-tton at the time of Site Installatton for the College Station Site 153
A-17 2- and 3~Dimensional Representatton of Changes in Relative Surface Elevation After Month 10 with Respect to the Eleva-tfon at the Ttme of Stte Installatton for the College Station Stte 154
A-18 2- and 3-Dtmensiona1 Representation of Changes fn Relative Surface Elevatton After Month 11 with Respect to the Eleva-tion at the Time of Site Installation for the College Station Site 155
A-19 Monthly Changes of Surface Elevation for Months 2 to 12, of the Lateral Centerline of the Slab Model for the College Station Site 156
C-1 Monthly Changes in Soi1 Suction with Depth for Instrument Stack No. 26, Located 20 ft Inside the Covered Surface for the Amarillo Stte 174
C-2 Monthly Changes in Soil Suction wtth Depth for Instrument Stack No. 28, Located 10 ft Inside the Covered Surface for the Amarillo Site 175
C-3 Monthly Changes in Soil Suction wtth Depth for Instrument Stack No. 32, Located 2 ft Inside the Covered Surface for the College Station Sfte 176
C-4 Monthly Changes fn Soî1 Suction with Depth for Instrument Stack No. 3, Located 2 ft Instde the Covered Surface for the College Statfon Sfte 177
XV i
C-5 Monthly Changes tn Soi1 Suction with Depth for Instrument Stack No. 9, Located 20 ft Instde the Covered Surface for the College Statfon Stte 178
C-6 Monthly Changes fn Sot1 Suctton wtth Depth for Instrument Stack No. 15, Located 2 ft Inside the Covered Surface for the College Station Site 179
X V t i
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Dtscussfon of the Prob1em
Clayey sofîs wtth the potentfal to shrfnk or swel1
are located fn many parts of the Untted States and are
also found fn numerous countrfes throughout the world
(Donaldson, 1969). Sotls wfth thfs shrfnk/swell poten-
tfal cause structural and desfgn problems fn many engt-
neerfng structures, such as retafnfng walls, hfghways,
pavements, cana1 wa11s, and s1ab-on-ground foundat f ons
of Ifght butldtngs (Johnson, 1978). In parttcular, the •
performance of slab-on-ground (also termed slab-on-
grade) foundatfons for resfdentfal and Ifght commerctal
bufldtngs often are affected detrfmental1y by thfs
shrfnk/swel1 phenomenon.
Constderable research effort has been undertaken
regardtng expanstve sotls fn countrfes wtth arfd or
semt-arfd clfmates, such as Israel, South Afrfca, Aus-
tralfa, and the Unfted States. In these countrfes, the
problem of expansfve sotls fs of sfgntffcant engfneerfng
and economfc concern. The major problem of a potentfal-
ly expansfve sot1 occurs as a result of mofsture content
vartatfons wtthfn the sof 1 proffle caused by cHmatfc,
envfronmental, or other extraneous fnfluences. In these
1
fnstances, the ground surface moves upward (swells) as
the sot1 moisture content increases and the ground sur-
face recedes (shrinks) as the soil motsture content
decreases. Soil movement in both forms can result tn
distress, distortîon, and final1y cracking and struc-
tural damage to external brick veneer walls, slab-
supported tnterior walls, and floor slabs of buildings.
In the technical 1iterature (Holt and Jones, 1973;
Wfggtns, 1974; Krohn and Slosson, 1980), tt fs estfmated
that the annual damage to structures, fncludfng hfghway
and airfield pavements, resulting from expansive sofl
behavîor ranges from $2-$9 billion. Approximately 30
percent of this damage is accounted for by residential
and light commercial buildings. These structures are
very susceptible to the expansive behavior of sotls
because of their low confîning pressures.
In response to a need to mitigate this damage, the
following rational design procedures have been proposed
for slab-on-ground foundations in the past:
1. Building Research Advisory Board (BRAB - 1968)
2. Lytton and Woodburn (1973)
3. Walsh (1974)
4. Fraser and Wardle (1975)
5. Swinburne Method (1980) .
These destgn procedures were developed as genufne
attempts to model the sotl-slab tnteractton. However,
as Wray (1980) fndfcated, these avatlable desfgn proce-
dures have many shortcomtngs. The prtnctpal deffcfency
of each method fs the fnabtlfty to determtne the degree
of support the swelltng sotl provtdes to the understde
of the s1ab-on-ground structure.
The reason for thts fnadequacy ts that two bastc
desfgn parameters, the dîfferenttal sotl movement (y-.)t
and the edge motsture varlatfon dfstance, e_, (sometfmes m
termed the edge penetratfon dtstance, e) have to be
estfmated. In an effort to fmprove on the deffctencfes
of the prtncfpal destgn procedures, Wray (1978, 1980)
presented an analysîs that subsequently became known as
the Post-Tenstontng Instttute (PTI) method (1980). Un-
fortunately, thfs destgn procedure fs also conttngent on
being able to adequately predtct the two sofl destgn vartables (y_ and e ). The PTI method was the ftrst
m m
destgn procedure that tncorporated sot1 suctton theory
to predict not only total heave, but dffferentfal heave.
Several methods for estfmatîng total heave of
expanstve sotls have been suggested by fnvesttgators for
varyfng geographfc and clfmatfc condittons (e.g.,
Jennfngs and Kntght, 1958; McDowell (PVR), 1959; Van der
Merwe, 1964; Sulltvan and McClelland, 1969). The avafl-
able techntques for the quantftattve estfmatfon of
volume change can be dtvfded tnto three categortes as
presented by Snethen (1980):
A. Oedometer tests (McDowel1 (PVR), 1959; Sullt-
van and McClelland, 1969).
B. Emptrfcal procedures (Van der Merwe, 1964).
C. Sofl suctfon procedures (Johnson, 1978).
Unttl recently, the most wfdely used method to
estfmate total heave was the oedometer test. Kassfff and
Shalom (1971) and Wray (1984) have asserted that thfs
method does not model the ffeld behavtor of parttally
saturated expansfve sotls that are fnfluenced by clfma-
tfc condîtfons. Accordîng to Snethen (1986), the oedo-
meter test has been deemed unsuttable to esttmate total
heave, sfnce ft does not stmulate the volume changes
expected to be expertenced tn the ffeld as the unsatu-
rated sot1 responds to a potenttal gradfent that causes
motsture change as does the sotl suctfon procedure.
Several fnvestfgators have concurred that the
appltcatfon of sot1 suctton prtnctples for heave (swell
and shrtnk) predfctfon seem to provfde reasonable values
wtth respect to observed data (Johnson, 1978; Snethen,
1980a; Goode, 1982; Mîtchell andAvalle, 1984). The
recent trend has been to use sot1 suctton to character-
tze quantttattvely the fnterrelatîon between sotl partf-
cles and sotl water for partfally saturated expansfve
sofls. Sotl suctfon methods can address the transfent
flow condtttons and changes fn flux to account for ffeld
condftfons. Thfs concept wf11 be elaborated further fn
Chapter II. However, because the sofl suctton proce-
dures were developed for specfffc sfte and clfmatfc
condftfons, ft fs not known to what extent these proce-
dures are applfcable to general stte and c1fmatfc condt-
ttons.
In 1985, the Nattonal Sctence Foundatton (NSF)
sponsored a multt-year fnvestîgatîon at Texas Tech Unt-
verstty whfch fs atmed at mftfgatfng damage to slab-on-
ground foundatfons constructed over expanstve sofls.
The research consfsts of theoretfcal, laboratory, and
ffeld tnvestfgatfons.
A f1ex f b1e s1ab-on-ground foundat î on mode1 wa s
constructed at each of two sttes that have htghly
expanstve sotls. These sftes are located tn Amartllo,
Texas, and College Statton, Texas. Each stte was mont-
tored at one month fntervals and ffeld measurements
taken were sof1 motsture content, sof1 suctton pres-
sures, sotl temperature, and slab foundatton and deep
benchmark elevattons. The preltmînary results of thts
study are presented for the ftrst (or tnfttal) 12 conse-
cuttve months of field measurements and are also used
for the analysts presented tn Chapter IV.
ObJectfves and Scope
There are a number of spectffc objectfves to be
achfeved wtth thfs research. However, the mafn objec-
tfves of thts thesfs are:
1. to test the applfcabf1fty of a sof1 suctfon
method to predtct total heave for general use,
2. to test thts method wfth respect to the tn-
fluence of c1fmate,
3. to verffy the correlatfonshîp between edge
motsture varfatton dtstance (e^) and clfmate, m
4. to evaluate a predfctfve method for dtfferen-
tîal swelltng or shrfnkîng that fs based on sfte specf-
ffc sotl propertfes.
CHAPTER II
BACKGROUND: STATE OF THE ART
The prfncfple of sofl water potentfal was ffrst
concefved by sofl physfcfst Buckfngham (1907) fn hfs
classfc paper on "capfllary" potentfal (Rtchards, 1980;
Htllel, 1982), Thts concept was further developed by
Gardner (1920) when he related the sotl water potentfal
to the sofl water content. The sfgnfffcance of thfs
development was that ft recognfzed the prfncfpaî form of
energy that fs responsfble for the movement of water fn
unsaturated sofls. Sotl water wf11 mfgrate from a
regton of hfgh potentfal to a regfon of low potentfal
(or from a regton of low suctfon to a regfon of greater
suctfon) due to the dffference fn potentfals (or
dffference fn suctfons). Hence, contrary to the popular
belfef, a dffference fn water content fs not the drfvfng
force fn changes fn flux fn unsaturated sofls. A mofs-
ture content gradtent fs responsfble for flow fn mofs-
ture only ff the sofl layers are fdentfcal.
For many years, sofl physfcfsts have been usfng
the concept of sof1 water potenttal to descrfbe the
énergy of sofl water everywhere fn the sof1-p1ant-atmo-
sphere contfnuum. Thts concept provfdes a useful tool
for quantffyfng the mofsture fn the sofl. The total
8
potentfal of sofl water is deffned as the sum of the
varfous components of energy and can be stated as:
•t = •g "*• •p " •o •*" •m ^^"^^ where, 4» = Grav f tat f ona 1 potentfal
• s Pneumatfc potentfal
4> = Osmotfc potentfal o
4» = Matrfx potentfal
Total sofl suctfon, referred to herefnafter as
sfmply sot1 suctfon, fs a specfal case of water poten-
tfal when the pneumatfc and gravftattonal potentfals are
consfdered to be neglfgfble fn comparfson to the matrfx
and osmotfc potentfals, whtch fs the case for most engf-
neertng problems. Therefore, the total suctfon , h,
consfsts of two components, matrfx suctfon (h_) and m
osmotfc or solute suctton (h ), and ts represented alge-
brafcal1y as: h = h^ + h^ . (2-2)
m s
Matrfx suctfon results from the capfllary and
adsorptfve forces due to the sotl matrfx. The osmotfc
suctfon fs due to dîssolved salts (catfons) fn the sof1
water, whtch affect fts thermodynamtc propertfes and
lowers fts potentfal energy. Specfffcal1y, the dfs-
solved salts decrease the vapor pressure of the sofl
water.
The Revfew Panel of the Motsture Equflfbrta Sympo-
stum (1965) deffned total suctfon as:
The negatfve gage pressure relatfve to the external gas pressure on the sofl water to whfch a pool of water must be subjected In order to be fn equflfbrfum through a semf-permeable membrane wtth the sofl water.
Wray (1984) descrfbed sotl suctfon (fn layman's
terms) as a measure of the sofKs afffnfty for water.
That fs, the greater the sofl suctfon, the greater the
sofl's attractfon for water.
Sofls engfneers have lagged behtnd sofl physfcfsts
fn fdentffytng sof1 suctton as a tool fn modelfng the fn
sftu changes fn flux of unsaturated sofls. In a recent
revfew by Wray (1984) of 17 Amerfcan soîl mechanfcs
textbooks currently fn use, ft was revealed that only
four of them had referred to sofl suctfon. Wray also
observed that, fn the general geotechnfcal 1fterature
stnce 1968, only very few papers constdered the term
"sof1 suctfon" fmportant enough to fnclude ft as a "key
word." Consequently, engîneers fn general are unfamtl-
far wtth the prfnctples of sof1 suctfon. As Snethen
(1986) reported, engtneers dtd not adopt thfs concept
untfl the late 1960's and are not utflfzfng ft to fts
fu11est capab f1f t f es.
Sfnce 1960, many fnvestfgators, especfally those
fn Australfa and South Afrfca, have applted the concepts
of sofl suctfon to many areas of geotechnfcal engfneer-
fng research. One of the areas that has been most
promfnent fn research has been the behavfor of expansfve
10
sofls. Because of thefr clay mtneralogy, montmorfllo-
nfte and other smectftes are very susceptfble to volume
changes gtven certafn envfronmenta1 condftfons. As
such, cîay sofls wt11 have potenttal for very severe
volume changes based on the amount and type of clay
mtneral. Expansfve sofls can have very hfgh sofl suc-
tton values when partfally saturated. Accordfng to
Kassff (1969) and Goode (1982), these values can be as
hfgh as 10 to 10 cm of water for oven-drfed sotls.
Engtneers normally express sot 1 suctfon as a F>osftfve
value fn unfts of pF, whtch ts deffned as the logarfthm
of (tenston or suctfon) head fn centtmeters of water.
Thts avofds the use of large cumbersome numbers. Sot1
suctfon can be expressed tn many untts of pressure, such
as bars, pst, and kPa. For conventence, a converston
table fs presented fn Table B-1 (Appendfx B). Thfs table
fndtcates the varfous conversfon factors for untts that
are often referred to fn the technfcal 1fterature.
Theory of Sot1 Suctton and Water Migration
Sof1 Suctfon
The state of development of the sofl suctfon
theory wf11 be advantageous to revfew fn thfs sectfon fn
order to relate the work of prevfous fnvestfgators to
the thrust of thfs fnvestfgatfon.
11
As Snethen (1977a) potnted out, the fnteractfon of
sotl water and sofl partfcles that cause volume changes
fn expansfve sofls can be descrfbed by two mec^ianfsms.
These are the mechanfsttc and the thermodynamtc (or
energy) approaches.
Mechantsttc Approach. Karl Terzaghf (1936) ffrst
related the state of stress fn a saturated sotl to the
pore water pressure. Thfs relattonshfp, whtch fs called
the effectfve stress prfnctple, can be wrftten mathema-
ttcal1y as:
ô = a - u (2-3)
where, o = Effecttve stress
o = Total stress
u = Pore water pressure
The equatton that characterfzes the volume change
fn saturated sofls can be expressed as:
av = CAo (2-4)
V
av where, — = Volumetrfc strafn
V
Aa = Changes fn effectfve stress
C = Volume compresstbt1fty
Btshop (1961) extended the effectfve stress ex-
pressfon to a general formula whfch consfders partfally
saturated sofls:
12
o = íJ- Ug + X(Ug - u^) . (2-5)
In thfs equatfon, u denotes the pore atr pressure, u Q W
denotes pressure fn the pore water, and X fs an empfrf-
cal parameter that varfes theoretfcalty from unfty for
saturated sofls to zero for completely (or enttrely) dry
sofls. Bfshop's relatfonshtp between X and degree of
saturatfon, S , fs shown fn Ffgure 2-1.
The term (u -u_) fs called captllary pressure or o w
sof1 suctfon. Thus, sotl suctfon may be related to
volume changes through the effecttve stress or mechanfs-
tfc approach. However, the parameter X for volume
change fs very dtfffcult to determtne stnce ft fs neces-
sary to sfmulate the stress path and condftîons extsttng
tn the fteld (Blfght, 1965).
Many attempts have been made to deduce relation-
ships between the effectfve stress and volume change fn
partfally saturated soils (Bltght, 1965) as has been
done for saturated soils. Burland (1965) has concluded
that the principle of effecttve stress cannot be related
to volume changes tn partfally saturated sotls stnce the
applted pressure and pore pressure condtttons tn the
ffeld are dtfftcult to model fn the laboratory fn a
mechanfstfc manner. Thts pofnt of vtew was also sup-
ported by Aftchfson and Rtchards (1969).
13
10
08
• • /
0-6 r7 V
0 4 A^ 02
' /
/
V. /
o Dnained tests e Constant waten
content tests
20 40 60 60 WO
Degnee of satunation 5^-%
Ftgure 2-1. Theoretfcal Relattonship Between Effectfve Stress Parameter, X, and Degree of Saturatton, S , and Results for a Conesfon-less StIt. (After Bishop, 1961)
14
Thermodvnam f c Approach. Thfs approach relates
energy to thermodynamtc varfables and fs derfved from
the Kelvfn equatton whtch can be stated as:
P h = RT log^ — (2-6)
^ o
where, h = Total potentfal
P = Vapor pressure of the pore water fn the sof1
PQ = Vapor pressure of free pure water
R = Untversal gas constant
T = Absolute temperature P — = Relattve humtdtty
Eq. (2-6) descrfbes the relatîonshtp between the total
potentfal and vapor pressure. The total suctfon of a
sof1 can be computed from Eq. (2-6). Therefore, the
heave process can be modeled accordfng to thermodynamfc
processes sfnce at very low mofsture contents, whfch fs
the case for most unsaturated sofls, motsture movement
fs fn vapor form.
Water Mfgratton
Water movement fn saturated sotls can be descrfbed
mathematfca11y for one-dtmenstonal flow by Darcy's Law
(1856):
q = k d4>/dx (2-7)
where q fs the flux, k fs the hydraultc conducttvfty
15
(coefffcfent of permeabtlfty) whfch ts constant for a
gfven sofl, • fs the FXJtentfal, and x fs the lateral
dfstance over whtch the change fn potentfal occurs.
However, thts law was modfffed by Rtchards (1931)
to account for unsaturated flow condtttons as shown tn
Eq.(2-8), (Htllel, 1982):
q = -K(i())7H . (2-8)
By combfnfng Eq(2-8) to the conttnufty equatfon or
the law of conservatfon of mass, the rate of change of
sotl mofsture can be expressed as:
(2-9) de
d t
- = J -dt 3x
. q
K ( * ) ^ 3x
or — ^ — K(i/;) (2-10)
dt 3x ax
where K ts a functfon of suctfon, lí;, H fs the hydraulfc
gradtent whtch may tnclude both suctton and gravttatton-
a1 components, and dø/dt fs the rate of change of
motsture wfth respect to ttme. For steady state condt-
ttons, de/dt fs zero. However, steady state does not
exfst fn unsaturated near surface sofls and the rate of
change of mofsture fs a functfon of suctton gradtent.
Equ 11f br f um Suctfon Proftles
The sof1 suctfon proffle that eventually develops
under an horfzontal tmpervtous barrfer or cover, such as
a concrete slab-on-ground foundatfon or a hfghway
16
pavement, wf11 depend on the lateral extent of the
structure, vegetatfon adjacent to the cover, precfpfta-
tfon, clfmate, relatfve humfdtty, and the locatfon of
the groundwater table. The ftnal sofl suctfon proffle
whfch develops beneath the center of the slab fs called
the statfc equflfbrfum suctfon proftle and fs a result
of long term condfttons. The proftle that may develop
at the edge of the slab fs a dynamfc proffle and may
change as the sotl fs tnfluenced from a wet to dry
condftfon or vfce versa. Ffgures 2-2 and 2-3 show the
varfous proffles that may develop for dtfferent ffeld
condttfons. A dynamtc suctfon proffle would exfst fn
open terratn due to cycltc tnfluences of c1fmate.
Predtcttve Methods
The predfctfve models that are employed to quantf-
tattvely predtct the volume changes fn expansfve sotls
can be grouped tnto three general categortes as sug-
gested fn Chapter I. These categortes are oedometer
tests, emptrfcal procedures, and sotl suctfon proce-
dures. A summary of a representattve method from each
of the ftrst two categorfes fs presented below. In
addftfon, three sofl suctfon procedures are outlfned
herefn fn order to develop a c1ear understandfng of the
Ifmftatfons of the varfous procedures. The sofl suctfon
procedures are Lytton-Gardner-McKeen (Wray, 1978);
17
18
^ r IM^eKVIOUt COVCKCD AHEA
miTlAL
mi^Ti¥t HrOlfOtTATIC têtãO
SATUHATIOM
i rORE-MATCII ^•CSSU(»C
o. SHALLOW WATER TABLE
lUPCIIVIOUS COVENCD AREA JIECATl^t MrOltOÍTATlC MgAO
IMITiAL
SATUItATIOH
'mt
^ORE-WATEM ^nESSURE
b. PERCHED WATER TABLE
POME-WATCR ^HESftUMC
DEEP WATER TABLE
Ffgure 2-3. Pore Water Pressure Proffles Beneath an Impermeable Covered Surface as a Func-tfon of Locatfon of Water Table. (After Snethen, 1977b)
19
Snethen, 1980a; and Mftchel1 and Avalle, 1984. The
Mftchel1 and Aval1e and the Lytton-Gardner-McKeen
procedures are both fllustrated later fn the analysfs fn
Chapter IV. A brfef descrfptfon of some of the total
heave predtctton procedures are gtven tn Table 2-1 as
summarfzed by Snethen (1975) and modfffed by (kxxJe
(1982).
Oedometer Test
As can be seen from Table 2-1, the oedometer test
fs fncorporated fnto most of the avaflable methods to
predtct total heave. The oedometer test procedure that
wt11 be descrfbed heretn fs the Sullfvan and McClelland
method (1969). The predtctton of total heave from thfs
procedure fnvolves the constant volume swell test ustng
the standard consolfdometer apparatus, and based on the
prfncfples of effectfve stress for volume change beha-
vtor of unsaturated sofls. It fs assumed that swellfng
ts caused by a decrease fn effectfve stress due to an
fncrease fn moisture content of the sotl. The effecttve
stress of an unsaturated sofl was deffned by Eq. (2-5).
If the pore atr pressure, u^, fs assumed to be zero
(atmosphertc), whtch fs usually a good assumptfon for fn .
sftu sotls, the effecttve stress equatfon may be re-
wrftten as:
ô . a- xp" (2-11)
Table 2-1 Summary of Some Heave Predtctfon Procedures. (After Snethen, 1975)
20
Nethod Typc of Test Procedure
NAVY
Double Oedometer
C nsolldatloii S«e11
Consolldatlon Swell
Loed undisturbed siinple (it natural mter content) to overfourden plus turcherge. Inundate and aeasure swell. Speciiwns at varlous depths are tested and a swell vs. dcpth curve 1s developed. The total hcave 1s area under the curve.
Two adjacent undlsturbed saaples are tested. One 1s Inundated, allowed to swell under a small load and then consolidated. The other 1s consolidated at natural water content. The two curves are adjusted to the virgin segments coinclde and the change 1n void ratio 1s computed from load changes and noving from natural water content to saturated conditions.
Slrnple Oedoiaeter
Sanpson, Schuster •nd Budge
Richards
Australlan Method
Yoshida. Fredlund and Hamilton
Snethcn
Consolidation Swe11
Consolidation Swell
Sullivan •nd McClelland
Constant Volume Swell
Hississippi State Highway Dept.
Consolidation Swell
Speclflc firavlty
Controlled Suction Consoll-dometer
Constant Volune Consolida-tion Test
Suctlon Moisture Relationship Specific Cravlty
Load undisturbed specinen to l.OkPa to determine e , Inundate and allow to swell to equilibrium, con-solidate beginning at lOkPa using nomal procedures. Change 1n void ratlo for predictlng heave 1s determined from e log p curve.
Two undisturbed samples are tested. One 1s loaded to machine capadty, after equilibrium 1s reached. the specimen is Inundated and again allowed to equilibrate under this load. The load 1s reduced to a small value and the sample allowed to swell, the slope of these points give C for load rcmoval. The second sample 1s loaded to in iitu overburden pressure and then satur-ated and allowed to swe11. This accounts for swe11 due to changes 1n moisture conditions •nd suction. The total change 1n void ratio 1s the sum of the two conponents.
Load undisturbed sample 1n Increments 1n sltu over-burden pressure. Inundate and apply load necessary to prevent swelling until cquilibrium 1s rcached. This pressure is an effective stress. Unload the sample 1n decrcments to 0.1 tsf to obtain the sweHing curve. Heave is computed from the change in void ratio due to the Initial and final cffective stress taken from the e - log p curve.
Sample 1s loaded to overburden pressure, Inundated and allowed to swell. The sample 1s unloaded to a small load and allowed to swell, followed by normal consolidation-swell test 1s performed. The no-vo1une change pressure is determined by cxtrapolating the swell curve through the field void ratio. The heave 1s computed 1n components for overburden removal and dccrease in suction due to noisture increascs.
Change 1n volume 1s cqual to change 1n water content (saturated conditions assumed). Initial and final noisture conditions nust be known or estinated.
Determine the volume change - suction rclationship for various loadings using the consolidation test with controHed suction. Prediction of Initial snd flnal suctlon are used to determinc hcave.
An undisturbed sample 1s loaded to overburden pressures to obtain e , then inundated and held at constant volume until cquilibrium is reachcd. Addi-tional loads are added to account for sample disturb-ance in this swelling pressure. The sample 1s then unloaded 1n increments to determine C . Heave 1$ computed from the corrected swelling prcssurc and cstimation of the final suction profilc.
The soll suction-water content relationship 1$ approi-Imated by a straight line 1n the ranges of Intercst to determine the slope, B, and Intercept. A. The compressibility factor, «, 1s used to conpute the stresses due to overburden and surchange. Thc flnal suction is estimated and the suction Index, C^, 1t used to compute heave based on the changes 1n suctlon. C can be determincd from suction controlled Usts or ffom •6,/lOOB.
21
where p (= u^) represents the negatfve pore water
pressure wfth respect to atmospherfc pressure or suc-
tton.
The preparatfon of a sample for the constant
volume test fs done accordfng to standard procedure
(ASTM 04546-85 or AASHTO T 258-81) wtth the unsaturated
sample placed between afr-dry porous stones. As shown
fn Ffgure 2-4 by the dashed curve, the unsaturated
sample fs loaded fncremental1y to a verttcal pressure
equfvalent to the total overburden pressure fn the
fteld. The specfmen fs then fnuncjated and fncremental
loads added to prevent swelltng untfl the swellfng pres-
sure fs fully developed. The measured swellfng pressuré
fs an effectfve stress sfnce the sofl suctfon has been
nullîfîed. The solfd curve fn Ftgure 2-4 fs achfeved by
unloadfng the submerged sample fn decrements from the
swellfng pressure to a pressure of 0.1 ton per sq ft.
It fs necessary to predtct the ffnal or equflfbrfum sof1
suctfon that fs experfenced fn the fteld fn order to
determtne the ffnal effectfve stress. The vertfcal
effectfve stress fs shown fn the stress dfagram fn
Ffgure 2-5.
The computatfon of heave fn an expansfve stratum
of thtckness, H, can be accompltshed from:
H A e AH = (2-12)
> * ^o
22
o
< o:
o ô
— I I I I t i i i i TOTAL '
OVERBURDEN PRESSURE, Po
1111 llli T-T-T
n FINAL II EFFECTIVE pPRESSURE.O-f
0 9 INITIAL 0 EFFECTIVE " PRESSURE, <r'i
.î SOIL SUCTION. p n
0
Ae
SWELLING PRESSURE (EFFECTIVE STRESS)
! I M 1111 J I I I l í l l l I I I
VERTICAL PRESSURE (LOG SCALE)
Ftgure 2-4. Laboratory Relatfonshfp Be-tween Votd Ratfo and Effec-tfve Pressure. (After Sullf van and McClelland, 1969)
23
^ o
1 5
O O H u »- í o £î uj uj s î ã2 *- uj "•
< 2 tf> ** tn w 2 ^' oc O 2 »-p O «« o u, u> S > J •« H < - I o z < »** *~ 9 U.
ÍTÍ'
lAl IAI
3 Z » - UJ
lA :=
c 0 u C -D D C
U. Q
Q C Q
0) > Q ^
Ul Q: 3 (A 1/) UJ
o: z Ul o Q; 9 »
Ul > O -J < »-o
>• m
CA
US
ED
Ul </> < UJ oc o
UR
E
IN
<n (A UJ o: 0.
UJ
o: 3
«n
MO
I ^S
ON
AL
m UJ
IL.
o X »-CL UJ o
E (0 3 t. (0 0)
— Qí o O -P VD û)< —
•) "b (0 • c 0) r Q U 4J — û. a -
So
t 1
of
De
Mc
Cle
in 1 1 (Vl
9) L D 0)
24
where e fs the fn sftu vofd ratto of the partfally o
saturated specfmen under a load equfvalent to the ovei—
burden pressure and åe fs the expansfon per unft volume
of sotl due to the stress reductfon.
The results of a swell test are usually plotted fn
the form of unft swell versus vertfcal pressure. There-
fore, Eq. (2-12) can be rewrftten ass
H Af LH = (2-13)
' -^o
where f fs the unft swell of the sofl due to stress
decrease. The fnfttal swell, f , fs zero ff there fs no
compressfon of the sample under the overburden load
before submergence.
As deptcted fn Ffgure 2-4, a change fn votd ratfo,
Ae, fs caused by a reductfon fn stress from an fnftfal
effecttve stress (ô".) to a ffnal effectfve stress (o^).
The horfzontal dashed Itne fn Ftgure 2-4 deptcts the
sotl suctfon whfch fs equal to the dtfference between
the swellfng pressure determtned from the laboratory
test and the total overburden pressure.
Emp t r f ca1 Procedure
Van der Merwe (1964) developed thts sfmple empfrt-
cal procedure to estfmate total heave (for sftes fn the
Transvaal and Orange Free State, South Afrfca) by usfng
a sfmple formula based on Atterberg 1fmtts and partfcle
25
sfze determfnatfon. A sot1 can be classfffed fnto very
hfgh, htgh, medfum, and low degrees of potentfal
expansfveness (P.E.) based on the plastfcfty fndex and
percentage of the clay fractfon of the whole sarrpîe as
dertved from Ffgure 2-6. It fs assumed that the untt
heave at ground surface (P.E.) fs 1 fn. per ft of depth
for very htghly expansfve sotls, 1/2 fn. per ft of depth
for hfghly expansfve sofls, 1/4 fn. per ft for medfum
expansfve soi1, and 0 fn. per ft depth for low or non-
expanstve sofls.
A factor, F, fs fntroduced to reflect the effect of
conftntng pressures (overburden) on heave along the
depth of the sofl proffle. The factor, F, fs related to
the depth, D, by:
D = K log F (2-14)
where k fs a constant. Van der Merwe determtned k = 20
for hts specfftc sfte condttfons.
The values of F can be determtned from tables or
from a graph, such as Ftgure 2-7. Usfng the potenttal
expansfveness (P.E.) and the factor F for every layer,
the total heave (T.H.) may be calculated from Eq. (2-15)
by summatton for each ft depth of proftles
T.H. = Z Fp . (P.E.p) (2-15)
where n = number of layers.
26
liJ -J Q.
<
liJ
é
O
CLAY FRACTION OF WHOLE SAMPLE (%<2^)
Ffgure 2-6. Potentfal Expansfveness of a Sofl as a Functfon of PI of Whole Sample and Clay Fractfon of Whole Sample. (After Van der Merwe, 1964)
27
P
UJ ilJ
F,o=0»335 AT D=-9 1/2 FOR ZONE 9 TO 10 FT
D=20 L06 F
Ftgure 2-7. Curve Showîng Relatfve Change 1n Potentfal Heave wtth Depth. (After Van der Merwe, 1964)
28
Thfs method has many Ifmttatfons although ft may
have gfven very good correlatfons for a specfffc sfte
and clfmate (Transvaal, South Afrfca). The prfmary
Ifmftatton of thts method fs that ft does not take fnto
account the effects of cltmate. The heave experfenced
under a structure wt11 depend on the status of the sofl
suctfon of the sof1 proffle at the commencement of con-
structfon and the ambfent c1fmate (wet or dry). The
fnfîuence of the water table also affects the amount of
heave. Thfs method does not consîder these fnfluences.
Suctton Methods
It was stated above that three sotl suctfon
methods would be focused on and outltned. These three
methods, although not nearly a11 the suctton methods
presented fn the 1tterature, gfve a fatr representatton
of sof1 suction methods tn general that were developed
for vartous sot1 and c1tmattc condttions.
Lytton-Gardner-McKeen Model. The Lytton-Gardner-
McKeen method to predict heave from soi1 suctîon evolved
through the individual efforts of each of these tnvestt-
gators. Wray (1978) applfed thîs method în a FORTRAN IV
computer program, called SOILSUK, to develop tables of
dffferenttal swellfng for center and edge Iffts. The
basfs for thfs method was establfshed by Gardner (1958)
when he related suctfon to permeabt1fty. Thfs concept
29
was subsequently developed by Lytton (1970), and docu-
mented tn Desat (1977), to produce surface proffles of
dtfferenttal sot1 movement closely resemblfng those
reported from ffeld measurements. McKeen (1977) modt-
ffed the Lytton method by developing equattons for the
rate of strafn as a functfon of the predomtnant type of
clay mtneral and the amount of clay present fn the sot 1 .
Thts method assumes steady state sot1 suctton condftfon
and cannot, at present, address transfent flow or
changes fn flux.
Gardner establfshed a relattonshtp between the
permeabtlfty of a clay to the suctfon caustng water
movement as:
a K = (2-16)
i T f + b
where, K = unsaturated permeabtltty
a - = saturated permeabtlfty b
T = absolute value of suctfon caustng water
movement
m = an exponent whtch vartes wfth grafn stze
(large for coarse grafns)
The equatton for total potenttal , y\>, could be wrftten
as:
4, = -h + X, + n (2-17)
30
where h represents total suctfon, X, fs the gravftatfonal
potentfal and fi represents the sot1 overburden. For
partfally saturated sot1, the mofsture flow can be ex-
pressed as a form of Darcy's equatfons
V = -K (2-18) dx
where, v = velocfty of flow
K = coefffcfent of permeabtlfty .
If fl fs neglected, then Eq. (2-18) could be wrftten ass
a(-h + X.) V = -K ^ . (2-19)
ax
For steady flux, v, and a known value of suctfon (whfch
can be equtlfbrfum suctton), h, somewhere fn the sofl
proftle, Eq. (2-19) can be numerfcally fntegrated. At noda1 po t nt f,
K ^ = ^ ;:; (2-20)
1 + a i h ^ r
where, K = saturated permeabflfty
a = Gardner's constant
m = constant
At present the sotl parameters a and m are not ffrmly
related to any of the common engtneerfng propertfes of
sotl, By solvfng a large number of problems usfng
dtfferent values of the constants fn dtfferent combfna-
tfons wtth each other, Lytton (1970) establfshed values
for a and m for a specfffc sot1 condttfon. These were
31 —9 1 X 10 and 3.0, respectively. In the technfcal Ift-
erature, ft was suggested that value of a ranges from
—6 —14
1 X 1 0 to 1 X 10 , wh f1e the va1ue of m ranges from
2.0 to 4.0. Both of these constants are dfmensfonless.
The change of suctfon tn the vertfcal dtrectfon fss
Ah. = AX, + —^-^ . (2-21)
K
The suctton at the nodal potnt (f + 1) can then be
computed ass
^ t + 1 = ^ f " t • (2-22)
Eq. (2-22) fs substftuted fn Eq. (2-20) as the new value
for h., and the calculation repeated until suction at
each nodal potnt fn the verttcal sotl proffle fs com-
puted.
If the sot1 surface ts covered wtth an tmpermeable
cover, as fs the case for a foundatton slab, the loss of
sofl motsture by evapotransptratfon fs elfmtnated.
Presuming the soil was drter than equtlfbrfum, thfs
results fn a gradual tncrease tn sofl motsture content
beneath the slab untfl an equflfbrtum condttfon fs
reached. By alterfng Eq. (2-21), and performtng the
same sertes of calculatfons fn the hortzontal dfrectfon,
the change fn suctfon horfzontally can be computed ass
AX V Âh, = — * — ^ . (2-23)
»<f
32
The overburden pressure from the soft tends to resfst
any swell generated fn the sofl. It may also refnforce
any shrfnkage that mtght occur.
McKeen (1977) extended thfs work to fnclude the
followfng stratn equattonss
Kaolfnttes
y^ ^ 0.00018 (% of elay) -- 0.000098 (2-24)
111ftes
Y^ = 0.00049 (% of clay) - 0.00351 (2-25)
Montmor f11on f te s
Y^ = 0.00056 (% of clay) - 0.00433 (2-26)
where Y^ fs termed the coefffcîent of suctfon change
compresstbt1fty and % of clay (<0.002 mm) fs calculated
wtth respect to the total sample.
Knowing the change of suction that occurred after
the surface was covered, the elevatton change per tncre-
ment of depth ^H/H, can be predicted ass
AH — = h ÍP' ftnal -P^nittaP ' ^^-27)
Snethen Model (1980a). Snethen proposed a model
based on sotl suction to predict total heave tn expan-
stve sotls. Soi1 suction versus water content curves
were developed and can be approxtmated by the Ifnear
re1at f on s
logf = A + Bw (2-28) m
where, w = Motsture content (by wefght)
33
A,B = Constants (y-fntercepts and slope of
the sof1 suctfon versus water con-
tent curve, respectfvely.)
Tj = Matrfx sot 1 suctton wfth surcharge
pressure
The heave of the expansfve sot1 proffle can be
computed froms
— = -^-^[^ - Bw^) - log (T^ + aa )] (2-29)
o
where,
H = Stratum thfckness, ft
C^ = Suctfon Index, aG /lOOB .
e^ = Infttal vofd ratfo
w = Inftfal motsture content, percent
T ^ = Ffnal matrfx sot 1 suctton, tsf
a = Compressfbt1tty factor
a^ = Ffnal applfed pressure (overburden plus
external load), tsf
A,B = Constants (Y-fntercept and slope of the
sot1 suctfon versus water content curve,
respecttvely)
G = Specfftc gravtty of sotl solfds
The suctfon fndex, C., descrtbes the rate of
change of vofd ratfo wfth respect to sofl suctfon. The
varfables, T and o , are both functfons of the
dertved depth of actfve zone and ffnal sofl suctfon
proffle. For CH clays, the compressfbt1fty factor fs
normally assumed to be equal to untty. Snethen sug-
gested that fn absence of measured data, a , the compres-
sfbtltty factor may be estfmated from the plastfcfty
fndex, PI, by the followfngs
PI < 5 a = 0 (2-30)
PI > 40 a = 1 (2-31)
5 1 PI 2 40 a = 0.0275 PI - 0.125 . (2-32)
Mttchel1 and Ava11e Model (1984). Thfs procedure
whtch was developed fn Adelatde, Australfa, also enables
the expanstve sotl movements to be predfcted from
changes fn sot1 suctfon. The relatfonshfp between sotl
motsture content and sotl suctton can be approxfmated
bys
Aw = C Au (2-33)
where, w = Sof1 motsture content
u = Sotl suctton (fn pF)
C = Constant.
For a saturåted sot1 the volumetrfc stratn AV/V
occurrîng from a change fn sof1 suctfon fs gîven bys
he AV/V = (2-34)
' ^ ^o G Aw
or AV/V = — (2-35)
where e denotes the fnftfal votd ratto, G the specfffc o *
34
35
gravfty of the soî1 solfds and w the soil mofsture
content fn percent.
Because of lateral restratnt or conffnfng pres-
sure, the verttcal strafn expertenced by sotl fn an tn
sttu condttfon ts constdered to be equal to only a
fractfon of the volumetrtc stratns
gAV/V e vert ~ , (2-36)
^ * ^o gG Aw
or e ^ vert - , ^ (2-37)
^ •' o
where g denotes a lateral restratnt factor. Mftchel1
and Avalle suggested that a value of g = 0.33 can be
assumed for clays. Snethen (1980a) suggested fncorp>o-
ratfng a compresstbf1fty factor, f, fn Eq. (2-37). The
compressfbf1fty factor ts the fractton of the applfed
pressure whtch fs effecttve fn changtng the pore pres-
sure. Thus Eq. (2-37) can be expressed ass
fgG Aw ^ert = • ^2-38) ^^^^ 1 + e^
o
For unsaturated sotls, sof1 suctton proftles are
easfer to predict or define than water content pro-
files. Thus, suctton profiles are used for sotl move-
ment predfctfon fnstead of sotl water content. Sub-
stttutfng Eq. (2-33) fnto Eq. (2-38) results fn:
(fgG^C)Au o
36
Mftchelî and Avalle deffned the ratfo of the ver-
tfcal strafn to changes fn sotl suctfon as the fnstabî-
1tty fndex, I .s Pt
gG^C (2-40) ' p t
ver t
=
s
fgG^c
' * « o
' p t ^ "
Therefore, the total vertfcal dfsplacement or
heave, d, of the sofl proftle can be determtned by the
summatton of the fndtvfdual sofl layers of thfckness,
Al, expertencfng a suctfon change, Au. The fnstabflfty
fndex, IpA.t also can be determfned by derfvfng the
e ./Au relatfonshfp from the core shrtnkage test whtch
fnvolves measurfng the 1tnear stratn versus the moisture
content and the soil moisture versus soil suction rela-
ttonshtps and expressed ass
c . Aw I . = ^^^^ X — . (2-42) ^^ Aw L\j
I . can also be determined empirically from Ftgure 2-8. pt
Differenttal Heave
The crttical crtterton tn the destgn and perfor-
mance of slab-on-ground foundatîons fs dîfferentfal
sofl movement Just as ft ts fn the case of compressfble
sofls. However, although thts ts an tmportant destgn
crfterfon, less effort has been devoted to developfng
37
8
4-»
0>
PecJological Classlfication (After Taylor et al Î974) Alluvlâl RB3 RB5 RB3/RB5 BS (Hindmarsh Clay) BE Unidentlfled
c ^^
>» 4-*
• ^ ^3 <o « J </) c
4
3 w
2
1 ApC
RBS-/ 1 /o .
/ ^^fO
y/7 • / J
aJ--o^ d o/
l ^ — ^ l
1 •
o (
. . t
k* o
'BE
« «
IB3
• e
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Plasticity Index {%)
80 90
Ftgure 2-8. Instabtlfty Index as a Functfon of Plastfcfty Index. (After Mftchell and Avalle, 1984)
38
methods to predfct dtfferentfal heave than has been
devoted to total heave.
Thfs lack of apparent fnterest has been due fn
part to certafn Ifmftatfons. As Donaldson (1973)
stated, some of the Ifmfts to predicting dtfferenttal
movement are the estfmatton of the rate of water fngress
fnto the proffle and the presence or lack of extraneous
fnfluences such as vegetatton or external sources of
moisture. Accordtng to Donaldson (1973), the amount of
dtfferenttal heave may be assumed to be 0.5 of the
total movement. The maximum dtfferential heave (y_j) can
also be esttmated from the Lytton-Gardner-McKeen pro-
cedure as explatned earlier in thîs chapter.
CHAPTER III
FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS
General
In order to achteve the objecttves of the re-
search, field studies are currently betng conducted at
two geographtcal sttes that have a htstory of extenstve
foundatton damage due to expanstve sotls (Mathewson, et
al, 1975). A sfmulated slab-on-ground foundatton was
constructed at each sfte to measure changes tn fteld
condtttons of motsture content and sol1 suction beneath
and adjacent to the slab model due to the influence of -
climate. One stte ts situated east of the Family Hospt-
tal Center, Amartllo, Texas (a dry cltmate). The second
site is located on the grounds of the Agronomy Research
Center, Texas A&M Untversity, College Statton, Texas (a
wet climate). The sttes are instrumented with thermo-
couple psychrometers and moisture cells to measure the
total suction and moisture content, respecttvely, of the
soil wtthin the expected zone of seasonal moisture move-
ment.
39
40
Descrfptton of Sttes
Amarf11o
Thfe 8tte fs located at the east end of the pro-
perty (Famfly Hospftal Center), approxfmately 20 ft west
of Kentucky Street. The topography fs essentfally flat
but slopes gently approxfmate1y 1 percent from the
northeast to the southeast. The vegetatfon cover fs
very short sparse grass. Before the fnstallatfon of the
slab model, the sfte was not used for any specfffc
purpose, but was mowed perfodfcal1y. At the tfme of
constructfon of the slab model, the general area around
the stte had numerous surface cracks varyfng from hatr-
Itne to as much as 1 tn. tn wtdth and were esttmated to
extend to constderable depths. The ground surface be-
neath the slab model had a smal1 number of shallow
cracks wtth relattvely narrower crack wtdths. Sfte
preparatton fncluded strfpptng of the ground surface of
any vegetatton and removfng any obstacle that mfght have
punctured the plasttc sheetfng that comprtsed the slab
model.
Co11ege Statfon
Thfs sfte fs relatfvely flat but slopes approx-
fmately 3 to 5 percent from northeast to southwest. The
vegetatfon at thfs sfte prfor to the fnstallatfon of the
slab model consfsted of grass and bushes, some of whtch
41
were approxfmâtely 2 to 3 ft hfgh. Three yery large
mature trees are located approxfmately 20 to 30 ft from
the slab model. These trees are sftuated to the north,
southeast, and south of the slab model. The sfte was
prevfously used as a storage sfte for old farm equfp-
ment. A storage shed for farm fmplements fs located
approxfmate1y 25 ft northwest of the slab model. A
gravel path that provfdes fngress and egress to the shed
fs located approxfmate1y 15 ft north of the slab model.
The sfte was also cleared of vegetatfon before the
fnstallatfon of the slab model. There were no vfsual
sfgns of surface cracks at thfs sfte.
Sof1 Stratfgraphy
Amar f11o
The domtnant sof1 type fn thfs regton (wfthfn the
Ifmfts of thfs study) fs the Randall clay serfes. The
subsurface'proffle at thfs sfte consfsts of four classes
of materfal as shown fn Ffgure 3-1. The topsotl fs
comprfsed of 12 to 18 fn. of reddtsh brown clayey sflt
ff11 that was probably created from the ffnal land-
scapfng of the sfte after the hospftal was constructed.
Underlytng the topsof1 fs approxtmate1y 2 ft of stfff
dark gray clayey sflt. Both of the materfals fn the
upper strata can be classtffed as A-6 fn the AASHTO Sofl
Classfffcatfon system and as CL fn the Unfffed Sofl
42
<
CJ
O
5 o
i 3 o
<
zi
I 0 r
DU-«+> 0 +»-— w+> 0) c
C 0) o - o — L , - • Oí
<— co - I
£ 0)+> 4J L C
I. £ V 0 (- c M- e o >+ í •
Q • 3 1. »+> 0) a (0 Ii-o o £ I . —
(/) I. ^ D — Oí+> 0 C Q
I cn •) u D 0)
43
Classfffcatfon system (USCS). Below the 3 ft depth fs a
etratum of a stfff Ifght gray sflty clay approxfmately 3
ft thfck. Thfs stratum was underlafn to at least 27.5
ft (depth of termfnatton of the deepest borfng) by a
sfmflar Ifght gray clay whfch was more sflty and less
plastfc. Both strata can be classfffed as A-7-5 fn the
AASHTO system and as CH fn the USCS system. The physf-
cal sofl characterfsttcs at thfs sfte are consfstent
wfth the range of values for Randall clay serfes as
reported fn the Sofl Survey of Potter County, Texas,
1980, and gfven fn Table B-2.
Even after 28 ft of drfllfng, the groundwater
table was not encountered. Accordfng to Wray (1986),
the depth to the groundwater table at thfs sfte may
range from at least 50 to 100 ft as estfmated by local
consultfng engtneers and cfty engtneerfng offfcfals.
Co11ege Stat f on
The predomtnant sofl at the research sfte consfsts
of the Lufkfn serfes, an alkalfne sandy clay. The
topmost stratum consfsts of 18 to 24 fn. of ffII ma-
terfal that fs made up of sflt mfxed wfth gravel. The
sofl stratfgraphy at thfs sfte, as shown fn Ffgure 3-2,
fndfcates that at depths between 2 to 7 ft, the sofl fs
a dark gray sflty clay whfch can be descrfbed as A-7-6
accordfng to the USCS system and as CL fn the AASHTO
44
2
(/)
u o UJ
o o
'^ e • - 6
oc9 Sîv
O-00
18
-28
37
-63
CM OD
1
K
o 3 O -J
T co I -2 - 1
o » -(/> <
s! 1
RA
L
3
b <
z - 1 < H
INI
•
^TEN
T
X Q
UJ
%
(0
s
0) +> > — D (D in +> —
— O C CO 0 M-
Sta
tf
s,
In
en
t o
4^ U 0) — (-0) E 0) 0) — Q. — -1 - TJ 0 0) C O L (0
0) 0 ) £ • £ U +J V Q) C
V Q)
0 < C M- 0
• O > 0) £ a (D a > 1.
0)— «0 « i » " " ^ • ^
+> 0 0
Str
a
fng S
ra
l M
- ^ 3 - o+> 0 £ (D 0)0) Z
• 1 1
m
gu
re
45
system. Except for a 3 ft thfck, clean, whfte sand
stratum located at a depth of approxfmately 16 ft, the
sofl below the 7 ft depth and to the depth of termfna-
tfon of the deepest borfng (25 ft) fs made up of a
motley grayfsh brown sflty clay that can be classfffed
as CH fn the USCS system and as A-7-6 fn the AASHTO
system. The materfal at the 16 ft depth was found to be
relatfvely dry. The physfcal sofI propertfes at thfs
sfte are wfthfn the range of values for Lufkfn sofl
serfes as reported tn the SofI Survey of Brazos County,
Texas, 1951, and gfven fn Table B-2.
There was no fndtcatfon of a groundwater table
even after drfllfng to a depth of 25 ft. In response to
fnqufrfes, "local engtneers" have reported encounterfng
a perched watertable at an approxfmateIy 25 ft depth
whfle conductfng subsurface exploratfon fn close proxf-
mfty to the research stte (Germann, 1986).
Ffeld Investfgatfon
Slab Model
A 24 X 40 ft sIab-on-ground foundatfon model was
constructed, as depfcted fn Ffgure 3-3, at each sfte
durfng the surrTier of 1985 (Amarfllo fn July and College
Statfon fn August). The model consfsts of 10 mfI poly-
ethylene plastfc sheetfng that serves as a barrter 1m-
permeable to mofsture. The fmpermeable membrane
•^o •"• ^o
46
o o vo O > O '
N o
CM 9> tr> « o *^0 ""O
— CO V í^O «"• —O
O r*. ro *nO «• • »-0
c\j O «9- >- O
eo tn t— •^O ^ ^ ^ O
1/^
«/)
J
»- »í >-u o oe £ «z o o » - t-
u < z u ^ o >- -J CD tO U. <
o^. L
CSi tn
tD CM
<^o ' ^ " o
CSJ
o
fSI/
«^o • • ***o CM Ct cs< co ir>
O • O «^ eo *^/s * ? • • • « O • O
O r
* o n» * o
' ld 01
eo tn
'"o n^ ^O
TidZTuzÍ ' i i 01
' id >2
0) 0)
0) c £ — +> i- ^
0 -0)03 0 C w ( n
^ 0) L 0 Jí 0 £ U U -
V C — in tt)
0 c E 0)
£ 3 01 fQ U C — +> — ( / ) « ) ( .
C 0
<D (j 0) 14. - £ 0 > c »-»*- 0
o -«4. 4J 0 •!-> Q
C U 0) 0 E - l 0) 0) • c ^ l- rn
— L. I CL < -
0)
c Q
«) 0) c I. OU-ffi 0
c O) 0 c —
— 4J •P Q •) U 0) O
>V 1. C 0 Q 4->
I qj • 1. tn
Q . ^ . ^ «n.E
C (D "0 0) 0) C E C ( 0 -
O 0) C T5 0 - (0 * - 0) L +> "0 O Q 0 U £ I .
•^ ^ Q; 0) (\j E tf) in — Q I L — If) 0) O rn û.
ín I
m 0) t .
0)
47
dfsrupts the evapotranspfratfon process of mofsture
movement fn a manner sfmtlar to that of an actual con-
crete slab. PVC pfpes (2 fn. dfameter) were used to
provfde flexfble framfng around the model perfmeter.
The membrane was covered wfth 2 fn. of sand to hold the
plastfc fn shape whfle the swellfng surface fs deffned.
The clear polyethylene plastfc was protected from the
sun's ultravfolet rays by the layer of sand. At the
exposed edges* a black polyethylene plastfc was used for
the same purpose. An attempt was made to construct the
structure flexfble enough so that the sofI swellfng
surface would not be constratned. It was assumed that
the wefght of the slab was neglfgfble. A 6 fn. wfde by '
18 fn. deep perfmeter grade beam was also constructed at
the east end of each slab. Thfs beam was fnstalled to
observe the effects of a shallow vertfcal mofsture bai—
rter on the lateral movement of motsture. No such grade
beam was constructed on the west end so that a comparf-
son could be made at each sfte.
The vertfcal movement of the surface of the slab
model was measured by means of a grfd of surface eleva-
tfon pofnts (247 fn Amarfllo and 234 fn College Statfon)
whfch were placed on the surface of the plastfc membrane
and covered wfth sand as shown fn Ffgures 3-4 and 3-5.
The elevatfon potnts consfsted of 6 fn. hfgh by 1/2 fn.
dfameter PVC pfpe attached to a 3 fn. square, 1/8 fn.
48
Ffgure 3-4. Amarfllo Slab Model Looktng East Showtng Placement of the 2-fn. Thtck Sand Cover on the Plastfc Membrane Durtng Constructfon.
Ffgure 3-5. Completed Amarfllo Slab Model Lookfng West. Elevatfon Pofnts QP 3-ft Centers can be Seen Extendtng Above the Surface of the Sand Cover. Termfnatfon Boxes for Instrument Leads can be Seen Adjacent to Each Sfde of the S1ab ModeI.
49
thfck acrylfc base plate as depfcted fn Ffgure 3-6. The
tfp of each pofnt was beveled to approxfmately 45® to
provfde a dfstfnct pofnt. The posftfons of thc eleva-
tfon pofnts are shown fn Ffgures 3-7 and 3-8 wfth some
pofnts extendfng 6 ft beyond the slab constructfon fn
order to measure the surface movement of the uncovered
sotI adjacent to the covered surface.
In order to have vertfcal control, deep benchmarks
were set at depths of 27.5 ft at Amarfllo and 25 ft at
College Statfon. Elevatfon hubs were also founded at
depths of 2, 6.5, 9, and 14 ft at Amarfllo and 2, 5, 9,
and 15 ft at College Statfon to measure the depth to
whfch measurable vertfcal movement occurred and to at-
tempt to de1f neate the effect t ve act f ve zone at each
sfte. The elevatton hubs and benchmarks were construct-
ed wfth 3/4 fn. dfameter steel pfpes protected by 4 fn.
dfameter PVC pfpe sleeves. The detafls of thfs con-
structfon are fllustrated fn Ffgure 3-9. The annular
space between the borfng and the PVC pfpe sleeve was
fflled wfth a bentonfte-dfesel ofI slurry, havfng a unft
welght of approxtmately 100 Ib/ft^' Approxímately I ft
of slurry was poured fnto the bottom of the borfng
fnsfde the protectfve PVC pfpe to prevent accfdental
fntrusfon of water and the dryfng out of the bottom of
the borfng. Thfs partfcular slurry mfx was chosen
50
LJJ cn <
C ro o c
0 o 3 t . 4^ 0) C o u
c
Q.
c 0 •p o >
0)
UJ u. 0 u
0) £ u tf)
\0 I
i . D 0)
51
< - ,
ffo Mo Sîo 9to fto 5 o s o Sfo So s o s o :^o ^ o mt •* mi má M « ^ M t ^ t w e M C M M «w
So o o So o o o o So o o o So
«o o
So
5 0
So
So
o
^o
- o
f-
o
o
So
o
o
o
o
So
o
o
o
o m ••o
o s
§ô
w*,
| o
o
o
^o
o
o
o
o
o
o
« 0
o
o
o
o
—O'
o
o
£0
o
o
o
o
2o
o
o
— o
o
o
o
o
So
o
o
o
o
So
ÍVl
o «o
o
o
SíO
o
o
;0
o
o
l o
«o
o
o
- o I I o I I o I I
Ê O " I
I o I I o I I o I o I
£ 0 I o I I o I o I I o I
« 1
»v< O
•fîO
o
o
o
o
go
ao
Po
^o
cw
Eo
« 0
« 0
Zo ?o ^ O i ^ ^
I o
?o
mo
SO
« D O
» 0
eo
o
'O
o
•oo
^ _ « M _ e^ i . m C V I ,
o ^o
3 0 i i C • Cl
'o •f
i s
^ 5
^ s
s
i 9
n Q
£ 0)4^ . £ 0) 4J 0 - P
c (n 0 . P
C 0 « tt) — v u -C Q -— -^ u 0 * 0 Û . < _
< c — 0 — 0) ^ 0) V
Q >"D 4. 0) Q) 0 — I . ** . UJ 0)
> 0) d. 0 u 0 U Q
CM. + ) 3 í-D D OTJO) > c Q 0X3
— l-•D 0) 0) - • D > 1. 0 0 C £ U
1** I
m I. D
• ^
52
go £o So go So go Ro So So So «0 So 2 o ^-
go go o o o £0
so o
SO o s
go o
so o
:o :o
2 0
So
5o
e ''O
•«0
-o
S o o — o - » * o — o — o — o — 0 - ^ 0 — o o So
o So 5 o
s
o O O O 8 0 o
o o ^o o o o o §
o So o 0 0 0 * 0
o o o 2o o o o
o So 0 0 0 0 : 0
5o o § o o o o o S o o o o o S o f - p
•o ^o
o o
o So
o
o o
-o - o
o O S O
O O 5 0 e
So 0 0 o 0 ^ 0 o o o zo
^o o 0 ^ 0 o 0 0 o S o o
«n o o o " o 0 0 0
O **0 O O O O * ' 0
o s o
•n
M>
o 2o
- o .-o
o : o
s
—J
o — o — o — o — o - — o — o - — o
— O ""O " ^ **o • 'O •*o •*o
o zo
o 50
*o ^o
O " O
o « 0
o o
o o
*o *o
"o ~o o • o o f
'o o
ÛÛ<^ 30 U t « f
o - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 If
s
)6 s
» ^
t/t i
£ ^ Q - -— U) 0) 0)
£ C 0) 4J 0
+* 0 +> 4J Q
C 4J 0 ^ in
c 0) (U 0) 4J U 0) C Q 0)
O TJ -û. < 0
u c — 0 — 0) - 0 £ Q >T5 U 0) £ 0
> v U. 0 U O U Q
c »*-4> 3 i. D D 0 T3 in > c Q Q 13
— L -D 0) 0) - T 3 > L 0 0 O £ U
00 I
cn
0) L
0)
53
'•'<?-/>>/>^^ • 2-3 /4 IN. DlAM
RADIAL SUPPORT
BENTONITE-DIE3EL OIL
SLURRY
APPROX. I FT DEPTH BENT NITE
AND OIL SLURRY
TIGHT FITTING PVC CAP
HEAVY GREASE TO REDUCE FRlCTîON AND PROVIDE WATERPROOFING
T^(^//;<N^///>^V//>^'/A^V/v>y/XsS///<^^
3/4 iN. DIAM. GALVANIZED STEEL PIPE BENCH MARK BEVELED AT TOP
4 IN. DIAM. PVC PIPE
RADIAL SUPPORT RING
BENTONITE AND OIL SLURRY
SECTION A-Å
3 IN. DIAM. PIPE FLAN6E
APFROX. 6 IN. PENETRATION
Ffgure 3-9. Schematfc of Deep Benchmark Con-structfon.
54 because ft was vfscous enough to prevent flow from
occurrfng even ff subsurface cracks were present.
Instrumentatton and Ffeld Measurements
One hundred seventy J.R.D. Merrfll thermocouple
psychrometers and 84 SOILTEST mofsture cells were fn-
stalled outsfde and beneath each slab model. The fn-
struments were located fn two parallel rows 4 ft apart
and centered along the longttudfnal axfs of the slab
model. The arrangement was desfgned to provfde 100
percent redundancy fn the fnstrumentatfon fn case of
corrosfon or damage. The psychrometers were fnstalled
at 1« 3, 5, 7, and 9 ft depths whfle the mofsture cells
were fnstalled at only 1» 3» and 5 ft depths because of
economfc reasons as fllustrated fn Ffgures 3-10 and
3-11. Mofsture cells were not fnstaîled tn the three
centermost fnstrument locatfons fn both rows. Each set
of thfs verttcal arrangement of fnstruments fs termed a
"stack."
At each depth, fnstallatfon of the fnstruments
was accomplfshed by drfllfng (augerfng) 8 fn. dfameter
boreholeSf placfng the fnstrument wfth remolded sofl
(approxfmately 2 fn. fn dîameter) fnto the borehole, and
backftllfng the hole wfth sotl whtle tampfng at approx-
fmately 6 fn. Iffts to approxfmate1y the orfgfnal 1n
place sofl densfty. Durfng augerfng. care was taken to
55
t / t
r^
to
tfi
2
e^
11
12
o
9>
eo
rv
«e
i n
»
f ^
CSJ
/ s>
-g=
, 9 Í §o
1 i2o
n O
£ o
p^
S o • •Q
sr u» ;<;
sB' s»
eo o
^9-1 1 ** 1 _ * " h 1 1
N.
cw
8^ S2
127
CG
O
10
3
5o
^ O
tn Í O
o 2 0
»0 •o
§ 0 " * "»
ií>0 OB
m g
9>0
* _ * r 1 «
u
•o
_ » c
.V.B"
in O
«e "
§ 0
§ 0
^ O
e»
í B * fM
2 0 eg »0
«9° r" <0
»0
sB° ts.
•n** • R go
«a _ >
1 l A
1 *Hid3a
i n O m
l e O «e
» 0
go
^ o
So
0.0
0 :£o
oO CM
r 2 0
0 «50 r » 220
• 0 pw
£ 0
(MO 9
0 m «0
1 ^
«° • 0 0
5 0 .
ro -
So -
« 0 0 (M
in
So -
So -(M
Eo -
o» ^ o e« o> 0 -
n o
#. n O -
Í O -^m
» 0 -e«
0
1 0«
n
-M
êg
CSI
C«i
i n
n
i n
irt
CM
V
(M
m
CM
• CM
• (M
^ (n
u « a. m *-
i ^9 ce
VI 1. •1
4J
i L tn 0 — «1-0 c
0 • T3 — f C 4-» — Q Q 1
4J — 4J C
ce:
psyc
l
gem
en
tru
me
m
bers
m
i c m 0
£ 2
£
.. t9 0
*..»
* r
D
rran
In
s
g
Nu
ITE
f th
e
A
su
rface
f B
ort
n
e.
AMAR
ILLO
S
Vfe
w
0
of
Sub
L
fne
0
lo
Slt
C C 0 ) ^ 0 0 £ L « ^ • » 4 ^ 0 4J4J É Q 3 0 ) < > £ C 0) — 0 Q) — L — £ UJ 4^ < 4->
• Q 0
1 1
m Q) L 3 0) ^ ^ l i .
5 6
^ u
m
S
CM
CM
•n (M
eoo
B^ B ' « O fnO 8 O (M W » X
r«.tJcs
o O
^B^ r>B^ 5 0 £ 0 ^ ^ ^ ^ mm ^ w
•^ es!
PJB^ S B ^ S O RO
^BS ^gi ^o so
r ^o g o go So
«c _ t o
j 5 in (M l e
O^ * D 5 in g S (MO CM O -(M
co eo n n
— o i£o 2 o £0 o
(M
u
0; w «
i e « O
C M O
(M
g o
So £ 0 So -
So go -(M
(M
r> CM
(M (M
(M
0 (M
e t
•
2íB « 2 0
ca PO
SB' U PS
B" cc
o D ^ ( M O
Ok
- B ' OB
(M
'i B^ R f ^ eo
1 1
^ n ^ 0 ^ o
*• t :
sB' t :
88^' (V
* sB-
0 n S
*
B^ «
1 (n
:£B n • 0
, c^
SB" ev «vj
ggc ^ to _ ^ f
SB' ' ^
_ X
( M O «e
• 0
9« e* •
1 •n
go e> « 0 0
co (MO
z:o r«» 2 0
( M O r>.
0 e« r^
1 •^
JJ *Hld3a
0 0
So ( M ^
«0 0
^ O
0 ^o
^ o m^
^ O e
1 9>
« a. m r-
m § ee H-1/1
m o
s
"2
D
J
1 m m^
0
T5
c
L 0 M.
• O'^
i i ^
C 4 J Q
4J C 0)
m 1 QOO 4-> c 0) E
E 3 Q)
«
0) L V
L £ 0)4J E C Q L L <
e
10 3
cz M M
0) u Q
£< ! . +» u.
0) c •^ L 0
L f f i 3 . 0) d- 0)
0 £ 3
Jcn 0)
• p . M.
04^ • V
0) tn c - 0
> 0 - 1 - ^
c 0 • p -
C ^.
0) — 0 £ L
4J4J Q D > £ Q ^ L
4J Q E
0 ) < c 0 e — £
UJ4J < 4J
• £ 0 w<
1 m 0) L D 0)
57
tn
(M
y-p
B *» • 4
«B" o ^ ( O
sB-CM
te
sB~ ÍM
mO es; «o n «c
, B" : • • » •
• *
B «Q • O
sB~ (M "^
«C
»•4
ÎSB' «o ( M UJ (•> «
B" o
sB^ ( M
B • - 1
«» sB-(M O
«
CJ
55 B -CM
,-o (M V n »
B" m m CM
j n O CM
O
(MO (M ( M
m o n (M
So
( M O o n
O cc «e (M
, . 0 (M (M
o
(*) o ( M
m ^ (M
n O l O ( M
o ^ ( M
(M
t
" Î50
«TM
m ' (M
5 0 (n
O ^ O o (M
n o m
;0 Î50
(M (no e* e«o ( M O m n
e i O m (M
1 ^ 1 A
SB~ 1 so 1 0 » 1 n le 1 "*
«B 1 — «» 1 n te 1 e>o 1 cc lo 1 (M wa
IJB-^ 1 0 •« 1 0 (Q
~ B -s -» « 9
fc B"
004
1 I
B-e i O (M wa (n iv
••• oB ( M * * * n «0
nB"^ CD va (M w»
(MB--e» * CW f^
s^~ 0
••» «• B"
§ 1
'U
Oi csiD'"' m n ( M * '
eoO •M «» n tv •" i«
oB w tv ( M (V
nB"-s :s oB" e< "> (M *0
. B -N
0 (S)
B"-n
1
*IUd3Q
leO (M
e>0 e t ( M
e « 0 n ( M
•-€> m p "
• o ^ i *
CNJ
m^*
8 0
m n
í
o'rt loO (M
l e O « 0 ( M
« 0 m ( M
* o « ( M
^ O « •
( M
e . O (M (M
0 m (M (M
1
CM
£
m t-u.
m
^ w « a. m
»— z
1 « *-m •5
•«>
3
m X c
• -m U i 0 U J - J
0 u
1 m
• • 0
T3 c 0
C 4 ^ Q
•P C Q> E
Q 4J C Q E 3
e L 0)4^> c Q L L <
9)
0)
L 0 M.
» t^ M
1 « •
«) L 0)
i 3
C Z M «
0) u Q
£ M. •P
M.
. 0) 0) C 4J
L S) 0 L ffi C 3 0 0) IL —
0 £ 3
^ifí 0) •^ >
C 0 •^
u.
0 4 J Q
Q) 4 > C (0
0 -1 e c
0) Q) 0)
0 £ -* *
4J 4J Q 3 > £ Q) '
^ L <
4J — 0
0 ) U c 0 0) - £
Uj 4J < 4J
• Q
" N
mm
1 m Q L 3 0)
58
«>
(M
^
CM
I B (M
m (M
(M (M
o (M
feB-^ f B
o D -"
| B -
B •o
n p -e%o (M
^ n O O c.
mB- gO
6 O
sB-
•C tt ,c>
( M ( M
e«
o
2 8 " (^ iO n
r
iB^~ (^O n
«c
( M
- «o n
sB'' so (Ni n
et
(M fM
. ^ m (M n 5?B^ « o
( M * ^
| o 5 0 n •»>
e> n * ^ =>
gîB" ;5o m
•no (M
So (M
SO
(M
So
(M
íCo Zo 90 iQo (M (M n
I 5o <M
^ o (M
8 0
£ 0 So
« 0
co
ao
îo 2 eo e o leo
( M * *
«; (M
jqB-- SB"" sB^ î ^ n n (M
50 RO SO § 0 ro tv ro ^ r^ ^
*c <c fs. ^
sB^ sB"- jgB"" Sio CM •>• n C« (M «
Jd- i ^ - ^ - Co CM ^ (M c» n X
-B'^ • B - leB^ RO
KO -
l o O (M
(M e t o a> (M c>
n n D « o " " eotí"' e»o"~ K ® o e S
( M O
CM'
Co CM O C M * '
w
J •
^ ié.
• ( S
u < &. m H-
flC » -m
e « 0
U i t-
m
s * M
»-m bJ tØ U i
^
COL
m —
(M
I •)
L O 4.
o c » O ' ^
T5 — <n C4J I Q Q ffi
4> C C Q 0) 0) E L E 3 0) 0) L £ 0)4^ E C 0) D Q C Z L * -L Ot 9) < 9) C *»
U — — Q Q L (0 £ U- O 4^ L m C . ^ 0 M. 0) (4. •^ 0 £ 0 4 ^
3 Q ^ tn 0) 4J Q) C (fí
> 0 - 1 0) 0)
C C 9) 9) O 0 £ ^ •^ — 4J ^ 4J 4J 0 Q 3 0 ) U > £ C Q - . 0 0) — L — £ UJ 4->< 4->
I m 9) L D O)
• l i •H1430
59
fnsure the recovery and fdentfffcatfon of the sofl from
each foot of depth.
Fteld observatfons were made on a monthly basfs at
each sfte. In an attempt to observe a complete shrfnk/-
swell cycle, the ffrst 12 consecuttve months of ffeld
measurements were constdered fn thfs thesfs. However,
because of unusually hfgh amounts of precfpftatfon
occurrfng at both locatfons, only the wettfng cycle was
observed. Data collected from each sfte fncluded
changes fn sofl suctfon and mofsture content wfth depth
and both beneath and outsfde the covered surface, deep
benchmark elevattons to measure the depth of meanfngful
movement (actfve zone), surface changes fn elevatfon
both on and adjacent to the slab model, and c1fmate
(temperature and prectpttatfon). Elevattons were mea-
sured and referenced to the deep benchmarks at each stte
(27.5 ft, Amarfllo and 25 ft, College Statfon). The
fnftfal elevattons were normalfzed at 10.00 ft, and the
relatfve movements were determtned for each subsequent
(monthly) measurement.
Clfmate
Amarf11o. The clfmate at thfs stte fs essentfally
a dry or semf-arfd clfmate. Thornthwafthe (1948) devel-
oped an unfversal clfmatfc fndtcator whfch became known
as the Thornthwafte Mofsture Index (TMI). Russam and
60 Coleman (1961) reported a relatfvely good correlatfon
between the equflfbrfum sofI suctfon and the TMI usfng
data from varfous parts of the world. Wray (1978)
presented an approxfmate relatfonshtp the edge mofsture
varfatfon dfstance and the TMI as shown fn Ffgure 3-12.
Thus, the TMI was selected as a convenfent measure of
clfmate fn thfs fnvestfgatfon because other fnvestfga-
tors have used ft fn the past and ft fs completely
ratfonal and easy to calculate for any sfte where precf-
pttatton and temperature data are avaflable. Thfs fndex
fncorporates total monthly rafnfall, average monthly
temperature and the north latftude of the locatfon. The
mean annual precfpftatton at Amarfllo ustng 44 years of
data (1941-1984) fs 20.28 fn. The hfstorfcal clfmatolo-
gtcal data was obtatned from the offfcfal Natfonal
Oceantc and Atmosphertc Admtntstratton (NOAA) weather
servfce measurement statfon whfch fs located at the
Amarfllo Atrport, approxfmately 10 mfles from the ex-
per fmental sfte. The mean TMI for for thts perfod for
Amarfllo was determfned to be -21.9 fn./yr. The nega-
tfve sfgn fndtcates that the sfte has an annual water
deffcft; that fs, ff avatlable, thfs sfte would yfeld to
the atmosphere a total of 21.9 fn. of mofsture per year
through evaporatfon and plant transpfratfon. Thus, the
clfmate can be classfffed as dry. Ffgure 3-13 reports
the monthly varfatfons of precfpftatfon for the perfod
61
A
O r> 4
O CM
o •"
o
o T
o CM 1
o r> 1
V
%u o z
STU
RE
^m
o s låJ
WA
I X ^
z fiC o X »-
9) L C 0) 0) 0) -0 4J o; U u. í <
4->TJ ^ 9) C ffi Q
a X Q! — 0) o £ T J C 0) C Q C — *J 0 0) •^ 0) — 4^ L O Q 3 - 4J C 0) 0) 0 o: •.. -. 0 4 ^ a ) S Q 4-> — . Q e L E4-> Q -^ — — > æ X Q t^ 0 2 0) 9v L £ L — a4i> 3 a c 4J • < L 0) >
0 - Q C £ 0 L <»- r 3
• cvt
1 cn
gu
re
^ 1 0 ^ CO Oi ^ c
(i j j "*• 'a^NVisia NOI1VI8VA ianisiow aoaa
62
C4^ 0 « .^ V — • -
4» Q — M-a c •^ ^. U Q D : L (L >
— « L £ 04^
s l •p- ac .
i : 0)10 L^C
«. V
í — •* £ ^ <P CT5 0 c
0
L
i 0) £
Z Q4J
• m • M
1 m 9) L D ct
•Nl •NOIlVlldl03dd
63
January, 1984 to July, 1986 and the 44 year mean monthly
rafnfall at thfs sfte. Begfnnfng fn March, 1985, the
clfmatfc data was recorded by radto statfon KGNC fn
Amarfllo, whfch fs located approxfmately 1/4 mfle from
the research sfte. Thus, the clfmatfc data for Amarfllo
can be consfdered to be sfte spectffc. Durfng the
prevfous sfx months that preceded the sfte fnstallatfon,
only a total of 9.4 fn. of precfpftatfon was recorded at
thfs stte. As such, the sfte was fnstalled at the end
of a lengthy dry perfod.
Co11ege Statfon. The mean annual precfpftatfon at
thfs locatfon fs 42.2 fn. (an average of 3.52 fn. per
month) usfng data from the years 1911 to 1986. The mean
TMI for College Statfon fs -0.47 fn./yr ustng data from
1911 to 1986. The clfmate at thfs sfte can be charac-
terfzed as wet. Ffgure 3-14 reports the monthly precf-
pttatton for the perfod August, 1983 to August, 1986.
The monthly cl fmatologf cal data was recorded at the Turf
Farm weather statfon, Texas A&M Untversfty, College
Statfon whfch fs located approxfmately 5 mtles northeast
of the research sfte. The total precfpftatfon for the
sfx months perfod precedfng the sfte tnstallatfon was
17.0 tn. The TMI for the year precedfng the sfte fnstal-
latfon was -14.03 fn./yr. Thus, thfs sfte was also
fnstalled at the end a lengthy dry perfod.
64
">
-> ^ <D S æ o>
< "-2 u. "^ ^
Z
o cn
<
• 9 |<^
z ^ 2
l U .
-»
p z p (/>
<
0) - 3 — 2
< 2
lu. | - í
rã Iz
1(0 S
0) £ 4*
4J .Q
C 0
•^ 4J Q 4>
"ã U 0) L Q.
u. 0 • C 9) 0 4 J
• ^ a ^
4JÍÍÍ D £ C •^ 0 L — 4J4J 0) Q — 4J O U)
>« Q) ^ 0) £ Q) 4J — C — 0 0 £ U
• •^ ^m
1 m 0)
gur
S3H0NI •N0llVlldlD3tíd "IVIOI
Laboratorv Studfes
At each sfte, 17 borfngs were made along the
longftudfnal centerlfne of the slab model fn order to
collect dfsturbed samples at ewery foot to a depth of 9
ft as shown fn Ffgure 3-3. The orfgfnal project propos-
al had requfred fnstallfng the fnstruments fn •'undfs-
turbed" sofl samples. However, because of the low fn
sftu mofsture content and the brfttle sotl texture, the
fmplementatfon of thfs procedure was not possfble.
Therefore, the samples were taken fn a dfsturbed form at
Amarfllo. For the College Statfon stte, 3 fn. Shelby
tube samples were taken from depths below 2 ft. Nevei—
theless, the operatton of fnstallfng the fnstruments
fnto the "undtsturbed" sotI was unsuccessful although
the sofl was wetter at thts sfte than at Amarfllo.
Because of the sofl's conststency and sotl relaxatfon fn
the borehole, ft proved almost fmpossfble to "hold" the
sofl/fnstrument arrangement together and fnstall ft fn
the borehole. A laboratory testfng and characterfzatfon
program was undertaken for the samples recovered.
Laboratory tests for each stte fncluded the fol-
1ow f ng:
1. Determfnatfon of fnftfal fn sftu mofsture
content, and fnftfal fn sftu total' sofl suctfon by the
fflter paper method.
2. Sofl classfffcatfon tests (Atterberg Ifmfts,
specfffc gravfty, and grafn sfze dfstrfbutfon).
3. Sofl mofsture content versus sofI suctfon
relatfonshfp.
4. Clay mtneralogy analysfs (X-ray dtffractfon).
The results of the sotl classfffcatfon tests usfng
the average values from three borfngs at each sfte are
presented tn Tables 3-1 and 3-2. The selected borfngs
are located at least 10 ft from each other and are
consfdered representattve of the sofl stratfgraphy at
each stte. The fn sftu motsture contents and the fn
sftu sofl suctfon for each foot of depth of sotl usfng
the average of 17 borfngs are reported fn Tables 3-3
and 3-4. The sotl suctton values were determfned by
usfng the ftlter paper method whfch was proposed by
McQueen and Mtller (1968), and the McKeen (1981) calf-
bratfon curves. The composftton of the clay fractfon
for each foot depth of sofl was determtned (for one
borfng at each sfte) from X-ray dfffractfon analysfs and
fs reported fn Tables 3-5 and 3-6 for each sfte, re-
spectfvely. The tensfon table was used to determfne the
66
Us a result of the tn sttu sof I befng extremely dry, the matrfx suctfon was actually measured.
67
L O IL
0) £ t. 0) o 0) 3 0
L
4> Q
0) 0)
4S Q L 4J Q ) -atn 0 L O
a -— L 0 (/)
< c Q 9) 9) £ £ 4
I m 9) £ Q
>» —•
w E c «« r j »• ae C Ow.... . a> o
c «
««/> c
C (SJ •( e u • « k o w
c « • - 0»
O w
E » • ^ 0» ^ c —* « u >« «
« « ^ O)
^ « — QC
• « » • • — .
"S*^ c O' «
^ : :^
0 «r» • eo
^ ^ • (n
r ^ 1 eo r>
0 ^ 1 9v
00 «e i 0 (f>
t^ «e t r* in
«e «e • ^ le
«e «e 1 (Sl «e
«e • e> m
« e e M ( v i e » r > 9 « ^ . r « « e t f > « o < e « e < e
«e «e i e« *
«e 1 m if>
•A «e i 0 le
«0 9^ i r «e
r* eo • «e «e
G eo i tn eo
^ eo 1 es r*
0 GD 1 r*. r»
eo • 0 eo
c M r « e \ ( v j m « e r > e o < - * « e i ( > m e o r « . e o e o r o e o
r
5-16
.
*.«
« •
«
7-18
n
tn
in
9-15
. 0
6-40
.
m
eo
(si
5-56
.
CM
«n
1-54
.
VM
e«
^ 6-
49.
r>
r>
e
7-47
.
e»
0
^
8-51
. 8
(15.
r
8-25
.
e>
e>
4-21
.
eo
eo
7-24
.
r*
eo
8-33
.
(Si
«e
1-30
.
r* (VJ
CiJ
9-44
.
«e (M
«-
3-38
.
«e CM
«0
4-34
CM
r>
8-30
.
if> (VJ
( M e o i n o r > m o « e « -. • • • • • • • »
r > e « o « e t i e ^ e o r ^ ( M ^ ( M ( M C M r > ( * > ( M ( S J
eo
6-39
.
in r>
(O
f^
3-37
.
CM
0
eo
4-36
.
CM r>
et
r»
.9-7
3
r^ in
n
^
4-83
.
r<* le
CM
m
.5-8
1
e« «0
eo
<n
.0-7
7.
(SJ
n
e»
.3-7
2
«e
68.7
e«
.2-7
6
m
66.3
••4 (vj r> « m «e ro i I i I i 1 I
et I
6 8
L
0)
o 0) 3 0 Q > .
0) 4^4^ Q -
(/) 0) 0) C - 0 4J — L 4 J Q) Q a4J OU) L Q. 0)
0) — 0) "o^ in 0
u c Q 0) « ) £ £ 4 J rsj I
m Q)
n Q I -
>» «
u E c ^^ « *< CNJ»« æ
gg
C 01
«A 0« « Vt . ^ 0» « m c ^ ^ « • .g Í t * C (M Of c u • « k O 91 •< Z JC
0« c 0> "- o>
e o e t « e r ^ » ^ e o ( * > e o c s j C M ( s j m m « e « - m S æ
• • • • I i • I i e o e o e o o o r ^ « r « e r )
r > r > ( s i » s ( s j o e t c s i ( M c s j m « « r « m m r > i .
«/t
« « 0)
E » •^ o>
u »« ee
i/l c
e« «n i
e« (St
e> «n 1 ft n
m «e i
o «e
e« «e i
r m
^ «e i
eo m
e> «e 1
e« m
«e «e i
«n «e
eo eo i «-r«»
eo e> «o eo
r ; « e ( s i ( s j ( s i m v e « « r > « n t o « e « o « e « o r « > e >
^^ *"• ft ^ r> e« ••< o% m m «e • • • • . . . • i e e o « ( * > o o e > m m e > r > ( v j r ) ( * > ( s i < * > v ^ r > i I I I I I I
I « m (y> m r> r> m «e
• • ( M O e o e o c M O o « e ( n ( M ( M ^ . i 4 ( S j C M ( S J
m «o r ) o
e « e > e t m v « o m c o v M C M ( S J ( S J ( S J C M C M r >
m V ^« o e> eo o ^ ^ ( * > 9 0 m e > r « M > M C M ( S J ( S J C M . ^ « C S J « * >
• • i i I i • 1 c s j e > m ^ « e « e m e «
Z å
•r: *> mJ «
^ »• — "s^ c o- « z å
sr.
e« eo v« o m csj (M csj (sj
m (SJ
« e o ( s t e > m a o ( * > e > • M C S J C M M C S J ^ C S J C S J
e«
3-30
«*>
-
^
2-63
•^
o
(•>.
9-59
«o
et
(M
2-48
o
^m
m
1-54
,
o
o
00
9-52
.
«e
m
«-
8-54
.
(M
eo
eo
6-65
.
o
«e
m
1-78
.
«e
«-
«e (M
o * « m G O m e o ^ « m\e>mmmm»eí>o
. M ( M ( * > « m « e r * . e o e « • • • • • • ( • •
o ^ c M r > « m < e ^ e D
69
Table 3-3. In Sftu Sofl Moísture Content and Soil Suctton Values for the Amarl1lo Sfte.
Depth (ft)
0-1
1-2
2-3
3-4
4-5
5-6
6-7
7-8
8-9
Moisture Content (%)
Mean (Range)
8.3
10.5
13.8
17.8
19.7
21.7
24.2
22.7
23.5
(4.9-9.8)
(7.1-13.1)
(8.2-18.0)
(15.8-19.8)
(17.3-22.2)
(17.5-24.5)
(20.9-27.0)
(20.8-25.7)
(16.8-26.8)
Filter Paper Soil Suction
(PF) Mean (Range)
5.3 (5.0-5.5)
5.0 (4.9-5.1)
5.0 (4.7-5.8)
4.8 (4.7-4.9)
4.7 (4.5-4.8)
4.6 (4.4-5.0)
4.4 (4.2-4.7)
4.4 (4.2-4.7)
4.3 (4.1-4.7)
70
Table 3-4. In Sftu Sotl Mofsture Content and Sofl Suctfon Values for the College Statfon Sfte.
Depth (ft)
0-1
1-2
2-3
3-4
4-5
5-6
6-7
7-8
8-9
Moisture Content (%)
Mean (Range)
6.4 (3.3-14.4)
8.9 (2.7-23.6)
18.7 (2.8-29.4)
17.4 (10.7-31.7)
16.9 (10.0-21.2)
17.9 (14.5-20.3)
20.8 (12.8-26.2)
23.9 (16.8-30.7)
29.1 (24.5-30.7)
Filter Paper Soil Suction
(pF) Mean (Range)
4.9 (4.6-5.1)
4.5 (3.0-4.9)
4.3 (2.3-4.8)
4.3 (4.0-4.7)
4.3 (3.9-4.5)
4.3 (4.2-4.4)
4.3 (4.0-4.5)
4.3 (4.1-4.6)
4.2 (4.1-4.5)
71
Table 3-5. Percentages of Clay Mfnerals In Clay Fractfon from X-Ray Dff-fractfon Anafysfs for the Amarf11o Sfte.
Sample Depth (ft)
1 - 2
2 - 3
3 - 4
4 - 5
5 - 6
6 - 7
7 - 8
8 - 9
Percent of Mi
Smectite
44
39
44
45
44
32
40
38
neral in Clay
niite
27
26
30
32
31
40
35
37
Fraction (%)
Kaolinite
29
35
27
23
25
28
25
25
72
Table 3-6. Percentages of Clay Mfnerals fn Clay Fractfon from X-Ray Dff-fractfon Analysfs for the College Statfon Sfte.
Sample Depth (ft)
1 - 2
2 - 3
3 - 4
4-5
5-6
6-7
7 - 8
8-9
Percent of Mi
Smectite
55
45
81
81
83
91
85
82
neral in Clay
Illite
5
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction (%)
Kaolinite
40
46
19
19
17
9
15
18
73
sof1 mofsture content versus sofl suctfon curve for low
suctlon (< 1 bar) whfle the pressure membrane apparatus
was used to obtafn the relatfonshfp for hfgher suctlon.
These curves are presented fn Ffgures 3-15 and 3-16 for
selected depths at each sfte* respectfvely.
The results of the X-ray dfffractfon analyses,
whfch are reported fn Tables 3-5 and 3-6, Indfcate that
the predomfnant clay mfneral at each sfte 1s smectfte,
and suggest that, under the rfght condftfons, the sofls
at both research sltes have a very hfgh potentfal for
heave. The hfgh ifqufd llmfts and hfgh clay contents
wfth a predomfnance of smectftes gfve a qualftatfve
f nd f cat f on of th f s potent f a1.
Ca1f brat f on Curves
Psvchrometers. The thermocouple psychrometers
were calfbrated 1n the laboratory accordfng to the
method suggested by the manufacturer, J.R.D. Merrfll
Specfalfty Equfpment. A 1-1/2 fn. by 1 fn. fflter paper
was soaked wlth NaCI solutlon of known molallty (0.1 to
2.0 molallty) and pîaced Into the callbratlon chamber
along wtth the psychrometer. The chamber was lowered
Into a constant temperature water bath whtch was kept at
room temperature. The mtcrovolt readtngs were taken
after the psychrometer had achteved an equtllbrlum state
whtch usually requtred a ttme between 2 to 6 hours.
74
35
30
B
^ 25 z o o UJ
:
^ 20 o
15
PRESSURE, pF
to ^. tf) i . 00 Q ro fO lO ro fo ^
T T T nr
2 T
AMARILLO
Dmn
'•5 FT DEPTH
J L t I I I i I I 1—i L_J i—L
4 6 8 10 i2 14
PRESSURE, BARS
16
Flgure 3-15. Soll Suctlon Versus Molsture Content Relattonshtp for Soll at Selected Depths for the Amartllo Stte.
75
PRESSURE. pF
— a> — _ lO ^ 10 f^ lO fO tO tO
35-T—I—I—r
S 5 ro ^
- I r - r
COLLEGE STATION
30
. 2 5 -
bj 20
I-(/> O 2
5 15 co
O^PrAy
O
I I « I ' I » I » > — I — I — I — I — L .
2 4 6 8 O 12 14 16
PRESSURE. BARS
Flgure 3-16. Soi1 Suctton Versus Mots-ture Content Relattonshtp for So 11 at Selected Depths for the College Statton Stte
76
Ca11brat1on curves were deve1oped us1ng the data ob-
talned for each psychrometer. These curves constst of
plots between water potenttal as the ordtnate (1n bars)
and mtcrovolts. A typlcal caltbratton curve for the
psychrometers 1s shown 1n Flgure 3-17.
Motsture cells. For motsture cells, the caltbra-
tton curves were developed 1n the laboratory ustng sotl
spectmen taken at 1, 3, and 5 ft depths from each bor-
Ing. From prevtous research work done at Texas Tech
Untverstty, tt was ascertatned that there ts very llttle
dffference between the motsture-reststance relatfons of
dupltcate (same lead length) mofsture cells. Thus,
because of the great length of ttme requtred for calf-
bratfon, tt was dectded to caltbrate a "stster cell" fn
the laboratory for each fnstrument Installed In the
fteld.
A motsture cell ("stster cell"), wtth a lead
(wtre) length correspondtng to that of the tnstrument tn
the fteld at a parttcular depth, was tnserted Into a
remolded soll sample from that speclfîc depth so as to
encase the entlre cell and to provlde an effectlve
soll/cell contact. The soll/mo1sture cell arrangement
was then enclosed 1n a nylon fabrlc to prevent the loss
of clayey soll sollds when the soll was saturated. The
Instrument was Inundated for approxlmately 12 to 24
hours and then removed from the water bath and allowed
77
SllOA OdOIV\l
I
Q.
9)
r
£ 9) >
D U
c 0 7> Q I . n
Q o • n
— 1. Q 9í
ã 1 >sO
£ < U
I m
I. 3
to equlllbrate 1n a controlled envlronment for approxl-
mately 24 hours. The electrlcal reslstance of the soll
and the welght of the soll/1nstrument arrangement were
measured at pertodtc Intervals for a range of sotl
motsture content as the sot1 drted out. The sotl mots-
ture content was then determtned for each electrtcal
reststance measurement. A caltbratton curve was devel-
oped from thts data ustng sotl samples from each depth
of every bortng that has a motsture cel1 1n the fleld.
The callbratlon curves conslst of semllog plots between
the electrlcal reslstance of the soll as the ordtnate
(in ohms) and sotl motsture content (tn percent).
Ftgure 3-18 deptcts a typtcal caltbratlon curve that
was developed for the motsture cells-
78
LJ O
tn
icf:
5x10'
10%
5x10'
U '0 LJJ
5x10*
o Q: » -o UJ - I UJ icf:
5x10* •
icf4
79
BORING NQ 38 AMARILLO DEPTH: I FT
• •
K) - 1 —
20 —r-30 40 50
MOISTURE CONTENT {%)
—r-60
Flgure 3-18. A Typlcal Callbratlon Curve for the Mofsture Cells.
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
Dtscusston of Results
The results obtatned from the laboratory and fteld
measurements form the basts for the analysts presented 1n
thts chapter- Some of the laboratory test results (soll
phystcal properttes) were presented tn Chapter III.
Those results whfch pertafn to the fntttaî sof1 condt-
ttons, such as tntttal fn sttu sot1 suctlon proftle and
Inlttal 1n sltu sotl motsture content, wt11 now be pre-
sented and dfscussed. The ffeld measurements of the
slab model and benchmark elevattons, and sotl suctfon
proftles for the pertod July, 1985 to August, 1986 wt1I
also be presented and dtscussed for each stte. Although
sotl motsture content measurements were also made at
each sfte on a monthly basts, those results wt11 not
presented herefn, stnce motsture content changes are not
wtthtn the scope of thts thesfs.
Inttfal Suctton Proffles
The tntttal soll suctton proftles at the ttme of
constructton of the slab models for both research sttes
were reported tn Tables 3-3 and 3-4 and are shown
graphlcally In Flgure 4-1. As can be seen from Flgure
60
81
I-
2-
3-
4-
I e-uj 7i
8-
9-
5.5 L -
AVERA6E SOIL SUCTION. pF 50 4.5 4.0
Flgure 4-1. Mean Inlttal Sotl Suctton Proflles for the Amarlllo and College Statlon Sttes.
82
4-1, for the Amarfllo stte, the proffle shows that the
equtlfbrtum suctlon depth (also termed constant suctton
depth) fs apparently located below 9 ft. The depth to
equtllbrtum can be extrapolated to approxtmately 12 ft
whtch Is beyond the depth of the Installed tnstrumenta-
tton. For the College Statlon slte, the equlllbrlum
suctlon depth apparently occurs at approx1mate1y 3.5 ft
below the ground surface. From the Russam and Coleman
(1961) correlatlon between equlllbrlum sol1 suctlon and
TMI, the equfltbrtum sotl suctton values at the Amarll-
lo and College Statton sttes were determtned to be 4.2
and 3.4 pF, respecttvely. Thts tmplles that the equtlt-
brlum depth for College Statton mtght be below the 3.5
ft depth.
Intttal Motsture Proffles
The tnttfal sotl motsture content, also reported
In Tables 3-3 and 3-4, Is shown graphtcally In Flgure 4-
2 for both sttes. Thts ftgure Indtcated the extent of
the dryness of the sol1 at each stte prtor to stte
Intallatton. The upper stratum (0 to 3 ft), at the tfme
of tnstallatton of the slab model 1n Amartllo, was very
dry wtth a mofsture content of only approxfmately 6 to
12 percent. The motsture dtstrlbutlon Increased to
approxtmately 24 percent at about 7 ft depth, and tends
towards a constant value below thts depth. For the
83
g 8-liJ
S 8-U
Q: ^
<o o -o 2
cn O
liJ
o bJ - I - I
8 o ^ - I — I — I — I — I — I — I — | — < — I — ' — T " " — n — r
S-t
{í 8-z 8 bl cr o-^ cn 5
lO
cr < <
o J. T " CNJ
1 I ' I ' I ' I • I ' I fO ^ lO (D K CD
I
r tn n ^ c — Q U. 0 0 L — C L -^ J T C Q 9) É +»< C 0 9)
u n 0) 1. I . 3 0 ffí 0 r 0)
Q -— L (A
o - c (/) 4^ 0
Q — l-Q 4^ — 40 4J
+» Q •P (0
C — Q)
(0 (U C — Q 0) — 0) C O
r - u
CM I
0) I .
0)
cn (Id) Hld3a
84
College Statlon stte, the sot1 molsture content of the
topmost stratum at the tlme of Installatton of the slab
model varted from approxtmately 6 to 16 percent. The
motsture content tncreased wtth depth to approxlmately
29 percent at 9 ft depth.
Observed Surface Heave
Amarll1o. Flgure 4-3 deplcts the 2- and 3-d1men-
stonal contour plots of the surface heave experlenced by
the slab model and uncovered surface for Month 1 and
Month 12, referenced from the ttme of tnstanatlon.
Stmllar surface heave plots for Months 2 to 11 are
tncluded In Appendtx A. These plots lllustrate vtsually
the degree and locatton of shrtnk/swell of the sotl that
occurs beneath the slab model as a result of changes In
sotl suction (motsture content). Wfth reference to Month
1, tt can be seen that the slab Is essentlally flat but
ts respondtng to some mofsture tnfluences especfally at
the edges. Thts phenomenon ts due to the effect of 5.31
tn. of rafnfall that occurred from the ttme of comple-
tlon of the Installatton of the slab model to the ttme
of the ftrst measurement at the stte (a total of 39
days). By Month 3, a more pronounced edge llft effect
or "dtshtng" ts observed. The gradual process of
shrtnk/swell conttnued through to Month 12 where the
effect of "dtshtng" 1s more pronounced than for Month 3.
. 1 0
es
^'oupe 4 - 3
Honth^'ri.ríf
- %Bí''--
86
The change of elevatton of the slab model, along
the longltudtnal centerltne (Sectlon A-A, Flgure 3-6),
1s lllustrated 1n Flgure 4-4 on a month-by-month basls.
Flgure 4-4 shows an Inltlal dlshlng effect 1n Month 1
and the progresslve heave experlenced by the slab model
wtth respect to ttme. The east end of the slab, where
the pertmeter grade beam ts sttuated, has slgnlflcantly
htgher changes 1n elevatton than the east end where
there ts no pertmeter grade beam. One posstble reason
for thts anomaly 1s that the pertmeter grade beam may
not have been deep enough to prevent the tngress of
motsture or the constructîon of the edge beam actual 1y
created condltlons for pondlng. Another reason could be
that, at the east end of the slab model there were some
cracks below the surface, and In the vtctntty of the
slab model, that were not detected and these provlded a
ready source of motsture. Consequently, the expected
prtmary beneftt of the pertmeter grade beam was not
realtzed. It appears that pertmeter grade beam hlndered
the movement of motsture from beneath the covered sur-
face. Thts prevented the soll beneath the slab at the
east end from drylng out as would normally be the case
when the cltmate Is not wet.
The change of elevatton for Indtvtdual F>o1nts
along the longltudlnal centerllne (Sectlon A-A, Flgure
3-6) 1s deptcted tn Ftgure 4-5 on a monthly basts (ttme
I0.20|—»
t K).I5
10.10
J L -I 1 1 L —MONTH 0 o MONTH I O MONTH 2
J l—J. AMARiLLO
87
^ 21)^1^72 «^9L"',24'^l£^'«^2, ' 2© ' 241 •Of 228
ELEVATION POINT NUMBER
(0)
10.20 10.15 10.10
' » ' 59 ' 85 20 46 72
^^111 ' 137 ' 163 98 124 ~
.^^ _._I89 • 26 '241 150 176 202 228
ELEVATION POíNT NUMBER
(b)
7 " T ^ 20
59_L 8Í5 A lil. ' 137 . ^ 189 ' 215 -46 72 98 124 150 176 20f 228
ELEVATION POINT NUMBER
(c)
Flgure 4-4. Monthly Changes of Sur-face Elevatton for Months 1 to 12, of the Longttu-dlnal Centerllne, Sectlon A-A, of Slab Model for the Amarlllo Slte.
8 6
20 ^ _ ' 137 ' 163 ' 189 ' 215 ' 241 46 72 98 124 150 176 202 228
ELEVATION POINT NUMBER
(d)
î bJ .J bJ
10.20
10.15
10.10-
10.05
10.00
9.95 9.90
J I L J I L_J I I L —MONTH 0 o MONTH 9 OMONTH 10
AMARILLO • H
20 ' 3 3 A 5 9 85 ' lil ' 137 '
72 98 124 150 l63.J^I89^r2lL,„.
Z 228 46 ^'72 ^ 98 "124 " 150 "176 20
ELEVATION POINT NUMBER (e)
241
10.20 10.15 10.10
S 10.05 § 10.00
i__j 1 I—I—L J I I L —MONTH 0 oMONTH 11 OMONTH 12
AMARILLO
33 ' 59 ' 85 ' III 20 46 72
ELEVATION POINT NUMBER
(f)
W " | — E
' ll'l ' 137 ' 163 ' 189 ' 2Í5 ' 241 98 124 150 176 202 228
Ftgure 4 -4 . (Conttnued)
89
~r
•n o n o o o> Ú O oi
J Ui w
8 8 b o
—^ «> 0» 0» fi o
2 at
m
o
I J 'N0I1VA313
1 C(
c 0»
> lU -J w
s S 8 S s â $2 di
S 8 S 9
01
0»
> låi
z
• t
o C Q D O C Q
4J S 5 Q D > *» 9) 0 ) - J C — 0)+> UJ C
O ((. 0) 0) J 0 4-> O — Q Q) » ( 0
u-r < U4J I 0 D . < -W M- ^
0 C -C 0 1-""^J E 0) C U <
0) 0 (0 0) cû. r Q »4J r - 0) U Q C 1.
3 - 0
— — I-£ > tt) — 4-> — 4J 0) C -0 C U O C 0) O
r — or m I
0)
u D O)
«1 ô s o o • o d 0»
id 'NoiivAaia
90
e o i i
s 0»
•> o 2
lO
(M
- - 2 2 I J *N0liVA313
T5 0) D C
+> C 0 u
( s S S t S S f S l ^ O A r ) o i ' > 0 f o * > O C O o
fil
z
s e>
lA 1
'«î
0) i-3 0)
U.
•i €i
10
N
s s s s S d 2 9 d ^ 3 0 S S d •
U *N0tlVA313
91
hlstory) over a 12 month perîod. For tnstance, Potnts
7 and 241 are sftuated 6 ft outstde, and at opposlte
ends of, the slab model and occupy the same posttlon
relattve to the slab model. The stte had expertenced
above normal ratnfall In the Months 2 and 3 (September
and October, 1985, respectlvely) as seen tn Ftgure 3-12.
The Influence of thls ratnfall was felt by the slab
model from Months 1 to 5 as tndicated by an tncrease In
elevatton for these polnts for thts pertod as shown In
Ftgure 4-5. However, from Month 6 to Month 9 (December,
1985 to Aprll, 1986), wtth the exceptton of February,
the monthly ratnfall was below the 44 year mean monthly
ralnfall, and both Potnt 7 and Polnt 241 responded wlth,
a correspondtng decltne tn elevattons for thts pertod.
Polnt 59 ts located on the slab model approxl-
mately 6 ft from the west edge. The tnttlal response of
the sotI below thts potnt was a decrease tn elevatlon,
stnce the effect of the above normal ratnfall In Month 2
and Month 3 was not feît tmmedtately. Also, the tmpei—
meable membrane dtsrupts the normal evapotransptration
process. As such, there was a deflctt In motsture
durtng thts perlod and a correspondtng decrease In ele-
vatlon. However, by Month 5 the Influence of ralnfall
In Months 2 and 3 were felt (after a ttme lag of the
fngress of molsture) and resulted In an Increase In
elevatton for that month. By Month 6, Potnt 59 agatn
92
had a decrease In elevatlon that contlnued untll Month
12. The increase în elBvatîon at Month 5 (+0.01 ft) and
decrease at Month 8 (-0.01) mlght also be attrfbuted to
surveying roundoff errors. The fnfluence of below nor-
mal rainfall was probably not felt at this point.
Point 124 is situated at the center of the slab
model. The soi1 beneath thîs point was not affected by
the rainfall 1n Months 2 and 3. There was a slight in-
crease in elevation (+0.02 ft) for Polnt 124 for Month
5, whlch was immediately followed by a 0.03 ft decrease
the \/ery next month, agaln suggesting survey roundoff
errors. The elevatlon of thts potnt tncreased gradually
after Month 5 through Month 12. The tncrease In eleva-
tton after Month 8 can be attrtbuted to an accumulatton
of motsture under an tmpermeable membrane due to the
effect of an energy gradtent that was set up by the
evapotransptratlon process prlor to when the slab model
was constructed. Consequently, moisture accumulated
below the membrane because the flnal stage of the evapo-
transpiration process has been disrupted.
College Stat ion. Measurements at this site
commenced tn October, 1985 (Month 2) and no measurements
were taken in either Months 1 or 3 because of persistent
rainfall at this stte during these periods. Ftgure 4-6
represents the 2- and 3-dtmensional contour plots of
surface heave for Month 2 and Month 12. Stmtlar heave
93
I f njQo
Tti
SfíSV*'-
MO
'^'gure 4«g^
uã ' ' ^
*!•« T,me of |,'f" " t »*a"at ,on% ** ' " -Coiiege s ^ f f the
Statíon s , te
94
plots for Month 4 to Month 11 are Included In Appendtx
A. From the Month 2 contour plot, tt can be seen that
the slab model has started to respond to a total of 14
in. of ratnfall in Months 1 and 2 as tllustrated tn
Flgure 3-13.
Ftgure 4-7 tllustrates the monthly change of
surface elevatlon of the slab model, along the longttu-
dtnal centerltne (Sectton B-B, Ftgure 3-7). Thts ftgure
shows some degree of edge I1ft for Month 2. Month 2 aIso
shows the heave "worktng" tts way towards the center of
the slab model but the center sttll has not heaved.
However, by Month 4 the enttre slab model, tncludtng the
center, had expertenced stgntffcant heave espectally at
the west end where there was no perimeter grade beam.
Thts pattern of surface heave was matntained through
Month 12. Changes in elevatlon of tndlvldual potnts,
along Sectlon B-B, are represented tn Flgure 4-8 on a
month-by-month basts. Potnts 7 and 20 heaved early and
stayed that way, whlle Potnts 215 and 228 never really
heaved although both patrs of potnts are sttuated at
stmtlar posltlons outslde the slab model at the west and
east ends, respecttvely. One posstble explanatton ts
that at the east end, the sotl was compettng wtth the
large tree near thts locatton for motsture. Hence, the
amount of motsture avallable to cause heave was de-
pleted. The west end was not tnfluenced by the nearby
z o I-5 UJ
10 20
10.6
1010
1005
1000
995
J__l I L J t I I I ' • ' ' ' MONTH 0
• MONTH 2 o MONTH 4
COLLEGE STATION
I I I I I I 7 A 33 .L 59 ' ' I ,!, I ' ' '
20 46 ^o 85 « III .^^ 72 98 124
I I I I I37.J^I63..L 189 ' ^15, T
150 176 aor 228 POINT NUMBER
(a)
9.95
J — I — I — I — L - l — I I I I ' 1 I t I I
COLLEGE STATION
oMONTH 6
T-TT T T T rjn ^ 2 ^ ^34^ 59^2 85 3^ "'l^^'^^lsb'^V^^S^Í^^'S^^B
POINT NUMBER
(b)
UJ •.j UJ
10.20
10.15
10.10
10.05-
10.00--
9.95
J I L J — I — I — I — I I I I I L_L COLLEGE STATION —MONTH 0
• MONTH 7 o MONTH 8
1—'—i—'—I—^—1—'—I—'—I—'—I—'—I—^ 7 20 ^^46 5^72 ^^98 '" laV^^ISo'^l^e'Q^^OZ^^^^B
POINT NUMBER
(c)
95
Flgure 4-7. Monthly Changes of Surface Elevattons for Months 2 to 12, of the Longttudlnal Centerltne, Sectton B-B, of the Slab Model for the CoHege Statton Stte.
10.20
I0.I5H
^ 10.00- -
995'
' ' ' ' ' » ' ' t ' t t i t I ,
COLLEGE STATION —MONTH 0
• MONTH 9 o MONTH 10
_ ^ W - > E
' 20 » 4 ^ « n «'» 98 "•' . 2 4 ' ^ ^ . 5 0 ' ^ ^ > 2 ; : ? e ^ POINT NUMBER
(d)
96
10.20
I0.I5-I
> 10.051
J I I I L J I I I J_-l I I L CX)LLEGE STATION —MONTH 0
• MONTH 11 o MONTH 12
1 ^ — I — ' — I — ' — I — ' — I — ' .
POINT NUMBER
189 ^15 176 202r 228
(e)
Flgure 4-7. (Contlnued)
97
"3; 2 — I • T -T 1 r—t r -í , 1 4 T
Í Í Í § S 5 g S 8 S i e S 8 « * * S o * - S g g » » 2 O Q g 0 »
i d 'NOtlVABia
g
OD
X
2
C\i
s
z
<r
lO
IM
g s € 8 » 2 2 8 g S £ 2 S 8 S g g S 8 S J S c B d * 2 S g o o > B B c S * ^ ® 2 o »
I ffl • •^ I 9)
>m** •!?)
C 9) '^ C C
0 l-^-> V tD
C4J4J 0 C V ) — 0)
Q 0) > ^ Û) 0) (D —
— C'-UJ — 0
T 3 0 0) D U 4-> 0)
« - r U. CD'M L C D O L U) J 0
M. C 0) — £ — m "0 0) C 0 0) 0 £
c Q tf)I} £ 4 ^ (0 O C -> 0
— Q. 0) 4J — + j C (D 0 DM-£ - 0 0
GO I
1 . D
l i *N0IXVAa-l3
98
j _*. ' ' I X X L 1 f - J . X
.O
>
°iii^iiisriiiniiiiim l i •NOiivA^na
TJ 9) D C
z> C 0 o
T * I s- •» ô tf) b p p ^ S g d 0>
S S 8 S s s
s 0»
•i
00 I
Q) L 3 0)
M
i j 'NOiivAaia
99
trees, as such, more motsture was avatlable for swellîng
to be achteved.
Elevatlon of Deep Benchmarks
AmartIlo. Ftgure 4-9 deptcts the changes In ele-
vattons of the deep benchmarks at Amartllo. The bench-
marks at 2, 6.5, and 9 ft depths show deftntte tnflu-
ences of cltmate as tndtcated by changes tn elevatton at
these depths. The benchmark at 2 ft depth shows the
greatest effect of the cltmate as was expected. However,
the benchmark at 14 ft depth indtcates some sltght
movement tn Months 5 and 6 and again tn Months 11 and
12. Thts movement at a depth of 14 ft mtght be attrt- .
buted to the effect of moisture changes at thts depth or
tt might be the result of surveylng inaccuracles (round
off) tn measurements for these particular months. From
the Itmtted observed data, no possible explanation other
than tnaccurate measurements can be advanced, at thts
time, for the heave shown for Months 9 to 12 and Months
10 to 12 for the 9 and 14 ft depths, respectively.
Slnce, It is not expected that shrink/swell activity
would extend beyond the 12 ft depth.
Colleqe Stat1on. As Figure 4-9 shows, the 2 ft
benchmark has the greatest fluctuation in elevatlon,
whtle the 5 and 9 ft benchmark show nomtnal movement. As
such, the actlve zone may be located between 2 and 5 ft
100
g • I I J^
1 — 1 " ! — F T r 1
BS8585S O O O O Q O O
Oí
T—i—rrr-
SS5858 O O O O O Q
T—r T—r JL ^ OQf o o o d ô o o d ? d
I d 'NOUVAaia Nl 39NVH0
. o
- •
i - • j
-cw
•| M I \ r .
_ 9 o ° 0 0 0 o O o 9 0 0 0
I < I > I > f I M I I 1 > t
o o o d d o d ?
I • 1 1 1
I t
7 a. s
m
*^ X »-
1 SS8gS | 8 ô d o d d o O d ?
l i *N0llVA3-ia Nl aONVHO
S 8 S o d d
i .
i. U 0) C 4 Í 4> —
a c « 0 0) —
0 4 - > . « 0 ( / )
C 0) 0 O) — 0)
flj — > 0 9) O
UJ 'D c
C (D
"" 0 « —
0 ) -C 1.
i o < >sa) — £ £ 4 J -P C 1. 0 0
I
9) L 3 0)
101
depth at thls slte. The 15 ft deep benchmark shows some
errattc movement tn Month 5 and Month 7 whtch mtght be
explained as (round off) inaccuractes tn measurement for
the months. From the Itmtted observed data, no posstble
explanatton other than Inaccurate measurements, can be
advanced at thts ttme for the heave shown for Months 9
to 12 and Months 10 to 12 for the 12 and 15 ft deep
benchmarks, respecttvely.
SotI Suctton Proftles
AmartIlo. Typîcal soil suction profîles for out-
side and beneath the slab model are lllustrated In
Figures 4-10 and 4-11 for Month 1 to Month 12, with the
exception of Month 7. Because of a malfunctlon of the
equipment in Month 7, the soil suctlon values were not
measured for thls month. Stack No. 1 Is situated out-
side the slab model (approximately 3 ft from the west
edge) and Figure 4-10 shows the general trend of the
soil suction profile of the uncovered expansive clay as
It varies over time at various depths. There was almost
no surface vegetation at this location during the entire
period of observation. The topmost stratum of the soil
tends to have high suctîon during dry seasons and as the
depth tncreases the suctton decreases as the soil be-
comes Increasingly more wet. The change of soiI suction
below the 7 ft depth Is relatlvely small (3.4 to 3.7 pF)
()••,:•
102
SOIL SUCTION, pF
5.0
- I -
£-»-'
- 7 -
- 9 -
AJ5 •
4.0 3.5 _ j
3.0 _ i
2 ^
AMARILLO STACK NO.
• MONTH o MONTH • MONTH o MONTH A M O N T H AMONTH
( a )
SOIL SUCTION, pF
í 5.0
0. UJ
-I
- 3
-5
-7-
- 9 -
ill 4.0 t
3.5 L _
3.0 2.5
AMARILLO STACK NO. I
• MONTH 8 OMONTH 9 • MONTH 10 OMONTH I I
1
(b)
Ftgure 4-10. Monthly Changes in SotI Suctlon wlth Depth for Instrument Stack No. 1, Located 3 ft Outstde the Covered Surface for the AmarfIlo Slte.
103
SOIL SUCTION, pF
5.0
- I -
-3-
kl O
-7H
4.5 _ j
4.0 «
3.5 i _ _
3.0 _ j
2.5
- 9 -
• MONTH o MONTH 2 • MONTH 3 o MONTH 4 A MONTH 5 ^ MONTH 6
AMARILLO STACK NQ 20
a. 8
5.0
- I -
-3-
-5-m
-7-
-9-
JV
( 0 )
SOIL SUCTION, pF 4.0 3.5
I I 3.0
-.. I. . 2.5
AMARILLO STACK NO. 20
o MONTH • MONTH 9 o MONTH 10 A M O N T H II A M O N T H 12
T (b)
Ftgure 4-11 Monthly Changes tn Sotl Suctton with Depth for Instrument Stack No. 20, Located 2 ft Inside the Covered Surface for the AmartIlo Slte.
104
durtng the pertod of observation. However, the general
shape of the soiI suction profile is maintatned durtng
the wet season but shifts to the left as the soll suc-
tion decreases relative to the dry season. The In-
fluence of ralnfall and evaporation (negltgtble transpi-
ration) ts felt at this uncovered area much more than
beneath the slab model. Consequently, the range of
suction variatton ts greater at thts locatton than under
the slab model as wiII be shown below.
Stack No. 20 is located approximately 2 ft from
the west edge of the slab model and typifles the soil
suction profile beneath a covered area (for Months 8 to
11) as shown in Figure 4-11. The range tn changes of
sotl suction In this profile is smaller than that in
Stack No. 1. This may be due to the decrease In the
Inflow of moisture from rainfall and the dtsruptton of
the normal evaporatton and transptratton processes. The
decrease tn range of suction is not reflected in Months
1 to 6 when comparing Stacks 1 and 20. The reason for
thts ts that the soiI suctton measuered by Stack No. 1,
whlch Is located within the soiI profile, is dependent
on the tîme the measurement was taken. That is, if the
measurement at this location was taken during a rainfall
event, the soi I suction values would have been low. If
the measurement was taken a few days before or a few
days after a rainfalI event the soil suction values
105
mlght be conslderably hlgher. Also, this ffgure shows
the change of the soil suction proflle wlth respect to
tlme. That ts, from Month 1 to 6 the suctîon proffle
shtfts to the rtght as tt becomes wetter tn response to
the tnfluence of 16.8 tn. ratnfall that occurred from
Months l to 4 (August, 1985 to November, 1985) and
shtfts to left durlng Months 8 to 11 as the soll proflle
becomes drter due to below normal ratnfall (total of 2.8
tn.) that occurred during Months 5 to 9 (December, 1985
to Aprll, 1986) with the exceptton of February, 1986.
There ts a ttme lag between a preclpttation event and
when the the suctton proftle beneath the covered surface
changes (decreases) or the reverse, when there ts dry
perîod. The reason for thts phenomenon is due to low
permeablIty of the clay soil. Figure 4-12 shows the
trend of a decrease in soiI suction from Months 1 to 6,
at each depth of instrumentation, as the site responded
to the precipitation that occurred from Months 1 to 4.
This ftgure also shows an increase in sotl suctton from
Months 8 to 12 as the sîte responded to the period of
llttle ralnfall durtng Months 5 to 9.
In general, the soiI profile at the west end of
the slab model experienced an apprecîable change in soil
suction, and there was not significant surface heave or
shrink at the corresponding point as was expected. No
plaustble explanatlon can be advanced at thts ttme.
32
"^3.6^
5 4.0
5 4.4 cn
^
4.8.
5.2-'
2 T r 3 4
106
AMARiLLD
I FT DEPTH
"1 r 5 6
MONTH (0)
7 "r 8
F 3.8H
4.2^
4.6
5.0-*
301 u-«^3.4^
2 3.8H u
d 46-
5.0
3 FTDEPTH T -
2 T -3
- 1 -
4 5 ~T 1 1 T-
7 8 9 10 T r-II 12
MONTH (b)
o
STACK STACK STACK STACK STACK
NO I NO. 2 NQ 3 NO. 4 NQ 5
STACK NQ 6 STACK NQ 7 STACK NQ 8 STACK NQ 9
5 FT DEPTH
I -r-3 4
"T T
5 6 MQNTH
(c)
7 T -
8 9 T r K) II
-r-12
F t g u r e 4 - 1 2 . Monthly Changes tn Soil Suction at Selected Depths for Stacks Nos. 1-9, for the Amarlllo Site.
107
^ 3 . 0 -
Í 34-
^ 3.8-
4.6
* ^ 3 L Q -
2 3.4-
I
o A
W 3.8-
5 4.2H
T 1 r 2 3 4
AMARILUO
7 FT DEPTH 1 I
5 6 MONTH
(d)
"1 1 1 1 r 7 8 9 10 II
STACK STACK STACK STACK STACK
NQ I NQ 2 NQ 3 NQ4 NQ 5
• STACK NQ 6 • STACK NQ 7 A STACK NQ 8 O STACK NO. 9
9 FT DEPTH
I 2 3 T " 4
"I 1 r 5 6 7
MONTH
(e)
-1 r 8 9
-r-12
-1 r 10 II
T -12
F i g u r e 4 - 1 2 . (Cont tnued)
108
other than because of the characteristics of the sotl,
for a large change in sotl suction tnduced only a smal I
change tn sotl motsture content. Thîs moisture change
was not large enough to Induce a correspondingly large
shrink or swelI.
Colleqe Station. Figures 4-13 and 4-14 exhibit
typical soil suction profiles outslde and beneath the
slab model, respectively, at this site on a monthly
basis. Figure 4-14 represents the soi1 suction profiles
for Stack No. 1 which ts located approxtmately 3 ft
outstde the west edge of the slab model. Thls ftgure
tndîcates a low soil suction to a depth of approxtmately
3 ft and sotl suction increases slightly as depth
increases to 9 ft. After initially being wetted up, the
soiI suction profile does not change significantly dur-
ing the entire 12 Month period of observation. This
implîes that the soi1 remained relattvely wet durtng
this time (time of measurement). Fîgure 4-14 shows the
sotI suction profile of Stack No. 11, which ts located 2
ft from the east edge of the covered surface. Thts
figure depicts the wetting up of the soil proftle from a
relattvely dry condition tn Month 2 to a wet condition
tn Month 7 tn response to 19.9 tn. of ratnfall that
occurred between September, 1985 and Noverber, 1985.
However, there was only 8.0 tn. of ratnfall that occurr-
ed durtng the pertod December, 1985 to Aprtl, 1986.
109
z » -
Ui
o
5.0
- I -
- 2 -
- 3 -
- 4 -
- 5 -
- 6 -
- 7 -
- 8 -
- 9 - -
SOIL SUCTION. pF
4.5 I
4 0 3.5 _L_
3.0 25 —L_
2.0
C0LLE6E STATION STACK NO. I
• MONTH oMONTH • MONTH oMONTH AMONTH
2 4 5 6 7
(a)
SOIL SUCTIQN. pF
X I-UJ O
5Q
- I -
- 2 -
-3
-4-
-5
-6 -
-7-
- 8 -
- 9 -
4 5 4Q 35 I
3Q I
25 _ J _
2.0
COLLEGE STATION STACK NO. 1
AMONTH 8 •MONTH 9 oMONTH 10 •i-MONTH II
Ftgure 4-13.
(b)
Monthly Changes tn Sotl Suctton wlth Depth for Instrument Stack No. 1, Located 3 ft Outstde the Covered Sur-face for the College Statton Stte.
110
X •-o. UJ
o
SOIL SUCTION, pF
3 0 25 I
2 0
C0LLE6E STATION STACK NO. II
• MONTH oMONTH • MONTH
:^ oMONTH ^ *MONTH
1 1
2 4 5 6 7
( a )
SOIL SUCTION. pF
0, UJ
o
50
- I -
- 2 -
- 3 -
- 4 -
- 5 -
-6
- 7 -
- 8 --9
4 5 I
4.0 '
35 '
3 0 I
25 2 0
COLLEGE STATION STACK NO. II
AMONTH •MONTH oMONTH 4 MONTH - MONTH
8 9 10 II 12
Flgure 4-14.
(b)
Monthly Changes fn Soll Suctlon wtth Depth for Instrument Stack No. 11, Located 10 ft Instde the Covered Sur-face for the College Statton Stte.
111
Thts resulted tn a shtft to the left (tncrease tn sotl
suctton) of the suctlon proflle for Months 8 and 9. By
Months 10 and 11, the wet condition had reversed (shlft-
ed to the right) due to approximately 13.6 in. of rain-
falI that occurred during Months 9 and 10 (May and June,
1986).
In general, the soi I suction profile beneath the
covered surface at the College Station site decreased
after the inîtial influx of moisture but does not tn-
crease appreciable during the period of observation.
Ftgure 4-15 shows the decrease tn soil suction for each
depth of instrumentation. This decrease tn suctton is
reflected tn an tncrease tn surface heave that remained'
during the entire period of observation.
Edqe Moisture Variation Distances
From the preceding discusston, and a careful re-
view of Figures C-1 and 4-4, it appears that the edge
moisture variation distance at the Amarillo site, at the
end of the period of observation, varies from 6 ft to as
much as 10 ft. These figures show that the soi 1 is
experienclng changes in soil suction profle at a dis-
tance 10 ft from the edge and elevation changes 6 ft
from the edge. Whtle at the College Station site, the
edge moisture variation distance is at least 10 ft since
the entire slab model has experienced some heave as
1^32-
I 3.6. § 4.0-tn
j 4 . 4 -
^ 4 . 8 -
112 COLLECJE STATIQN
% *
I FT DEPTH 1 I
2 3 T -
4 -i 1 r
5 6 7
MQNTH (o)
8 9 -I 1 r-10 II 12
1^3.2-
I 3.6-0 4.Q-
.4.4-
4.8-
•f o x
3 FT DEPTH [
u. 3.2H
a. z* 36 o o 4.QH
4.4-
S 4.8-
-1 1 1 1 1 r
2 3 4 5 6 7 MQNTH
(b)
-1 r
8 9 K) - I 1—
II 12
O e X
STACK NQ. 9 A STACK NQ 10 + STACK NQ. II • STACK NQ 12 •
STACK NQ.I3 STACK NQ. 14 STACK NQ. 15 STACK NQ. 17
5 FT DEPTH
T r 2 3
"T 1 1 1 I
8 9 10 11 12
F t g u r e 4 - 1 5 .
-1 1 1 r
4 5 6 7 MQNTH
(c)
Monthly Changes In Sotl Suctton at Selected Depths for Stacks Nos. 9-17, for the College Statlon Site.
113
I 3.2" §3.6-tn
. 4 0 -
COLLEGE STATIQN
Ío
e
s; "T r 2 3
- T
4 5 6 MQNTH
(d)
- r 7 8 9
7 FT DEPTH -i 1 I
10 II 12 T
Í3.6-O ^ 4.0-
o e X o
e 4 O O e
T -2
STACK NQ 9 * STACK NQ K) • STACK NQ II • STACK NO. 12 •
STACK NQ.I3 STACK NQ. 14 STACK NO 15 STACK NQ 17
9 FT DEPTH
1 r
3 4 5 6 7 MQNTH
(e)
8 T -
9 - r -10
T -12
F i g u r e 4 - 1 5 . (Cont inued )
114
depicted In Flgure 4-7. The theoretlcal edge molsture
variation dtstance for the Amarillo site, as suggested
by Wray fn Ftgure 3-11, ranges from 2.1 to 6 ft. Whtle
for the College Statton Site the theoretical edge mois-
ture variation distance varles from 2.2 to 5.9 ft.
Thus, for both sltes, the theorettcal edge moisture
varîation distance ts less than the observed edge moîs-
ture variation distance.
AnaIvs i s of Results
The Mitchell and Avalle and the Lytton-Gardner-
McKeen models described tn Chapter II were used to
evaluate the total and maximum differential heave, for
each site, respectively. The Lytton-Gardnei—McKeen
model was applied for the two extreme boundary
conditions that are expected to be experienced In the
field by a covered surface. That is, motsture entertng
beneath the covered surface from outside the surface
(soîl profile beneath the covered surface gettlng wet)
and moisture leaving horizontally from beneath the
covered surface (soll profile beneath the covered
surface is drying out).
MitchelI and Avalle Model
For selected points on the longitudtnal centerltne
of the slab model, the total heave was determtned, for
each stte, after vartous ttme tntervals ustng Eq. (2-40)
115
(Mttchell and Avalle Model). These predictîons are
shown in Tables 4-1 and 4-2. These tables also Include
the observed heave for corresponding points. The tnput
vartables for this model are tabulated in Tables B-13
and B-14.
AmariIlo. Using this model, the predîcted heave
is not consistent with the observed heave as seen in
Table 4-1. That is, the model predlcts heave due to a
change in soil suction în the soil profile. Apparently,
this change does not induce a stgnificant amount of
moisture to cause appreciable heave.
Colleqe Stat1on. As shown tn Table 4-2, the
predicted heave at this site is, In general, sllghtly
greater than the observed heáve. These results show
that the slab model had greater heave for point near to
the edge.
Lvtton-Gardner-McKeen Model
As mentioned previously, the Lytton-Gardner-McKeen
model that was described in Chapter II, was applied to a
computer program by Wray(1978) and called SOILSUK. This
program has now been modified to consider the inltial
soiI suction of the soiI profile, before the surface has
been covered, and Is now called S0ILSUK2. S0ILSUK2 was
used to evaluate the total heave at selected points on
the slab model and the maxlmum dlfferential heave that
116
u 0
— 9)
'^ to r JC C4i c — — X3 01 I. 3 C r +>-cn — 0» ^ 0 ) 3
c • í) 0 ^-> -J OJ Q "0 0) OJ 0 X r z V n 9) m to > c — U 0 (/) 9) -« ) < OJ
o r O tfí 4^
•p D C M. qj 0
0, 9) V c tt) T5 —
+J 0) — U 4J I . — O 0) T3 0) V tt) - C U tt) tt) û. tn o
0) r •p
i . 0 M. 0) L D
TJ tt) U 0 L
Q.
tt)
Q > < •
9)
C — Q (H
^ r — U L •P 5 £ <
4-* C CSJ O .-H
OJ >
c o o *-i
CSJ
o I
CSI
o
CM
o I
ro o*
Csj CVJ
vo o o
CSJ
o I
r j
o I
^~>»
o •
o
00 CVJ
vo co
• o
so «-H
CsJ f>»
• o
m o
00 to
. f - H
m m
o I
CNJ
o I
C\J «-H
o
o I
m 00 o
o «-•
• o OJ > t . OJ «/)
Æ o
OJ > ro a>
^ 4-> C 00 o ^"
T3 a>
•o OJ
D Q K
vo
* - H
O^ •
o
1 1
co ^
• o
^ ^ o • o
f—1
m
vo CVJ
• o i
^ CSJ
• o 1
vo vo
t - H *—t
• o
^ CSJ
• o 1
o ^
r m
• o
^ ^ CSJ l - H
• o
m CVJ
CT> * - H
• o
^—« o • o
m t^
co ir>
• o
^ • - i k
vo o* • o
o r>*
O i-H CVJ
CSJ CSJ CSJ
1 1
CSI * - H
• o
00 o
* - H
• o 1
00 00
* ~ l •
o 1
m r>
«-H
• o 1
00 m
^ . 1 , .
o •
o
00 o
1 1
*-H O O «-) «-H
•*- o o z
^ ^ o
• o
^ 00
o
*—^ CVJ * - H
• o
vo r*» o
C\J «-H
• o 1
00 ifí
o
C>J f t
• o 1
«—• IT)
o
^~« o
• o
co «-H
«-H
^m..
CSJ «-H
. o
r««. ^
o
^ i ^
\o •
o
00 00
o
m co vo O* «-H
LT) rxo CSJ vo r>^
CTk 00
117
£ — 9)
-^ Q £ X C^i C — - TJ O) U 3 C r 4J — in — •) w 0 ) 3
c » tt) 0 _
"O T3 tt) tt) X I £ £
4J D
01 Q C
T3 tt) > U tt) «) i3 O
T3 C Q
T3 tt)
4J U
tt) L .
0 ( 0
< tt)
0) 4-»
c
T3 tt)
4^ U tt)
o Q) C
L tt) 4J C Q) O
tt)
L 0
tt) L 3 T3 tt) U 0 L Q. •
tt) Q) 4 ^
— S) Q > C < 0
T3Z> C Q Q 4J
0)
Z 0) tt) 0) £ tt) U — 4J — - O £ O
CVi I
n Q
a; > Q)
•o > a; (/)
a) > o;
•o aj
• o aj
C CSJ
o ^
c o O i - H
0 0
4-> c vo o
c ^ o
4-» c • •.- o o z o.
1 1
1 1
0 0 VO
• • -H 1
1
0 0 o
• «-H
00
o
o CSJ
• *-H
cx»
1 1
«-H O
1 1
1 1
vo IT)
• *-H
*—'
co CSJ
1 1
0 0 o
• *-H
^^
* - l * -H
o CM
• *-H •—'
ir> o
o CsJ
• *-H ^ - ^
r-. ir>
0 0 o
. *-H
a> to
*-H O «—• «-H
VO O VO 0 0 ^ CSI m csj o^ o 00 r^
• • • • - • • «-H *-H O *-H O O
I w w « ^ w w w I
vo vo r^ vo vo «3-co o o^ o lo m *-H *-H O *-H «-H «-H
o CSJ
• «-H
o
o
00 o • «-H
vo «—t
• •—•
«-H
*-H
00
o • * - l
CSJ
CSJ
co •
«-H
vo o *-H
00
o • *-H
csj
00
o • *-H
o CSJ
*-H
0 0 •
o
m o
0 0 •
o
co o *-H
0 0
• o
r-H
CSJ
r •
o
CSJ
r o
o vo
• o
00 vo
vo o> • o
vo
*-H
CSJ
r •
o
m
0 0 •
o
*-H
o* o
csj
• o
•-H
o *-H *-H «-H O O •-H
o CSJ
co co vo o%
m 00 co
vo 00
118
are expected to occur at each stte for both extreme wet
and dry condttions.
The major tnput vartables to the computer model,
S0ILSUK2, are the tnittal sotI suctton of the sotI
proflle, equtltbrium sotI suctton, hortzontal and vertl-
cal permeabltttes, values of constants m and a, depth to
equtltbrtum suctfon, edge motsture vartatton dtstance,
predominant clay mtneral, percent of clay In sotl, unit
we i ght of so i1, and vert i caI and hor1zontaI veIoc111es
of moisture movement. Some of the above mentioned input
values were determined from the field observation or
laboratory tests, while others were determined from
values reported in the technical Iiterature for stmtlar
expansive soils.
As stated in Chapter II, the values of constants a
and m are soiI specific. By a trial-and-error proce-
dure, these values were determtned by fitting a theore-
ttcal suction profîle through the tnttîal suctton pro-
file of the open terrain that was measured by the fiIter
paper method. The infiltration velocity generally re-
ported tn the technical literature is 1 X 10 cm/sec. -5
However, Ritchie (1972) measured a value of 3.47 X 10
cm/sec for the infiltration velocity of Houston Black
clay from a large scale field experiment. An tnfiltra-
tton veloctty of 3.47 X lO"^ cm/sec was constdered
approprtate for thts analytsis. From the technlcal
119
Itterature, tt appears that the fteld permeablItty for
8ome typtcal expanstve sotI ts 1n the range of 2 X 10"^
cm/sec. Thus, thts value for the fteld permeabfltty has
been used tn the computer model. For the College Sta-
tton stte the equtltbrtum suctton was determlned to be
3.8 pF, based on Russam and Coleman (1961) correlatlons
ustng the TMI for the year precedtng slte tnstallatton.
The depth to equtltbrtum suctton at College Station was
extrapolated to be 9 ft.
The predlcted heave for the two conditions consl-
dered (soil profile beneath the covered surface gettlng
wet and the soîl profile beneath the covered surface
gettlng dry) for each slte are presented tn Appendlx D.
These predtcttons are summartzed tn Table 4-3 for each
stte. For a wetttng up condltton at the Amarlllo stte,
thts table reports a predicted total heave of 2.57 fn.
at Column Node 7, which ts located at the edge of the
covered surface. The maxtmum heave measured at thts
potnt fs 2.16 tn. fn Month 3. Therefore, the slab model
has expertenced approxtmately 84 percent of the pre-
dlcted total heave at thts potnt by Month 3. Whtle for
the College Statton stte, there ts a predlcted total
heave of 1.86 tn., for the wetttng up condttton, at
Column Node 5 whtch ts located 3 ft from the edge of the
covered surface. The maxtmum total heave measured at
120
^* ^" • Q tt) 0)
— T3 9) 4 ^ 0 4 ^
tt) V) L C tt) tt) C
U- tt) 0 M - ^ -
r i?- ^ 0 £ Q t 4->
T3 i - i n C tt) Q C tt)
T3 0) ^ L tt) Q Q — 4 J O — 0 1 0
I - C O 0
TJ4J T3 tt)4-> C •P > Q U - i r 0 T3 tt) — ttjr ^ L4.> —
û. L 0) Q
M- C E 0 - <
tf) > v 3 9) L »r Q 0) 4-> Ê > E Q L 3 0) 0
ton*. •
m 1
^
tt) P ^
n Q
1 -
1 ^,
1 •
«« 4 . l . > .
« e « B « • • - k ( / > < — '
• c
•
4>>
e å 0»
> > s
81 ^ 4J
* * < u •^ « "O > 0) IB
" O tt > 0» wt
A o E
J X
1
O «1
e
1 o
o
r«»
to
lA
«*•
tn
CVi
^
e o
•^ 4>»
^. "^ •^ ^ e e t/i e w
e o •^ « i *
« u o ^
o 1
_,- ^ «o ^
• CSi
ut •
CSI
• CVJ
^^ to ^ 4
cu
• - « •
CSJ
co •
00 «o • -M
* - ' V
• CM
^* m
CSI
CM
• o eo
• CSi
o. ^ O ) e
•^ •^ 4 1 *
« *
O ff^
^ • r * U
i
m
o
• • 4
ir> .
v N
«o .
^
00
. i i .
o 00
o 9 «
^
**
ê e> e * l ^
>> u o
o ^^ ^» •^ k
1
in
O 1
^f ^f
• ^
cn
•
co ^
^^ 0 0
• mm
00 •
ro 00
^ *» <-4
^ 4
eo •
00
CSJ
V 4 ^ M >
r^ r». ^ 4
o. ^ e> e ^. ** ** «1
•) e e> o • • . -
^ • *
O 4.» u t/t
a*
o
o
o » 4
«o .
^ CM
. . 4
•-« •
r*.
.
esi
^
• • 9 O o> C
^
r o
•> e ei o t> i ^
^ • * ^ • 1 o «•• 1 U (/) 1
121
thts potnt fs 1.68 fn. tn Month 9. Thts fs approxtmate-
ly 90 percent of the expected heave.
Ffgures 4-16 and 4-17 fllustrate the posttfon of
the ffnal suctton proftles that are expected beneath the
covered surface, for both wet and dry condlttons, at
each stte. These ftgures also show the tntttal suctton
proftles for the open terratn before the stte were
tnstalled.
For the wet condttton, the extreme condttton would
exlst at the edge of the covered surface. That Is, the
point of expected maxtmum heave and the posttfon of the
extreme wet suctton proftle ts at thts locatton. For
the dry condttton, the extreme dry suctton proftle would
also be at the edge of the covered surface. The extreme
dry suctton proflle does not reach the tntttal suctton
profile of the uncovered surface. The reason for this
is, by covering the surface wtth a relattvely tmpervtous
matertal or structure, there ts a decrease tn the range
of seasonal motsture changes. Thts decrease tn seasonal
molsture change ts due to the preventlon of outflow of
motsture by evaporatton and transptratton. Motsture can
only move laterally from beneath the covered surface.
Thts motsture movement ts further retarded by the cycllc
nature of cltmattc condltlons. The equtltbrlum suctton
proftle ts located between the dry and wet suctfon
proftles.
AMARILLO
122
5.4 5L2
I-
2-
3-
4-
5-
iZ 6-
Q.
O 81
9-
10-
II-
50 _ l
SOIL SUCTION, pF 4.8 4.6 44 4.2 40 3.8 -j I I I i_i
12-1 Ftgure 4 -16 .
-^INITIAL FIELD æNDITION
-DEQUILIBRIUM CONDITION
WET CONDITION
_».í>DRY CONDITION
Intttal Fteld Suctton Profile for the Uncovered Surface and Equl-librlum, Wet, and Dry Suction Pro-files Beneath the Covered Surface at the Amarlllo Site.
3.6
123
Û. LU O
COLLEGE STATION
SOIL SUCTION, pF 5.2 5.0 48 46 44 42 4.0 3.8 36 34
Q I « I I I I « « I L
I-
2-
3-
4
5-
6-
7-
8-
9-
X-
D
— X INITIAL FIELD CONDITION
- - o BQUILIBRIUM CONDITION
WET CONDITION
o DRY CONDITION
Figure 4-17. Initial Field Suction Profile for the Uncovered Surface and Equl-llbrium, Wet, and Dry Suction Pro-files Beneath the Covered Surface at the Amarillo Site-
124
The maxlmum expected total heave for the wet con-
dttton Is a result of changes tn the suctton proftle,
from the tntttal suction profile to the wet suctton
proftle as shown tn Ftgures 4-16 and 4-17. Whtle for
the dry condttton, total heave ts due to changes tn the
suctton proftle, from the tnittal suctton proftle to the
dry suctton proftle.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
From the experimental and analytlcal results re-
ported this thesis, some spectftc conclusfons can be
deduced from the short term conditions that are pre-
sented. However, the conclusions, as outlined below,
have some limîtations because of the short observation
perîod (12 months or a slngle shrînk/swell cycle). That
is, for a longer period of observatton, where a steady
state condîtîon exists, the conclusions drawn might be
more definitive. Recommendations for further research ,
in this field of inquiry are also made in this chapter.
Conclusions
1. The soi1 suction method (MitchelI and Avalle)
that was tested, seems to be appltcable to wet cl tmate,
whtle for dry cltmate the predicted heave is not consis-
tent with the measured heave- Hence, this suggests that
the method ts sensttive to climate and might not be
un i versa11y app11cabIe.
2. The observed edge moisture vaiation dtstance
beneath the covered surface ts greater than was pre-
vtously suggested tn the theorettcal relatlonshtp for
both dry and wet climate. This dtrectly affects the
125
126
amount of support the sotI gtves to the slab around the
edge.
3. As a result of tnsufftctent data (observatîon
ttme), the Lytton-Gardner-McKeen method to predtct total
and differential heave cannot be completely evaluated,
at this ttme, wtth respect to a final or absolute heave
condition. However, with the constraint of not using
all slte specific inputs, the procedure appears to rea-
sonably model the two condittons (a wetttng and a drytng
state) that are Itkely to occur under a covered surface
followtng construction. Also, the predicted total
surface heave is consistent with the maximum observed
heave during wettîng up condition, for each site.
Recommendat i ons for Further Research
1. The depth to constant suction should be fur-
ther investigated for the Amarillo stte. Thts task
might be accomplished by the Installation and monitor of
an addition "stack" of psychrometers. This stack
should be located Just adjacent to the slab model and
extented to approximately 18 ft below the ground sui—
face.
2. Field observations at the two research sites
should be extended for an additional 12 to 24 months
beyond the scheduled tîme of measurement terminatton.
At such ttme, the long term condtttons, such as equtlt-
brtum suctton proftles, wtI1 be expected to be fully
127
developed, espectally for the center of the slab. In
addttton, dry condtttons are Ifkely to be measured dur-
fng thts pertod, thus, provtding the complete shrlnk/-
swelI cycle expected beneath an actual sIab-on-founda-
tlon.
3. Field measurement of soîI permeablity should
be carried out at each site.
4. The values of constants, a and m, that are
necessary to apply the Lytton-Gardnei—McKeen method
should be determined experimentally in the laboratory
for the soîl condition at each research stte. Thts
might be accomplished by relating these soil parameters
to some common engineering properties of sol I .
5. Finally, the Lytton-Gardner-McKeen method
should be extended to address transient flow condition,
changes in flux, and to estimate the time for the maxi-
mum differential shrink or swell to be accomplished.
LIST OF REFERENCES
Attchtson, G.D., ••Relattonshtps of Motsture Stress and Effecttve Stress Functtons In Unsaturated Sofls," Proceedtnqs. Conference on Pore Pressure and Suc-tion lo SoiIs. British National Soctety of Sotl Mechantcs & Foundatton Engtneertng at the Instt-tute of Clvll Engtneers, London, 1960, pp. 47-52.
Attchtson, G.D., and Rtchards, B.G., "A Broad-scale Study of Motsture Condtttons tn Pavement Subgrades throughout Australta," Moisture EquiItbrta and Motsture Changes fn SotIs Beneath Covered Areas, A Symposium In PrInt. Butterworths, Australta, 1965, PP. 184-190.
^Attchtson, G.D., and Rtchards, B.G., "The Fundamental Mechantsms Involved tn Heave and Soil Moisture Movement and the Engineering Properties of Soils Which are Important In Such Movement," Proceed-fngs, 2nd International Reasearch and Enqineerinq Conference on Expans i ve Soi1s, College Station, Texas, 1969, pp. 66-84.
Btshop, A.W., and Henkel, D.J., The Measurement of Sot I Properties tn TriaxiaI Test, 3rd editton, 1978, pp. 180-192.
Y-Bltght, G.E., "A Study of Effecttve Stresses for Volume Change," Moisture EoutItbrta and Motsture Chanqe In SotIs Beneath Covered Areas, Butterworths, Australta, 1965, pp. 259-269.
)^Burland, J.B., "Some Aspects of the Mechantcal Behavtor of Partly Saturated Soils," Moisture EouiIIbria and Moisture Changes in SoiIs Beneath Covered Areas, Butterworths, Australia, 1965, pp. 270-278.
Croney, D., and Coleman, J.D., "Pore Pressure and Suctlon In Sotl," Proceedtngs. Conference on Pore Pressure and Suction in SoiIs, British Nattonal Soctety of SotI Mechantcs & Foundatton Engtneertng at the Instttute of Cfvtl Engtneers, London, 1960, pp. 31-37.
128
129
de Brutjn, C.M.A., "Annual Redtstrtbutlon of Sotl Mots-ture Suctfon and SotI Motsture Denstty Beneath Two Dtfferent Surface Covers and the Assocfated Heave at the Onderstepoort Test Stte Near Pretorta," Motsture EoutItbrta and Motsture Changes Beneath Covered Areas, Butterworths, Australta, 1965, pp. 122-134.
Desat, C.S., and Chrtsttan, J.T., Editors, NumericaI Methods In Geotechnical Enqineerinq. "Foundations tn Expanstve Sotls," McGraw-HIII Book Co., Inc, 1977, Chapter 13, pp. 427-433.
Donaldson, G.W., "The Occurrence of Problems of Heave and the Factors Affecttng tts Nature," Proceed-tngs, 2nd Internattonal Conference on Expanstve SoiIs. College Station, Texas, 1969, pp. 25-30.
Donaldson, G.W., "Prediction of Differenttal Movement on Expanstve Sotls," Proceedings, 3rd International Conference on Expansive SoJJ_s, Haifa, Israel, 1973, pp. 289-293.
Fawcett, G., and ColIis-George, N., "A Filter-Paper Meth-od for Determinlng the Moisture Characteristics of So iI," Australian Journal of Experimental Aarlcul-ture and Anima1 Husbandry, Vol . 7 1967, pp. 162-167.
Fraser, R.A., and Wardle, L.J., "The Analysis of Stiff-ened Raft Foundations on Expansive Solls," Svmposium on Recent Developments in the AnaIvsis of SoiI Behavior and their APPIicatton to Geotechnical Structure. Universtty of New South Wales, Australta, July, 1975, pp. 89-98.
Gardner, W.R., "Laboratory Studtes of Evaporatton from Sotl Columns tn the Presence of Water Table," SotI Sctence. Vol. 86^ 1958, pp. 2|4.
Gardner, W.R., "Sotl Suctton and Water Movement," Pro-ceedtngs, Conference on Pore Pressure and Suctton tn SoiIs. British National Society of SotI Mechan-tcs and Foundatton Englneertng at the Institute of Ctvtl Engineers, London, 1960, pp. 137-140.
Germann, F., Personal Correspondence, College Statlon, TX, November, 1986.
130
Goode, J.C, "Heave Predtctton and Moisture Migratton Beneath Slabs on Expansive Sotls," thests present-ed to the Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, in 1982, tn partial fulftllment of the requtrements for the degree of Master of Science tn Ctvtl Engtneertng.
Haliburton, T.A., and Marks, B. D., "Subgrade Moisture Variatîons in Expansive Soils," Proceedinqs. 2nd International Research and Engineering Conference on Expanstve Clav So iIs. Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, 1969, pp. 291-307.
Hlllel, D., Introduction to SoiI Physics. Academic Press, 1982, pp. 65.
Holland, J.E., and Lawrence, C.E., "Seasonal Heave of Australian Clay Soils," Proceedings. 2nd Interna-t i onaI Conference on Expansive So iIs. College Station, Texas, 1969, pp. 302-321.
Holt, J.H., "A Study of the Physico-Chemical Mtneralogi-cal and Engineering Properties of Fine-graîned SoiI in Relation to their Expansive Characteris-tics," Technical Report No. AFWL-TR-69-169. Atr -Force Weapons Laboratory, New Mexico, 1970.
Jasubhaî, V.S., "A Study of Procedures to Predict Total Heave in Expansive Clay Soils," a report presented to Texas Tech University at Lubbock, Texas, in 1985, i n part i aI fuIf i11ment of the requ i rement of the degree of Master of Science in Civil Engineer-ing.
Jennings, J.E.B., "The Prediction of Total Heave from Double Oedometer Test," Transaction of the South African Institute of CiviI Engineering. Vol. 7, September, 1957, pp. 13-19.
Jennings, J.E., "A Revised Effective Stress Law for the Prediction of the Behavior of Unsaturated Soils," Proceedings. Conference on Pore Pressure and Suc-tion in SoiIs. British National Society of SoiI Mechanics and Foundation Engineering at the In-stitute of Civil Engineers, London, 1960, pp. 26-30.
131
Jennings, J.E., "The Predictton of Amount and Rate of Heave likely to be Experienced on Expansive So1Is," Proceedings. 2nd International Research and Engtneertng Conference on Expansive Clav SoIIs. Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, 1969, pp. 99-109.
Johnson, L.D., "Influence of Suction on Heave on Expan-sive Soils," Mtscellaneous Paper S-73-17. U.S. Army Engtneer Waterways Expertment Statton, Vtcks-burg, MS, Aprtl, 1973.
Johnson, L.D., "Evaluatton of Laboratory Suctton Tests for Prediction of Heave in Foundatton Soils," Technical Report S-77-7, U.S. Army Engineer Water-ways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, August, 1977.
•Johnson, L.D., "Predicttng Potenttal Heave and Heave wtth Ttme tn Swelltng Foundatton Sotls," Technical Report S-78-7. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Exper-iment Station, Vicksburg, MS, July, 1978.
Johnson, L.D., "Field Test Sections on Expansive Soils," Technical Report GI-81-4. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, May, 1981.
Jones, D.E., and Holtz, W.G., "Expansive Soils - the Hidden Disaster," CiviI Engineering. ASCE. August, 1973, pp. 49-51.
Kassif, G., et al.. Pavement on Expansive Clavs. Israel Institute of Technology, Jerusalem, Academic Press, Israel, 1969, pp. 125-157.
t Kassif, G., and Ben Shalom, A., "Experimental Relation-shtp between SwelI Pressure and Suction," Geotech-nique. 21, No. 3, 1971, pp. 245-255.
Krohn, J.P., and Slosson, J.E., "Assessment of Expansive Soils in the United States," Proceedings, 4th International Conference on Expansive So iIs. Den-ver Co., ASCE, New York, NY, Vol. I, 1980, pp. 596-608.
Lytton, R.L., "Theory of Moisture Movement tn Expanstve Clays," Research Reoort 118-1. Center for Htghway Research, Untverstty of Texas at Austtn, Septem-ber, 1969.
132
Lytton, R.L., and Nachtlnger, R.R., "Contfnuum Theory of Mofsture Movement and Swell In Expanstve Clays," Research Report 118-2. Center for Htghway Re-search, Untverstty of Texas at Austtn, September, 1969.
Lytton, R.L., and Kher, R.K., "Predictton of Motsture Movement tn Expansive Clays," Research Report 118-3j_ Center for Highway Research, University of Texas at Austtn, May, 1970.
Lytton, R.L., and Watt, G.W., "Predictton of swelltng tn Expanstve Clays," Research Report 118-4, Center of Htghway Research, University of Texas at Austtn, September, 1970.
Lytton, R.L., and Woodburn, J., "Design and Performance of Mat Foundatton on Expanstve Clay," Proceedtngs. 3rd International Conference on Expansive SoiIs. Hatfa, Israel, Vol. I, 1973, pp. 301-308.
Mathewson, C.C., et al.. "Analysts and Modeltng of the Performance of Home Foundatlons on Expanstve Solls tn Central Texas," Bu11etin of the Association of' Enqineertng GeoloqJsts. Vol. XII, No.4, Fall, 1975, pp. 275-302.
Matyas, E.L., and Radhakrisdhna, H.S., "Volume Change Characteristics of Partially Saturated Soils," Geotechnique, Vol. 18, 1968, pp. 432-448.
^ McDowell, C , "Interrelattonship of Load, Volume Change, and Layer Thickness of Soils to the Behavior of Engtneering Structures," Proceedings. Highway Re-search Board, Washington, D.C, Vol. 35, 1969, pp, 754-770.
Tt. McKeen, R.G., "Characterizing Expanstve Sotls for Destgn," presented at the Joint Meeting of the Texas, New Mexico and Mexico Sections of the ASCE, Albuquerque, New Mextco, October 6-8, 1977.
McKeen, R.G., "Destgn of Airport Pavements for Expanstve Sotls," Report No. DOT/FAA/RD-81/25 prepared for Federal Aviation Admini stration, Washington, D.C, January, 1981.
McKeen, R.G., "Fteld Studtes of Airport Pavements on Expansive Clay," Proceedings. 4th International Conference on Expansive SoiIs, Denver, CO, ASCE, New York, NY, Vol. 1, June, 1980, pp. 242-261.
133
McQueen, I.S., and Miller, R.F., "Calîbration and Eval-uation of a Wide-Range Gravimetric Method for Measuring Motsture Stress," SoiI Science. Vol. 106, No. 3, 1968, pp. 225-231.
•^Mitchell, P.W., and Avalle, D.L., "A Technique to Pre-dict Expansive SoiI Movement," 5th International Conference on Expansive SoiIs. Adelaide, South Australia, May, 1984, pp. 124-129.
Mowafy, Y.M., et al.. "Prediction of Swelling Pressure and Factors Affecting SwelI Behavior of an Expan-s i ve So iI," Transportat i on Research Board Record 1032 National Research Council, Washington, D.C, 1985.
Mowafy, Y.M., et al.. "Treatment of Expansive Soils: A Laboratory Study," Transport Research Board Record 1032. National Research Councîl, Washington, D.C, 1985.
Post-Tensioning Institute, Design and Construction of Post Tensioned SIabs-on-Ground. Post Tensionîng Institute, Phoenix, AZ, 1980.
Revîew Panel : "Engîneering Concepts of Moisture Equili-bria and Moisture Changes in Soils," Moisture EquiIibria and Moisture Changes in SoiIs Beneath Covered Area. A Svmposium in Print, Butterworths, Australia, 1965.
Richards, B.G., "Moisture Flow and Equiltbrta tn Unsatu-rated Soils for Shallow Foundatlons," PermeabiIIty and CapiIlarity of SoiIs. ASTM STP 417, Am. Soc. Testing Mats., 1967, pp. 4-34.
Richards, B.G., "Measurement of SoiI Suction in Expan-sive Clays," CiviI Engineering. Vol. 22. No. 3, Transactions. Institute of Engineers, Australia, 1980, pp. 252-261.
Ritchie, J.T., et aI.. "Water Movement in Undisturbed SweIIi ng CIay So iI," SoiI Science Soc i ety of Ame-rica Proceedings. Vol. 36, No. 6, December, 1972, pp. 874-879.
Russam, K., and Coleman, J.D., "The Effect of Climatic Factors on Subgrade Moisture Conditions," Geotech-nique, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1961, PP. 22-28.
134
Schofield, R.K., "Suction In Swollen Clays," Proceed-tnqs. Conference on Pore Pressure and Suction in SoiIs. British National Society of SoiI Mechanics and Foundation Engineering at the Instttute of Civil Engîneers, London, 1960, pp. 59-60.
Snethen, D.R., et al.. "A Review of Engineertng Experi-ences with Expansive Soils in Highway Subgrades," Report No. FHWA-RD-75-48 prepared for Offîce of Research and Development, Federal Highway Admtnis-tration, Washington, D.C, June, 1975.
Snethen, D.R., et aI.. "An Investigation of Natural Mi-croscale Mechanisms that cause Volume change in Expansive Clays," U.S. Army Engîneer Experiment Station, SoiI and Pavement Laboratory, Vicksburg, MS, January, 1977.
Snethen, D.R., et al.. "An Evaluation of Expedient Methodology for Identification of Potentially Expansive Soils," Report No. FHWA-RD-74-94. pre-pared for Federal Highway Administration, Washing-ton, D.C, June, 1977.
Snethen, D.R., "Design and Construction of Residential Slab-on-Ground: State of the Art," Proceedings of Workshop of Committee on Residential SIab-on-Ground. National Research Council, Washington, D.C, June. 20-21. 1978, pp. 10-37.
* Snethen, D.R., "Characterization of Expansive Soils using Soil Suction Data," Proceedinqs. 4th Intei— nat i onaI Conference on Expans i ve SoiIs. Denver, Co, ASCE, New York, NY, Vol. 1, June, 1980, pp. 54-75.
» Snethen, D.R., "Expansive Soils," Ground Failure, Nation-al Research Council Committee on Ground Failure Hazard, Vol. 3, Sprtng, 1986.
Snethen, D.R., and Johnson, L.D., "Evaluation of SoiI Suction from Filter Paper," Miscellaneous Paoer GL-80-4. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS, June, 1980.
SoiI Survey of Brazos County, Texas, Untted States Department of Agriculture, SoiI Conservation Ser-vice, No. 1, 1951, pp. 44-50.
135
SoiI Survey of Potter County, Texas, United States Department of Agrculture, SoiI Conservation Sei— vice, 1980, pp. 129.
Stevens, J.B., and Matlock, H., "Measurements Beneath the Surface of Expansive Clay," Transport Research Board No. 568. National Science Research Council, Washington, D.C, 1976.
• Sullivan, R.A., et al.. "Predicting Heave of Buidings on Unsaturated Clay." Proceedings. 2nd International Research and Engineering Conference on Expansive Clav SoiIs. Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, 1969, pp. 404-420.
Thornthwaite, C.W., "An Approach Towards a Rational Classification of Climate," GeographicaI Review. Vol. 38, No. 1, 1948, pp. 55-94.
, Van der Merwe, D.H., " The Prediction of Heave from Plasticity Index and Percentage Clay Fraction of Soils," The CiViI Engineer tn South Africa. June, 1964, pp. 103-107.
' Walsh, P.F., "The Design of Residential Slabs-on-Ground," CSRIO Austr. Div. Bldg. Res. Tech., No. 5, 1974, pp. 1-25.
Wiggins, J.H., "Towards a Coherent Mutual Hazard Poli-cy," Civil Enqineering. ASCE. April. 1974. pp. 74-76.
Wray, W.K., "Development of a Design Procedure for Resi-dential and Light Commercial Slab-on-Ground Con-structed over Expansive Soils," Dissertation pre-sented to Texas A&M University at College Station, Texas, in 1978, in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philoso-Phy.
Wray, W.K., "Analysis of Stiffened SIabs-on-Ground over Expansive Soil," Proceedings. 4th International Conference on Expansive SoiIs. Denver, CO, ASCE, New York, NY, June, 1980, pp. 558-581.
« Wray, W.K., "The Principles of SoiI Suction and its Geo-technical Engineering Applications," Proceedings. 5th International Conference on Expansive SoiIs. Adelalde, South Australta, 1984, pp. 114-118.
136
Wray, W.K., "The Effect of a Dry Clîmate on Expansîve Sotls Supporting on-Grade Structures," accepted for pubIi cat i on, Transport Research Board Record. National Research Council, Washington, D.C, August, 1986.
Yong, R.N., et aK., "Flow of Water in Partially Satu-rated Expansive Soils," Proceed i ngs. 2nd Interna-t i ona1 Conference on Expansive Clav So iIs. Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, 1969, pp. 85-97.
Yoshida, R.T., et al.. "The Prediction of Total Heave of a Slab-on-Grade Floor on Regina Clay," Canadian Geotechnica1 JournaI, Vol. 20, 1983, pp. 69-81.
APPENDIX As
2- AND 3-DIMENSIONAL ELEVATION PLOTS
137
138
10.50- AMARILLO MONTH 2
Flgure A-1. 2- and 3-Dfmensional Repre-sentation of Changes in Rela-tlve Surface Elevation After Month 2 with Respect to the Elevatlon at the Tlme of Stte Installatton for the Amartllo stte.
I0.50i AMARiLLO MONTH 3
139
t ST ^V^^"^
Ftgure A-2. 2- and 3-Dtmenstonal Repre-sentation of Changes tn Rela-ttve Surface Elevatton After Month 3 wtth Respect to the Elevatlon at the Ttme of Stte Installatlon for the Amarlllo Stte.
140
10.50
1025
I < o
IQOO
9.75
AMARiLLO MONTH 4
9.50
\ ° v: - ^ •'
Ftgure A-3. 2- and 3-DimensÍonal Repre-sentation of Changes tn Rela-ttve Surface Elevatton After Month 4 wlth Respect to the Elevatlon at the Tlme of Site Installatlon for the Amartllo Stte.
141
1090
AMARILLO MONTH 5
Ffgure A-4. 2- and 3-Dfmensfonal Repre-sentatfon of Changes In Rela-tlve Surface Elevatfon After Month 5 wfth Respect to the Elevatfon at the Tfme of Sfte ^nstallatlon for the Amarllio
142
I0.50i AMARILLO MONTH 6
\ ^ ^ ^ ^ - ^ " ^
Ftgure A-5. 2- and 3-Dîmenstonal Repre-sentatlon of Changes tn Rela-ttve Surface Elevatton After Month 6 wtth Respect to the Elevatton at the Ttme of Stte Installatton for the Amartllo Stte.
143
10.50, AMARILLO MONTH 7
%
•» • - , . * » ' ' " • ^
Ftgure A-6. 2- and 3-Dtmenstonal Repre-sentatlon of Changes In Rela-tlve Surface Elevatlon After Month 7 wtth Respect to the Elevatton at the Ttme of Stte Installatton for the Amartllo Stte.
144
I0.50i AMARILLO MONTH 6
0l*AeH5K)W5
Ftgure A-7. 2- and 3-Dtmensfonal Repre-sentatton of ttve Surface Month 8 wtth Elevatlon at Installatton Stte.
Changes In Rela-Elevatlon After Respect to the the Ttme of Stte for the AmartIlo
145
KXSO AMARILLO MONTH 9
Ftgure A-8. 2- and 3-Dimenstonal Repre-sentatlon of Changes tn Rela-tive Surface Elevation After Month 9 with Respect to the Elevation at the Time of Site Installation for the Amarillo Site.
146
I0.50n AMARILLO ^ l MONTH 10
— — — — — >jSJ • I < \ •^ I
Ftgure A-9 . 2- and 3-Dtmensfonal Repre-sentatfon of Changes fn Rela-ttve Surface Elevatton After Month 10 with Respect to the Elevation at the Ttme of Stte Installation for the Amarlllo Slte.
147
10.50 AMARILLO MONTH II
Figure A-10. 2- and 3-Dimensional Repre-sentation of Changes In Rela-tive Surface Elevation After Month 11 with Respect to the Elevation at the Time of Stte Installatlon for the Amarlllo Stte.
148
090
Í&'-«E,»T«T»N
*> •ír-rîA.,-*.^«-e«»»« 0 ' " EåST-
Ftgure A-11. 2- and 3-Dtmensfonal Repre-sentatton of Changes fn Rela-ttve Surface Elevatfon After Month 4 with Respect to the Elevatfon at the Tlme of Slte Installatlon for the College Statlon Slte. ^
149
1080
Sgy-«E,mTKlH
Flgure A-12. f~ f"? 3-OtiiienslonaI Repre-sentatlon of Changes 1n Rela-tlve Surface Elevatlon After Month 5 wlth Respect to thl Elevat on at the Tlme of sfte
St"a1r^^1ít%"/°^ *^ ^°"-e'
150
1090
COU.EGE aTATION MONTH 6
Figure A-13. 2- and 3-Dimenstonal Repre-sentation of Changes tn Rela-ttve Surface Elevatton After Month 6 wtth Respect to the Elevatton at the Ttme of Stte Installatton for the College Statton Stte.
151
nao OOLLEBE fTATION MONTH 7
. 5^?^ ^
40 * *A í» * íftf^
Ftgure A-14. 2- and 3-Dtmenstonal Repre-sentatton of Changes tn Rela-ttve Surface Elevatton After Month 7 wtth Respect to the Elevatton at the Ttme of Stte Installatton for the College Statton Stte.
152
fOSÛ
KX2S
X S « OJOO
u
I 9i79
9L90
SSiti?f^,«T"»"
r á ' s ^
Ftgure A -15 . 2- and 3-Dfmenstonal Repre-sentatîon of Changes fn Rela-tfve Surface Elevatton After Month 8 wlth Respect to the Elevation at the Ttme of Stte Installatlon for the College Station Site.
153
KX90i
OOU^GE 8TATI0N MONTH 9
Figure A-16. 2- and 3-DÍmensional Repre-sentation of tive Surface Month 9 with Elevation at Installatton Statton Stte.
Changes in Rela-Elevatlon After Respect to the the Time of Site for the College
154
mao
£&V?^K)»"*^'ON
' ' ' gure A -J7 .
0 *
1 I I , M 32 16 ^
«fn?at,J;°^?«"«'ona, Rep, . . * '^5 Surface E & f ' " Reia-Month JO wîl-h i ^ * ' * ' ^ >*fter f 'evatfon ât t h e ' í r * * ° ' ' e ' "s ta l ia t ion for th '"^' ' * ' Sfte Statfon Sl te . *^* College
155
10 y>
KX29
C0LLE6E STATDN MONTH I I
E z < u
IOJOO
».79
9JSÛ
Figure A-18. 2- and 3-DÍmensional Repre-sentatton of Changes tn Rela-tive Surface Elevatlon After Month 11 with Respect to the Elevation at the Tlme of Site Installatton for the College Statton Slte.
10.20
t 10.15-
9.90
156 —J ' « ' I L —MONTH 0
• MONTH 2 oMONTH 4
I J L COLLEGE STATION
'»119 «20,2', l22,23'24g'5l26,2V POINT NUMBER
(0)
—r-128 129 130
10.20
ÎZ 10.15-
g 10.05
3 io.oo4-UJ
9.95Í 9.90"
118
J. j . JL MONTH 0
• MONTH 5 oMONTH 6
J L JL Jí L
COLLEGE STATION
N-
119 '20 ,2', 122 , i 124 .g's 126 ^^ 128 , ^ 130
POINT NUI\/IBER (b)
10.20
t 10.15
z IO.IOH Q 5 10.05 2 lo.oo-f-
9.951 9.90
—MONTH 0 • MONTH 7 oMONTH 8
J L__J I I I L J-COLLEGE STATION
118 119 121
N«
120 J , 122 I23'24,2'5'26,2V —T" 128 129
POINT NUMBER
(c)
130
Ffgure A-19. Monthly Changes of Surface Elevatlon for Months 4 to 12, of the Lateral Cen-terltne of the Slab Model for the Col-lege Statfon Stte.
157
10.20"
10.15-
10.10-
—MONTH 0 • MONTH 9 oMONTH 10
X
COLLEGE STATION
I 10.051 y 10.00--kJ
9.95-1 9.90-
118
N-1 ' í ' 120 ' 122 T —I 1 r -
124 . ' 126 T
119 "-^ 121 " ^ 123 "-^ 125 "•*' 127
POINT NUMBER
(d)
128 ,29 130
z o
i UJ
UJ
10.20
10.15-
10.10-
10.05
10 .00--
9.95-
9.90
j _ X X MONTH 0
• MONTH II oMONTH 12
J L X X X X
COLLEGE STATiON
N"
118 „ ; 120 ,2', 122 i ^ 124 , 5 126 .g'y 128 ,29 130
POINT NUMBER
(e)
F f g u r e A - 1 9 . ( C o n t t n u e d )
APPENDIX B:
LABORATORY TEST DATA
158
159
Table B-1. Converston Table for Varfous Untts of Sotl Suctton.
Cm of Water
10
100
1,000
10,000
100,000
1,000,000
Units
PF
1
2
3
4
5
6
Bars
0.00981
0.0981
0.981
9.81
98.1
981
Psi
0.142
1.42
14.2
142.2
1422
14220
kPa
0.981
9.81
98.1
981
9810
98100
160
u
u- -
>» * * • ^ U X
f - Q) 4-* T î U) C íO •—1
LT) ^
1 CM CJ
T3 f - * .> 3 ' i - ^ O" E ^
• ^ • p - *—» - J _ l
o f»^ 1
f - H
* í -
r«* vo 1 ifí ^
CM I
OQ
n Q I -
•J o>o«-^ c c o <U •»- OJ O) U «/) > &. «/> • a> <u (O o •»-
OL. a . z (/)
(O
• ^ i / ) •••*l<i: lO u
tn "O
iT)
I o co
Q>
4-> 4-> O.M-
o
f— Q) •.- E O (O (/) z
o i . O to
00 o
I U )
vo I
I
I in vo
vo I
I
O
ir> I
o
lo a> • o T -c i-(O 0)
tf (/)
>»
> t -S. Q)
I
o 00
t/0 -•->>» * O 4-* (/)
r— O. C (O •r- O >< o M- o o;
l/) O O I—
C tA • I - <u . ^ •!-Vt- s-3 O)
_J t / )
>» •-• O) ir> > tn a* u o •-•
l / ) (O >» • &. 4J tn
r - CO C (O •r- 3 X O H- O O) tn o o •—
161
Table B-3. In Sttu SotI Properttes for Amartllo Stte—"Boring Number 39.
Depth (ft)
0-1
1-2
2-3
3-4
4-5
5-6
6-7
7-8
8-9
Filter Paper Soil Suction (pF)
5.2
4.9
5.0
4.7
—
4.5
4.4
4.6
4.2
Moisture Content
(%)
8.7
10.7
10.7
17.7
18.1
21.3
23.2
21.3
21.6
Liquid LÍíTIÍt
(%)
35.6
35.6
36.8
73.3
83.1
69.5
72.0
64.3
67.8
Plastic Limit
(%)
24.1
21.9
24.8
33.8
30.6
38.4
38.4
34.6
30.3
Plas-ticity Index
11.5
13.7
12.0
39.5
52.5
31.1
33.6
29.7
37.5
Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve
(%)
66
61
65
86
71
89
79
80
80
Percent Clay (<0.002 IT Tl)
(%)
49
47
47
68
58
67
61
63
64
162
Table B-4. In Sttu SotI Properttes for Amartllo Stte—Bortng Number 45.
Depth (ft)
0-1
1-2
2-3
3-4
4-5
5-6
6-7
7-8
8-9
Filter Paper Soil Suction (pF)
5.5
5.0
4.8
4.7
4.7
4.4
4.2
4.3
4.2
Moisture Content
(%)
6.6
8.9
17.3
17.4
19.4
24.5
27.5
24.3
25.5
Liquid Limit
(%)
36.5
32.3
32.4
61.8
67.4
76.6
73.7
69.0
•54.2
Plastic Limit
(%)
19.8
18.4
17.7
21.8
30.0
44.2
26.3
25.4
26.0
Plas-ticity Index
16.7
13.9
14.7
40.0
37.4
32.4
47.4
43.6
28.2
Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve
(%)
54
55
50
96
87
87
82
77
80
Percent Clay (<0.002 iran) (%)
43
43
38
70 '
68
65
66
66
59
163
Table B-5. In Sttu SotI Properttes for Amartllo Stte—Boring Number 51.
Depth (ft)
0-1
1-2
2-3
3-4
4-5
5-6
6-7
7-8
8-9
Filter Paper Soil Suction (pF)
5.3
5.1
5.0
4.8
4.5
4.4
4.4
4.3
—
Moisture Content
(%)
7.7
10.2
10.2
17.7
22.2
22.6
27.0
23.5
26.6
Liquid Limit
(%)
39.8
37.1
32.5
57.9
81.1
81.3
77.3
72.9
76.9
Plastic Limit
(%)
25.7
18.7
19.0
22.3
27.1
26.9
28.1
25.9
25.8
Plas-ticity Index
14.1
18.4
13.5
35.6
54.0
54.4
49.2
47.0
51.1
Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve
(%)
66
55
61
64
66
83
87
78
84
Percent Clay
(<0.002 mm) (%)-
50
47
42
49
50
57
65
62
61
T
164
Table B-6. In Sttu SotI Properttes for Collcge Statton Stte—Borlng Number 40..
Depth (ft)
0-1
1-2
2-3
3-4
4-5
5-6
6-7
7-8
8-9
Filter Paper Soil Suction (pF)
5.0
4.6
4.4
4.2
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.1
4.3
Moisture Content
(%)
4.2
4.5
28.3
19.3
14.5
15.0
26.2
21.5
27.2
Liquid Limit
(%)
24.1
21.2
59.7
48.2
49.4
46.9
54.4
50.6
68.8
Plastic Limit
(%)
16.2
17.9
23.4
20.7
25.0
18.6
27.9
30.1
33.0
Plas-ticity Index
7.9
3.3
36.3
27.5
24.4
28.3
26.5
20.5
35.6
Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve
(%)
29
33
62
69
60
69
66
74
86
Percent Clay (<0.002 mm) (%)
23
21
63
57
43
48
52
46
63
165
Table B-7. In Sttu Sotl Propertfes for College Statton Stte—Boring Number 45.
Depth (ft)
0-1
1-2
2-3
3-4
4-5
5-6
6-7
7-8
8-9
Filter Paper Soil Suction (pF)
4.8
4.9
4.4
4.4
4.1
4.2
4.1
4.2
4.1
Moisture Content
(%)
6.1
4.7
21.4
14.8
17.7
20.3
18.7
16.3
29.5
Liquid Limit
(%)
23.3
35.7
46.9
40.2
40.1
36.9
42.8
56.3
46.1
Plastic Limit
(%)
16.6
19.6
24.4
19.3
21.6
18.6
20.5
31.8
25.4
Plas-ticity Index
6.7
16.1
22.5
20.9
18.5
18.3
22.3
24.5
20.7
Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve
(%)
39
39
65
59
67
59
64
76
97
Percent Clay
(<0.002 mm)
(%)
28
18
56
40 '
61
37
44
63
82
166
Table B-8. In Sttu SotI Properttes for College Statlon Stte—Borlng Number 51.
Depth (ft)
0-1
1-2
2-3
3-4
4-5
5-6
6-7
7-8
8-9
Filter Paper Soil Suction (pF)
4.9
4.6
2.0
4.3
4.3
4.5
4.5
4.6
4.5
Moisture Content
(%)
7.1
27.1
18.6
18.4
20.5
18.4
28.1
31.6
32.8
Liquid Limit
(%)
30.9
53.1
49.0
46.9
54.5
52.8
49.2
65.8
78.5
Plastic Limit
(%)
17.4
23.5
19.5
18.7
23.2
19.0
21.1
25.9
33.0
Plas-ticity Index
13.5
29.6
29.5
28.2
31.3
33.8
28.1
42.9
45.5
Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve
(%)
30
36
60
57
58
68
63
88
98
Percent Clay
(<0.002 mm) (%)
18
29
48
49
40
40
53
68
72
167
Table B-9. Inttfal In Sttu SotI Suctlon for the Amar 111o SIte.
BORING NO.
35 36 37
38 39 40
41 42 43
44 45 46
47 48 49
50 51
Werage
SAMPLE DEPTH (ft)
0-1
5.0 5.05 5.18
5.43 5.24 5.37
5.39 5.30 5.45
5.44 5.46 5.30
5.39 5.47 5.30
5.30 5.38
5.32
1-2
4.92 5.10 4.91
4.88 4.93 5.13
5.14 5.11 5.17
5.04 5.00
4.87
5.11
5.08 4.88
5.02
2-3
5.38 4.83 4.92
4.89 4.95 5.06
5.03 4.81 4.89
4.92 5.78 4.93
4.71 4.86 5.01
5.03 4.72
4.98
3-4
4.72 4.70 4.89
4.91 4.73 4.80
4.74 4.85 4.86
4.89 4.76 4.69
4.77 4.91 4.88
4.79 4.75
4.80
4-5
4.81 4.61 4.69
4.80
4.77
4.71 4.65 4.73
4.73 4.70 4.64
4.68 4.84 4.74
4.53 4.73
4.71
5-6
4.43 4.63 4.96
4.71 4.53 4.64
4.58 4.59 4.65
4.42 4.38 4.57
4.56 4.71 4.55
4.56 4.57
4.59
6-7
4.33 4.37 4.52
4.61 4.37 4.61
4.60 4.40 4.39
4.44 4.24 4.39
4.37 4.68 4.45
4.39 4.41
4.44
7-8
4.22 4.25 4.66
4.51 4.55 4.48
4.32 4.43 4.43
4.43 4.27 4.28
4.47 4.61 4.32
4.40 4.28
4.41
8-9
4.11 4.25 4.34
4.60 4.20 4.32
4.74 4.27 4.32
4.24 4.19 4.21
4.34 4.41 4.27
4.32 4.25
4.32
168
Table B-10. Intttal Content
In Sttu Sotl Motsture for the Amarlllo Stte.
BORING NO.
35 36 37
38 39 40
41 42 43
44 45 46
47 48 49
50 51
Average
SAMPLE DEPTH (ft)
0-1
9.7 8.0 8.4
9.2 8.7 9.8
6.8 8.4 8.2
8.4 6.6 8.2
8.9 4.9 9.8
7.7 8.8
8.3
1-2
11.6 7.1 12.2
11^4 10.7 9.8
9.7 9.2 9.2
8.7 8.9 13.1
11.7 12.0 10.1
10.2 12.8
10.5
2-3
11.4 17.9 6.2
9.7 10.7 11.3
10.1 15.3 15.2
16.7 17.3 15.5
19.7 13.5 14.5
10.2 18.0
13.8
3-4
18.5 19.4 16.9
15.8 17.7 16.6
19.0 16.5 18.7
17.9 17.4 18.7
19.8 17.3 17.1
17.7 18.5
17.8
4-5
18.4 20.3 19.1
17.3 18.1 19.0
20.3 19.8 19.9
19.7 19.4 21.5
22.0 17.7 19.9
22.2 19.5
19.7
5-6
23.6 21.2 17.5
18.9 21.3 20.5
20.7 21.4 21.1
23.1 24.5 23.6
23.5 20.7 22.9
22.6 21.4
21.7
6-7
24.8 23.3 22.6
20.9 23.2 20.9
21.5 24.8 26.1
24.5 27.5 25.6
25.5 21.8 25.2
27.0 26.0
24.2
7-8
20.8 23.5 21.3
21.5 21.3 21.0
21.7 23.5 24.4
22.8 24.3 25.7
23.9 21.6
23.5 23.1
22.7
8-9
25.0 20.3 22.9
21.8 21.6 22.1
16.8 24.6 25.1
25.0 25.5 24.6
25.7 23.3
26.6 24.8
23.5
169
Table B-11. Infttal In Sftu Sotl Suctton for the College Statton Stte.
BORING NO.
35 36 37
38 39 40
41 42 43
44 45 46
47 48 49
51
Average
SAMPLE DEPTH (ft)
0-1
4.73 4.81
4.88 5.05 5.01
4.87 4.68 4.92
4.74 4.82 4.95
4.92 4.63 4.98
4.86
4.86
1-2
4.60 4.91 4.71
4.78 4.66 4.63
4.40 4.52 4.98
4.80 4.87 4.70
4.08 3.94 2.99
4.56
4.51
2-3
4.29 4.61 4.35
4.30 4.40 4.40
4.38 4.40 4.83
4.44 4.43 4.30
4.37 2.31 3.90
« » M
4.25
3-4
4.73 4.19 3.95
4.70 4.20 4.20
4.31 4.38 4.46
4.34 4.35 4.07
4.29 4.00 4.20
4.25
4.29
4-5
4.45 4.19 3.86
4.30 4.29 4.39
4.40 4.26 4.24
4.30 4.07 4.49
4.37 3.92 4.18
4.33
4.25
5-6
4.43 4.31 4.20
4.35 4.27 4.36
4.41 4.38 4.27
4.28 4.22 4.26
4.42 4.31 4.33
4.35
4.32
6-7
4.50 4.24 4.00
4.33 4.38 4.35
4.31
4.25
4.25 4.05 4.42
4.32 4.37 4.30
4.45
4.30
7-8
4.34 4.23 4.15
4.26 4.11 4.33
4.38 4.18 4.16
4.30 4.17 4.23
4.30 4.48 4.35
4.56
4.28
8-9
4.35 4.20 4.11
4.35 4.13 4.27
4.23 4.12 4.23
4.20 4.07 4.25
4.29 4.26 4.16
4.51
4.23
170
Table B-12. Inttfal In Sttu Sotl Motsture Con-tent for the CoIIege Stat1on S1te.
BORING NO.
35 36 37
38 39 40
41 42 43
44 45 46
47 48 49
51
Average
SAMPLE DEPTH (ft)
0-1
14.4 12.7 6.3
7.0 3.3 4.2
5.0 4.4 4.9
8.4 6.1 4.6
4.2 6.3 4.7
—
6.4
1-2
13.6 10.6 8.7
5.6 2.7 4.5
23.6 16.8 2.5
7.5 4.7 12.1
6.2 8.0 7.4
7.3
8.9
2-3
15.8 15.0 20.8
13.9 26.8 28.9
20.2 15.2 2.8
14.8 21.4 19.6
26.6 7.6 19.8
29.4
18.7
3-4
12.5 16.5 18.2
10.7 16.9 19.3
16.8 15.8 14.3
15.1 14.8 16.4
17.4 31.7 20.3
19.0
17.4
4-5
15.6 16.3 17.9
18.3 16.3 14.5
14.6 17.6 17.4
16.4 17.7 10.0
15.6 21.2 21.0
17.9
16.9
5-6
16.6 18.3 14.5
20.3 17.3 15.0
15.0 16.8 19.3
17.0 20.3 17.2
16.9 16.5 20.0
18.5
17.9
6-7
16.7 22.5 23.8
12.6 17.4 26.2
24.5 21.2 24.4
16.9 16.7 17.7
22.2 20.1 25.6
20.5
20.8
7-8
16.2 25.4 27.2
16.8 18.5 21.5
23.7 23.0 23.3
26.4 16.3 25.5
20.6 32.7 30.6
30.7
23.9
8-9
28.4 27.5 26.9
26.5 36.6 27.2
30.5 30.7 29.1
26.2 29.5 24.5
30.1 30.2 29.6
28.5
29.1
171
0) t. 3 "0
•ro
ce
a, • 0)
0) 4^ ^ B W
— tn 0 > 0 < —
• D ^ C 1. Q S — < — 9) 9) £. £. O -P 4 •^ L. £ 0
M. c — 0)
> •0 Q 0) 0) 0) X 3
^» 0) Q i. -P 0) 0 + * l -0) E-P Q U l- — i5? 0. 0)
t. - Û. • ^ 0 0 in 4J
• cn
B-1
0)
Tab
4 J <—«. o. v«
»-H . fc .^
««-
o
o
ro 4-»
JP *•-> • - ^
.o *—'
^*» co
4-> «•-
.o ^ '^^
o • ••- >» (• - 4 J • ^ ' ^ (/> (J >cs 0) (O o. s. (/) o
0) í - 4->
4-» 0»«—* (O 4-> ^
*o O £ o
4 - » * - * 0 . 4 J
O ' —
co 00 (O
• o
co vo CVJ
• o
o» CSi
. ^
r>* •
o
ro •
*a-f - 4
IT) CVJ
o •
CVJ
^ •
o»
ir> •
t - 4
1
o
«í-csj a\
• o
o» 1*«. C\J
• o
o r«.-
. m
ir>
• o
00 •
a\ o
\n CVJ
ro •
CNJ
00 •
co . - •
ro 1
i n •
r-«
^^ .—1
. i n
^ 00 o • o
( O U )
• 00
t - H
i O •
o
^ •
^ o
i n CSJ
o •
CSJ
r •
a\ r H
vo 1
co
f - H
vo .
f - H
o m o» • o
CSi • — «
• co
( O ( O
• o<
CVJ .
•—1
o
ir> CSi
o r^
• CSJ
( O .
co CSJ
o> 1
( O
172
9í l . • D 9)
9) ^
Pro
c
on
S
^ . 9) 4J — Q — 4J Q cn > < 9)
0) •Q 9) C — Q -
0 ^ (J — 0) 9) £. JZ U 4J
4J •r- i -£ 0
d. c
— Cj >
TJ Q Qj 0) ( » X
— «) Q l . 4J 9) 0 4->»-0) E - P Q U U — Q T5 (L 0)
L - 0 . w .
0 0 (D 4^
• • ^
mm
1 (D
9i ^
Tab
4J ^ O. ^
^ H ^ _ »
«f-
o
o 0)
co 4->
V O M ->• -v^
. O r^ - _ ^
co 4->
. «*-^ >*^
.o ^^
u • «* - 4-> • » - • p - (/> O > CS OJ lO o. s-
oo o
0) ( . 4->
o c 4 J O J ' - ^ (/» 4-> X •^ c - o o Z o
f 4-í*—. 0.4-> Q) (f-
Q w
r<«» 1-H
. f—1
( D
vo •
o
vo 00
• CVJ
CNJ LO
• o
r««. •
^ 1-H 1-H
m CSJ »-H
00 •
CM
o •
o>
CSJ
1
o
r^ r^
. 1-H
a* co (O • o
o ir>
f - H
• o
CNJ •
'd-o 1-H
(T) CsJ f - H
o» •
CSJ
o •
o CSJ
f ^
1
CSJ
00 co
. f - H
CSJ co r*«. • o
r^ IT)
• co
r>.* r*<.
• o
0 0 •
00 o»
i n CSJ f - H
00 •
CSJ
i n •
( O CSJ
o» 1
r^
APPENDIX C:
TYPICAL SOIL SUCTION PROFILES
173
174
SOIL SUCTION, pF
5.0 4.5 - j
4.0 3.5 3.0 _ j
2.5
- I -
-3-
I- -5-(L UJ
o -7H
-9-
• MONTH D MONTH • MONTH o MONTH A M O N T H A M O N T H
AMARILLO STACK NO. 26
(o)
SOIL SUCTION, pF
5.0 ilÍ 40 t_
3.5 L_
3.0 — j
2.5
0 . UJ
o
- I -
-3 -
-5-
-7 -
-9 ,
AMARILLO STACK NO. 26
o MONTH • MONTH oMONTH AMONTH A MONTH
(b)
Ftgure C-1 Monthly Changes tn SotI Suctton wfth Depth for Instrument Stack No. 26, Located 20 ft Instde the Covered Surface for the AmartIlo Stte.
175
SOiL SUCTION, pF
5.0 4-—
43 •
4.0 3.5 - j
3.0 —I
23
- I -
-3-
P -5i
- 7 -
- 9 -
AMARILLO STACK NO.
a. bJ O
• MONTH I o MONTH 2 • MONTH 3 oMONTH 4 A M O N T H 5 AMONTH 6
SOIL SUCTION. pF
Ftgure C-2. Monthly Changes tn SofI Suctfon wfth Depth for Instrument Stack No. 28• Located 10 ft Instde the Covered Surface for the AmartIlo Stte.
176
SOIL SUCTION. pF
5.0
i -
4 3 4.0 3.5 3.0 —I
2 3
AMARILLO STACK NO. 32
I- -5' Q.
-7H
-9-
5.0
-I-
o
o
MONTH MONTH MONTH MONTH MONTH MONTH
(a)
SOIL SUCTION, pF
\
v_ 40 L_
3.5 L .
3.0 *
2.5
AMARILLO STACK NO. 32
Uí
o
-3-
-5-
-7 -
-9 l OMONTH • MONTH o MONTH AMONTH LMONTH
T"
8 9 10 tl 12
(b)
Ffgure C-3. Monthly Changes tn SotI Suctton wtth Depth for Instrument Stack No. 32t Located 2 ft Instde the Covered Surface for the AmartIlo Stte.
177
50
SOIL SUCTION. pF
4 5 I
4 0 35 I
3.0 I
23 2.0
X »-CL UJ O
- I -
- 2 -
- 3 -
- 4 -
- 5 -
- 6 -
- 7 -
- 8 -
- 9 - -
COLLEGE STATION STACK NO. 3
• MONTH oMONTH • MONTH o MONTH A MONTH
2 4 5 6 7
(a)
5.0
SOIL SUCTION. pF
4 5 I
4.0 I
35 _ j
3.0 t
23 I
2.0
b.
a UJ o
- I -
- 2 -
- 3 -
- 4 -
- 5 -
- 6 -
- 7 -
- 8 -
- 9 - - i-
Ftgure C-4 .
(b)
COLLEGE STATION STACK NO. 3
AMONTH 8 •MONTH 9 oMONTH 10 ••MONTH II -MONTH 12
T
Monthly Changes tn Sotl Suctton wtth Depth for Instrument Stack No. 3, Located 2 ft Instde the Covered Surfare for the College Statton Stte.
178
SOIL SUCTION, pF
5.0 4 5 I
4.0 '
3.5 i
3.0 23 __L_
2.0
0 . UJ
o
- I -
- 2 -
- 3 -
- 4 -
- 5 -
- 6 -
- 7 -
- 8 -
- 9 - -
COLLEGE STATION STACK NO. 9
• MONTH oMONTH • MONTH oMONTH AMONTH
2 4 5 6 7
tL (AJ O
50
- I -
- 2 -
- 3 -
- 4 -
- 5 -
- 6 -
- 7 -
- 8 -
- 9 - -
SOIL SUCTION, pF
4 5 I
40 1
35 _ J _
(b)
3 0 1
23 2.0
COLLEGE STATION STACK NO. 9
A MONTH •MONTH oMONTH • MONTH - MONTH
8 9 10 II 12
F î gure C-5. Monthly Changes tn SotI Suctton wtth Oepth for Instrument Stack No. 9, Located 20 ft Instde the Covered Surface for the College Statton Stte.
179
I \~
UJ
o
SOIL SUCTION, pF
5 rt-\
- 1 -
- 2 -
- 3 -
- 4 -
- 5 -
- 6 -
- 7 -
- 8 -
- 9 -
0 4 5 •
1
4 0 1
\ 1
1 «
35 1
' 7 ^^
"-^ 1
(a )
3 0 _JL_
23 -_L_
2.0
COLLEGE STATION STACK NO. 15
• MONTH oMONTH • MONTH oMONTH AMONTH
2 4 5 6 7
0. UJ
o
5.0
- I -
- 2 -
- 3 -
- 4 -
- 5 -
- 6 -
- 7 -
- 8 -
-9
4 5 I
SOIL SUCTION, pF
40 35 _-L_
(b)
3.0 I
23 I
2.0
COLLEGE STATION STACK NO. 15
AMONTH •MONTH e»MONTH 4- MONTH - MONTH
8 9 10 II 12
T
Ffgure C-6 Monthly Changes tn SotI Suctton wtth Depth for Instrument Stack No. 15, Located 2 ft Instde the Covered Surface for the College Statton Stte.
APPENDIX: D
RESULTS AND COMPLETE LISTING OF COMPUTER
PROGRAM, S0ILSUK2
180
181
AMARILLO (Sotl Prof1le Beneath Covered Surface fs Wetttng Up)
CALCULATION OF VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL SUCTION PROFILES BY HETHOO BY
LYTTON AND GARDNER
CALCULATE VERTICAL SUCTION PROFILE BEFORE SURFACE IS COVERED
DEPTH TO EQUILIBRIUH SUCTION >
NUHBER OF VERTICAL INCREHENTS »
LENGTH OF EACH VERTICAL INCREHENT
365.76
12
30.4B CH
CH
SOIL PERHEABILITY AT DEPTH OF EQUILIBTIUH SUCTION «
VERTICAL VELOCITY OF HOISTURE FLOW » -.0000347
.00002 CH/SEC
.CH/SEC
EQUILIBRIUH SUCTION 12569.3 CH OF WATER
HIN. SUCTION BENEATH COVERED SURFACE' 3162.26 CH OF WATER
VALUE OF CONSTANT, m 2.502
GARDNER'S CONSTANT Ai lE-09
INITIAL FIELD SUCTION IN pF
5.30 5.00 4.90 4.B0 4.60 4.40 4.30 4.40 4.20 4. 16 4.16 4.10
182
NODE « — — —
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
II
9
10
11
12
13
DEPTH (CH)
— — 0.0
30.5
61.0
91.4
121.9
152.4
162.9
213.4
243.6
274.3
304.6
335.3
365.6
CHANGE IN SUCTION (CH) — — — — — — —
1061663.0
121720.1
34544.3
14995.0
6174.5
5112.2
34C46,e
2550.4
1947.3
1540.3
1252.6
1041.7
0.0
PERHEABILITY (CH/SEC)
— — — — - — . —
0.000000000976
0.000000006691
0.000000030644
0.000000070676
0.000000129669
0.000000206126
0.000000304951
0.000000419711
0.000000551776
0.000000700537
0.000000665429
0.000001045921
SUCTION (CH)
-.—...—
1290650.0
206966.5
67246.3
52702.0
37707.1
29532.6
24420.4
20921.6
16371.2
16423.9
14663.6
13631.0
12569.3
SUCTION (PF)
6.11
5.32
4.94
4.72
4.58
4.47
4.39
4.32
4.26
4.22
4.17
4.13
4.10
CALCULATE HORIZONTAL SUCTION AFTER SURFACE IS COVERED
HORIZONTAL VELOCITY .0000347 CH/SEC
VERTICAL PROFILE OF HORIZONTAL VELOCITY
NODE #
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13
DEPTH (CH)
0.00 30.46 60.96 91.44 121.92 152.40 162.68 213.36 243.64 274.32 304.60 335.28 365.76
HORIZONTAL VELOCITY (CH/SEC)
0.00003470000 0.00002791144 0.00002198961 0.00001689401 0.00001258197 0.00000900852 0.00000612565 0.00000388187 0.00000222112 0.00000108137 0.00000039210 0.00000006922 0.00000000000
183
VERTICAL SUCTION PROFILE AT EQUILIBRIUH UNDER COVERED SURFACE
NOOE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
DEPTH (CH)
0.0 30.5 61.0 91.4 121.9 152.4 162.9 213.4 243.6 274.3 304.6 335.3 365.6
SUCTION (CH)
12955.1 12924.6 12694.1 12663.6 12633.1 12602.7 12772.2 12741.7 12711.2 12660.7 12650.3 12619.6 12569.3
SUCTION (pf)
4.11 4.11 4.11 4.11 4.11 4.11 4.11 4.11 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.10
VERTICAL SUCTION PROFILE FOR HOISTURE ENTERING SYSTEH FROH SURFACE
NODE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13
DEPTH (CH)
0.0 30.5 61.0 91.4 121.9 152.4 162.9 213.4 243.6 274.3 304.8 335.3 365.6
SUCTION (CH)
6749.3 6991.7 7255.5 7544.0 7861.4 6213.0 6605.3 9047.0 9S49.4 10127.6 10603.6 11606.6 12569.3
SUCTION (pF)
3.63 3.64 3.66 3.68 3.90 3.91 3.93 3.96 d.96 4.01 4.03 4.06 4.10
184
HORIZONTAL SUCTION PROFILE (NEGATIVE CENTIHETERS OF WATER)
LENGTH OF EDGE PENETRATION - 274.32 CH
NUHBER OF HORIZONTAL INCREHENTS « 6
LENGTH OF EACH HORIZONTAL INCREHENT » 45.72 CH
H-O-R-I-2-O-N-T-A-L S-U-C-T-I-0-N (CH OF WATER) AT NODE VERT NODE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13
1
9159.7 9160.6 9161.9 9163.0 9164.1 9202.6 9328.7 9546.7 9665;9 10301.4 10876.1 11623.6 12589.3
2
6878.7 6679.6 6880.9 6862.0 6915.5 9020.0 9198.9 9459.2 9611x9 10272.0 10864.0 11621.1 12589.3
3
6522.6 6523.9 6525.0 6575.5 6681.1 6845.1 9073.1 9373.4 9757.6 10242.6 10851.9 11618.6 12589.3
4
6037.0 6062.5 6166.3 6290.8 6459.5 8677.4 6951.0 9289.4 9704.7 10213.6 10839.6 11616.1 12589.3
5
7556.6 7682.6 7637.7 6025.3 6249.7 ' 8516.4 6832.5 9207.0 9652.3 10164.9 10827.8 11613.6 12589.3
NODE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13
7130.6 7321.0 7535.2 7777.0 6050.7 6361.6 6717.3 9126.2 9600.5 10156.3 10615.6 11611.1 12569.3
6749.3 6991.7 7255.5 7544.0 7661.4 6213.0 6605.3 9047.0 9549.4 10127.6 10803.6 11608.6 12569.3
6 10
185
o a
o (O
S
o
I o i
T I
u I
3 i
I
I I -i
I o i
N i
T Û: I
O I
o I — i
i i
i I
o i i I
00 i i i
I m ^ v û C D o — m\ûCD — fovDO I 0 0 0 0 0 0 G 0 0 ^ ( ^ 0 N ( ^ ( ^ O O O - «
^ i • • • • • • • • • • • • • I mmmmmmmmm^^yt^ i
I i / )ooo(^ — (NJ' sDOO — rnvDo I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ( ^ ( ^ ( ^ ( ^ ( ^ 0 0 0 —
vû I I
I oo9^(^ocMfnmvDoo — m v ø o I 000000 (^ (^ (^ (^Ch(^OOO-«
in I
i
I — — — csjrr)5íinf^(r> — ^ r * » o •V i
i
i fnmfnfn^ invor^C^ — ^ r ^ o I C^0^(f\<J\(T^(J\(!\(J\(f\OOO^
m i i mmmmmmmmm^^^^ i i I iominir)invDvDco(^ — ^ r * » o
(VI i ( ^ ( ^ ( ^ ( ^ O N ( ^ a ^ ( ^ ( ^ o o o - -i I m m m m m m m m m ^ ^ ^ ^ I I vDvDvDvDvDvDr^COÍT^ — ^ r ^ o I o^o^o^(7^(r«(7^(r^o^o^ocbo««
— I I f o r o r o m r o o f n f n f n ^ ^ ^ ^ i
uj I Q : O i UJQ i > z i
o — (Nj fn (Mfn^»f ivDf^CD(^ — — — —
186
CALCULATE CHANGE IN SURFACE ELEVATION DUE TO SOIL SHRINK OR SWELL
5HRINK OR SWELL PER VERTICAL INCREHENT
VERT NODE
2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13
1
-.0414 -.0321 -.0290 -.0259 -.0197 -.0133 -.0099 -.0126 -.0056 -.0044 -.0029 0.0000
2
-.0416 -.0325 -.0294 -.0263 -.0200 -.0135 -.0100 -.0126 -.0058 -.0045 -.0029 0.0000
3
-.0424 -.0331 -.0299 -.0267 -.0202 -.0137 -.0102 -.0127 -.0059 -.0045 -.0029 0.0000
HORIZONTAL 4
-.0431 -.0337 -.0304 -.0270 -.0205 -.0139 -.0103 -.0128 -.0059 -.0045 -.0029 0.0000
NODE 5
-.0438 -.0342 -.0308 -.0273 -.0207 -.0140 -.0104 -.0129 -.0059 -.0045 -.0029 0.0000
6
-.0444 -.0348 -.0312 -.0277 -.0210 -.0142 -.0105 -.0129 -.0060 -.0045 -.0029 0.0000
7
-.0450 -.0353 -.0316 -.0280 -.0212 -.0144 -.0106 -.0130 -.0060 -.0045 -.0029 0.0000
NODE 6 10 11 12
2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13
-.1971 0.0000
-.1995 0.0000
-.2021 0.0000
-.2049 -.2076 -.2102 -.2127
187
u o < X u û: 3 (A
O Z < z u o o: 3 ffi Q:
u > o o H
UJ 3 O
- 1 . J UJ 3 lA
Z M
Z
TIO
u D O UJ tt
UJ »-< 3 U ^ 1 < 1 U 1
te i u - J
HOR
H
i Z
•• UJ
a >-
_ i
8
«« tr\ %0
• >-< _J U H UJ u o: i
u. u X . tn ffi . j
m CVJ mm
« _ l
SOI
u. O 1 -Z
o « • UJ
1 -M
§
u. ifí >. ( 0 ffi ^ o
•
URE
cn U) UJ ÛC Q.
UJ o Û: < Z u tt 3 tf)
»-Z l*J u o: iS! m 0\ o • <n
• o z . J -J UJ 3 (/)
FOR
z M
< Q: 1 -(0
i l < Q:
UJ u Q:
^
m o* o
« UJ Q: 3 (A (n UJ Q: 0.
RGE
< z ^ P (A 1
Z UJ o Û : 3 ffi Q: UJ > O
h z « M
< o: >-(A
^ U 1-< tt
z u (M o 1
UJ lA lA lA ^ (M •
^
• 1
SAT
z UJ Q.
O u
i mm
tt z (A V , z O " •
UCT
o UJ ÛC
..J - 1 UJ 3 (A
U < •-e
188
O (J l i j o o
in
u (n i
X (n o
UJ
o
< > u
UJ u < u. Q :
( 0
LJ
o
o
o ( J ^
UJ o o
1 0> 1 (VJ 1 • 1 vD
00
n • (M
o u llJ o o
o u UJ o o
(NJ
o u UJ
o
m VD (NJ
(NJ —
• • vD (NJ
o
vD
00 m (SJ
O U o w — o
ON
o u (O UJ o o
1 o 1 (VJ 1 • 1 vD
^ •^
• (VJ
O u UJ o o
00
o u UJ o o
o u UJ o o
vD
Csj r^
m in • •
vD (VJ
(0 UJ
u —
ir> " •^ in
• • VD (VJ
U —
Ul
UJ tr UJ
fn
o I
o o
• o I
vD o o
I U
r*- (j\ "^ —
• •
o o I I
fn
o •
o I
• o i
CD
o o VD
o I
UJ cc
UJ
in
ui
u. o Q: Q.
o (/)
Vi^ w O
189
AMARILLO (Soîl Profiîe Beneath Coverecj Surface 1s Drylng Out)
CALCULATION OF VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL SUCTION PROFILES BY HETHOD BY
LYTTON AND (SARDNER
CALCULATE VERTICAL SUCTION PROFILE BEFORE SURFACE IS COVERED
DEPTH TO E(XJILIBRIUH SUCTION « 365.76
NUHBER OF VERTICAL INCREHENTS « 12
LENGTH OF EACH VERTICAL INCREHENT - 30.46 CH
SOIL PERHEABILITY AT DEPTH OF EQUILIBTIUH SUCTION •
VERTICAL VELOCITY OF HOISTURE FLOW • .0000347
CH
.00002 CH/SEC
CH/SEC
EQUILIBRIUH SUCTION 12589.3 CH OF WATER
HIN. SUCTION BENEATH COVERED SURFACE' 3162.26 CH OF WATER
VALUE OF CONSTANT, m • 2.502
GARDNER'S CONSTANT A> lE-09
INITIAL FIELD SUCTION IN pF
5.30 5.00 4.90 4.60 4.60 4.40 4.30 4.40 4.20 4.16 4.16 4.10
LENGTH OF EDGE PENETRATION . 274.32 CH
NUHBER OF HORIZONTAL INCREHENTS • 6
LENGTH OF EACH HORIZONTAL INCREHENT - 45.72 CH
190
u. a
UJ
u. s Q. Z
o U z> ifi
s
UJ
o
a
i o I
T » -i u I
3 I
0)
I
I o i
N i
T o:
I O i
i o i — i
I I
i I
O I i I
i i
00 i I i
I v D ( ^ o o o ^ o r ^ ^ ( s i « « — o o i vD^(nfn(Nj ( \ j — — — — — — —
t^ I i ^ r ^ ^ ^ n ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ n i
I OONCVJvD(NJflOvD^(NJ — — O O I mfnmcsjísí — — — — — — — —
VD I • . • I
i oo(Njr* ' (Nj(M^^fn(vj — o o o I fnfn{Nj(vj — — — — — — — — —
in I
i
I (^ir>(Nj(^r*-mfn(Nj — — o o o I CNJ(\J(VJ — — — — — — — — — —
^ i i
i ( v j o o o v D i n ^ f n c v j - — o o o i CVJfNJ — — — — — — — — — — —
fn i
I
I I vD iD '^ fn fn fs j f v j - — o o o o
cvj I ^ — « — — — — — — — — — « i • • . •
i I — — — — — — — — o o o o o I ^ - - — - - - - - - « — —
— i I
l-UJ I Q : O I UJQ I > z I
o — (vj (n — (vj(n^insor^flD(y> — — — —
191
I I
-J i -J I UJ i
I (/) i i
I i
— i Q: i z I (0 i
I
i UJ I 3 I O i
i Z i O i — i H i < i > i UJ i - J i UJ I
i UJ I U I
i I i I
(n i i z i
— I I
UJ i o i z I < I z i u I
I ^ I < I I Q I
u. Û :
UJ
o
in
O u o UJ — o
o u UJ
o
in m o u
ui o o
o\
o u UJ o o
m
m in
.
0 O u LJ O
o
flO
o u UJ o o
(VJ
flO vD 00
-J o u UJ o o
o u Ul
o
fn oo
o Ov
o u UJ o o
vD
(^ tn vD <«
• • fn —
u —
in in o m
. •
m —
z z u —
i I i i i I ON I — I • i o I i
I i i I VD i CVJ I • o
i
i I I fn i fn
o I
i i i
^ I (0 I UJ I o^ z I fn u I
I — i
i z i — I w I
I - I i .j i UJ i 2 i (n i
o i
— i I - i z i UJ i Q: I UJ u. u.
i in i ^ i • o
I
m in
• • — o
o o
UJ
(O
o o o
Q: o (n
UJ
u.
UJ Q: UJ
o I
o (0
^ %^ o
19:
COLLEGE STATION (Soll Proflle Beneath Coverecí Surface fs Wettfng Up)
CALCULATION OF VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL SUCTION PROFILES BY HETHOD BY
LYTTON AND (âARDNER
CALCULATE VERTICAL SUCTION PROFILE BEFORE SURFACE IS COVERED
OEPTH TO EQUILIBRIUH SUCTION • 274.32
NUHBER OF VERTICAL INCREHENTS • 9
LENGTH OF EACH VERTICAL INCREHENT • 30.46 CH
SOIL PERHEABILITY AT DEPTH OF EQUILIBTIUH SUCTION •
VERTICAL VELOCITY OF HOISTURE FLOW • -.0000347
CH
.00002 CH/SEC
CH/SEC
EQUILIBRIUH SUCTION 6309.6 CH OF WATER
HIN. SUCTION BENEATH COVERED SURFACE' 3162.28 CH OF WATER
VALUE OF CONSTANT, m 2.652
GARDNER'S CONSTANT Ai lE-09
INITIAL FIELD SUCTION IN pF
4.66 4.51 4.29 4.25 4.25 4.20 4.00 3.90 3.80
LENGTH OF EDGE PENETRATION • 274.32 CH
NUHBER OF HORIZONTAL INCREHENTS • 6
LENGTH OF EACH HORIZONTAL INCREHENT • 45.72 CH
193
UJ u u. Q:
(0
o UJ Q: UJ
o u Q: UJ o
I-Q:
i u. i a i ^ i
I
E\ Pî U I ^ I CO i
Q: CD mm .J M M
o o UJ
<
Ul .J wm
u. § Q.
2 O P U 3 (0
1 ^
1 u 1 ^ 1 2 1 o 1 1 u 1 ^ 1 (O
! £ u I 1-a Ul o
ÍMfNj - —.—. — — O O O €D0D0O(DflDGOflOflO0O0O • • • • ' • • • • . . m (n fn co co fn m fn cn tn
w I ( ^ ^ o i / > o i n o v D — vD
-^ i
w I
f n f n f n c o c v j - — o o ( ^ c o i n c v i c ^ v D f n o i ^ ^ o m m i n ^ ^ ^ ^ f n m f n ^ v D ^ ^ ^OvDvDvDvD
i o m o ^ o ^ ^ ( ^ ^ f l O f n o o — — —(sicvjmfn^
mvD^> (sjmco — ^ ^ * — — — rg (VI (SJ
I ui I Q I —(Njrr)^mvDr*>00(^o O I -z I
i
UJ
u <
u. Q: D (0 X s u. z Ul 1-(0 > •
(n o z ft Ul 1-z Ui UJ 1 Q: O 1 1- 1 m 1 — 1 O I Z 1
Q: I O 1 U. 1
UJ 1 -J 1 — 1 U. 1 s a 1 Z 1 O 1
K 1 U 1 3 1 tn 1 mj 1 < 1 U 1 mm 1
ERT
> 1
! ^ 1 U.
a ^*'
2 o H
u o in
^ » r u w« z o H U o (0
^ .
u ^
z H
a UJ o
NO
DE
i 1 i i i i i 1 i i i 1
1 1 i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i
i i i i 1 1 i i i 1 i 1
i I 1 i i
mmr<^O(sjmfl0 —mo mmmvDvDvDvDr c -oo mmmmmmmmmm
,
^OOvD — v D m ^ v D ( ^ v D
^ ^ ^ 0 0 — m v D O > ^ ( ^ <^mmmr*»^vDmmo mmr^O^ — ^r*--vDm m m m m ^ ^ ^ m m v D
omo^(7^^<^^flOm • • . . . . . * • •
o o — — — csicsjmm^ mvDO (simflO — ^r^ — — — (VJ (Ví (VJ
— c v i m ^ m v D r ^ O D í ^ o • "
194
UJ
o
a i ^ i
I o i I
I (n
I i i i i I I 1 I ov i i i i i i i 00
i u i
o I — i
i i
i VD i i
r I
I mmr^o(sjmflO — m o 1 mmmvDvDvDvDr*>r^0D
^ i m I •
i m m m m m m m m m m i
I v D o o í ^ - m m o o — m o i mmmvDvDvDvDr^r^oo I • • • • • • • • • • i m m m m m m m m m m I
I o o — rsi^vDoo — m o i \DvDvDvDvDvDvD^*>r>'00
I i i m m m m m m m m m m
^ i u. i a 1 ^ i
1 UJ i -J 1 — i U. i
S! a i i Z i O j P 1 U 1 3 1 (0 1
1 - 1 1 < i »- 1 Z 1 O 1 N i — 1 Q: i
i 1 -i
z i o 1 N 1
• . •
1 Q: i o i
z
1 1
i 1 i i 1 ^ i i i i 1 i i m i 1 i 1 i
(VJ
—
K U J Q:O
i m m m ^ m v D ( ^ ( v j m o I vøsDvDvDvDvDvDr^l^OO I • • • • • • • • • • i m m m m m m m m m m i
I mmmmvDf^(^(vjmo i vDvDvDvDvDvDvDr^r*«^0O I • • • • • • • • • • I m m m m m m m m m m I i i vDvDvDvDr*-r^<^(vjmo I vûsDvDvDvDvDvDr^r**-0O I • • • • • • • • • • I mmmmmmmmmm i I I
— i i I
r r r r r coovívjmo v D ^ v D v D v D O v D r ^ r ^ O O
• • • • • • • • • • mmmmmmmmmm
^ii- (vj m o
m vD r* 00 (^ —
195
I I
- I i . j I UJ i » I \fí i i i
il — i Q: i z i cn i
i O I
UJ i 3 i o i
1 z i O I — i »- i < i > I UJ i - 1 i UJ I
I UJ i u i
i u. Q:
I i i
(0 i I
z i — i
i UJ I o I z I < i z I u I
I - I I < I •- I g|
UJ
o
m VD 00
. J o u o UJ —
o
o u Ul o
VD VD
m co u
UJ
o
o\
o u UJ o o
m
Ov m co
- J o u UJ o o
00
o u UJ o o
CVJ m m
.
co .
O u UJ
o
o u u o
Ov f^ f*
o u UJ
o
vD
00 (SJ 00 o
. •
n —
(0 UJ z u
u —
— o 00 co
• • ^ —
z z u —
. J UJ
m
UJ Q : UJ
o i
o
o I
(VJ
o o I
m
o i
ON m m —
. • o o i I
UJ
(n
o o
• o
m •
o i
^ w O
u a UJ
u.
o
o
< z
a o o
UJ
m
ui
a
o (n
1S6
COLLEGE STATION (SoH Proffle Beneath Covered Surface is Drylng Out)
CALCULATION OF VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL SUCTION PROFILES BY HETHOO BY
LYTTON AND GARDNER
CALCULATE VERTICAL SUCTION PROFILE BEFORE SURFACE IS COVERED
DEPTH TO EQUILIBRIUH SUCTION •
NUHBER OF VERTICAL INCREHENTS •
LENGTH OF EACH VERTICAL INCREHENT -
SOIL PERHEABILITY AT DEPTH OF EQUIl
VERTICAL VELOCITY OF HOISTURE FLOW
EQUILIBRIUH SUCTION 6309.6
HIN. SUCTION BENEATH COVERED SURFACE
274.32
9
30.46 CH
BTIUH SUCTION •
.0000347
Cn OF WATER
3162.28
CH
.00002 CH/SEC
CH/SEC
CH OF WATER
VALUE OF CONSTANT, m 2.652
GARDNER'S CONSTANT A« lE-09
INITIAL FIELD SUCTION IN pF
4.66 4.51 4.29 4.25 4.25 4.20 4.00 3.90 3.60
LENGTH OF EDGE PENETRATION • 274.32 CH
NUHBER OF HORIZONTAL INCREHENTS • 6
LENGTH OF EACH HORIZONTAL INCREHENT • 45.72 CH
197
u. a Ul
u (n
o N
i
UJ
o
u. a
i o i
T » -
i u I
i m
I < i
i Z i o i
N i
T Q: i
O i
I I
O i
00 i i i
i ^ cvj • vo csjvD m —o o I O ^ — O O 00 OOflOOO OD
^ I • • • * • • • • • • i m ^ ^ ^ m m m m m m i
i c v j m v D ^ o v m m - o o I mcvio^oDODODQoaoao ^ l • • • • • • • • • • j ^^^ff ícommmmm i
i m o o»csj QD ^ (vj —o o I CSJ-O^C^aDODODOOOOOD
1^1 • • • • • • • • • • ^ ^ m í n m m m m m m
I
i c^o^^i£'mcvi — o o I OO(^0DC'0C*0D00000D
^ i • • • • • • • • • • I ^^míooommmmm i
i r - m í ^ v D ^ m - — o o I ( ^ ( ^ GD OD OD OD 00 flO flO OD
( r > | • • • . • • . . . • I mmmmcommmmm I
i (^r*'m'^<Tí(vj—— o o (vj I QOCDOOODC'OC'OOOOflOOD
I • • • • • • • • • •
i mmmmcTiff mmmm
i CVJ cvj — — — — — o o o I cO0O0O0DC'C>flO000O0D j , • • • • • • • • • I mmmmff;»mimmmm i
HUJ i Q: O i ii — cvjm^ir«^Æ^*flD(^ —
198
I i
^ I - j i UJ i 3 i (n i I I
^ i z i — i Q: I z i cn i
i
gi i
UJ i O i O I
— i K i < I > i Ul i ^ i UJ i
I UJ I U i < I u. i Q: I o i (n i
i z i — I
I UJ I o I z i < I z I u i
I - j I < I
o u UJ o
m m
(VJ
SD
o UJ — o
o u UJ
o
m ^ — (VJ
• •
m —
O U ui
o
Os
O U
UJ o o
m m — m m
• •
m —
- J O u UJ o o
00
- j o u Ul o o
(SJ
00
m m
O U
UJ o o
o u UJ o
vD .
m
isj u Ul o o
sD
r- m m <J\
. . cvj o
u —
O VD r o
. . (VJ —
z z u —
I i i i i i m i (VJ i • i o i i
i i I — i m i • i o i i
I I I 00 I m I o
I
I ^ I m i ui i z i u i z 1 — i
1 z i — I ^ i
i - I i -1 i Ul i 2 i tn i
o i
- I i — i
i i
UJ i Q: i UJ u. u. o
u
^ ON (VJ ^
• • — o
. J Ui
(n
i ov m
ui Q: UJ
3 O
b z > Q: o (n
UJ
u. i a
o (n
S0ILSUK2
199
10 REH ii^^nn***i*i**^**ii**i**i***i***44**^***ii*^i*4i*m^^*4**i***t 20 REH THIS PROGRAH ESTIHATES THE DIFFERENTIAL SWELLING THAT NIGHT 4-30 REH BE EXPECTED TO OCCUR BENEATH A SLAB-ON-GROUND CONSTRUCTEO OVER 4 40 REH EXPANSIVE SOILS. IT IS BASED ON LYTTON'S APPLICATION OF GARONER'S 50 REH WORK TO THE PRDBLEH ANO THE THEORY IS DECRIBED IN "NUHERICAL 60 REH HETHODS IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING " EDITED BY C. S. DESAI AND 70 REH J. T. CHRISTIAN. CHAPTER 13. HCCÍRAH-HILL BOOK CO., 1977. 80 REH THE NETHOO APPLIED TO A FORTRAN IV COHPUTER PROGRAH IN DECENBER. 90 REH 1977, BY H. K. WRAY FOR HIS DOCTORAL DISSERTATION, ENTITLEO 100 REH *A DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR RESIDENTIAL AND LKÎHT COHHERCIAL SLABS-ON-110 REH GROUNO CONSTRUCTED OVER EXPANSIVE SOILS*. AT TEXAS AtH UNIVERSITY. 120 REH COLLEGE STATION, TX, 1978. 130 REH THIS PROGRAH HAS CONVERTED TO AN INTERACTVE BASIC PRDGRAH BY 140 REH H. A. ABDALLAH AT TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY. LUBBOCK, TX, IN JANUARY, 1967. 150 REH S.H. AUSTIN HOOIFIED THE PROGRAH TO ACCOHNOOATE THE INITIAL FIELO SOIL 160 REH SUCTION PROFILE AND THE HINIHUH SOIL SUCTION EXPECTEO UNOER A COVEREO 170 REH SURFACE IN HIS HASTER'S THESIS, ENTITLEO "ESTIHATING SHRINK/SHELL IN 180 REH EXPANSIVE SOILS USING SOIL SUCTION", AT TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY, 190 REH LUB60CK, TX, NAY, 1967. 200 fiE.H-*-*^i4*****iA4*4**4***4m**4-H"*-¥44*i444*4'**i*4444**4*44* **********
DEFINITION OF PRINCIPLE VARIABLES GARONER'S SUCTION CONSTANT PERCENTAGE OF CLAY IN SOIL BEING ANALYZEO,IN PERCENT CHANGE IN HORIZONTAL SUCTION CHANGE IN VERTICAL SUCTION CHANGE IN OVERBURDEN AND SURCHARGE PRESSURE (CONHON LOG) CHANGE IN HORIZONTAL SUCTION EXPRESSED IN pF LENGTH OF EACH HORIZONTAL INCREHENT OF EDGE PENETRATION IN CH LENGTH OF EACH VERTICAL INCREHENT OF OEPTH IN CH DEPTH BELOH ORIGINAL SOIL SURFACE UNIT HEIGHT OF SOIL,IN LBS PER CUBIC FEET HORIZONTAL SUCTION EXPRESSEO IN pF VERTICAL SUCTION EXPRESSED IN pF INITIAL VERTICAL FIELD SUCTION EXPRESSED IN pF VERTICAL SUCTION DUE TO HATER ENTERING FROH SURFACE (pF) VERTICAL SUCTION EXPRESSED IN NEGATIVE CH'S OF HATER HORIZONTAL VELOCITY OF HOISTURE FLOH IN CH/SEC HINIHUH VERTICAL SUCTION IN CH HORIZONTAL SUCTION DUE TO HATER ENTERING FROH SURFACE (CH) NUHBER OF HORIZONTAL INCREHENTS (TO LESSER HHOLE NO.) NUHBER OF VERTICAL INCREHENTS (TO LESSER HHOLE MO.) NUHBER OF DIFFERENT aAY X'S TD BE STUDIEO HORIZONTAL PERHEABILITY IN CH/SEC TYPE OF PREDOHINATE aAY HINERAL (S-SHECTITE»I-ILLITE|K-KAO
LINITE) FIELD PERHEABILITY IN CH/SEC VERTICAL PERHEABILITY IN CH/SEC NUHBER OF DIFFERENT HOISTURE VELOCITIES TO BE STUOIEO EXPONENT IN EXPONENTIAL EQUATION OF HORIZONTAL NOISTURE VARI-ATION NINIHUH SOIL SUCTION EXPRESSEO IN pF SUH OF OVERBURDEN AND SURCHARGE AT ANY 6IVEN DEPTH RATE OF CHANGE OF STRAIN DUE TO OVERBURDEN AND SURCHARGE UPHARD HOVEHENT OR SHELL DUE TO CHANGE IN SOIL SUCTIOH SURCHARGE IN LBS PER SQUARE INCH RESISTANCE TD SHELL DUE TD OVERBURDEN AND SURCHARGE
210 REH 220 REH 1 230 REH 240 REH 250 REH 260 REH 270 REH 280 REH 290 REH 300 REH 310 REH 320 REH 330 REH 340 REH 350 REH 360 REH 370 REH 380 REH 390 REH 400 REH 410 REH 420 REH 430 REH 440 REH 450 REH
460 REH 470 REH 480 REH 490 REH
500 REH 510 REH 520 REH 530 REH 540 REH 550 REH
DEFINITK A a A Y DELHH DELHV DELOGP DELPFH DELXl DELX3 DEPTH GAHHA HPFH HPFV HPFVF HPFW HV HVEL HVHIN HW IH IV aAY KH KLAY
1 o KV KVEL N
HS P PCON PUSH Q RESIST
200
560 REH 570 REH 580 REH 590 REH 600 REH
610 REH 620 REH
SHCON SHDIF SHDIFI SHELL WEL
XI X3
RATE OF CHANGE OF STRAIN DUE TO CHANGE IN SUCTION.DECINAL DIFFERENTIAL SHELL IN CENTIHETERS DIFFERENTIAL SHELL IN INCHES DIFFERENCE BETHEEN "PUSH" AND "RESIST" VERTICAL VELOCITY OF NOISTURE HOVEHENT.IN CH/SEC (NEGATIVE VELOCITY INDICATES NOISTURE ENTERING FROH SURFACE) HORIZONTAL DISTANCE OF SUCTION VARIATION BENEATH SLAB, IN CH VERTICAL DEPTH DUE TD EQUILIBRIUH SUCTION.IN CH
630 REH44-f4-f*"H-"l-H~f4-f+++++++++++4+++++-f++++4+++4++++4+-H-++++++4-++^ 640 REH 650 OPEN "OUTPUT" FOR APPEND AS «1 660 DIH HVEL(I00),KH(20,20),HPFW(20),HH(20,20),DELHH(20,20),PUSH(20) 670 DIH HPFH(20,20),HV(20),DEPTH(20),HPFV(20),KV(20),DELHV(20).HVV(20) 680 DIH DELPFH(20,20).SHELL(20).OELOGP(20).LOGP(20,20).SUR(20.20) 690 DIH P(20.20).RESIST (20).SSHELL(20).DIFFSH(20).HPFVF(20) 700 PRINT#l.tPRINT#l. 710 PRINT ENTER PARAHETERS AS REQUESTED " 720 PRINT 730 PRINT 740 INPUT "ENTER THE LAST RUN NUHBER. IF THIS THE FIRST RUN. ENTER ZERO!".RN 750 PRINTtPRINT 760 INPUT; "I. H-C0N5TANT« ",H:INPUT " 2. FIELD PERHEABILITY (CH/SEC)« ",K0 770 INPUT "3. VERTICAL PERHEABILITY (CH/SEC)« ", KI 780 INPUT "4. VERTICAL SUCTION IN NE6AT1VE CH'S OF HATER« ",HV(1) 790 AsIE-09 800 INPUT "5. VERTICAL DEPTH OF EQUILIBRIUH SUCTION (CH). ",X3 810 INPUT "6. HORIZONTAL DISTANCE OF SUCTION BENEATH SLAB (CH)« ",X1 820 INPUT "7. LENGTH OF HORIZONTAL INCREHENTS OF OEPTH (CH)« ",OELXI 830 INPUT "6. LENGTH OF HORIZONTAL INCREHENTS OF EDGE PENETRATION= ", 0ELX3 840 INPUT "9. PREDOHINATE CLAY TYPE S-SHECTITE. I-ILLITE. K-KAOLINITE —".Kf 850 INPUT "10. DENSITY OF SOIL IN PCF« ".GAHHA 860 INPUT "II. SURCHAR6E ON AREA IN PSI« ".Q 870 INPUT "12. PERCENTAGE OF CLAY CONTENT IN SOIL (IN I)» " ,aAY 880 PRINT " VELOCITY OF HOISTURE HOVEHENT IN CH/SEC" 890 INPUT; "13. VERTICAL VELOCITY- ",VVELiINPUT " 14. HORIZONTAL VELOCITY. ", HVEL(l) 900 IH«XI/30.48:IV«X3/30.48 910 INPUT; "15 HINIHUH VERTICAL SUCTION IN CH »*, HVHIN 920 KK>IV+I 930 FOR I»2 TO KK 940 BUHsI-1 950 PRINT "DEPTH", BUH 960 INPUT "17 INPUT SOIL SUCTION IN pF » ", HPFVF(I) 970 NEXT I 980 INPUT "HOULO YOU LIKE TO CHANGE ANY OF THE PARAHETERS (Y/N)";Y$ 990 IF Y$ » "N" THEN 1190 1000 INPUT "ENTER THE NUHBER OF THE PARAHETER YOU HISH TO CHANGE ",CH 1010 IF CH«1 THEN INPUT "H-CONSTANT« ",H 1020 IF CH«2 THEN INPUT "FIELD PERHEABILITY {CH/SEC)« ",K0 1030 IF CH.3 THEN INPUT "VERTICAL PERHEABILITY (CH/SEC)« ",KI 1040 IF CH«4 THEN INPUT "VERTICAL SUCTION IN NEGATIVE CH'S OF HATER« "^HVd) 1050 IF CH=5 THEN INPUT "VERTICAL DEPTH OF EQUILIBRIUH SUCTION (CH)» ".X^
201
S5J r í°5 W* ^ ^ "HORIZONTAL DISTANCE OF SUCTION BENEATH SLAB (CH)» ".XI íoS r ÍS'Z l^l** ^^^^ "'- • ^ " °^ HORIZONTAL INCREHENTS OF DEPTH (CH « -.DELX 1080 IF CH«B THEN INPUT "LENGTH OF H0R120NTAL INCREHENTS OF EDGE PENETRATION« -,
1090 ^^CH«9 THEN INPUT "PREDOHINATE CLAY TYPE S-SHECTITE, I-ILLITE, K-KAOLINITE
1100 IF CH.10 THEN INPUT "OENSITY OF SOIL IN PCF= ",6AHHA 1110 IF CH«I1 THEN INPUT "SURCHARGE ON AREA IN PSI- ",Q II20 IF CH.12 THEN INPUT "PERCENTA6E OF CLAY CONTENT IN SOIL (IN %)« ".CLAY 1130 IF CH«13 THEN INPUT "VERTICAL VELOCITY. ".VVEL 1140 IF CH.14 THEN INPUT "HORIZONTAL VELOCITY» ".HVEL(l) 1150 INPUT "ANY HORE CHAN6ES (Y/N)-;Y$ II60 IF Y$. "Y" THEN 1000 1170 IF Y$. -N" THEN 1190 1180 PRINT "PLEASE ANSHER Y OR N FOR YES OR NO" :GOTO 1150 II90 REH +++++++++++++++++++4.4++++++++++^.»^.^..HH^4.H.4.^.^.4.H-f++++++++4 + 1200 REH+++++++++DETERH1NE THE RATE OF STRAIN CHAN6E AS A FUNCTION OF 1210 REH+++++++++CLAY CONTENT 1220 IH.XI/30.46 :IV»X3/30.48 1230 REH SUBROUTINE STRAIN ..==.=..==.«=......=====«=.=«==«=«.«=..=„„.„„ 1240 COSUB 5830 1250 REH 1260 REH CALCULATE VERTICAL SUCTION PROFILE BEFORE SURFACE IS COVERED. 1270 REH++++++++READ IN BASIC DATA OF 0RI6INAL PERHEABILITY. 1280 REH++++++++EQUILIBRIUH SUCTION.DEPTH AND LENGTH OF EACH VERTICAL 1290 REH++++++++INCREHENT (6RAVITY POTENTIAD.AND VERTICAL FLOH VELOCITY 1300 REH++++++++OF HOISTURE TRANSFER. 1310 DEPTH (I)»OI 1320 HV(1)»ABS(HV(1)) 1330 HPFV(I).L06(HV(l))/2.302581 1340 AVEL - ABS(VVEL) 1350 REH 1360 REH++++++++FIND CHAN6E IN PERHEABILITY OUE TO CHAN6E IN SUCTION 1370 FOR J . 1 TO IV 1380 REH++++++++++++CALCULATE CHAN6E IN PERHEABILITY DUE TO CHAN6E IN SUCTION 1390 SUCKsABS(HV(J)) 1400 KV(J)»K0/(1+(A»(SUCK*H))) 1410 REH++++++++++++CALCULATE CHAN6E IN SUCTION DUE TO GRAVITY POTENTIAL AND
CHAN6E IN PERHEABILITY 1420 OEPTH(J+I).DEPTH(J) + DELX3 1430 DELHV(J) . DELX3«(1+(AVEL/KV(J))) 1440 REH++++++++++++CALCULATE NEH SUCTION 1450 HV(J+I)«HV(J)+DELHV(J) 1460 HPFV(J+1)»L06(HV(J+I))/2.3025B1 1470 NEXT J 1480 REH++++++++PRINT OUTPUT 1490 PRINT#1.:PRINT#1.:RN«RN+I 1500 PRINT#I. "••••••• RUN NUHBER ".RN, ••.•..•.. 1510 PRINT#1.:PRINT#1. 1520 PRINT#1. "CALCULATION OF VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL SUCTION PROFILES BY NETHOO BY LYTTON AND 6ARDNER" 1530 PRINT#1.:PRINT#1.:PRINT#1. 1540 PRINT#1. "CALCULATE VERTICAL SUCTION PROFILE BEFORE SURFACE IS COVERED" 1550 PRINT#1. " "
202
1560 1570 1580 1590 1600 1610 1620 1630 1640 1650
1660 1670 1680 1690 1700 1710 1720 1730 1740 1750 1760 1770 1780 1790 ON 1800
1810
1820
1830
PRINT#1. tPRINT#l. PRINT#1. -DEPTH TO EQUILIBRIUH SUCTION «".X3."CH" PRINT#1, PRINT#1, -NUHBER OF VERTICAL INCREHENTS »-,1^ PRINT#1, PRINT#1, -LEN6TH OF EACH VERTICAL INCREHENT «-DELX3,-CH" PRINT#1, PRINT#1, -SOIL PERHEABILITY AT DEPTH OF EQUILIBTIUH SUCTION »-,KO,-CN/SEC-PRINT#1, PRINT#1, -VERTICAL VELOCITY OF NOISTURE FLOH »-,WEL,-CH/SEC-PRINT#l,iPRINT#l, PRINT#1, -EQUILIBRIUH SUCTION .-,HV(1),-CH OF HATER" PRINT#l,tPRINT#l, PRINT#1, -HIN. SUCTION BENEATH COVERED SURFACE»-,HVHIN.-CH OF HATER" PRINT#1. tPRINT#l. PR1NT#1. " INITIAL FIELD SUCTION IN pF" PRINT#1. " " PRINT#1. FOR J»2 TO KK P3$= " #####.## PRINT#1. USIN6 P3$;HPFVF(J) NEXT J PRINT#l.:PRINT#I.tPRINT#l.tCLS PRINT#1, "
SUCTION" PRINT " SUCTION-
5UCTI0N (CH) PRINT#1, "NODE # (pF)
PRINT "NODE # (PF)
PRINT#1,
DEPTH
DEPTH
(CH)
(CH)
CHAN6E IN
CHAN6E IN
SUCTION (CH)
PERHEABILITY
PERHEABILITY
(CH/SEC)
(CH/SEC)
SUCTI
SUCTION
(CH)
(CH)
1840 PRINT --
1850 1860 1870 1880
1890 1900 1910 1920
1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
KK»IV+1 NN«IH+I FOR J « 1 TO KK Pl$= -#### ####.# ########.#
IF (j«l) THEN PR1NT#1, US1N6 Pl$;J;DEPTH(J);HV(KK-J+1);HPFV(KK-J+1) IF (J«I) THEN PRINT US1N5 P1$;J;DEPTH(J);HV(KK-J+1);HPFV(KK-J+1) IF (J»I) THEN 1950 P2U -#### ####.# «.##«######### «#######.#
##.##" PR1NT#1, USIN6 P2$;J;DEPTH(J);KV(KK-J+I);HV(KK-J+1);HPFV(KK-J+I) PRINT USIN6 P2$;J;DEPTH(J);KV(KK-J+I);HV(KK-J+1);HPFV(KK-J+1) IF (J»KK) THEN 1960 P3$« - #####««««.« PRINT«1, USIN6 P3$;DELHV(KK-J) NEXT J REH R£M DETERHINE HORIZONTAL VELOCITY OF NOISTURE FLOH REH VELOCITY IS AS5UHED TO VARY ACC0RDIN6 TO EXPONENTIAL PE:H EQUATION OF FORH: Y.C»X**H C » HVEL(I)/{X3 -H) R£M DISTIBUTE HORIZONTAL VELOCITY HITH OEPTH KKK»KK+1
203
2060 FOR J « I TO KK 2070 HVEL(KKK-J)»C»(DEPTH(J)-N) 2080 NEXT J 2090 PRlNT«l,iPRINT«U»PRINT«UiPRINT«MPRINT«MPftINT«l, 2100 PRINT«1, - CALCULATE HORIZONTAL SUCTION AFTER SURFACE 15 COVERED"
2120 PR1NT«1,
2130 PRINTtli " HORIZONTAL VELOCITY «",HVEL(I);"CH/SEC" 2140 PftlNT«l«iPRINT#], 2150 PRINT«1, • VERTICAL PROFILE OF HORIZONTAL VELOCITY " 2160 PR1NT«1, • « 2170 PR1NT#1. 2180 PRINT#1. " HORIZONTAL
VELOCITY" 2190 PRINT#1." NODE # DEPTH (CH) {CH/
SEC) 2200 PR1NT#1, "
2210 FOR J » 1 TO KK
222? K ***** ******* «.««««##«#««#-2230 PRINT#1. USIN6 P4$;J;DEPTH(J);HVEL(J) 2240 NEXT J 2250 REH 2260 REH CALCULATE HORIZONTAL SUCTION AT EACH OEPTH 2270 REH CALCULATE VERTICAL SUCTION PROFILEAT EQUILIBRIUH AFTER SLAB IS 2280 REH PLACED AND EVAPO-TRANSPIRATION PREVENTED. 2290 REH SINCE NO EVAPO-TRANSPIRATION OCCURS. VERTICAL VELOCITY IS 2300 REH ASSUHED TO BE NE6LI61BLE. 2310 REH 2320 REH CALCULATE EQUILIBRIUH SUCTION PROFILE BENEATH SLAB DUE 2330 REH TO HOISTURE ACCUHULATIONBENEATH THE SLAB 2340 HH(KKK-1,I)»HV(1) 2350 HPFH(KKK-I.I)»L06(HH(KKK-1.I))/2.302581 2360 FOR I » 2 TO KK 2370 HH(KKK-I,I).HH(KKK-I+I.I)+DELX3 2380 HPFH(KKK-l.I)»L06(HH(KKK-I.I))/2.302581 2390 NEXT I 2400 PRINT#1.îPRINT#l,:PR1NT#1.:PR1NT#1,tPRINT#l. 2410 PR1NT#1." VERTICAL SUCTION PROFILE AT EQUILIBRIUM UNDER COVER
ED SURFACE" 2420 PRINT#1."
2430 PR1NT#1.:PRINT#1. 2440 PRINT#1. " NODE DEPTH (CH) SUCTION (CH) SUCTION
(pF) " 2450 PRINT#I, •
2460 P5$«- #### ####.# «#######.# ««.«« 2470 FOR J » 1 TD KK 2480 PRINT«1, USINC P5$;J;DEPTH(J);HH(J,1);HPFH(J,1) 2490 NEXT J 2500 IF (WEL > 0 ) THEN 3120 2510 REH 2520 REH IF HOISTURE 15 ENTERIN6 SOIL FROH THE SURFACE AND N0VIN6 2530 REH UNDER THE SLAB.DIFFERENT "INITAL" CONDITIONS ARE IN EFFECT. 2540 REH CALCULATE EQUILIBRIUH SUCTION PROFILE DUE TO 2550 REH HOISTURE ENTERING 50IL FROH THE SURFACE
204
2560 HW(I) » HV(1) 2570 HPFW(l) »L06(HVV(l))/2.302581 2580 N5. LOG(HVHIN)/2.3025B1 2590 FOR 1 « 1 TO IV 2600 SUCK > ABS(HVV(I)) 2610 KV(I)-KI/(I •(AMSUCK^H))) 2620 DELHV(I)»DELX3+(DELX3»VVEL/KV(I)) 2630 HVV(I+1)-HVV(I) • DELHV(I) 2640 IF (HWd + lXO) THEN HPFW(I + t).HS 2650 IF HW(I + 1)<0 THEN HVV(I + I)«HVHIN 2660 IF (HWd+IXO) THEN GOTO 2700 2670 HPFVV(I+l)»L06(HVV(I+l))/2.302581 2680 IF HPFWd + IXHS THEN HPFVV(I + 1 ).HPFW( I)-. 15 2690 IF H W d + lXHVHlN THEN HVV(I+1)»HVV(I)-1.413 2700 NEXT 1 2710 PRINT«1.:PRINT«1. 2720 PR1NT«1. " VERTICAL SUCTION PROFILE FOR HOISTURE ENTER1N6 SYSTEH FROH SURFACE " 2730 PR1NT«1." ___________ m
2740 PRlNT«l.tPRINT«l. 2750 PRINT«1. " NODE DEPTH (CH) SUCTION (CH) SUCTION (p
F) " 2760 PRINT«1. "
__ m
2770 P6$. " «««# ««««.« «««««««#.# #«.«« 2780 FOR I « 1 TO KK 2790 PR1NT«1, USIN6 P6$; I;DEPTH(I );HVV(KKK-I );HPFW(KKK-I) 2800 NEXT I 2810 REH 2820 REH DETERHINE HORIZONTAL SUCTION PROFILE OUE TO HOISTURE 2830 REH ENTERING HORIZONTALLY BENEATH THE SLAB. 2840 FOR I . 1 TO KK 2850 HH(KKK-I,NN)«HW(I) 2860 IF HH(KKK-I,NN)<0 THEN HH(KKK-I,NN)«HVH1N 2870 IF HH(KKK-I,NN)<0 THEN HPFH{KKK-I,NN)»HS 2880 IF HH(KKK-I,NN)<0 THEN OOTO 2930 2890 HS(KKK-I,NN).ABS(HH(KKK-I,NN)) 2900 HPrH(KKK-I,NN).L06(HS(KKK-I.NN))/2.302581 2910 IF HPFH(KKK-1.NN)<HS THEN HPFH(KKK-I.NN).HPFH(KKK-1+1.NN)-.15 2920 IF HH(KKK-I.NN)<HVHIN THEN HH(KKK-I,NN).HH{KKK-I+1.NN)-1.413 2930 NEXT I 2940 NNN.NN+I 2950 FOR I » 1 TO KK 2960 FOR J » 1 TO IH 2970 SUCK »ABS(HH(KKK-1.NNN-J)) 2980 KH(KKK-I.NNN-J).KO/d + (A«(SUCK-H))) 2990 DELHH(KKK-I,NNN-J)«DELX1»HVEL(KKK-1)/KH(KKK-I.NNN-J) 3000 HH(KKK-I.NNN-J-1).HH(KKK-I.NNN-J)+DELHH(KKK-I.NNN-J) 3010 IF HH(KKK-I.NNN-J-I) < 0 THEN HPFH(KKK-I.NNN-J-1) . NS 3020 IF HH{KKK-I,NNN-J-1)<0 THEN HH(KKK-I,NNN-J-1).HVHIN 3030 IF HH(KKK-I,NNN-J-1) < 0 THEN 3070 3040 HPFH(KKK-I,NNN-J-l)«L06(HH{KKK-I,NNN-J-l))/2.302581 _ . . . . » . 3050 IF HPFH(KKK-I,NNN-J-I)<HS THEN HPFH(KKK-I,NNN-J-1).HPFH(KKK-1+1,NNN-J-1)-.I
5
/
205
3060 IF HH(KKK-I,NNN-J-I)<HVHIN THEN HH{KKK-I ,NNN-J-I )»HH(KKK-1+1,MNN-J-1)-1.4I3 3070 NEXT J 3080 NEXT 1 3090 REH DETERHINE HORIZONTAL SUCTION PROFILE DUE TO NOISTURE 3100 REH ACCUHULATION BENEATH THE SLAB AND LEAVIN6 HORIZONTALLY 3110 GOTO 3300 3120 FOR I » 1 TO KK 3130 FOR J » 1 TO NN 3140 SUCK»ABS(HH(KKK-I,J)) 3150 KH(KKK-l,J)»KO/d + (A»{SUCK-H))) 3160 DELHH(KKK-I,J).DELXI"HVEL{KKK-I)/KH(KKK-I,J) 3170 HH(KKK-1,J+I)«HH{KKK-I,J)+0ELHH(KKK-I,J) 3180 REH THE F0LL0HIN6 STATEHENT HILL LIHIT SUCTION TO THE SUCTION VALUE 3190 REH EQUAL TO THE VERTICAL SUCTION BEFORE SURFACE 15 COVERED 3200 IF HH(KKK-I,J+1) > HV(I) THEN HH(KKK-I,J+I)«HV(I) 3210 IF HH(KKK-I,J+1) < 0 THEN HPFH(KKK-I,J+1).HS 3220 IF HH(KKK-|,J+1)<0 THEN HH{KKK-I,J+1).HVHIN 3230 IF HH(KKK-I,J+I) < 0 THEN 3270 3240 HPFH{KKK-I,J+I) »L06{HH(KKK-I,J+I))/2.302581 3250 IF HPFH{KKK-I,J+I)<HS THEN HPFH(KKK-I,J+1).HPFH(KKK-1+1,J+I)-. 15 3260 IF HH(KKK-I,J+1)<HVH1N THEN HH(KKK-I,J+I).HH{KKK-I+1,J+1)-1.4I3 3270 NEXT J 3280 NEXT I 3290 REH PRINT OUTPUT 3300 PRINT«l,:PRINT#l,:PRlNT#l.:PRlNT#l.îPRlNT#l.îPRINT#l.:PRlNT#l. 3310 PR1NT#1. "HORIZONTAL SUCTION PROFILE (NE6ATIVE CENTIHETERS OF HATER)" 3320 PRINT#1."
3330 PRINT#1,:PRINT#1,:PRINT#1, 3340 PRINT#1, " LEN6TH OF E06E PENETRATION «";X1;"CH-3350 PRINT#1, 3360 PR1NT#1, • NUHBER OF HORIZONTAL INCREHENTS »";1H 3370 PRINT#1, 3380 PR1NT#1, • LEN6TH OF EACH HORIZONTAL INCREHENT »";DELXI;"CH" 3390 PRlNT#l,tPRINT#l,tPRINT#I, 3400 PR1NT#I, • H-0-R-I-Z-O-N-T-A-L S-U-C-T-1-O-N (CH OF H
ATER) AT NODE " 3410 PRINT#1. "VERT
\m
3420 PRINT#I, •NODE 5 •
3430 PRINT#I, •
3440 P7$. -########.« 3450 FOR I • 1 TO KK 3460 PRINT«1, 1; 3470 PRINT«1, TABdl); 3480 FOR J » 1 TO 5 3490 PRINT«I, USIN6 P7$;HH{I,J){ 3500 NEXT J:PRINT«l,tNEXT I 3510 PRINT«l,tPRINT«l, 3520 PR1NT«1, -NODE 6 7 8
10-3530 PRINT«I. •
3540 FOR I » I TO KK 3550 PRINT«U It
206
3560 PRINT«I, TABdl); 3570 FOR J » 6 TO NN •3960 PRINT«I, UÔING P7||HH(1,J)| 3590 NEXT JtPRINT«l,:NEXT I 3600 PRINT«I,tPRINT«l,:PRINT«l,iPRINT#l, 3610 PRINT«1. "HORIZONTAL 5UCTI0N PROFILE (pF)" 3620 PRINT«1. • • 3630 PRINT«1, •3640 PR1NT#1, " H-0-R-I-Z-O-N-T-å-L 5-U-G-T-l-^N (RT) AT
NODE " 3650 PRINT«I. "VERT
3660 PRINT«1. •NODE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10"
3670 PRINT«I. •
3680 P8$- •#«.«« • 3690 FOR I » 1 TO KK 3700 PRINT«1. I; 3710 PRINT«1. TAB{B); 3720 FOR J » 1 TO NN 3730 PRINT«1. USIN6 P8$;HPFH(I.J). 3740 NEXT J:PRINT«l.tNEXT 1 3750 REH 3760 REH CALCULATE CHAN6E IN STRAIN OUE TO CHAN6E IN SUCTION 3770 REH READ IN UNIT HEI6HT OF SOIL. AHOUNT OF SURCHAR6E. 3780 REH AND STRAIN CONSTANTS. 3790 FOR I » 2 TO KK 3800 FOR J . 1 TO NN 3810 DELPFHd.J) .SHCON«(HPFH(I .J)-HPFVF(I)) 3820 IF VVEL < 0 THEN DELPFH(I.J) -SHCON«{HPFH(I.J)-HPFVF{I)) 3830 NEXT J:NEXT I 3840 REH PRINT CHAN6E IN ELEVATION OUE TO CHAN6E IN SUCTION 3850 PRlNT«l.:PRlNT#l.:PRlNT#l,:PRlNT#l.:PRlNT#l.:PRlNT#l.tPRINT#l. 3860 PRINT#1. •CALCULATE CHAN6E IN SURFACE ELEVATION DUE TO SOIL SHRINK OR SHELL
3870 PRINT#I. • _»
3880 PRINT#l,îPRINT#I, 3890 PRINT#1, "SHRINK OR SHELL PER VERTICAL INCREHENT" 3900 PRINT#I, " 3910 PRINT#l,tPRlNT#I, 3920 PRINT#I. "VERT HORIZONTAL NOOE 3930 PRINT#I. •NODE 1 2 3
5^ 3940 PRINT#I. •
3950 P9$. •#.##«« 3960 FOR I - 2 TO KK 3970 PRINT«1. It 3980 PRINT«1. TAB{9); 3990 FOR J • 1 TO 5 4000 PR1NT«1. USIN6 P9$;DELPFH{l,J)t 4010 NEXT J:PRlNT«I.tNEXT 1 4020 PRINT«I.:PRINT«1. 4030 PRINT«I, •NODE 6 7 8
10" 4040 PRINT#1, •
207
4050 FOR I « 2 TO KK 4060 PRINT#1, I; 4070 PRINT#1, TAB(9); 4080 FOR J » 6 TO NN 4090 PR1NT#1, USIN6 P9$;DELPFH(I,J); 4100 NEXT J:PRINT#l,tNEXT I 4110 PRINT#1, •
4120 FOR J » 1 TO NN 4130 Hao - 0 4140 FOR I - 2 TO KK 4150 HOLD - DELPFH{l.J)+HaO 4160 PUSH(J)«HOLD 4170 NEXT ItNEXT J 4180 P10$. "#.#### 4190 PRINT#1, TAB(9) 4200 FOR I « 1 TO 5 4210 PRINT#1, USIN6 PIO$;PUSH(I); 4220 NEXT 1 4230 PRINT#1, TAB(9) 4240 FOR I « 6 TO 10 4250 PRINT#I, USIN6 P10$;PUSH(I); 4260 NEXT I 4270 PRINT#l,:PRINT#l,tPRINT#l, 4280 REH 4290 REH CALCULATE REDUCTION IN SHELL DUE TO OVERBURDEN 4300 REH CALCULATE LOAD AT HIDPOINT OF IST SOIL INCREHENT 4310 FOR I « 1 TO IV 4320 FOR J « I TO NN 4330 SUR(I,J)«0 4340 NEXT JtNEXT I 4350 FOR J«l TO NN 4360 Pd,J)«(Q/6.4516) + .5«{6AHHA/283l6.85)"DELX3 4370 L06P(I,J)«L06(P(l,J))/2.302581 4380 NEXT J 4390 REH CALCULATE LOAD AT HIDPOINT OF REHAIN1N6 VERTICAL INCREHENTS 4400 FOR J«I TO NN 4410 FOR I « 2 TO IV 4420 P{I,J)«P(I-l,J)+(6AHHA/28316.85)*0ELX3+SUR(I,J) 4430 L06P{I,J)«L06(Pd,J))/2.302581 4440 NEXT ItNEXT J 4450 HH.IV-1 4460 REH CALCULATE CHAN6E IN ELEVATION DUE TO OVERBURDEN AND SURCHAR6E 4470 FOR J » 1 TD NN 4480 DUHHY»0 4490 FOR 1» 1 TO NH 4500 0ELOGP(I)»{LOGP(I+l,J)-LOGP(I,J))«PCON 4510 RESIST{J).DELOGP{I)+DUHHY 4520 DUHHY « RESIST{J) 4530 NEXT ItNEXT J 4540 AA«100*SHCON 4550 BB.100*PCON
208
4560 PRINT#],tPRINT#I,tPRINT#l, 4570 PRINT#1, •CALCULATE REDUCTION IN 5HELL DUE TO OVERBURDEN AND SURCHARGE"
4560 PRINTfl, " 4590 PR!NT#1, 4600 IF K$ . •$" THEN PRINT#1, "SOIL TYPE: NONTNORILLONITE" 4610 IF K$ « "I" THEN PRINT#1, "SOIL TYPE: ILLITE" 4620 IF K$ . "K" THEN PR1NT#1, •SOIL TYPEi KAOLINITE" 4630 PRINT#I, 4640 PRINT#1, "PERCENT a AY -•;aAY;^t" 4650 PRINT#1, 4660 PR1NT#I, "UNIT HEIGHT OF SOIL -•;6AHHA;"LBS/CF" 4670 PRINT#1, 4680 PR1NT#1, "SURCHARCE PRESSURE -";Q;^LBS/SF-4690 PR1NT#1, 4700 PR1NT#1, "RATE OF STRAIN FOR SHELLIN6 -"tAA;"PERCENT" 4710 PRINT#1, 4720 PR1NT#1, "RATE OF STRAIN OF 0VERBURDEN-SURCHAR6E PRESSURE -•;BB;^PERCENT" 4730 PR1NT#1,:PRINT#1. 4740 PR1NT#1. "TOTAL SHELL REDUCTION/SHRINK COHPENSATION «";DUHHY;"CH" 4750 PRINT#1.:PR1NT#1,:PR1NT#1.:PRINT#1.:PR1NT#1. 4760 REH CALCULATE CHAN6E IN SURFACE ELEVATION 4770 FOR 1«1 TO NN 4780 SHELL{I)«RESIST(I)-(PUSH(I)*DELX3) 4790 NEXT I 4800 REH PRINT OUTPUT 4810 PRINT#1. "TOTAL CHAN6E IN SURFACE ELEVATION DUE TO SHRINK-SHELL" 4820 PRINT#1. " " 4830 PRINT#1. 4840 PRINT#1. 4850 PR1NT#1. " NODE COLH NODÉ COLH NOOE COLH HOOE COLH
NODE COLH" 4860 PRINT#1. " 1 2 3 4
5" 4870 PRINT#I, • 4880 PI2$="##.## 4890 PRINT#I. "(CH) •; 4900 FOR I « 1 TO 5 4910 PRINT#1. USIN6 PI2$;SHELL(I); 4920 NEXT I 4930 FOR I - 1 TD NN 4940 SSHELLd)«SHELL{I)/2.54 4950 NEXT I 4960 PRINT#1, 4970 PRINT#1, •(IN.) •; 4980 FOR I - 1 TO 5 4990 PRINT#I, US1N6 PI2$;SSHELL(I): 5000 NEXT I 5010 PRINT#l,tPRINT#I, 5020 PRINT#I,^ NODE C a H NODE COLH NODE COLH NOOE C a H
NODE COLH" 5030 PRINT#1. " 6 7 8 9
10" 5040 PRINT#I.• 5050 PRINT#1. •(CH) •;
209
5060 FOR I - 6 TO NN 5070 PRINT#I. USIN6 P12$;SHELLd)î 5080 NEXT I 5090 PRINT#I. 5100 PR1NT#1. •dN.) •; 5110 FOR I - 6 TO NN 5120 PRINT#I. USIN6 PI2$;SSHELL{I); 5130 NEXT I 5140 PRINT#I.tPRINT#l.îPRINT#l. 5150 FOR I « 1 TO IH 5160 IF VVEL<0 THEN DIFFSH(1+1)« SSHELLd)-S5WELL(I+l) 5170 DIFFSH(I).SSHELL(I)-SSHELL{1) 5180 IF VVEL<0 THEN 60T0 5210 5190 DIFFSH(NN).SSHELL(NN)-SSHELL{NN) 5200 01FFSH(NN-I).SSHELL{NN)-SSHELL{NN-I) 5210 NEXT I 5220 PRINT#1. •DIFFERENTIAL SHELL (IN INCHES)" 5230 PRINT#1. •
5240 PI3$="##.## 5250 PRINT#1. TAB{9); 5260 FOR I « 1 TO 5 5270 PRINT#1. USIN6 P13$;DIFFSH{I); 5280 NEXT I 5290 PRINT#1. TAB(9); 5300 FOR I « 6 TO NN 5310 PRINT#1. USIN6 PI3$;DIFFSHd); 5320 NEXT I 5330 REH DETERHINE HAXIHUH DIFFERNTIAL SHELL 5340 SHDIF«SHELL(1)-SHELL{NN) 5350 SHDlFI«SHDIF/2.54 5360 REH PRINT OUTPUT 5370 PR1NT#1.:PRINT#1.:PRINT#1. 5380 PRINT:PR1NT;PRINT 5390 P14$="##.## ##.##-5400 PR1NT#1. "HAXIHUH DIFFERNTIAL SHELL «-;SHDlF;"CH { ";SHD1F1;"IN.)" 5410 PRINT "HAXIHUH DIFFERNTIAL SHELL «";SHDIF;"CH ( "^SHDIFI^^IN.)" 5420 PRINT#1.:PR1NT#I. 5430 PRINT:PRINT 5440 PRINT -•••••••••• • • 5450 PR1NT#1. • •.•...•...-5460 IF VVEL > 0 THEN PRINT " SOIL PROFILE 15 DRYING OUT" 5470 IF VVEL > 0 THEN PRINT#I. • SOIL PROFILE IS DRYING OUT"tOOTO 5500 5480 PRINT • SOIL PROFILE 15 HETTING [iP" 5490 PRINT#1. • SOIL PROFILE IS HETTING UP* 5500 PRINT 5510 PRINT#1. " 5520 PRINT#l.tPRINT#l. 5530 PRINT#I. " • 5540 PR1NT#I. " END OF DATA FOR RUN #".RN 5550 PRINT#1. • •
210
5560 PRINT#1.tPRINT#l,tPRlNT«I,iPRlNT«I.íPRlNT«l, 5570 INPUT "HOULD YOU LIKE TO HAKE ANOTHER DATA RUN {Y/N)";Y$
5560 !f t|-"N" THEN 5620 5590 IF Y$«"Y" THEN 5620 5600 PRINT "PLEASE ANSHER Y OR N FOR YES OR NO" 5610 GOTO 5570 5620 CLS 5630 PRINT " ••••••••THESE ARE THE PRESENT PARAHETERS ••" 5640 PRINTtPRINT 5650 PRINT "1. N-CONSTANT« ".H 5660 PRINT "2. FIELO PERHEABILITY {CH/SEC)« ",K0 5670 PRINT "3. VERTICAL PERHEABILITY {CH/SEC)« ".KI 5680 PRINT "4. VERTICAL SUCTION IN NEGATIVE CH'S OF HATER. ",HV(1) 5690 PRINT "5. VERTICAL DEPTH OF EQUILIBRIUH SUCTION (CH). ",X3 5700 PRINT "6. HORIZONTAL DISTANCE OF SUCTION BENEATH SLAB (CH). ",X1 5710 PRINT "7. LEN6TH OF HORIZONTAL INCREHENTS OF DEPTH (CH). •,DELX1 5720 PRINT •8. LEN6TH OF HORIZONTAL INCREHENTS OF ED6E PENETRATION. ",DELX3 5730 PRINT "9. PREDOHINATE CLAY TYPE S-SHECTITE, I-ILLITE, K-KAOLINITE —",K$ 5740 PRINT "10. DENSITY OF SOIL IN PCF. ",GAHHA 5750 PRINT "11. SURCHAR6E ON AREA IN PSL ",Q 5760 PRINT "12. PERCENTA6E OF CLAY CONTENT IN SOIL (IN X). ",aAY 5770 PRINT " VELOCITY OF NOISTURE FLOH" 5780 PRINT "13. VERTICAL VELOCITY. ",VVEL; 5790 PRINT " 14. HORIZONTAL VELOCITY. ",HVEL(I) 5800 PRINT "15. NINIHUH SUCTI0N-,HVH1N 5810 GOTO 9B0 5820 END 5830 REH SUBROUTINE STRAIN 5840 IF K$ . "S" THEN SHCON . .00056«CLAY-.00433: GOTO 5870 5850 IF K$ . "I" THEN SWCON ..00047*CLAY-.00351: GOTO 5870 5860 IF K$ . "K" THEN SHCON ..0001B*aAY-9.799999E-05 5870 PCON=SWCON 5880 RETURN
APPENDIX E:
FIELD MEASUREMENT5 OF SOIL SUCTION
211
212
Table E-1 Monthly SoH Suctfon Measurements for the Amartno Stte.
Bor-Ing
No.
1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5
6 6 6 6
' 6
7 7 7 7 7
Psy-chrom-eter No.
32 89 69 64 95
31 29 60 70 94
85 50 57 92 117
48 45 102 116 132
53 98 134 114 173
107 140 142 167 199
126 131 176 180 179
Depth (ft.)
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1 8/85
» M
4.6 4.4 3.6 3.7
4.9 4.8 3.8 4.0 3.9
•••
4.3 4.4 4.0 4.0
4.7 4.7 ...
4.3 3.6
4.8 4.6 4.5 4.3 4.0
4.7 ...
4.6 4.3 4.0
4.0 4.8 4.5 4.2 4.0
Soll Suction, PF
Sequential Month or Calendar Month
2 9/85
2.3 4.4 4.3 3.2 3.4
4.6 4.0 ...
3.9 3.6
4.8 4.2 4.2 3.4 3.9
4.2 4.5 4.4 4.2 4.0
4.3 4.2 4.5 4.1 4.0
4.2 4.6 4.5 4.1 3.7
3.4 4.6 4.4 4.0 3.8
3 10/85
4.8 4.4 4.2 2.7 3.6
« « w
3.7 ...
3.7 3.2
4.6 4.2 4.1 3.0 3.3
. 4.2 4.4 4.2 4.1 3.8
4.2 3.7 4.4 3.9 3.7
...
4.5 4.4 4.0 3.5
3.8 4.5 4.3 3.9 .3.7
4 11/85
4.7 4.3 4.1 2.9 3.4
...
...
...
3.3 3.6
4.0 4.1 4.0 ...
3.0
4.0 4.4 4.2 4.1 3.8
2.7 ...
4.3 3.9 3.7
...
4.4 4.4 4.0 3.5
3.4 4.5 4.3 3.6 3.2
5 12/85
4.0 3.9 2.9 3.4
...
...
...
3.3
3.9 3.6 3.6 ... —
4.0 4.2 3.8 3.6 3.5
«•« • ••
4.2 3.7 2.5
...
4.2 4.3 3.7 2.5
...
4.2 4.1 3.1 ...
6 1/86
4.2 3.9 3.2 3.6
» 9 *
•»»
2.3 3.4
3.9 4.0 3.8 2.7
4.3 4.3 4.0 3.6 3.7
4.2
4.2 3.6 3.3
*•*
4.4 4.3 3.7 3.2
4.2 3.7 4.4 3.0 2.7
7 2/86 " # **
• ••
••• » » w
—
^
* « w
• w «
—
...
...
... —
...
...
...
3.3
...
2.7
—
*«• • ••
3.6 ... ...
s * v
3.5 2.7 ... ...
(contlnued)
213
Table E - 1 . (Contlnued)
Bor-ing No.
1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5
6 6 6 6 6
7 7 7 7 7
Psy-chrom-eter No.
32 89 69 64 95
31 29 60 70 94
65 50 57 92 117
48 45 102 116 132
53 98 134 114 173
107 140 142 167 199
126 131 176 180 179
Depth (ft.)
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
8 3/86
4.5 4.2 3.8 3.6
3.8 ... ... ... ...
3.9 ... ... ...
2.7
4.2 ... ... ...
3.0
3.3 ... ... ... ...
w w »
3.6 3.4 2.7 ...
4.8 3.8 3.4 ...
3.7
Sequen
9 4/86
W M
...
3.8 3.8 3.8
4.8 4.3 3.6 3.8 3.4
4.3 4.3 4.2 3.3 3.3
4.7 4.6 4.3 4.1 3.8
...
3.9 4.4 4.1 3.8
...
4.7 4.4 4.2 2.7
...
4.7 4.4 3.9 3.6
Soil Suction, pF
tial Honth or Calendar Month
10 11 12 5/86 6/86 7/86
^^ »•• ... ... ...
3.6 3.9 — 4.0 0.0 — 3.7
4.6 4.4 4.5 3.5 4.3 4.4 3.5 4.0 4.1 3.8 4.0 4.1 3.4 3.9 4.0
4.0 4.4 4.3 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.2 4.4 4.4 3.4 3.7 3.9 3.2 3.9 4.0
.4.6 — 4.8 4.5 4.7 4.7 4.3 4.5 4.5 4.2 4.3 4.5 3.8 4.2 4.2
4.8 3.8 4.2 4.2 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.1 4.3 4.3 3.7 4.0 4.1
4.2 4.0 4.6 4.8 4.7 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.2 4.3 4.4 3.6 4.1 4.1
4.8 4.6 4.8 4.8 4.4 4.5 4.6 3.9 4.2 4.3 3.6 3.9 4.2
(contlnued)
214
Bor-ing
No.
8 8 8 8 8
9 9 9 9 9
10 10 10 10 10
11 11 11 11 11
12 12 12 12 12
13 13 13 13 13
14 14 14 14
"
Psy-chrom-eter No.
155 175 186 197 211
135 172 195 201 206
154 191 188 160 205
115 152 161 189 203
106 127 158 164 194
40 90 156 141 174
41 77 145 130 113
Table E
Depth (ft.)
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1 8/85
4.9 4.7 4.5 4.3 4.0
4.2 4.7 4.3 4.0 4.1
...
4.5 4.3 4.3 4.2
...
4.7 4.3 4.1 4.1
4.8 4.6 4.4 4.2 4.0
...
4.6 4.4 ...
3.7
...
4.5 4.5 4.3 3.7
>1. (Contfnuecj)
Soil Suction, PF
Sequential Month or Calendar Month
2 9/85
4.6 4.4 4.2 3.7
4.6 4.4 4.1 3.7 3.6
4.7 4.4 4.1 4.0 4.0
4.9 4.4 4.4 3.9 3.6
4.7 4.5 4.4 4.0 3.9
4.8 4.4 4.5 4.2 3.3
4.7 4.3 4.3 4.1 ...
3 10/85
4.5 4.3 4.1 3.4
4.7 4.4 3.9 3.7 3.6
4.7 4.3 4.0 3.7 3.9
' 4.8 4.4 4.1 3.7 3.3
4.6 4.4 4.4 3.8 3.9
...
...
4.1 4.0 ...
...
...
4.2 4.1 ...
4 11/85
4.5 4.3 4.0 3.3
4.0 4.3 4.0 3.7 3.4
4.4 4.1 4.0 3.6 3.9
4.5 4.3 4.1 3.7 3.3
4.3 4.4 4.3 3.9 3.9
...
...
4.1 4.1 ...
...
3.4 4.0 3.7 ...
5 12/85
4.2 4.1 3.7
3.9 4.0 3.6 3.6 ...
4.3 3.6 3.7 ...
3.7
4.3 4.0 3.8 3.0 ...
4.1 4.0 3.9 3.2 3.9
...
...
3.7 3.9 ...
...
2.7 ... ... ...
6 1/86
4.4 4.1 3.9 3.4
4.0 4.3 3.7 3.7 3.3
4.4 4.0 3.9 3.4 3.5
4.5 4.3 3.9 3.4 3.4
4.3 4.2 4.0 3.7 3.8
...
...
3.9 3.9 ...
...
2.7 3.2 3.5 ...
(conti
7 2/86
3.2 3.5 3.6
3.4
3.0 3.0
2.7 3.6
3.7
2.7 2.7
3.3
3.0 2.7 2.7 3.8
...
...
...
3.8 ...
...
4.6 ... ... ...
nued)
215
Table E - 1 . (Contfnued)
Bor-ing No.
P$y-chrom-eter No.
Depth iftj.
Soil Suction, pF
Sequential Month or CaTendar Month
8 9 10 11 12 3/86 4/86 5/86 6/86 7/86
8 8 8 8 8
9 9 9 9 9
10 10 10 10 10
1] 11 11 i: 11
12 12 12 12 12
13 13 13 13 13
14 14 14 14 14
155 175 186 197 211
135 172 195 201 206
154 191 188 160 205
115 152 161 189 203
106 127 158 164 194
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
4.6 4.3 4.1
4.1 3.9
3.3 2.7
3.9 3.7 3.7
3.9
4.0 4.0 3.2
3.3
4.1 3.5
3.7
40 90 156 141 174
41 77 145 130 113
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
3.6 4.8 4.1 4.1 ...
...
...
...
...
••••
4.6 4.3 4.1 3.5
4.1 4.5 4.2 3.9 3.7
4.5 4.4 4.1 4.0 3.9
4.5 4.2 3.7 3.2
4.6 4.3 4.2 4.0 3.8
3.4 4.8 4.1 4.2
4.0 3.9
4.6 4.4 4.1
3.9 4.5 4.1 3.6 3.7
4.1 4.3 4.1 4.0 3.9
4.8 4.5 4.3 3.9 3.7
4.3 4.1 4.4 4.1 3.9
4.7 4.2 4.3 3.7
4.2 4.0 2.7
4.7 4.5 4.3 4.0
4.3 4.6 4.3 3.9 4.1
4.4 4.5 4.3 4.4 4.2
3.9 3.7 4.1 4.0
4.0 4.1 4.3 3.8 4.0
3.0
4.2 4.3 3.5
4.4 4.1
4.7 4.5 4.4 4.1
4.2 4.7 4.4 4.1 4.2
4.3 4.7 4.3 4.5 4.3
4.7 4.4 4.1 3.9
3.9 4.2 4.3 4.2 4.1
4.3 4.3 3.8
4.4 4.2 3.6
(continued)
Table E - 1 . (Contfnued)
216
Bor-ing No.
15 15 15 15 15
16 16 16 16 16
17 17 17 17 17
18 18 18 18 18
19 19 19 19 19
20 20 20 20 20
21 21 21 21 21
Psy-chrom-eter No.
35 46 52 99 151
83 25 67 66 103
84 82 56 55 96
87 86 49 79 101
81 88 62 72 91
28 75 78 147 120
44 80 148 111 136
Depth (ft.)
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1 8/85
4.8 4.5 4.4 4.2 4.0
...
...
4.4 ...
3.9
...
4.7 4.4 2.7 3.8
4.8 4.7 4.4 4.3 3.0
4.8 4.6 4.3 3.9 3.2
...
4.6 4.5 4.4 3.9
...
4.6 4.5 4.3 4.3
Soil Suction, PF
Sequential Month or Calendar
2 9/85
...
4.3 3.7 3.6
...
...
3.7 3.6 ...
*•»«
...
4.1 ...
2.7
2.7 4.4 4.2 3.6 ...
...
4.4 4.2 3.3 ...
4.7 4.4 4.3 4.0 3.9
4.8 4.4 4.4 3.9 4.0
3 10/85
^
...
...
3.2 3.0
...
...
...
3.3 ...
...
...
...
3.2
• . . .
4.3 4.4 3.3 ...
...
4.4 4.0 2.7 ...
4.7 4.4 4.2 3.9 3.9
4.7 4.3 4.4 3.7 4.1
4 11/85
...
3.9 3.4 3.3
...
...
...
3.2 ...
...
...
...
3.5
...
4.4 4.2 3.2 ...
...
4.3 4.0 ... ...
3.7 4.3 4.2 3.9 3.8
4.4 4.2 4.3 3.2 3.9
5 12/85
*** ... ... ... ...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
3.0 ... ... ...
...
4.0 3.6 ... ...
3.0 4.0 3.7 3.5 3.7
4.2 3.3 4.2 ...
3.8
Month
6 1/86
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
2.7 ...
...
3.4 ... ...
3.2
4.7 4.1 ... ... ...
...
4.2 3.7 ... ...
3.7 4.3 4.0 3.5 3.9
4.5 4.1 4.2 3.2 3.8
7 2/86
M * v
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
3.7 — •••
...
3.5 ... ... ...
—
...
...
...
2.7
217
Table E - 1 . (Contfnued)
Bor-ing No.
15 15 15 15 15
16 16 16 16 16
17 17 17 17 17
18 18 18 18 18
19 19 19 19 19
20 20 20 20 20
21 21 21 21 21
P$y-chrow-eter No.
35 46 52 99 151
83 25 67 66 103
84 82 56 55 96
87 86 49 79 101
81 88 62 72 91
28 75 78 147 120
44 80 148 111 136
Depth (ft.)
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
8 3/86
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
3.5 ... ... ... ...
...
4.4 3.9 3.5 ...
...
4.4 4.1 ...
2.7
4.5 4.4 4.2 3.9 3.9
4.8 4.4 4.3 3.2 3.9
Soil Suctii
Sequential Month or
9 10 11 4/86 5/86 6/86
... ... ...
4.7 3.4 3.9 3.9 3.8 3.9 4.1 3.0 3.6 3.7
... ... ...
... ... ...
3.3 3.7 3.7
... ... ...
3.7 — 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.0 3.4 4.2 ... ... . —
3.4 3.6
... . — ...
4.3 4.4 4.7 4.0 4.4 4.4 3.8 3.8 4.0
3.0
... ... ..-
4.4 4.4 4.6 4.1 4.2 4.3
2.7 3.2 3.7
4.6 4.5 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.3 4.3 4.5 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.0 3.9 3.9
4.8 4.7 4.8 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.3 4.3 4.5 3.2 3.5 3.9 3.9 3.9 4.1
3n, pF
Calendar Month
12 7/86
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
3.9 3.7
...
...
3.5 ...
3.8
...
4.7 4.4 4.2 3.6
...
4.6 4.4 3.9 3.6
4.7 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.1
4.9 4.5 4.5 4.1 4.3
(continued)
Table E-1. (Contfnued)
218
Bor-ing
No.
22 22 22 22 22
23 23 23 23 23
24 24 24 24 24
25 25 25 25 25
26 26 26 26 26
27 27 27 27 27
28 28 28 28 28
P$y-chroin-eter
No.
68 97 119 128 166
146 118 143 169 200
123 129 163 196 181
125 170 187 178 209
139 248 190 185 208
138 168 193 183 210
122 124 165 202 192
Depth (ft.)
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1 8/85
4.9 4.7 4.5
4.1
...
4.7 4.6 4.3 4.0
3.9 4.8 4.5 4.3 4.0
3.5 4.7 4.4 4.3 4.2
...
4.6 4.4 4.2 4.0
...
4.6 4.4 4.0 3.9
...
4.7 4.5 4.1 4.0
Soil Suction, . pF
Sequential Month or Calendar
2 9/85
4.7 4.5 4.3
3.9
4.8 4.5 4.4 4.1 3.9
4.1 4.5 4.3 3.9 3.8
3.3 4.5 3.8 3.8 3.6
4.2 4.4 3.9 3.9 3.7
4.7 4.5 4.2 3.3 3.0
4.8 4.5 4.3 3.8 3.3
3 10/85
4.6 4.5 4.2
3.7
4.4 4.5 4.4 4.1 3.7
3.9 4.5 4.3 3.8 3.8
4.4 4.5 3.5 3.7 3.5
4.0 4.4 3.7 3.7 3.7
4.7 4.5 4.2 3.7 ...
4.5 4.2 4.2 3.5 ...
4 11/85
4.2 4.4 4.2
3.8
3.6 4.4 4.3 4.1 3.8
3.6 4.4 4.2 3.7 3.9
4.4 4.4 3.6 3.4 3.6
3.8 4.3 3.3 3.6 3.8
4.4 4.4 4.1 3.7 ...
...
4.4 4.2 3.5 ...
5 12/85
3.9 4.2 4.0
3.5
4.2 4.3 4.1 3.4
3.8 4.3 4.1 3.4 3.7
3.9 4.3 3.6 2.7 3.4
3.8 4.0 ...
3.6 3.8
4.4 4.3 4.0 3.6 2.7
...
4.1 3.9 ... ...
Month
6 1/86
4.3 4.3 4.1
3.7
4.4 4.4 4.3 4.0 3.7
3.9 4.4 4.2 3.7 3.9
4.2 4.4 3.8
3.7
3.9 4.3
3.6 3.8
4.4 4.3 4.0 3.7 2.7
4.1 4.3 3.9 ... ...
(conti
7 2/86 ^f %*w
—
...
...
...
3.5
3.0
W M M
3.2
3.4 3.5
2.7
3.4
3.0 3.6
3.6 3.5
—
...
4.8 ...
2.7
nued)
219
Table E - 1 . (Contfnued)
Bor-Ing No.
22 22 22 22 22
23 23 23 23 23
24 24 24 24 24
25 25 25 25 25
26 26 26 26 26
27 27 27 27 27
28 28 28 28 28
P$y-chrom-eter No.
68 97 119 128 166
146 118 143 169 200
123 129 163 196 181
125 170 187 178 209
139 248 190 185 208
138 168 193 183 210
122 124 165 202 192
Depth (ft.)
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
8 3/86
4.7 4.5 4.2 ...
3.9
...
4.5 4.4 4.2 3.7
4.8 4.6 4.3 3.8 3.9
4.5 4.5 3.9 3.5 3.8
4.7 4.5 3.8 3.9 3.9
4.7 4.5 4.2 3.7 ...
3.7 2.7 ... ... ...
Soil Sucti(
Sequential Month or
9 10 11 4/86 5/86 6/86
4.7 4.6 4.7 4.5 4.5 4.7 4.4 4.4 4.5 ... ... ...
3.9 3.9 4.2
4.8 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.2 4.2 4.3 3.6 3.4 3.9
4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.4 4.4 4.4 3.9 3.9 4.1 4.0 3.9 3.9
4.5 4.4 4.4 4.6 4.5 4.6 3.9 3.9 4.1 3.7 3.9 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.9
4.8 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.1 4.0 4.2 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.7 3.8
4.7 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.2 4.3 4.3 3.6 3.8 3.7 2.7 3.2 3.4
4.9 4.8 3.9 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.3 4.4 4.4 3.8 3.9 4.1
3.0 3.6
9n, pF
Calendar
12 7/86
4.7 4.7 4.6 ...
4.2
...
4.7 4.6 4.3 4.0
...
4.8 4.5 4.3 4.1
4.5 4.7 4.3 4.2 ...
...
4.7 4.4 4.2 4.0
4.4 4.7 4.6 4.2 4.0
4.6 4.5 4.1 4.0
Month
(continued)
220
Table E - 1 . (Contfnued)
Bor-ing No.
29 29 29 29 29
30 30 30 30
31 31 31 31 31
32 32 32 32 32
33 33 33 33
34 34 34 34 34
P$y-chrom-eter No.
105 112 109 177 184
76 144 137 121
38 37 150 108 31
33 74 73 149 110
24 47 71 104
26 23 36 43 100
Depth (ft.)
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1 8/85
3.6 4.7 4.4 3.9 4.2
...
4.7 4.5 4.2
5.0 4.5 4.6 3.9
...
4.6 4.4 4.0 3.9
4.6 ...
3.9 3.5
4.9 4.8 4.4 3.9 3.9
Soil Suction, PF
Sequential Month or Calendar Month
2 9/85
4.7 4.5 4.3 3.6 3.9
4.8 4.4 4.3 3.8
4.5 4.2 4.4 3.7 ...
...
4.3 4.3 3.7 3.4
4.4 ... ... ...
...
4.5 4.0 3.3 3.5
3 10/85
4.6 4.3 4.1 2.7 3.8
4.6 3.0 4.2 3.6
...
...
4.2 ... ...
...
....
4.0 3.0 3.5
...
...
...
...
...
3.7 3.4 ...
4 11/85
4.4 4.0 4.0 3.2 3.8
...
...
4.0 3.6
...
...
4.1 3.2 ...
...
...
4.0 3.3 3.6
2.7
...
...
...
...
3.2 3.7
5 12/85
4.2 3.7 3.6 ...
3.4
...
3.4 ... ...
...
...
3.6 ... ...
•»»»
...
...
...
2.7
2.7 ... ... ...
—
...
...
3.5
6 1/86
4.4 4.1 3.8 2.7 3.7
...
...
3.7 3.3
...
...
3.6 ... ...
...
...
3.2 3.4 3.5
3.5 ... ... ...
—
...
...
3.6 2.7
7 2/86
...
...
... »«•«
...
...
3.0 ...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
3.2
2.7 ... ... ...
—
...
...
...
221
T a b l e E - 1 . ( C o n t f n u e d )
Bor-Ing No.
29 29 29 29 29
30 30 30 30
31 31 31 31 31
32 32 32 32 32
33 33 33 33
34 34 34 34 34
P$y-chrom-eter No.
105 112 109 177 184
76 144 137 121
38 37 150 108 31
33 74 73 149 110
24 47 71 104
26 23 36 43 100
Depth (ft.)
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
8 3/86
4.0 3.6
3.3
4.0
2.7
3.7
3.0
3.4
—
Soil Sucti(
Sequential Month or
9 10 11 4/86 5/86 6/86
4.8 4.6 4.6 4.3 4.4 4.1 4.3 4.3 4.4 3.6 3.8 3.9 3.9 3.9 4.0
4.1 — 3.7 3.7 — 3.9 4.2 3.9 4.1 3.7 3.9 4.1
3.9 3.7
4.1 4.2 3.6 3.8 4.0 3.6 3.8 3.9
3.3 — 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.2 3.8 3.8 4.0
3.5 4.0
3.9 3.8 3.9 0.0 3.0 3.7
3.3
3.7 3.9
>n, pF
Calendar Month
12 7/86
4.7 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.1
3.9 4.1 4.4 4.2
3.8
4.1 4.2
3.7 4.2 4.1 4.0
4.0
3.7 3.3
4.1
PERMISSION TO COPY
In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for a master*s degree at Texas Tech University, I agree
that the Library and my major department shall make it freely avail-
able for research purposes. Permission to copy this thesis for
scholarly purposes may be granted by the Director of the Library or
my major professor. It is understood that any copying or publication
of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my
further written permission and that any user may be liable for copy-
right infringement.
Disagree (Permission not granted) Agree (Permission granted)
Student's signature Student'áysignabare
Date Date
