PHD All

MOISTURE MOVEMENT THROUGH EXPANSIVE SOIL AND IMPACT ON PERFORMANCE
OF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES
by
Heather Beata Dye

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy

ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY

May 2008

2008 Heather Beata Dye
All Rights Reserved

MOISTURE MOVEMENT THROUGH EXPANSIVE SOIL AND IMPACT ON PERFORMANCE

OF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES

by

Heather Beata Dye

has been approved

April 2008

Graduate Supervisory Committee:

Sandra L. Houston, Co-Chair
Bruno D. Welfert, Co-Chair
Claudia Zapata

ACCEPTED BY THE GRADUATE COLLEGE

iii
ABSTRACT

It is well established that damage to structures built on expansive soils is mainly caused
by changes in soil suction. Suction changes are generally attributed to changes in
environmental conditions such as change in water table depth, surface irrigation and landscape,
resulting in changes in the surface and groundwater regime. Slabs-on-grade must resist both
long-term and short-term moisture-change induced soil volume change. The design of
residential structures in arid regions is especially challenging because the soil experiences large
variations in matric suction and associated substantial volume change. As a result, a large
number of houses experience minor to severe distress.
Unsaturated soil mechanics theory is used in the determination of unsaturated soil
behavior. It is the purpose of this research work to help bridge the gap between theory and
practice in the design of residential foundations on expansive soils. One part of this study
relates to investigating the depth and degree of wetting associated with moisture flow through
expansive soils through modeling and field studies in semi-arid region for typical residential
construction development, as well as assessment of foundation performance. A number of steps
were taken towards the goal of developing a better understanding of expansive soils behavior
and field conditions leading to problems with expansive soils. These steps include: 1) numerical
modeling of moisture flow through expansive soils in one- and two-dimensions. Two extreme
surface flux conditions were considered, desert and excessively irrigated turf landscapes. The
numerical results are applicable to regions with low to moderate expansion potential and
Phoenix, Arizona environmental conditions. 2) Development of map illustration to identify
locations with low to medium swell potential in the Phoenix Valley. 3) Comparisons of the
numerical results to field evidence on depth of wetting and depth of active zone. 4) Evaluation of
stability, convergence and numerical challenges for unsaturated moisture flow through expansive
soils using Richards equation. Sources of numerical instabilities were identified and potential
improvements discussed. 5) Survey of Arizona region practitioners to identify current design and
construction practices, and 6) Analysis of forensic investigations to identify the nature and
common causes of residential distress.

iv
DEDICATION
To my family, who encouraged and supported me in my studies.

v
ACKNOWLEDGEMNTS
This research work was made possible through the financial support by Homebuilders
Association of Central Arizona (HBACA) and Construction Inspection and Testing Co. (CIT). The
author is very grateful for the inspiration, encouragement and support of Dr. Sandra Houston and
Dr. Bill Houston. I would like to thank Dr. Bruno Welfert for his time and unlimited patience in
explaining numerical concepts applicable to the problem considered in this research work. The
contribution of Dr. Claudia Zapata is also acknowledged, who, most importantly, was a friend in a
time of need. Additionally, I would like to express my gratitude to practitioners, Brian Juedes
(PE, Senior Vice President, Felten Group), Scott Neely (Terracon Inc.) and Dr. Kirby Meyer (PE,
Chairman, MLAW), for partial review of this research work with calculations and edits. The
development of map illustration was made possible through the collaboration with PhD students,
Drew Lucio and Sonal Singhal. Their contribution is gratefully acknowledged. This work, in part,
was made possible through the good will of numerous Arizona based companies which
interviewed with ASU and/or released their geotechnical/forensic data for research purposes.
Their contribution is gratefully acknowledged.
Finally, I would like to thank my husband Brian, who convinced me to continue with
higher education, provided moral support and was a source of fascinating discussions about
unsaturated soil mechanics and computer computations; my brother David, on whom I can
always count on; and most importantly my father and my mother who instilled in me the
appreciation for knowledge. Through their personal sacrifices I was able to immigrate to the
United States and pursue my dreams.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... xvi

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ xix

NOMENCLATURE...................................................................................................................... xxviii

CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Overview ......................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Historical Background ..................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Research Objective and Scope ...................................................................................... 6
1.4 Research Methodology ................................................................................................... 7
1.5 Outline of Report ............................................................................................................. 9
1.6 Key Findings ................................................................................................................. 11
2 LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................................... 13
2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 13
2.2 Factors Affecting Swell and Moisture Migration ........................................................... 14
2.3 Moisture Variation within Soil Profile ............................................................................ 16
2.3.1 Infiltration and Wetting Front ........................................................................... 16
2.3.2 Soil Profile ........................................................................................................ 17
2.3.3 Definition of Active Zone Depth and Related Terms ....................................... 19
2.3.3.1 Active Zone Depth ..................................................................................... 21
2.3.3.2 Zone of Seasonal Moisture Fluctuation ..................................................... 21
2.3.3.3 Depth of Wetting ........................................................................................ 21
2.3.3.4 Depth of Potential Heave ........................................................................... 22
2.3.4 Edge Moisture Variation Distance ................................................................... 22
2.4 Causes of Water Content Change; Field Observations of Moisture Migration and
Heave ........................................................................................................................... 23
2.4.1 Monotonic Water Content Change .................................................................. 24
CHAPTER Page

vii
2.4.2 Seasonal Water Content Change .................................................................... 26
2.4.2.1 Field Studies of Seasonal Moisture Variations .......................................... 28
2.4.2.2 Field Studies of Seasonal Temperature Variations ................................... 30
2.4.2.3 Field Studies of Monotonic vs. Seasonal Moisture Variation and Heave .. 31
2.4.3 Accidental Changes of Water Content ............................................................ 32
2.5 Soil Response to Change in Water Content ................................................................. 35
2.5.1 Settlement ........................................................................................................ 36
2.5.2 Shrinkage ......................................................................................................... 37
2.5.3 Heave .............................................................................................................. 39
2.5.4 Fatigue of Swelling .......................................................................................... 39
2.6 Performance of Residential Construction ..................................................................... 40
2.6.1 As-built Floor Deviation from Horizontal .......................................................... 41
2.6.2 Post-Construction Slab Distortion .................................................................... 42
2.7 Mitigation measures ...................................................................................................... 43
2.7.1 Removal, replacement and recompaction ....................................................... 43
2.7.2 Mechanical Stabilization .................................................................................. 44
2.7.3 Chemical Stabilization ..................................................................................... 44
2.7.4 Stabilization of Water Content ......................................................................... 45
2.7.4.1 Passive Stabilization .................................................................................. 45
2.7.4.2 Active Stabilization ..................................................................................... 48
2.7.5 Site Drainage and Control of Landscape Watering ......................................... 48
2.8 Classification of Swell Potential Based on Soil Properties ........................................... 49
2.8.1 Mineralogical Classification ............................................................................. 50
2.8.1.1 Cation Exchange Capacity ........................................................................ 52
2.8.1.2 Cation Exchange Capacity and Soil Properties ......................................... 53
2.8.1.3 Atterberg Limits .......................................................................................... 55
2.8.2 Indirect Measurement ...................................................................................... 55
CHAPTER Page

viii
2.8.2.1 Atterberg Limits .......................................................................................... 55
2.8.2.2 Linear Shrinkage ........................................................................................ 58
2.8.2.3 Colloid Content .......................................................................................... 58
2.8.2.4 Suction ....................................................................................................... 59
2.8.3 Direct Measurement ........................................................................................ 62
2.9 Unsaturated Soil Mechanics Theory ............................................................................. 64
2.9.1 Soil Suction and Soil Moisture ......................................................................... 64
2.9.2 Measurement of Soil Suction ........................................................................... 66
2.9.3 Soil Water Characteristic Curve ...................................................................... 69
2.9.3.1 Uncertainty Band ....................................................................................... 71
2.9.3.2 Hysteresis .................................................................................................. 72
2.9.4 Unsaturated Soil Permeability ......................................................................... 74
2.9.5 Theory of Moisture Flow .................................................................................. 77
2.9.5.1 Saturated Flow ........................................................................................... 79
2.9.5.2 Unsaturated Flow ....................................................................................... 81
2.10 Numerical Methods ....................................................................................................... 85
2.10.1 Numerical Methods Used in Solution of Richards Equation ........................... 86
2.10.2 Available Commercial Software ....................................................................... 86
2.10.2.1 SVFlux ....................................................................................................... 87
2.10.2.2 Vadose/W .................................................................................................. 88
2.10.2.3 Hydrus ........................................................................................................ 89
2.11 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 89
3 CURRENT PRACTICE .......................................................................................................... 94
3.1 Factors Affecting Residential Building Performance .................................................... 94
3.2 Drainage Design Standards and Standard of Practice ................................................. 97
3.3 Residential Foundation Design in USA ........................................................................ 99
3.4 Residential Foundation Design in Other Countries .................................................... 105
CHAPTER Page

ix
3.5 Design and Construction Practice Interviews with Industry .................................... 109
3.5.1 Geotechnical Engineering Interviews ............................................................ 109
3.5.1.1 Site Investigation and Soil Testing ........................................................... 109
3.5.1.2 Site Monitoring ......................................................................................... 111
3.5.1.3 Communication ........................................................................................ 111
3.5.1.4 Geotechnical Report ................................................................................ 111
3.5.1.5 Design Procedure .................................................................................... 112
3.5.1.6 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................. 112
3.5.1.7 Areas of Problems ................................................................................... 113
3.5.1.8 SWCC and Suction .................................................................................. 113
3.5.2 Structural Engineering Interviews .................................................................. 114
3.5.2.1 Occurrence of Expansive Soils ................................................................ 114
3.5.2.2 Communication ........................................................................................ 114
3.5.2.3 Geotechnical Report ................................................................................ 114
3.5.2.4 Structural Analysis and Design Procedure .............................................. 114
3.5.2.6 Areas of Problems and Concerns ............................................................ 115
3.5.3 Home Builder Interviews ................................................................................ 116
3.5.3.1 Site Assessment ...................................................................................... 116
3.5.3.2 Budget and Design .................................................................................. 117
3.5.3.3 Site Preparation Process ......................................................................... 117
3.5.3.4 Site Monitoring ......................................................................................... 117
3.5.3.5 Communication ........................................................................................ 118
3.5.3.7 Sources of Problems ................................................................................ 121
3.5.3.8 Litigation ................................................................................................... 121
3.5.4 Forensic Investigation .................................................................................... 121
CHAPTER Page

x
3.5.4.1 Failure Modes .......................................................................................... 121
3.5.4.1.1 Center Lift ........................................................................................ 122
3.5.4.1.2 Edge Lift .......................................................................................... 122
3.5.4.1.3 Settlement ....................................................................................... 122
3.5.4.2 Remediation Methods .............................................................................. 123
3.6 Failure Criteria ............................................................................................................ 123
3.7 Summary .................................................................................................................... 125
4 LABORATORY DATA .......................................................................................................... 127
4.1 Field Exploration ......................................................................................................... 127
4.1.1 Equipment ...................................................................................................... 128
4.1.2 Field Sampling ............................................................................................... 128
4.2 Soil Testing for Input Parameters ............................................................................... 129
4.2.1 Moisture Content and Dry Density ................................................................. 130
4.2.2 Atterberg Limits .............................................................................................. 131
4.2.3 Sulfate Content .............................................................................................. 131
4.2.4 Cation Exchange Capacity ............................................................................ 131
4.2.5 Specific Gravity .............................................................................................. 132
4.2.6 Expansion Index ............................................................................................ 132
4.2.6.1 Arizona Modified Expansion Index Procedure ......................................... 132
4.2.6.2 Expansion Index Procedure as per ASTM D 4829 .................................. 133
4.2.7 Constant Volume Oedometer Testing ........................................................... 134
4.2.8 Consolidation Test and Correction Factors ................................................... 135
4.2.9 Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity .................................................................. 137
4.2.10 Soil Suction .................................................................................................... 138
4.2.10.1 Pressure Plate ......................................................................................... 139
4.2.10.1.1 Equipment ..................................................................................... 139
4.2.10.1.2 Issues Associated with SWCC Testing ......................................... 142
CHAPTER Page

xi
4.2.10.1.3 One Point Method of SWCC Determination .................................. 145
4.2.10.1.4 Complete SWCC ........................................................................... 150
4.2.10.2 Filter Paper .............................................................................................. 151
4.2.10.3 Dessicator ................................................................................................ 153
4.2.11 Summary of Laboratory Results .................................................................... 153
4.2.11.1 Sampling Locations .................................................................................. 153
4.2.11.2 Summary Tables ...................................................................................... 156
4.2.12 Selection of Input for Modeling ...................................................................... 162
5 MAP OF EXPANSIVE SOIL DISTRIBUTION IN PHOENIX VALLEY ................................. 164
6 PTI RESIDENTIAL FOUNDATION DESIGN ....................................................................... 171
6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 171
6.2 Historical Background ................................................................................................. 171
6.3 Definitions ................................................................................................................... 173
6.4 PTI 2
nd
Edition Design Procedure, 1996..................................................................... 174
6.5 PTI 3
rd
Edition Design Procedure, 2004 ..................................................................... 176
6.5.1 Additional Definitions Provided in the Procedure. ......................................... 177
6.5.2 Assumptions. ................................................................................................. 178
6.5.3 Procedure. ..................................................................................................... 179
6.6 Design Parameters for Arizona .................................................................................. 183
6.7 Discussion .................................................................................................................. 184
6.8 Sensitivity Analysis ..................................................................................................... 186
6.8.1 Influence of Suction Profiles on Geotechnical Parameters ........................... 187
6.8.2 Influence of Geotechnical Parameters on Slab Thickness ............................ 189
6.8.3 Sensitivity of y
m
to Suction Profile ................................................................. 190
6.8.4 Comparison of Different Suction Compression Index Methodologies ........... 191
6.8.5 Influence of Gravel Correction ....................................................................... 192
6.9 Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 192
CHAPTER Page

xii
7 MODELING NUMERICAL METHODS ............................................................................. 194
7.1 Modeling Challenges .................................................................................................. 194
7.2 Selection of Program .................................................................................................. 198
7.2.1 Convergence, Stability and Accuracy ............................................................ 198
7.2.2 Experiment Set-Up ........................................................................................ 202
7.2.3 Presentation of Results ................................................................................. 203
7.2.4 Discussion and Conclusions .......................................................................... 207
7.3 Sensitivity analysis of SWCC and k(h) ....................................................................... 209
7.3.1 Uncertainty of Unsaturated Soil Functions .................................................... 210
7.3.2 Problem Set-Up ............................................................................................. 211
7.3.2.1 Soil Properties .......................................................................................... 211
7.3.2.2 Initial and Boundary Conditions ............................................................... 213
7.3.2.3 Modeling Software, Mesh Size and Time Step ........................................ 213
7.3.3 Numerical Simulation ..................................................................................... 213
7.3.3.1 Hysteresis in SWCC ................................................................................ 214
7.3.3.2 Uncertainty in k(h) .................................................................................... 215
7.3.3.2.1 Infiltration ......................................................................................... 215
7.3.3.2.2 Evaporation ..................................................................................... 217
7.3.4 Conclusions ................................................................................................... 218
7.4 SVFlux Program Behavior .......................................................................................... 219
7.4.1 Numerical Oscillations Lessons Learned ................................................... 220
7.4.2 Numerical Challenges ................................................................................... 222
7.5 Numerical Experiments ............................................................................................... 223
7.5.1 Fixed vs. Adaptive Time Step ........................................................................ 223
7.5.2 Mixed Formulation ......................................................................................... 227
7.5.3 Normalization ................................................................................................. 228
7.5.4 Spatial Discretization - Pseudospectral Method ............................................ 228
CHAPTER Page

xiii
7.5.5 Time Discretization - Exponential Integrator ................................................. 229
7.5.6 Time Discretization - ADI ............................................................................... 229
7.6 Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 230
8 MODELING NUMERICAL RESULTS ............................................................................... 231
8.1 Modeling Objective ..................................................................................................... 231
8.2 Design of Experiment ................................................................................................. 232
8.2.1 Problem Assumptions and Restrictions ......................................................... 233
8.2.2 Program ......................................................................................................... 234
8.2.3 SVFlux Specific Restrictions .......................................................................... 235
8.2.4 Boundary and Initial Conditions ..................................................................... 238
8.2.5 Domain Size .................................................................................................. 239
8.2.6 Soil Input Parameters .................................................................................... 240
8.2.7 Determination of Appropriate Input Flux ........................................................ 243
8.2.7.1 Evaporation .............................................................................................. 243
8.2.7.2 Desert and Low Water Use Landscaping ................................................ 248
8.2.7.2.1 Irrigation Needs of Desert and Low Water Use Landscape ............ 248
8.2.7.2.2 Irrigation Systems ............................................................................ 248
8.2.7.2.3 Input Flux for Desert and Low Water Use Landscape .................... 249
8.2.7.2.4 Average Input Flux .......................................................................... 250
8.2.7.3 Turf Landscaping ..................................................................................... 251
8.2.7.3.1 Irrigation Needs of Grass ................................................................ 251
8.2.7.3.2 Irrigation Systems ............................................................................ 252
8.2.7.3.3 Typical Water Use on Turf Landscaping ......................................... 252
8.2.7.3.4 Flux Input for Turf Landscaping ....................................................... 252
8.2.7.3.5 Average Input Flux .......................................................................... 255
8.2.8 Output Presentation - Definitions ................................................................... 256
8.3 Convergence Studies ................................................................................................. 258
CHAPTER Page

xiv
8.4 Simplification of Flux ................................................................................................... 263
8.4.1 Potential Evaporation .................................................................................... 263
8.4.2 Precipitation and Irrigation ............................................................................. 267
8.4.2.1 1-D Desert Landscape ............................................................................. 267
8.4.2.2 1-D Turf Landscape ................................................................................. 271
8.4.2.3 2-D Analysis of Average Absorbed Flux in Turf Landscape .................... 275
8.4.3 Key Findings of Flux Simplification ................................................................ 279
8.5 Depth of Influence and Suction Variation with Depth ................................................. 280
8.5.1 Desert Landscape Dry IC ........................................................................... 280
8.5.2 Desert Landscape Wet IC .......................................................................... 284
8.5.3 Desert Landscape - Ponding near Structure ................................................. 286
8.5.4 Turf Landscape Dry IC ............................................................................... 290
8.5.5 Turf Landscape Wet IC ............................................................................... 296
8.5.6 Key Findings of 1D Analysis .......................................................................... 297
8.6 Edge moisture Variation Distance Degree of Saturation ............................................ 300
8.6.1 Desert Landscape .......................................................................................... 300
8.6.2 Turf Landscape .............................................................................................. 300
8.7 Conclusions and Recommendations .......................................................................... 304
9 FIELD EVIDENCE OF WETTING/DRYING INDUCED DAMAGE ...................................... 308
9.1 Depth of Wetting and Depth of Active Zone ............................................................... 308
9.2 Forensic Investigations ............................................................................................... 322
9.2.1 Type of Data Collected .................................................................................. 323
9.2.2 Sources of Suction Change Related Distress ............................................... 324
9.2.3 Degree of Saturation and Suction Conditions below Foundations ................ 333
9.2.4 Comparison of Landscape Type to Distress Magnitude ................................ 337
9.2.5 Relative Slab Differential Data ....................................................................... 338
9.3 Comparison of forensic Investigation Incidence to Soil Properties ............................ 341
CHAPTER Page

xv
9.4 Key Findings ............................................................................................................... 341
10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................... 344
10.1 Scope of Research Work ............................................................................................ 344
10.2 Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 347
10.3 Future Research ......................................................................................................... 351
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 353

APPENDIX
A HISTORY OF PTI GEOTECHNICAL PROCEDURE DEVELOPMENT ............................... 365
B LABORATORY DATA .......................................................................................................... 379
C DETERMINATION OF SWCC USING ONE POINT SUCTION MEASUREMENT
AND STANDARD CURVES ................................................................................................ 471
D PRESENTATION OF MODELING RESULTS ..................................................................... 488

LIST OF TABLES

xvi
Table Page

2.1. Angular Distortion Criteria Based on Design Manuals (summarized in Advanced
Foundation Repair, 2007). ...........................................................................................41
2.2. Newly constructed slab deviation from horizontal and angular distortion. ..................42
2.3. Mineral clay properties (after Woodward-Clyde and Associates, 1967). ....................53
2.4. Relation between swelling potential and PI (from Holtz and Gibbs, 1956). ................56
2.5. Expansive Soil Classification based on Atterberg Limits (Snethen et al.1977). .........56
2.6. Relationship between shrinkage and swell potential (after Altmeyer, 1955). .............58
2.7. Soil classification based on suction compression index (after McKeen, 2001). .........60
2.8. Classification of swell potential significance (after U.S. Bureau of Reclamation,
1974; surcharge of 6.9 kPa; Holtz et al., 1981). ..........................................................63
2.9. Classification of swell potential as per U.S. ASTM Standard D 4829-03 for
Expansion Index. .........................................................................................................63
2.10. Proposed empirical and theoretical equations of SWCC. ...........................................70
2.11. Proposed equations of unsaturated soil permeability as a function of suction (from
Fredlund, 1993). ..........................................................................................................75
3.1. Description of distress per Damage Category in AS2870. ........................................109
3.2. Description of distress per Damage Category in AS2870. ........................................109
3.3. Residential construction performance criteria in the first 2 years after homeowner
occupancy (AROC, 2004). ........................................................................................125
4.1. Main Equipment used for Field Sampling and Coring (after Perera, 2003). .............128
4.2. Classification of Potential Expansion based on EI (ASTM D 4829). .........................134
4.3. RH and suction per saturated salt solutions at 20C (based on Dean, 1999). .........153
4.4. Locations of Soil Sampling. .......................................................................................154
4.5. Summary Table .........................................................................................................156
4.7. Average soil values. ..................................................................................................162
5.1. Classification of Potential Expansion (EI
AZ
) based on wPI. ......................................167
Table Page

xvii
6.1. Soil Index Properties Used in VOLFLO Input for Representative Soils ....................185
6.2. Design Parameters for Representative Soils ............................................................185
6.3. Design Parameters for All Soils from Chapter 4. ......................................................186
6.4. Design Parameters for Sensitivity Study. ..................................................................187
6.5. PTI 3
rd
191 Edition Calculations for Example Profile for Various
h
Methods ..................
7.1. Literature Review of Implemented Modeling Controls. .............................................196
7.2. Summary Table of Convergence Results .................................................................208
7.3. SWCC parameters ....................................................................................................212
7.4. Summary of Modeled Scenarios ...............................................................................214
7.5. Summary of numerical experiments, dx and dt. ........................................................227
8.1. List of Performed Analyses. ......................................................................................232
8.2. Soil Properties. ..........................................................................................................243
8.3. Potential evaporation rate for Phoenix area, Arizona (from ADWR, NOAA and
AMN 2006) and potential evapotranspiration rates for Bermuda turf landscape,
Cave Creek, Arizona (UA, from Dep. of Agriculture, 2000). .....................................246
8.4. Landscape coefficients (from Dep. of Agriculture, 2005). .........................................247
8.5. Gallons of Water needed to Wet Root Zone per Irrigation Event (from City of
Mesa, Department of Water Use, 2005). ..................................................................248
8.6. Average precipitation data from Phoenix Airport metrological station (from NCDC).249
8.7. Recommended irrigation pattern for warm season Bermuda grass (from City of
Mesa, Department of Water Use, 2005). ..................................................................251
8.8. Amount of irrigation and potential evapotranspiration used in modeling of turf
landscape. .................................................................................................................254
8.9. Average Input Flux for 2-D Analysis of CH Soil. .......................................................255
8.10. Definitions of Input and Output Quantities. ...............................................................256
8.11. Mesh spacing, time step and run times for SM-ML analyses. ..................................262
8.12. Mesh spacing, time step and run times for CH analyses. .........................................262
Table Page

xviii
8.13. HF to AF ratio of distance to 1000 kPa. ....................................................................278
8.14. Summary Table Seasonal Depth of Influence; 1 Year Long Analysis. ..................297
8.15. Summary Table Seasonal Surface Suction; 1 Year Long Analysis. ......................297
9.1. Saturation and Suction Variation with Depth for Undeveloped Desert. ....................320
9.2. Saturation and Suction Variation with Depth for Agricultural Land. ..........................321
9.3. Residential Construction Distress Count vs. Landscape Type (distress beyond
home owner responsibility defined by AROC). .........................................................338
9.4. Frequency of slab mode deformation occurrence and average relative slab
differential. .................................................................................................................340
9.5. Forensic investigation incidence vs. soil type. ..........................................................341
TABLE OF FIGURES

xix
Figure Page
2.1. Schematic of water front movement (after McWhorter and Nelson, 1979). ................17
2.2. Idealized water content profile (after Nelson et al., 2001). ..........................................18
2.3. Idealized suction profile of unsaturated soil (after Fredlund and Rahardjo, 1993). ....19
2.4. Slab movement, rainfall and site plan of experimental house at Vereeniging,
Transvaal Highveld (after Blight, 1965). ......................................................................25
2.5. Soil Moisture Profile for soil a) under cover and without cover, b) difference in soil
moisture profile between soil located below slab and outside of covered area (after
Tucker and Poor, 1978). ..............................................................................................26
2.6. Center lift and edge lift slab distortion due to seasonal moisture variation (after
PTI, 2004). ...................................................................................................................27
2.7. Measured vertical ground movement within soil profile of Regina clay,
Saskatchewan (after Hamilton, 1968). ........................................................................29
2.8. Typical maximum, minimum, and mean annual soil temperatures, 1959-1963 for a
typical soil cross-section in Winnipeg, Manitoba (after Hamilton, 1969). ....................31
2.9. Influence of evapotranspiration of trees on paved areas (after Snethen, 2001). ........34
2.10. Crack in residence wall due to vegetation (after Snethen, 2001). ..............................35
2.11. Sketch of crack and proximity of tree to the structure (after Snethen, 2001). .............35
2.12. Change in void ratio due to change in volumetric water content (after Nevels,
2001). ...................................................................................................................38
2.13. Effect of initial dry density on swell and shrinkage (after Chen, 1988). ......................38
2.14. Swelling and shrinkage behavior of expansive soils subject to repeated wetting
and drying (after Chen, 1988). ....................................................................................40
2.15. a) Bathtub effect of fill, b) Fat Clay cap and positive drainage to prevent the
bathtub effect of fill (SlabWorks, 2008). ......................................................................47
2.16. Typical perimeter subdrain (after Greenfield and Shen, 1992). ..................................49
Figure Page

xx
2.17. Relationship between repulsive forces of clay particles to half distance between
particles for montmorillonite (after Philip Low). Similar relationship was developed
by Warkentine et al., (1957) for swell pressure vs. half distance. ...............................51
2.18. Relationship between percentage of swell and percentage of clay (after Seed et
al., 1962). ...................................................................................................................52
2.19. Mineralogical classification (after Pearring, 1963). .....................................................54
2.20. Expansion potential based on cation exchange activity and soil activity (after
Nelson and Miller, 1992). ............................................................................................54
2.21. Mineralogical classification based on Atterberg Limits (Holtz and Kovacs, 1981). .....55
2.22. Soil swell potential in terms of activity and percent clay (Seed et al., 1962). .............57
2.23. Swell potential as a function of wPI (after Zapata et al., 2006). ..................................57
2.24. Expansive soil classification based on index soil properties (Holtz and Gibbs,
1956). ...................................................................................................................58
2.25. Soil characterization in terms of suction compression index (after McKeen, 2001). ..60
2.26. Suction compression index based on mineralogical classification of soil into six
types and soil index properties (after Covar and Lytton, 2001 and also PTI 3
rd

Edition). ...................................................................................................................61
2.27. Typical Soil Water Characteristic Curve (after Fredlund and Rahardjo,1999). ...........70
2.28. Uncertainty Band of Fountain Hills, Arizona clay (Zapata, 1999). ..............................72
2.29. Ink bottle effect (after Miyazaki, 1993). .......................................................................73
2.30. Closed and open hysteresis loops developed for CH soil, Arizona. ...........................73
2.31. Typical unsaturated permeability variation with volumetric water content.
Comparison of empirical data to predicted values. (after Fredlund and Rahardjo,
1993). ...................................................................................................................76
2.32. Schematic of flow classification based on Reynolds number (after Tindall and
Kunkel, 1999). .............................................................................................................80
3.1. Matric suction at depth as a function of TMI and soil type (after Perera, 2003). ........95
Figure Page

xxi
3.2. Schematic of stem-and-footer. ..................................................................................100
3.3. Cross-section of footing in PT slab (after 3
rd
edition PTI, 2004). ..............................101
3.4. Schematic of ribbed PT slab (after 3
rd
edition PTI, 2004). ........................................101
3.5. Schematic of uniform thickness PT slab (PTI, 1998). ...............................................102
3.6. Schematic of uniform thickness PT slab (PTI, 1998). ...............................................102
3.7. Schematic of raft foundation footing. .........................................................................103
3.8. Schematic of raft foundation (AS2780, 1996). ..........................................................103
4.1. Consolidation test on a steel plug; dummy specimen. ..............................................136
4.2. Typical test results of constant volume oedometer test; correction to find swelling
pressure (after Fredlund and Rahardjo, 1993). .........................................................137
4.3. Fredlund SWCC cell schematic (after Perera, 2003). ...............................................139
4.4. Fredlund SWCC cell. .................................................................................................140
4.5. Fredlund SWCC cell set-up (grooved platen not in the picture). ...............................141
4.6. Condensation on bottom plate inside of SWCC cell. ...............................................143
4.7. Condensation on brass ring inside SWCC cell. ........................................................143
4.8. Lateral soil shrinkage during SWCC testing. .............................................................144
4.9. Soil cracking during SWCC test. ...............................................................................145
4.10. Family of SWCC Curves for Plastic Soils Developed by Perera (Perera, 2003). .....146
4.11. Pressure plate and filter paper test results, SWCC estimate. ...................................149
4.12. Filter paper calibration curve. ....................................................................................152
4.13. Sampling Locations superimposed on NRCS swell potential map. ..........................155
5.1. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Swell Potential Map. ..................164
5.2. ASTM D 4829 Expansion Index correlation with Arizona EI test (HBACA, 2006). ...166
5.3. Modified wPI vs. EI
AZ
relationship. ............................................................................167
5.4. Updated Swell Potential Map for Central Arizona, Phoenix Region in the Upper 5-
ft. .................................................................................................................169
Figure Page

xxii
5.5. Updated Swell Potential Map for Central Arizona, Phoenix Region in the Upper 5-
ft with few measured EI
AZ
data points. ......................................................................170
6.1. Edge Moisture Variation Distance as a Function of Thornthwaite Moisture Index
(after Wray, 1978). ....................................................................................................175
6.2. Variation of Soil Suction with Thornthwaite Moisture Index (PTI, 2004). ..................179
6.3. Edge Moisture Variation Selection Chart (PTI, 2004) ...............................................182
6.4. The y
m
sensitivity to LL. .............................................................................................188
6.5. The y
m
sensitivity to PL. ............................................................................................188
6.6. The y
m
sensitivity to % clay. ......................................................................................189
6.7. The y
m
6.8. The y
m
6.9. Sensitivity Analysis of Gravel Correction Factor. ......................................................192
7.1. Comparison of modeling results with different programs, Texas site, a) cumulative
AE and domain accumulation, b) relative errors (after Scanlon et al., 2002). ..........201
7.2. Unsaturated soil properties a) SWCC and b) k(h). ....................................................203
7.3. Convergence Study for Hydrus, a) suction profile b) instantaneous flux. .................204
7.4. Convergence Study for SVFlux, a) suction profile b) instantaneous flux. .................205
7.5. Convergence Study for Vadose/W, a) suction profile b) instantaneous flux. ............206
7.6. Examples of stability issues in various software a) suction oscillation with depth, b)
actual flux oscillation at soil surface, and c) suction with depth increased
monotonically to unreasonable values. .....................................................................207
7.7. Software comparison a) Suction profile, and b) Instantaneous flux. .........................209
7.8. Unsaturated soil properties; a) SWCC and b) Unsaturated soil permeability where
F1 is drying curve fitted though experimental data, F2 is wetting curve due to
backpressure saturation, and F3 is wetting curve due to ponding. ...........................212
Figure Page

xxiii
7.9. Influence of SWCC variation for the same k(h) obtained with F1 and p=12 and
irrigation of 0.001 m/h. a) pore water pressure variation with depth, b) degree of
saturation with depth and c) instantaneous actual flux. ............................................215
7.10. Influence of k(h) variation coupled with appropriate SWCCs and irrigation of 0.001
m/h. a) pore water pressure variation with depth, b) degree of saturation with
depth and c) instantaneous actual flux. .....................................................................216
7.11. Influence of k(h) variation coupled with appropriate SWCCs and PE of 0.0002 m/h.
m/h. a) pore water pressure variation with depth, b) degree of saturation with
depth and c) instantaneous actual flux. .....................................................................217
7.12. Input flux for numerical experiment. ..........................................................................224
7.13. Implemented node spacing. ......................................................................................225
7.14. Instantaneous flux and surface matric suction for adaptive and fixed dt
formulations. ..............................................................................................................226
8.1. Analysis results: a) Input Flux, b) Net fluxes, and c) Matric suction at selected
depths. .................................................................................................................236
8.2. Analysis Results - Instantaneous flux. ......................................................................237
8.3. Boundary condition of control volume. ......................................................................239
8.4. SWCC CH soil. .......................................................................................................241
8.5. Unsaturated Soil Permeability CH soil. ..................................................................241
8.6. SWCC SM-ML soil (after Pereira at al., 2005). ......................................................242
8.7. Unsaturated Soil Permeability SM-ML soil (after Pereira at al., 2005). .................242
8.8. Relationship between AE/PE to total suction for sand, silt and clay (after Wilson,
1997). .................................................................................................................245
8.9. PE for Phoenix area, Arizona (from ADWR, NOAA and AMN 2006) and PET rates
for tall, well watered grass and Bermuda turf landscapes, Cave Creek, Arizona
(from Dep. of Agriculture, 2000). ...............................................................................246
8.10. Suction as a function of RH and T. ...........................................................................247
Figure Page

xxiv
8.11. Desert Landscape Flux. ............................................................................................250
8.12. Turf Landscape Flux. .................................................................................................254
8.13. Turf landscape, average absorbed flux per year for CH soil. ....................................256
8.14. Convergence analysis, January, PE only, desert landscape, SM-ML. .....................260
8.15. Convergence analysis, January, precipitation, desert landscape, SM-ML. ..............260
8.16. Convergence analysis, end of January, desert landscape, SM-ML. .........................261
8.17. Components of PE for PE flux simplification analysis. ..............................................264
8.18. Instantaneous and net AE for PE averaging analysis; CH soil. ................................265
8.19. Suction at depth vs. time for PE averaging analysis; CH soil. ..................................266
8.20. Suction profile at the end of the PE flux averaging analysis; CH soil. ......................266
8.21. Suction at depth vs. time for desert landscape analysis, a) CH, b) SM-ML. .............268
8.22. Suction profile at the end of analysis for desert landscape analysis, a) CH, b) SM-
ML. .................................................................................................................269
8.23. Instantaneous and cumulative flux for desert landscape analysis, a) CH, b) SM-
ML. .................................................................................................................270
8.24. Suction at depth vs. time for turf landscape analysis; a)CH, and b) SM-ML. ...........272
8.25. Suction profile at the end of analysis for turf landscape analysis; a) CH, and b)
SM-ML. .................................................................................................................273
8.26. Instantaneous and cumulative flux for turf landscape analysis; a) CH, and b) SM-
ML. .................................................................................................................274
8.27. Instantaneous flux and domain accumulation for 2D turf landscape analysis with
HF and average absorbed flux obtained from 1D analysis. ......................................276
8.28. Variation of matric suction at the soil surface with time for 2D turf landscape
analysis; a) HF, and b) average absorbed flux from 1D analysis. ............................277
8.29. Variation of suction with depth and time below the edge of the slab-on-grade for
2D turf landscape analysis; a) HF, and b) average absorbed flux from 1D analysis. 278
Figure Page

xxv
8.30. Comparison of distance of influence to 1000kPa obtained with HF and average
absorbed flux obtained from 1D analysis. .................................................................279
8.31. Suction variation with depth and time, a) CH, b) SM-ML. .........................................281
8.32. Net flux per year for CH and SM-ML soils. ................................................................282
8.33. Progression of wetting and drying fronts. ..................................................................282
8.34. Profile at wettest and driest conditions in year 6, a) CH, b) SM-ML. ........................283
8.35. Progression of wetting front for CH soil due to rainfall. .............................................284
8.36. Suction variation with time and depth for CH soil, desert landscape with moist IC. .285
8.37. Profile at wettest and driest conditions for CH soil, desert landscape with moist IC. 285
8.38. Suction variation with time and depth for CH soil zoomed in on precipitation in
December, desert landscape with moist IC. ..............................................................286
8.39. Suction variation with depth and time, a) CH, b) SM-ML. .........................................288
8.40. Profile at wettest and driest conditions, a) CH, b) SM-ML. .......................................289
8.41. SM-ML soil, plum like distribution of moisture with depth and time to maximum
depth of 1.8 m in November. .....................................................................................290
8.42. Suction variation with depth and time for CH soil, a) surface detail in 3-D , b) 2-D
plot. .................................................................................................................291
8.43. Suction variation with depth and time for SM-ML. .....................................................292
8.44. Depth of Influence for CH and SM-ML Soils. ............................................................292
8.45. Depth of influence due to irrigation a) CH (year 1), b) SM-ML (year 1). ...................293
8.46. Profile at wettest and driest conditions, a) CH (year 6), b) SM-ML (year 1). ............294
8.47. Profile at wettest and driest conditions, a) CH, b) SM-ML. .......................................295
8.48. Depth of influence due to irrigation for CH soil and moist IC. ...................................296
8.49. Monotonic Progression of Wetting Front. ..................................................................298
8.50: Suction variation at the soil surface for CH soil and desert landscape .....................300
8.51. Suction variation at the soil surface for CH soil, 2D turf landscape, average flux
analysis. .................................................................................................................301
Figure Page

xxvi
8.52. Depth of influence: horizontal inwards the slab, vertical below the edge of slab and
vertical 1-m away from the edge at landscaped conditions; 2D turf landscape,
average flux analysis. ................................................................................................302
8.53. Distance of lateral moisture migration through soil below a slab. .............................303
8.54. Suction variation at the soil surface for CH soil, 2D turf landscape, average flux
analysis. .................................................................................................................303
9.1. SWCCs and Equilibrium Conditions below Residential Foundation for Site #4;
Insitu, Undisturbed Soil Testing; Equilibrium Suction Identification Curve. ..............310
9.2. SWCC dependence on dry density; Reconstructed Soil Testing on CL with LL=29,
PI=12, and P
200
=63%. ...............................................................................................310
9.3. Suction Range of the Suction Identification Curve. ...................................................311
9.4. CH soil Identification of Equilibrium Suction ...........................................................313
9.5. SM soil Identification of Equilibrium Suction ..........................................................314
9.6. CL soil Identification of Equilibrium Suction ...........................................................316
9.7. SC soil Identification of Equilibrium Suction ...........................................................318
9.8. Sources of structure distress a) courtyard and b) concentrated roof runoff. ..........325
9.9. Sources of structure distress a corner the house creates with garage where
positive drainage away from structure is hard to maintain. .......................................326
9.10. Sources of structure distress poor drainage, utilities in side yard, vegetation in
side yard, gutter discharge into side yard. ................................................................326
9.11. Sources of structure distress AC condensation discharge next to foundation. ......327
9.12. Sources of structure distress soil erosion due to roof runoff. .................................328
9.13. Sources of structure distress soil erosion/undermining of low density soil below
homeowner installed flatwork ....................................................................................329
9.14. Sources of structure distress poor drainage. .........................................................330
9.15. Sources of structure distress poor drainage (positive slope), AC condensation
discharge next to foundation, turf landscape adjacent to foundation. .......................330
Figure Page

xxvii
9.16. Sources of structure distress homeowner modified drainage and grading,
sidewalk blocks drainage, AC condensation discharge next to foundation. .............331
sidewalk/pool blocks drainage, vegetation next to foundation. .................................331
vegetable garden is a source of water. .....................................................................332
decorative boarder blocks drainage, sprinkler discharge next to foundation. ...........332
9.20. Sources of structure distress area of potential water ponding, sprinkler discharge
next to foundation. .....................................................................................................333
9.21. Degree of saturation below residential foundations at depth between 3-5. ............334
9.22. Measured saturation and suction variation below slab-on-grade for a) turf
landscape, b) desert landscape, c) mixed landscape or desert landscape with
areas of potential ponding. ........................................................................................336
9.23. Equilibrium Suction below foundation. ......................................................................337
9.24. Potential Slab Shapes. ..............................................................................................339

xxviii
NOMENCLATURE

Ac = Activity ratio,
AE =
Actual soil evaporation
mm
day
(
(

,
= a
f

a
v

Fredlund and Xing SWCC fitting parameters,
=
Coefficient of compressibility
2
m
N
(
(

,
= b
f

Ca
=
++
Calcium,
CEAc = Cation Exchange Activity,
CEC = Cation Exchange Capacity,
= c
f

C
h
= Suction compression index,
= C(h) Adjustment factor which forces the SWCC through zero water content at a
suction of 10
6
C
s

kPa,
= Compression rebound curve
C
v
= Volumetric specific heat [J/(m
3
C
v

*C)]
=
Coefficient of consolidation
2
cm
s
(
(

,
Cw = Climatic rating,
D
my
= Vapor diffusion coefficient [m
3
D
v

*s/kg],
= Diffusion coefficient of water vapor through soil [kg*m/(kN*s)],
D
vap
= Molecular diffusivity of water vapor in air [m
2
e
m

/s].
= Center lift edge moisture variation distance,
e = Void ratio or
e
1

exponent,
= Void ratio from the consolidation curve; the first point considered for the
calculation,

xxix
e
2
= Void ratio from the consolidation curve; the second point considered for the
calculation,
EI = Expansion Index,
EI
AZ
= Expansion Index modified (Arizona),
e
m
= Moisture variation distance,
F = Percent of soil passing US sieve number 200,
F
F
= Floor flatness,
F
f
= Soil fabric factor,
FL = Local levelness,
g =
Constant of gravitational acceleration
2
9.81
m
s
(
(

.
G
s(coarse)
= Specific gravity of solids,
h = u/
H
g+y, total head equal to pressure plus elevation heads [m],
=
+
Hydrogen,
H
0
= Initial height of soil specimen [in],
H
2
=
dr
Average height of the specimen when the pressure is increased from
1
'
to
2
'
;
The value is divided by two for double drainage test [cm
2
h
r

],
= Total suction corresponding to the residual water content,
r
[kPa],
= h
r

Hs
= Depth to constant suction,
H = Change in height of soil specimen [in],
h = Height of water in a tube [m],
Change in total suction [pF],
H/L =
I
p

Hydraulic gradient
= Instability index,
I
pt
= Instability index,
J = In PTI procedure, % of soil by weight greater than US sieve #10,

xxx
k, k
s
, k
sat
= Saturated soil permeability [m/s],
K = Absolute temperature [K],
= k() Unsaturated soil permeability [m/h],
k(h) = Unsaturated soil permeability [m/h],
k(
= )y Unsaturated soil permeability [m/h],

K =
+
Potassium,
K
2
SO
4
= Potassium sulfate,
KCl = Potassium chloride,
k
unsat
= Unsaturated hydraulic conductivity,
L
v
= Latent heat of vaporization for water [J/kg],
m = Fitting parameter in van Genuchten permeability equation.
m
2w
=
0 / u
Mg
, slope of SWCC in Fredlund and Sing equation,
=
++
Magnesium,
= m
s
Mass of dried soil [g],
= m
w

n
Mass of water [g],
= Porosity,
Fitting parameter in van Genuchten permeability equation.
Na =
+
Sodium,
NaCl =
NH
4
Sodium chloride,
=
+
Ammonium,
P
200
= Percent passing US sieve number 200,
PE =
Potential evaporation
mm
day
(
(

,
PI
e
= Effective plasticity index of the soil,
R =
Universal molar gas constant
8.314
J
mole K
(
(

,
RH = Relative humidity [%],

xxxi
S = Source or sink in Richards equation [m/h],
Degree of soil saturation [%],
Slope of the total suction in pF,
t = Time [h],
T = Time factor [T
90
= 0.848],
Absolute temperature [K]
TMI = Thornthwaite Moisture Index,
t
90
= The time it takes to reach 90% of primary consolidation due to applied load; the
value is used when Taylor method is applied [s],
u = Change in total suction,
u
a
= Pore air pressure [kPa],
Pore air pressure [101.3 kPa],
u
a
u
w
= Matric suction [kPa],
(u
a
u
w
)
b
= Matric suction at air entry value [kPa],
u
v
= u
vs
RH, partial pore pressure due to water vapor [kPa],
u
w
= Pore water pressure [kPa],
u
v
= Partial pressure of pore water vapor [kPa],
u
vs
= Saturation pressure of water vapor over a flat surface of pure water at the same
temperature [kPa],
= V Total volume [ft
3
V
w

].
=
Specific volume of water
(
kg
m
w
3
001 . 0 ,
1
,
Domain Volume of Water;The volume of water retained in the entire domain at
specified time. The output quantity is given per 1 m
2
surface area.

xxxii
V
w
= Domain Accumulation; The volume of water absorbed in or lost from the domain
within analyzed time period calculated as the difference between the final and
initial volume of water in the profile. The output quantity is given per 1 m
2

surface area.
= w Gravimetric water content [%],
= w
opt
Optimum water content [%],
= wPI Weighted plasticity Index,
W
v
=
Molecular mass of water vapor
(
kmol
kg
016 . 18
,
= Change in quantity,
y = Elevation [m],
y
m
= Differential center lift movement,
Differential soil movement,
Differential swell,
y
s
= Differential soil movement
Z
s
= Active zone depth,
= Tortuosity factor of soil,
Diffusion coefficient,
'
swell/shrink
= Modified unsaturated diffusion coefficient,
'
weighted
= Weighted modified soil diffusion coefficient,
= Crossectional area of soil available for vapor flow,
= Thermal conductivity [W/(m*C)],
Pore size distribution index, dimensionless,
= surface tension for air water interface [0.0073 N/m];
' = Effective stress applied to the sample [kPa],
1
= Effective consolidation stress from the consolidation curve; the first point
considered for the calculation,

xxxiii
2
= Effective consolidation stress from the consolidation curve; the second point
= Large relaxation constant
w
= Unit weight of water [9.81 kN/m
3
]
=
d
Dry unit weight of soil [kN/m
3
]
=
d max

h

Maximum unit weight [pcf]
= Suction Compression Index
h swell
= Swell suction compression index during swell.
mod
= Modified suction compression index
o
= Suction compression index for 100% clay
t(wet)
= Moist unit weight of soil
= Volumetric water content
r
= Residual volumetric water content, dimensionless,
s
= Saturated volumetric water content or porosity of the soil;
=
v
Volumetric water content,
=
d

w

Dry density [pcf]
= Density of water

= Matric suction [kPa],
Total soil suction in the soil [kPa]
T
= Total suction [kPa]
% = percent
%fc = percent fine clay
=

r
r
m
, normalized water content, dimensionless,
= micro meter

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Overview
Problems associated with expansive soils are not widely appreciated outside the areas
of their occurrence. The amount of damage caused by expansive soils has been estimated to
exceed fifteen billion dollars annually. In years of extreme temperatures or rainfall the damage is
most severe (Wray and Meyer, 2004). The structures commonly affected by expansive soils are
residential structures, roads, irrigation canals and spillways. This report deals exclusively with
the moisture flow through expansive soils in semi-arid regions in the context of slab-on-grade
performance; however the theories presented and applications can be extended to other
engineering structures, and other environmental conditions.
Through observation and research, it was well established that the damage to structures
built on expansive soils is mainly caused by change in soil suction (water content) of soil that has
shrink/swell potential. The potential change in water content is generally attributed to the
environmental conditions, change in depth of water table, water uptake by vegetation, removal of
vegetation or excessive irrigation of landscape. Due to those factors, slab-on-grade foundations
must resist two types of expansive soil movement: short-term cyclic heave/shrinkage around the
perimeter of the foundation and long-term progressive volume change beneath the center of the
slab (Day, 1994). The slab can display three types of deformation, tilt, edge lift and edge drop.
In the first scenario, one edge of the slab is higher relative to the opposite edge with a smooth
transition between. Tilt is commonly observed in very stiff foundations where the soils below one
side of the property heaved or shrank. In edge drop deformation, the edges of the foundation
are lower relative to the center. Edge drop can be caused by number of mechanisms which are
hard to identify without benchmarked surveys before and after movement; they include
settlement, compression or shrinkage below the foundation perimeter or heave below the center
of the foundation. Based on literature review, heave below the foundation might be caused by
monotonic moisture migration or a pipe leak. Soil swell around the slab perimeter is commonly
manifested by raised edges of the slab and is described as the edge lift condition.

2
Residential foundations are typically constructed on unsaturated soils; therefore the
implementation of unsaturated soils mechanics into the slab-on-grade design is highly
appropriate. Although the theory for the analysis of geotechnical problems involving unsaturated
soils has been developed and has been known for the last four decades, and despite the well-
recognized importance of suction, unsaturated soil mechanics is not widely implemented by
practicing engineers. An investigation of practice throughout the Unites States showed that less
than 20% of commercial geotechnical laboratories performed suction measurements on a
regular basis (Zapata, 1999). This fact is attributed to several factors such as: 1) laboratory and
field testing of unsaturated soils is perceived as costly, time consuming, and difficult to conduct,
2) large uncertainty associated with the direct measurement and/or prediction of the unsaturated
soil properties (Zapata, 1999), 3) from a mathematical perspective the numerical solution of
Richards equation, which describes the unsaturated moisture flow through soil is a very
challenging problem characterized by stability and convergence difficulties, 4) numerical
modeling of moisture flow through unsaturated soil with any of the available public domain or
commercial software is non-trivial, and 5) the numerical solution may take a long time and
requires the use of fast computers.
Due to the above-mentioned difficulties, the Arizona Homebuilders Association of
Central Arizona (HBACA) sponsored a research program on expansive soils to 1) identify the
depth and magnitude of wetting below residential foundations and under free field conditions, 2)
identify factors associated with residential construction distress, and 3) assess foundation
performance under various landscape schemes. A number of steps were taken towards the goal
of developing a better understanding of expansive soils behavior and field conditions leading to
problems with expansive soils. These steps included: 1) numerical modeling of moisture flow
through expansive soils in one- and two-dimensions. Two extreme surface flux conditions were
considered, desert and excessively irrigated turf landscapes. The numerical results are
applicable to regions with low to moderate expansion potential and Phoenix, Arizona
environmental conditions; 2) development of map illustration identifying location with low to

3
medium swell potential in the Phoenix Valley; 3) comparisons of the numerical results to field
evidence on depth of wetting and depth of active zone, as well as to foundation field
performance; 4) evaluation of stability, convergence and numerical challenges for modeling of
unsaturated moisture flow through expansive soils using Richards equation. Sources of those
instabilities were identified and potential numerical improvements discussed; 5) survey of
Arizona region practitioners to identify current design and construction practices, and 6)
statistical analysis of forensic investigations to identify the nature and common causes of
residential distress.

1.2 Historical Background
The estimation of moisture flow through unsaturated soil for geotechnical engineering
applications is a multifaceted problem involving a combination of empiricism and unsaturated soil
mechanics theory. Due to the complexity of the problem and difficulties associated with the
implementation, the industry has adopted a semi-empirical approach to the design and mitigation
of foundations on expansive soils for residential dwellings. Many of these methodologies have
been developed based on regional environmental conditions and therefore are applicable only to
those specific regions of the world. Difficulties frequently arise when local experience is applied
to different environmental conditions and soil properties. The literature review presented
summarizes empirical findings relative to the moisture flow through unsaturated soil and the
observed impact on lightly loaded structures.
Two types of slab systems are commonly used in residential construction, conventional
stem-and-footer (with un-reinforced or lightly reinforced slab) and post-tensioned slabs. The
design methodologies, in large part, are based on the anticipated post-construction change in
the depth of wetting and degree of saturation. It is assumed that the soil suction of the
undeveloped site comes to equilibrium with the existing environmental conditions at depth
unaffected by seasonal climate variation. Thus the soil suction is referred to as the equilibrium.
Based on literature findings, the active zone depth was estimated to vary between 1.2 m to 12 m

4
(4 feet to 39 feet), depending on the definition of the term and environmental conditions of test
region (McKeen, 1980, 1981, 1985; ONeill and Poormoayed, 1980; Thompson, 1992;
Thompson and McKeen, 1995; Wray, 1989, 1997; Durkee, 2000, Chao et al., 2006).
An introduction of an impermeable cover at the soil surface, such as a slab-on-grade or
a pavement, results in elimination of precipitation and reduction in potential evaporation (Day,
1994). Also, it is common for conditions in landscaped areas to change relative to pre-developed
conditions. With time the suction within the soil profile comes to an equilibrium with the new
environmental conditions. It is sometimes postulated that the suction below the slab is constant
with depth and equal to the initial equilibrium suction (Nelson et al., 2001). Based on empirical
evidence, the process of monotonic moisture migration due to capillary forces, moisture
condensation below the slab and temperature gradients (Chen, 1988) occurs up to six years
(Donaldson, 1965). Furthermore, it was observed that the 6-10 year long equilibration process is
followed by a uniform relative reduction in heave (Donaldson, 1965), which might be related to
fatigue of swelling. Fatigue of swelling refers to a decrease in a soils swelling potential as the
drying-wetting cycles repeat. Chen (1988) illustrated that swell levels off at the fifth cycle when
relative equilibrium is reached.
A long-term study of slab-on-grade behavior by Wray (1992) illustrated that short-term
post-construction slab movement in arid regions is attributed to seasonal climate variation
resulting in edge lift slab distortion. Continued monitoring revealed slow but increasing mound in
the center of the slab, indicating that subsequently center lift distortion might occur if soils are not
placed at the appropriate moisture content. On the other hand in humid regions, the short-term
edge lift slab distress is quickly replaced with a center lift scenario, which is likely to occur due to
edge drop (Wray, 1992).
An important parameter for slab design is the suction variation below the edges of the
slab due to environmental or human imposed conditions. It has been postulated that the suction
may vary 1) between liquid limit and shrinkage limit (conclusion based on measured gravimetric
water content data of SM and CL soils below 10 000 slab-on-grades in Houston and San

5
Antonio, Texas, (Stryron et al., 2001)), 2) between 98 kPa and 9 800 kPa (McKeen, 2001), and
3) between 33 kPa to 3 300kPa in terms of total suction (PTI, 2004).
The edge moisture variation distance, e
m
, defined as the distance over which moisture
will change due to wetting or drying influences around the perimeter of the foundation (PTI,
2004), is difficult to measure experimentally. Few case studies include measured e
m
values in
arid regions. The existing data shows that e
m
varies between 1.75 m (study of bike trail by
Nevels, 2001) and more than 4.5 m (study of slab-on-grade where e
m
exceeded half of the slab
width Durkee, 2000). The e
m
might approach the active zone depth (McKeen et al., 1990),
although the PTI (2004) procedure limits the magnitude of e
m
to 3 m (9 ft).
The slab-soil system performance is frequently evaluated in terms of slab relative
deflection, angular distortion, or overall magnitude and extent of superstructure distress. Based
on forensic engineering studies, cosmetic damage was correlated to 1.1-1.75 slab relative
deflection and 1/300 angular distortion. Structural damage was found to occur at relative
deflection larger than 3.5 and maximum angular distortion of 1/100 (Day, 1990, Skempton and
MacDonald (1956), Marsh and Thoeny (1999)). The study of as-built floor levelness, however,
suggests that these distress markers should be used with sound engineering judgement. Newly
constructed slabs were found to exhibit on average 0.5 relative slab deflection and average
angular distortion of 1/340. These values as-constructed values were found to be as large as
2.2 and 1/71 respectively, values corresponding to structural damage (Koenig, 1991, Marsh and
Thoeny, 1999, Walsh, et al., 2001, Noorany et al., 2005).
Mitigation measures are employed to minimize potential soil movement and
superstructure distress. They include 1) removal, replacement and recompaction, 2) chemical
stabilization 3) passive moisture control with moisture barriers and 4) active moisture control.
The economical feasibility of a mitigation measure depends on availability of material and
expertise of mitigation team, as well as the timing of identification of the problem. In Arizona,
active moisture control in the form of pad pre-wetting is the most commonly implemented
mitigation method. The effectiveness of these methods remains to be quantified.

6
The literature review consensus message is that the depth of moisture migration,
magnitude of suction variation with depth in open fields and below impermeable surfaces, the
distance of horizontal moisture migration below a slab, and soil-slab system behavior (with or
without mitigation measures) are highly dependent on 1) soil properties and 2) environmental
and human imposed conditions around the edges of the structure. Geotechnical engineers are
faced with the challenge of estimating design parameters for foundation system design
purposes. In general, design guidelines provide a cookie cutter methodology developed based
on a local experience in a geographic region, which may or may not be applicable to different
soil and climatic conditions. When limited empirical data is available, numerical modeling of
moisture flow through unsaturated soil can be performed to aid in selection of design
parameters.
Numerical analysis of moisture flow through unsaturated soil involves implementation of
unsaturated soil mechanics principles by solving Richards equation, a parabolic, stiff, advection-
diffusion partial differential equation derived from mass conservation. Stability, convergence and
time efficiency are problematic issues inherent to this class of problem. The currently
implemented standard approach to solving the PDE follows a method of lines, also referred to
as semi-discretization, where spatial derivatives are first approximated using a variety of (usually
low order) finite difference or finite element schemes, and the resulting discrete system of
ordinary differential equations (which also accounts for boundary conditions) is then solved using
a time integrator. Three commonly used numerical software were reviewed: SVFlux, Vadose/W
and Hydrus. It was concluded that numerical modeling of moisture flow through unsaturated soil
is a very challenging and time consuming task, but it is helpful in identification of general
moisture migration trends due to various soil and flux conditions.

1.3 Research Objective and Scope
The main objectives of this study on expansive soils include 1) identification of the depth
and magnitude of wetting below residential foundations and under free field conditions, 2)

7
identification of local practice, 3) identification of factors associated with residential construction
distress and 4) assessment of foundation performance under various landscape schemes. The
study resulted in the following research contributions:
1. Identification of challenges in numerical modeling of surface flux and associated
infiltration into unsaturated soils in arid regions.
2. Numerical modeling of infiltration into expansive soils for various landscape and surface
water control schemes.
3. Surveys of practitioners to assess Phoenix region practices used in the design of
residential foundation systems on expansive soils.
4. Development of an updated map of expansive soils distribution in the Phoenix region,
commonly used by practitioners to assess soil properties in the preliminary analysis.
5. Evaluation of the PTI procedure for slab-on-grade foundations, for Arizona soils and
climatic conditions, the predominant methodology for current practice in Arizona.
6. Study of the suction profiles beneath slabs for equilibrium conditions, using direct
suction determination and SWCC correlations.
7. Surveys of Phoenix area geotechnical firms to identify areas in the Phoenix Valley were
forensic investigations thought to be linked to the presence of expansive soils have been
conducted. This data was reviewed for determination of trends and soil expansion
potential, as well as site landscape and draining conditions.
8. Assessment of numerical modeling results through comparison for consistency with
forensic study findings and field data on depth and degree of saturation (suction).

1.4 Research Methodology
The research methodology can be divided into four major parts 1) laboratory testing, 2)
numerical modeling, 3) data collection and 4) development of maps. Soil profiles from beneath
sixteen (16) slabs were obtained for identification of soil index properties, variation of saturation
and measured suction with depth. The selected sites were located in expansive soil regions in

8
the Phoenix metropolitan area as identified from the NRCS soil map (www.nrcs.usda.gov). The
results obtained were used for 1) identification of input properties for modeling (soil properties
and initial suction conditions), 2) identification of input properties for the PTI procedure to
determine the range of potential results for Arizona soil and climatic conditions and 3)
identification of suctions below foundations.
The first research objective, identification of the depth and magnitude of wetting below
residential foundations and under free field conditions, and the fourth objective, assessment of
foundation performance under various landscape schemes were satisfied, in part, through
numerical modeling. A finite element program, SVFlux 5.80, was selected to model 1D and 2D
moisture flow through two uniform unsaturated soil types, fat clay (PI=53) and silt (PI=12).
Modeling was carried out to determine the degree of saturation, the horizontal and the vertical
distance of moisture penetration under the slab using typical Arizona environmental and human
imposed flux boundary conditions. The first flux scenario considered represents desert or low
water use landscape. In this case, the irrigation was assumed to be negligible. The appropriate
precipitation input was determined by performing statistical analysis of 24 years of precipitation
data obtained from NCDC (www.ncdc.noaa.gov). It was found that average annual rainfall of 8
inches is typical for Arizona climatic conditions. Similarly, the potential evaporation of 91 inches
per year was obtained from 1) US Weather Service, Arizona Department of Water Resources, 2)
NOAA, Western Regional Climate Center, and 3) Arizona Meteorological Network. The second
surface flux condition considered mimicked the typical watering pattern for turf landscaping,
where the irrigation and precipitation provide about 101 inches of water annually, while the
anticipated evapotraspiration is only about 46 inches annually (based on data published by
University of Arizona, Dep. of Agriculture (2000).
In order to satisfy the second objective, identification of local practice, numerous
geotechnical, structural and construction companies were interviewed. Additional firms were
solicited for geotechnical and forensic data. The geotechnical data of soil saturation and index
properties with depth were used to help complete the first objective. It was found that the

9
engineering community frequently uses the NRCS map in the preliminary assessment of soil
properties. As part of this study, an updated map, incorporating the geotechnical data obtained
in the survey was developed using ArcGIS.
The field data available from below foundations, free field undeveloped desert regions
and agricultural land were compared with the general conclusions drawn from numerical
modeling. Additionally, the forensic data of floor elevation differential, type and magnitude of
structure distress, and landscape and drainage were used together with numerical modeling to
satisfy objectives three and four, identification of factors associated with residential construction
distress and assessment of foundation performance under various landscape schemes.

1.5 Outline of Report
The first chapter is used as an introduction and for organizational purposes. Objectives
and methodologies are addressed. The main focus of Chapter 2 is literature review. The
literature review includes a wide range of topics, whose understanding was necessary for the
completion of the research objectives. It includes 1) factors affecting swell and moisture
migration; 2) field observations of moisture flow and heave; 3) the soil response to changes in
suction followed by 4) relative slab deviation from horizontal of newly constructed slab
suggesting that the magnitude of structure distress cannot be identified from floor level survey
alone, since the initial construction conditions are unknown; 5) commonly implemented
mitigation measures; 6) classification of swell potential based on soil index properties. The
presented ideas were used in the development of the PTI procedure. Also one of the
correlations developed was used in updating the NRCS swell potential map; 7) introduction to
unsaturated soil mechanics theory; 8) methods of matric suction measurement, and 9) numerical
methods and available commercial software used in the solution of Richards equation.
The focus of Chapter 3 is residential construction failure criteria and current practice
identified through survey of Phoenix, Arizona area geotechnical, structural and construction
professionals located in Phoenix, Arizona. A brief overview of design methodologies

10
implemented in the USA and other countries is given. Based on the interviews, the Post-
Tensioning Institute (PTI) slab-on-grade design procedure was identified as the most commonly
implemented methodology in Arizona for the design and construction of residential slab-on-grade
on expansive soils.
The soil profiles analysed are presented in Chapter 4, laboratory testing. The laboratory
testing involved the collection of sixteen (16) soil profiles from below existing slabs-on-grade.
The soils were tested for index properties, swell potential, saturated soil permeability and matric
suction. The body of the Chapter 4 gives detailed descriptions of soil testing performed and a
data summary. The detailed laboratory results are illustrated in Appendix B.
The interviews with industry revealed the significance on the Natural Resource
Conservation Service, NRCS, swell potential map in the preliminary identification of soil
properties. In Chapter 5 this map was updated using soil data supplied by practitioners and
correlations developed in this study.
Also, based on the interviews with industry, it was identified that the 3
rd
edition PTI
procedure is the most commonly implemented methodology for design and construction of
residential slab-on-grade on expansive soil. Chapter 6 describes this methodology in great
detail, along with presentation of a sensitivity analysis and a discussion of design values for
Arizona soil and climatic conditions.
Chapter 7 discusses numerical challenges associated with the solution of Richards
equation. From a mathematical perspective, Richards equation is an advection-diffusion partial
differential equation (PDE) with stiff and parabolic characteristics. Equations in this class exhibit
stability and convergence challenges, whose solution require specially developed stiff numerical
solvers. This chapter discusses proper modeling techniques that a user of developed
commercial or public domain software should implement. The chapter concludes with future
research for implementation of more advanced solution methodologies developed by the
mathematical community.

11
Modeling results for infiltration into expansive soils for various landscape and surface
water control schemes are presented in Chapter 8. Two soil types were analysed, CH and SM-
ML representing the range of typical soils found in the Phoenix Valley region that might exhibit
shrink/swell. Results for 1-D and 2-D analysis are discussed, while details are presented in
Appendix D.
The focus of Chapter 8 is the presentation and the analysis of field and forensic data.
The field evidence on depth of wetting and active zone depth is provided, where the degree of
saturation with depth versus undeveloped desert and previously agricultural land is given. The
moisture/suction conditions below foundations, correlation of distress magnitude to landscape
type, drainage and grading, analysis of differential slab differential and identification of factors
contributing to residential construction distress are also discussed. Finally, the locations of
forensic investigations were mapped and compared to the updated NRCS map, and the
correlation between soil properties and forensic investigation incidence identified. Conclusions,
recommendation, summary of findings, and future research are given in Chapter 10.

1.6 Key Findings
The following key findings were identified from this research study:
1. Richards equation is a stiff parabolic PDE whose solution requires the implementation
of a stiff, implicit numerical solver. Methods typically implemented in software exhibit
instabilities suggesting an implementation of pseudo-implicit solver. The instabilities are
usually overcome by reducing mesh spacing, time step or both.
2. The solution variability due to the uncertainty of the unsaturated soil properties is large
and potentially larger than the variability associated with different software selection.
3. Flux averaging can be successfully used in the analysis of moisture flow through soil
when flux is due to atmospheric conditions (no ponding), and when no runoff occurs. On
the other hand, if runoff takes place, the flux averaging (e.i. over the period of a month)
overestimates the depth of moisture influence and degree of saturation.

12
4. Desert landscape results in very shallow moisture migration soils common to the Arizona
region; 5-cm due to precipitation; 0.5-m seasonal suction variation.
5. Edge moisture variation distance obtained from numerical modeling was limited to 10 cm
under desert landscape conditions.
6. Turf landscape results in an increased wetting front (9-m after 34 years for CH soil and
7-m after 2 years for SM-ML soil) and very shallow depth of drying (2 cm). Short-term
seasonal suction variations of 0.5 m for SM-ML soil and 1-m from CH soil was observed
in the numerical analysis.
7. Edge moisture variation distance of 35 cm was observed for CH soil under turf
landscape conditions for the conditions considered in numerical modeling. Monotonic
moisture migration below the slab leveled off during 5th year at 2.2-m.
8. The critical scenarios with respect to foundation performance are 1) poor drainage
resulting in 100% soil saturation up to the depth of 1-m. 2) initial moist conditions with
desert landscape.
9. In general, the failure mode when comparing the 2nd Edition PTI procedure to 3rd
edition is from center lift to edge lift, and increase in slab thickness.
10. In PTI procedure appears to overestimate volume change in extremely wet and
extremely dry soil, but may give reasonable results in the intermediate range.
11. Suctions below foundations depend on landscape type. For turf landscape, the
equilibrium suctions reach an average of about 500 kPa based on field measurements.
Desert landscape leads to dry suction below the foundations with an average of 1500
kPa based on field data.
12. Problems associated with foundation performance are typically caused by improper
drainage and grading.
13. Based on field evidence, for native desert profiles the average degree of saturation for
SM, SC/CL, and CH is 30%, 40%, and 70% respectively; whereas for agricultural areas
it is about 40%, 50% and 80% respectively within the upper 20'.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction
Moisture flow through unsaturated soil is an extremely complex phenomenon consisting
of fluid transport at micro-, meso-, and macroscales. The estimation of the phenomenon is
further complicated by heterogeneity of soil medium, nonlinear unsaturated soil properties and
volume change characteristics of moisture sensitive soils at various degrees of saturation.
Although the first physically based formulation was introduced almost 100 years ago by Green
and Ampt in 1911 followed by Richards continuity equation in 1931 the topic continues to be
researched by engineers, soil scientists, hydrologists and mathematicians. The current research
is focused on describing soil constitutive relationships, unsaturated soil properties, physical
components of the flow phenomenon, mathematical algorithms and numerical methods needed
to solve a form of Richards equation, a nonlinear, parabolic, partial differential equation to which
analytical solution does not exist.
Simplified solutions to estimate the extent and degree of wetting are typically proposed
by civil engineers with an eye on practical and economical approach for design of engineered
structures. Implementation of these methodologies is especially important in arid or semi-arid
regions and moisture sensitive soil sites, where the soil might experience shrinkage, expansion
or collapse. Volume change is a response of moisture sensitive soil to a transient wetting
process. It depends on soil properties, loading conditions imposed on the soil mass and flux
conditions at the soil surface. The potential change in water content is generally attributed to
environmental conditions, human imposed irrigation, influence of vegetation and accidental
wetting due to broken pipelines.
An inadequate estimation of moisture flow has two types of economical impacts. On
one hand, it cost more to build an over-designed structure and on the other hand it is expensive
and inconvenient to fix and upgrade inadequately performing an under-designed structure. The
amount of damage caused by expansive soils has been estimated to exceed two billion dollars
annually. In years of extreme temperatures or rainfall the damage estimate reaches seven
billion dollars per year (Chen, 1988). The structures commonly affected by expansive soils are

14
residential structures of conventional construction, and impervious surfaces such as roads, and
sidewalks.
The economical impact of moisture flow through unsaturated soil is the source of
continuous search for better understanding of the phenomenon and its implementation into
engineering practice. The literature review presented here consists of an up to date overview of
proposed scientific and practical methodologies to analyze the moisture flow through soil and
access its impact on performance of residential structures. It summarizes: 1) factors affecting
moisture migration, 2) field data of depth and degree of wetting 3) classification of swell potential
4) performance of residential structures on expansive soil 5) empirically based methodologies to
estimate moisture flow 6) unsaturated soil mechanics theory and finally 7) available and
implemented numerical methods that solve a form of Richards equation.

2.2 Factors Affecting Swell and Moisture Migration
In general, moisture migration studies perform a function either to estimate the
magnitude of soil volume change for construction purposes or to estimate contaminant transport
for remediation purposes. Since the focus of this research is on the performance of residential
structures, the presented literature review includes relevant discussions about volume change.
The estimate of heave depends on many factors, which are not easy to quantify. Most
importantly, the heave estimate is a function of moisture migration. The major factors affecting
moisture flow though unsaturated soil, as described by Chen (1988), are listed below. The
subsequent sections provide further details about moisture migration and heave.
1. Climate.
Climatic conditions such as precipitation, evaporation and transpiration influence the
moisture content of soil. The ratio of precipitation to potential evapotranspiration is
defined as Thornthwaite Moisture Index, TMI, (Thornthwaite, 1948). A relationship was
found between TMI and moisture content of soil under free field conditions suggesting
that volume change can be determined based on this parameter alone (Hamilton, 1969).

15
One dimensional vertical ground movement study done by Sattler (1990) indicates that if
a relationship between actual and potential evapotraspiration can be established, then a
simple TMI based model can be used to determine the volume change of open-field
soils.
2. Thickness of expansive strata.
In most cases, the thickness of the expansive soil stratum extends down to a great
depth. The practical thickness is governed by the surface water penetration into the
stratum. The depth of effective soil stratum is defined in Section 2.3.2.
3. Depth to water table.
The fluctuation of water table is also a factor contributing to magnitude of net swell.
When the water table drops and then subsequently rises, the flow of water doesnt
always follow the previous moisture flow paths. New water flow paths can develop
leading to swelling in areas previously unaffected by volume change.
4. Nature and degree of desiccation of soil.
The swell potential of soil depends on the percent and type of clay mineral present in the
soil that in turn depends on the degree of desiccation of the parent rock. Additionally,
desiccation has an impact on preferential moisture flow characteristics.
5. Permeability
The permeability of soil determines the flow rate into the soil by either gravitational flow
or diffusion. The higher the permeability, the greater the depth to which moisture
penetrates.
6.
Extraneous influences are hard to predict. They include sudden rise of perched water
table, leak from broken pipe, and the influence of vegetation. Big trees have proven to
be very problematic during draught periods.

Extraneous influence.

16
2.3 Moisture Variation within Soil Profile
When designing slabs on expansive soils, the key concerns are the amount of soil that
can contribute to the movement of the slab, the vertical depth and horizontal distance to which
the water travels under the slab. The first and second concepts are generally referred to as the
active zone depth. The third concept is referred to as the edge moisture variation distance.
Literature review indicates that active zone depth and edge moisture variation distance are not
clearly defined and large differences in the proposed definitions exist. The text below provides a
summary of the proposed definitions.

2.3.1 Infiltration and Wetting Front
Depending on soil type, initial soil condition and the magnitude of water available to the
soil profile, the resulting moisture variation with depth due to influx of water, called wetting front,
can have one of two possible shapes 1) sharp transition from wet to dry regions or 2) smooth
transition with depth from moist state at the soil surface to initial soil saturation at depth
(Johnson, 2006). The first scenario is illustrated in Figure 2.1, wetting front due to water ponding
at the soil surface. Below the wetting front, the water content is the same as it was prior to the
introduction of the water source. Above the wetting front, the water content is higher, and the
soil may or may not be saturated depending on soil properties and magnitude of applied flux.
This wetting front will continue to move downward as long as the total head of the soil above the
wetting front is higher than that below the wetting front or until an impermeable boundary or
water table are encountered. For considerations of expansive soils, the movement of the wetting
front may be very slow, but even small increases in water content may cause significant
amounts of heave (Nelson et al., 2001). The second scenario is illustrated in Figure 2.3, where
the soil suction increases parabolically from saturated state at the soil surface to some
equilibrium suction at depth and then decreases to saturated state at the depth of ground water
table (Fredlund and Rahardjo, 1993).

17

Figure 2.1. Schematic of water front movement (after McWhorter and Nelson, 1979).

2.3.2 Soil Profile
Extensive research has been done in the area of moisture/suction variation in the soil
profile, where suction is defined as the soil affinity for water; see section 2.9.1 for more details
(Fredlund and Rahardjo, 1993). An idealized water content profile of uniform soil at an
undeveloped arid site is presented in Figure 2.2. For nonuniform soils the profile can be
normalized by plotting
w
PI
with depth instead of water content alone, where w is the gravimetric
water content (%) and PI is plasticity index (%) determined with ASTM D 4318 (PTI, 1996). This
figure indicates that below some depth, , equilibrium water content exists. Above the depth Z
s

the water content decreases or increases due to environmental conditions. Profile A represents
water content loss due to evapotranspiration in an open-field soil strata located in an arid
climate. The introduction of soil cover such as a pavement or slab-on-grade cuts off the surface
water losses and with time the water content profile comes to equilibrium with the water content
below depth Z
s
. Profile B shows equilibrium condition under such a slab that is big enough so
that the edge effects can be neglected. Profiles C and D show the typical moisture variation
below the edges of the slab during wet and dry seasons respectively (Nelson et al., 2001).
Different range estimates of potential soil moisture conditions at the soil surface below the edges
of covered areas have been proposed 1) between liquid limit and shrinkage limit (conclusion

18
based on measured gravimetric water content data of SM and CL soils below 10 000 slab-on-
grades in Houston and San Antonio, Texas, (Stryron et al., 2001)), 2) between 98 kPa and 9 800
kPa (McKeen, 2001) and 3) between 33 kPa to 3 300kPa in terms of total suction (PTI, 2004).

Figure 2.2. Idealized water content profile (after Nelson et al., 2001).

Similar findings were presented by Fredlund and Rahardjo (1993), who expressed the
effects of the environment on soil profile in terms of matric suction. Figure 2.3 shows an
idealized variation of matric suction within homogeneous, uncovered soil profile, which depends
on environmental conditions, imposed irrigation patterns, vegetation influence, the location of the
water table, and soil permeability. Environmental conditions refer to precipitation and
evapotranspiration rates. The lack of rainfall leads to a continuously increasing suction profile
from the water table to the soil surface. On the other hand, the abundance of precipitation
results in a profile where the matric suction increases from the soil surface to an equilibrium
value. Once the equilibrium value is reached the suction decreases to zero suction at the depth
of water table.
The depth of the water table generally affects the magnitude of the matric suction profile.
The deeper the water table is the greater the magnitude of matric suction at the surface for arid
climate. The rate of migration of water due to suction changes is controlled by soil permeability.

19
The permeability of an unsaturated soil varies widely with degree of saturation. This affects the
ability of the soil to change matric suction when environmental conditions change (Fredlund and
Rahardjo, 1993).

Figure 2.3. Idealized suction profile of unsaturated soil (after Fredlund and Rahardjo,
1993).

2.3.3 Definition of Active Zone Depth and Related Terms
One of the key concerns in the design of slabs on expansive soils is the thickness of soil
strata that can contribute to slab movement. While there is number of relevant definitions, this
concept is generally referred to as the active zone depth. Literature review indicates that active
zone depth is not clearly defined. In fact, it has taken on several different meanings based on
techniques used for approximating its value (Durkee, 2000). The diversity of this definition is
illustrated in the wide range of reported values of "active zone" depth ranging between 1.2 m to
12 m (4 feet to 39 feet) (McKeen, 1980, 1981,1985; ONeill and Poormoayed, 1980; Thompson,
1992; Thompson and McKeen, 1995; Wray, 1989,1997; 1991; Durkee, 2000, Chao et al., 2006).
Here are some of the active zone depth definitions:

20
Active zone depth is the upper stratum of soil in which water content changes are the
greatest (ONeill and Poormoayed, 1980).
Active zone depth is the depth of water content increase" due to placement of the slab.
The definition was derived from measurement of heave and water content changes
beneath simulated slab foundations constructed on expansive soils where the
surrounding area was not altered (Goode 1982, and Hamberg, 1985).
Active zone depth is the "zone of seasonal fluctuation. It can be identified in the field by
the point where the water content distribution becomes constant with time (Nelson and
Miller, 1992).
PTI differentiates between moisture active zone and movement active zone. The
moisture active zone depth refers to the depth below the ground surface to which a
change in moisture content, and hence a change in suction value, depends on
environmental or other causes. The depth of this zone is also the location of the
equilibrium moisture content, in uniform soil characterized by 0.027 pF suction change
per ft or to other conditions such as a cemented layer or water table. The movement
active zone is usually smaller than the moisture active zone due to overburden restrain
(PTI, 2004).
Active zone depth also referred to as the active depth of swelling is the depth at which
the overburden stress equals the swell pressure. Depths in excess of 100 feet are
obtained when typical swell pressures (10,000 psf) are considered (Fredlund and
Rahardjo, 1993).
Nelson, Durkee, and Bonner (1998) define the active zone depth as the depth of
potential heave, which represents the maximum depth within which heave is possible.
These referenced definitions provide insight into some of the factors that must be
considered for design purposes. They are empirical approximations of active zone depth that
lack rigorous definition. Nelson at al. (2001) proposed four rigorous definitions that could be
used universally. Those definitions are:

21
2.3.3.1 Active Zone Depth
Active zone depth is defined as the depth of soil beneath a structure that is contributing
to or has the potential to contribute to actual heave that takes place at some point at the surface
at any particular time (t). The active zone depth is time and spatially dependant parameterThe
depth of the active zone is limited by the depth of expansive soil and by the depth at which the
overburden pressure is equal to the swell pressureTherefore, the depth at which the
overburden stress equals the swell pressure provides a method for estimating maximum
possible active zone depth (Nelson et al., 2001).

2.3.3.2 Zone of Seasonal Moisture Fluctuation
The zone of seasonal moisture fluctuation is the depth of soil in which water
content/suction vary due to climatic changes at the ground surface (Nelson et al., 2001). This
parameter is sensitive to temperature fluctuations at the ground surface. Furthermore, the depth
of seasonal moisture fluctuation is related to the depth of temperature fluctuation within soil
profile (Hamilton, 1969).

2.3.3.3 Depth of Wetting
Depth of wetting is the depth to which water content increases due to the introduction of
water from external sources, or due to capillarity after the elimination of evapotranspiration
(Nelson et al., 2001). The introduction of soil cover such as a roadway or a slab-on-grade
significantly reduces evaporation from soil followed by water migration under the soil cover. With
time, once steady state condition is achieved, the water content increases from the soil surface
to a depth referred to as the "depth of wetting. Factors such as irrigation, broken water pipes,
seepage from ponds or ditches, can substantially increase the depth of wetting.

22
2.3.3.4 Depth of Potential Heave
Depth of potential heave is the depth to which the overburden vertical stress equals to
or exceeds the swelling pressure of the soil. This represents the maximum depth of Active Zone
that could occur (Nelson et al., 2001).
The above-presented discussion is applicable to uniform soils. When strata is not
uniform, and especially when the soil layers are almost vertical the distress to structures is
concentrated and more severe. Vertical fissures in the soil provide good water flow paths
between the bedding planes. The fissures usually occur below the top layer of the soil. Nelson
(Nelson et al., 2001) found that the water contents are not uniform in the strata. The soil
adjacent to bedding planes is very wet and water migrates outward from into zones between the
bedding planes.

2.3.4 Edge Moisture Variation Distance
Damaging movement of the superstructure is generally attributed to differential soil
moisture conditions, differential swell and the distance to which water travels under the slab.
These conditions are known to vary cyclically due to evaporation and wetting events. For
example, during hot dry conditions, water can be lost from under the edges of the slab. During
rainy season the waterfront will travel under the slab to a certain distance and the wetted soil will
heave. These differential moisture conditions determine how much stress and deformation will
the slab and the structure experience. Accordingly, the differential moisture conditions are used
to design reinforcing for the slab foundations.
The distance measured inward from the edge of the slab over which moisture will
change due to wetting or drying influences around the perimeter of the foundation is defined by
Post Tensioning Institute (PTI, 2004) as the edge moisture variation distance, e
m
; also known as
edge penetration distance. The unsaturated diffusion coefficient, , is the major factor used in
the determination of e
m
. The parameter is a function of suction magnitude, soil permeability,
and cracks in the soils. Roots, layers, fractures or joints in the soil increase the edge moisture

23
variation distance value (PTI, 2004). McKeen et al. (1990) indicate that the magnitude of the
edge moisture variation distance depends on the vertical depth of moisture variation. As such,
the edge moisture variation distance can approach a distance equal to the depth of the active
zone.
Nelson and Miller (Nelson et al., 1992) point out that the edge moisture variation
distance is the most difficult parameter to estimate and it is not clearly defined for the purposes
of slab design. It should be defined in terms of measurable variation in suction, water content or
potential heave. Shear stresses within a concrete slab foundation are the result of differential
uplift forces beneath the slab. Therefore, the seasonal fluctuations in water content around the
edges of the slab represent only one factor that contributes to shear stress and cracking.
Geologic conditions, soil variability, and the time dependent progression of water from the edges
of the slab due to irrigation also contribute to differential heave over the life of the structure. In
addition, in the case of a slab type structure exposed to atmospheric conditions, such as a road
or runway, temperature fluctuations above the slab can result in significant water content
fluctuations beneath the surface.

2.4 Causes of Water Content Change; Field Observations of Moisture Migration and
Heave
In uniform soil, water content changes occuring under a slab can be divided into the
following three categories: monotonic, seasonal, and accidental, which includes the influence of
vegetation. Each category depicts the manner in which the change takes place. In real
problems, the change in water content is a mixture of two or three of the above-mentioned
causes.
Moisture content beneath covered areas can increase due to gravitational migration,
capillary action, vapor and liquid thermal transfer (Chen, 1988). Water flow by gravity can occur
in all directions. If excess water is added to the system, such as rain or irrigation water, the
water content under the covered area will increase and heave will occur. Another significant
means of water transfer in fine-grained soils is capillary force. Capillary action causes moisture

24
to move upward from water table and evaporate at the surface. If structure is located on the soil
surface, it will act as moisture barrier and cause moisture to accumulate beneath it (Day, 1994).
Heaving of expansive soils may take place without the presence of free water. Water
vapor migrates from areas with high temperature toward cooler areas, generally towards
covered area where condensation takes place, and providing means for volume change of
expansive soils (Chen, 1988, Johnson and Stroman, 1976 and Hamilton 1969). The process of
water vapor movement due to thermal gradient is called thermo-osmosis and it is the most likely
mean of monotonic water content change in arid climates. Thermo-osmosis occurs in both liquid
and vapor phases.
Kraynski (1967) indicates that the transfer of water can be explained by water balance
principles in terms of potential gradient. Flow of water through unsaturated soils can be defined
in terms of hydraulic head gradient where water flows through soil from a point of high total head
to a point of low total head (Fredlund and Rahardjo, 1993).

2.4.1 Monotonic Water Content Change
Prior to construction of slab-on-grade, the soil-moisture system is in equilibrium with the
existing natural boundary conditions of evapotranspiration and precipitation. The construction of
a building imposes a new set of surface boundary conditions by cutting off both
evapotraspiration and precipitation. The soil-water system responds to the change by steady
increase in moisture until new soil-moisture equilibrium is reached. Field observation indicates
that the monotonic water content change occurs up to six years after construction of a slab. The
first cases of this phenomenon reported in literature are those of South Africa (Wooltorton, 1950,
and Jennings, 1953), where damage to houses began to appear 3 to 4 years after construction.
Three mechanisms account for the monotonic water content change. The first one is
capillary action. Capillarity causes moisture to move upward from water table and evaporate at
the surface. The presence of a slab acts as a barrier under which the moisture accumulates
(Day, 1994). The second mechanism is thermo-osmosis that is explained above in section 2.4.

25
The third mechanism includes liquid water transfer from the boundary of the slab to the center of
the structure during rainy season. Since the slab precludes evaporation, water content in the
soil under the slab in contained. The water transfer from the edge to the center of the slab
occurs only during the short rain periods through soils with low degree of saturation and
permeability (Loxton et al, 1953; Russam and Coleman, 1961; Livneh & Shklarsky, 1965;
McKeen & Johnson, 1990).
Research based on Wooltorton observations (1950) confirmed that the primary heave
under a building equilibrates in about three to six years depending on soil type and
environmental conditions where in arid climates the process takes longer than in humid ones.
The heave equilibration process is illustrated in Figure 2.4 that shows steady increase of soil
elevation under slab until equilibrium is reached. The obtained heave equilibrium is
accompanied by equilibration of moisture content under the slab.

Figure 2.4. Slab movement, rainfall and site plan of experimental house at
Vereeniging, Transvaal Highveld (after Blight, 1965).

Figure 2.5 shows the moisture equilibration process, where the moisture content of the
soil profile just below the slab approaches constant value with the water content at lower depths

26
confirming the idealized water content profile shape presented in Figure 2.3 (Tucker and Poor,
1978). Furthermore, it was observed that the equilibration process is followed by a uniform drop
in heave after 6 to 10 years from the time of construction (Donaldson, 1965).

Figure 2.5. Soil Moisture Profile for soil a) under cover and without cover, b)
difference in soil moisture profile between soil located below slab and
outside of covered area (after Tucker and Poor, 1978).

Its been assumed that at the end of the primary phase of movement, the moisture
distribution under the building will come to an equilibrium with the boundary conditions and
therefore additional significant movements will not occur. Research done by Donaldson (1965)
shows, however, that although seasonal fluctuations in the high-veld areas are insignificant,
serious distortion occurs long after the primary phase of movement has been completed. These
movements are explained by altered boundary conditions due to accidental wetting or drying.

2.4.2 Seasonal Water Content Change
Seasonal water content change within uncovered soil profile occurs due to variations in
environmental conditions. Those changes are very large in arid or semi-arid regions where rainy
and dry seasons exist. During rainy season significant amount of moisture is introduced into the
profile resulting in soil heave. During dry season water loss occurs to a depth of temperature

27
fluctuation within soil profile coupled with development of potential preferential moisture flow
path due to shrinkage cracks. Expansive soils are very common in arid and semi-arid regions. In
fact, a study done in Australia resulted in the determination of correlation between climate and
soil type (Aitchison, 1965). Theses expansive soils typically develop shrinkage cracks during dry
season. The cyclic heave and shrinkage results in soil desiccation.
For slabs-on-grade the seasonal moisture fluctuation manifests itself in the moisture
variation and heave or shrinkage under the edges of the slab. Figure 2.6 is a schematic of the
seasonal behavior of slab-on-grade constructed on expansive soil. During dry season, the
moisture content from underneath the edges of a slab is lost resulting in a dome like shape of
the slab. It is referred to as the center lift condition by design manuals (PTI, 2004). During rainy
season the opposite is true. The waterfront moves under the slab and causes heave under the
edges resulting in edge lift condition. Typically, the seasonal fluctuation affects are smaller on
the horizontal distance from the edge of the slab than the vertical depth. Refer to Appendices A
and Chapter 5 more detail.

Figure 2.6. Center lift and edge lift slab distortion due to seasonal moisture variation
(after PTI, 2004).

29
soils may impact compression and expansion properties otherwise not exhibited (Hamilton,
1969).

Figure 2.7. Measured vertical ground movement within soil profile of Regina clay,
Saskatchewan (after Hamilton, 1968).

30
Nevels (2001) performed a 4-year study to find total suction variation due to seasonal
effects under a 3.5-meter wide bicycle trail in Oklahoma City. The results were compared
against free field total suction measurements obtained from uncovered region next to the trail. It
was found that the variation and magnitude of total suction under the trail and under free field
condition were the same over the studied period of time. The results of this study can be used to
predict the behavior soil under slab-on-grade to a distance of 1.75 meters measured from the
edge of the slab; free field soil behavior should be expected under conditions specified in that
study.
Edge moisture variation distance is a parameter that is difficult to obtain. Due to
difficulties associated with the definition and measurement of this parameter, there is a limited
number of field studies aimed at this problem. One of those studies was performed by Durkee
(2000) who conducted field investigation on two simulated slabs-on-grade exposed to
environmental conditions, thus exposing the soil underneath the slabs to large temperature
variations. These slabs were located at two sites 1) Colorado State University (CSU) in Fort
Collins, Colorado, and 2) Fort Sam Houston (FSH), in San Antonio, Texas. The measured
moisture variation distance was found to exceed 4.5 m (15 ft), which was a half the slab width. It
is unclear, however, how are the proposed results influenced by temperature variations due to
environmental conditions.

2.4.2.2 Field Studies of Seasonal Temperature Variations
The consideration of temperature variation within soil profile for constructed facilities is
an important factor that influences both moisture movement and heave. Mitigation of moisture
from central to perimeter areas has been observed in crawl spaces with vapor barriers on the
ground surface. Much of this moisture movement appears to take place through the soil from
warm to cooler regions. These cases suggest that provisions of vapor barriers over the soil may
not be sufficient to maintain constant moisture distribution under crawl spaces unless insulation
is used effectively to minimize temperature gradients (Hamilton, 1969).

31
Figure 2.8 illustrates temperature variation within soil profile obtained over six years from
under a pavement located in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Similar information could be obtained for soil
located under edges of a slab-on-grade constructed in Phoenix region. The depth of
temperature variation, the minimum and maximum temperatures recorded at the surface would
vary, but the trumpet shape of the profile would be the same. Literature review indicates that the
mean soil temperature is about 7F above the mean temperature of air. The temperature
variation with depth decreases and becomes insignificant at about 7.5 m (25 ft) (Hamilton, 1969).

Figure 2.8. Typical maximum, minimum, and mean annual soil temperatures, 1959-
1963 for a typical soil cross-section in Winnipeg, Manitoba (after Hamilton,
1969).

2.4.2.3 Field Studies of Monotonic vs. Seasonal Moisture Variation and Heave
Field studies of moisture content and heave under free field conditions, under the edges
of a slab and under slab beyond the edge moisture variation distance revealed that moisture
content variation and heave in all studied areas depend on environmental conditions. During
wet periods, both the open-field and the slab exhibited upward movement. During dry periods,
the elevation of the slab beyond the edge moisture variation distance remains constant while in

32
the open-field locations and soil under the slab edges, the soil surface exhibited downward
movement (Settler, 1990). Once the primary movement of slab is complete, only seasonal
movement and movements due to the effects of faulty drainage and garnering activities occur
under the edges of slab and in the field (Blight, 1965).
The placement conditions of slabs appear to determine the overall magnitude of heave
experienced under the structure. Wray (1992) constructed two field test sites to monitor the
behavior of slab-on-ground foundations over expansive soils, and the change in soil moisture
conditions at each site as a function of climate over the period of nine years. The test sites were
located in areas with different climatic conditions. The first one was located in humid climate
(College Station) and the second one was located in arid region (Amarillo, TX). The College
Station slab initially experienced edge lift distortion that was subsequently replaced by a uniform
heave over the entire site which turned into a center lift distortion mode at the end of a drought
period three years after construction. The Amarillo slab perimeter experienced approximately
nine annual cycles of edge lift distortion; heaved upward during cooler wet periods and flattened
during hot, dry periods. This slab continued to show a slow but increasing mound in the center
of the slab, indicating that eventually the center heave pattern governs the slab design
considerations. Wray (1995) concluded the long-term distortion mode at both sites was center-
lift distortion mode.

2.4.3 Accidental Changes of Water Content
Broken pipelines, vegetation or the presence of equipment such as boilers, furnaces or
AC units are the main sources of accidental water content changes below slab-on-grade. Trees
are the biggest cause of soil drying and subsidence resulting in foundation movement and
damage. The damage caused by trees can be very severe during drought periods (Biddle,
2001).
Vegetation has several effects on available soil moisture. In addition to moisture
depletion by transpiration, they also shade ground surface, build up organic matter, retard

33
precipitation runoff, and form water channels from root disintegration which all influence soil
moisture patterns (Biddle, 2001). The effect of vegetation on soil moisture depends on
environmental conditions such as sunlight, temperature, potential evaporation, relative humidity
and wind speed.
The interaction between vegetation and available moisture in expansive soils can
mobilize inactive soils to increase soil deformation from active soils (Biddle, 2001). Large broad-
leaf trees located near structures cause the greatest change in available moisture and the
greatest risk of damage to the structure whether in humid or arid climates. Most influential trees
are Popular, Elm, Willow, Oak, Bradford Pear and Ash (Bryant et al., 2001). Experience and
observation show that these types of trees should be planted 0.5 to 1.0 m beyond the anticipated
mature drip line or anticipated mature height of the tree from building foundation. Small trees,
bushes and grasses can affect available moisture at shallower depths especially in arid or
semiarid climates (Snethen, 2001).
Trees usually have 90% of the root system within 0.6 m of the soil surface and with only
small proportion of roots extending to greater depths. Structural roots, which distribute the load
of the trunk and anchor the tree to the soil are usually uniformly and radially distributed around
the trunk. Beyond the point where the tree is anchored, the root system subdivides into a mass
of fine conducting roots, which support feeder roots. The feeder roots are not distributed evenly.
They growth and distribution depend on the availability of oxygen and water and they respond to
changing conditions. Root growth is reduced in dense soils such as dry clays. The roots exploit
natural and artificial sources of water such as deep aquifers or leaky drains or moisture
condensation under a slab (Biddle, 2001).
Plants are very effective pumps that draw water from the soil and transpirate it through
their leaf system. As water is lost from the leaf, suction is developed within the leaf of magnitude
that depends on plant type. For example desert plants are capable of developing suctions in
excess of 6 000 kPa. All other plants typically develop suctions in the range between 1500 to
2000 kPa. The magnitude of suction exerted by plant roots on soil appears to be independent of

34
plant specie. It reaches maximum value of 1500 kPa and is referred to as the wilting point of
plant. When suctions in the soil mass exceed the wilting point, the plant reduces
evapotraspiration and some feeder roots start to die out (Biddle, 2001).
Figure 2.9 illustrates the influence of trees on a paved area. During drought period 5 to
10-mm wide cracks developed in the pavement with a minimal vertical displacement. The
developed cracks were circular in pattern and were located about 7 meters away from trees
(Snethen, 2001).

Figure 2.9. Influence of evapotranspiration of trees on paved areas (after Snethen,
2001).

A case study presented in Figure 2.10 and Figure 2.11 illustrate the influence of trees on
the performance of slab-on-grade. In this instance, in 1995 a Bradford Pear tree was planted
approximately 3 m from the northwest corner of the garage. By summer of 2000, during drought
period, the homeowner noticed a vertical crack through brick veneer extending the full height of
the wall. The crack was wider at the top of the wall than at the bottom. The crack developed all
at once suggesting that moisture depletion and soil shrinkage resulted in the loss of soil support
along the north portion of the west wall (Snethen, 2001).
Small plants such as herbs or grasses, on the other hand, can act as soil stabilizers.
Although these plants deplete the soil out of water, their roots reinforce the soil and to some
extend prevent soil cracking. A well-preserved lawn maintains a rather constant state of
moisture in the soil throughout the year, and typically is not the cause of differential soil
movement. (Jimenez-Salas, 1996).

35

Figure 2.10. Crack in residence wall due to vegetation (after Snethen, 2001).

Figure 2.11. Sketch of crack and proximity of tree to the structure (after Snethen, 2001).

2.5 Soil Response to Change in Water Content
The term, expansive soil is typically given to soil with plasticity index of 15% or more
which exhibits swell when exposed to water, settlement under applied load, and shrinking and
cracking during desaturation process. More recently, IBC (2003) in section 1802.3.2 introduced
a rigorous definition of expansive soil adopted by the PTI (2004) design procedure. Soil
meeting all four of the following provisions shall be considered expansive, except that tests to
show compliance with items 1,2 and 3 shall not be required if the test prescribed in Item 4 is
conducted:

36
1. Plasticity index (PI) of 15 or greater, determined in accordance with ASTM D 4318.
2. More than 10% of the soil particles pass a No. 200 sieve (75m), determined in
accordance with ASTM D 422.
3. More than 10% of the soil particles are less than 5 m in size, determined in accordance
with ASTM D 422.
4. Expansion index greater than 20, determined in accordance with ASTM D 4829.
The magnitude of the response to change in water content per particular soil depends
on initial saturation, initial dry density, and applied surcharge pressure. The influence of these
factors on swell/shrinkage behavior of soil is briefly summarized below.

2.5.1 Settlement
Settlement is the equilibration process of soils total stress to the applied overburden
stress which typically results in soil densification. The rate of consolidation depends on the
compressibility coefficient and the drainage conditions. The settlement of unsaturated soil can
be determined with the theory of unsaturated soil mechanics as described by Fredlund and
Rahardjo (1993). Detailed literature review of this process is not applicable to this research
project.
The search for a reliable method of predicting total have of expansive soil is probably
affected by the concept of ultimate settlement in the theory of consolidation. For many years,
engineers have been familiar with the calculation of ultimate and differential settlement of
structures founded on clay, and it was assumed that total heave can be predicted in a similar
manner. Few fundamental differences exist between settlement and heave (Chen, 1988).
Some of them are as follows:
1. Settlement of clay under load takes place without the aid of wetting, while expansion of
clay is not realized without moisture increase.
2. The total amount of heave depends on the environmental conditions, such as the extent
of wetting, the duration of wetting and the pattern of moisture migration. Similarly

37
settlement due to partial wetting depends on environmental conditions. It is challenging
to quantity the moisture migration; therefore both estimates can be errorous.
3. Differential settlement is usually described as a percent of the ultimate settlement. In
the case of expansive soil, differential heaving can equal to total heave. No correlation
between differential and total heave can be established (Chen, 1988).

2.5.2 Shrinkage
Shrinkage is the reduction in total soil volume as the response to loss of moisture. It is
generally recognized that swelling and shrinkage of expansive soils are interrelated. Over a
great portion of the world shrinkage problems pose more threat to structure damage than
swelling problems for example illite soils in China, black cotton soils in India or tree root induced
shrinkage in Britain (Chen, 1981). Shrinkage of expansive soils is typically observed in humid
climates, where precipitation exceeds the potential evaporation. Soil expansion, on the other
hand, constitutes a problem in arid and semi-arid regions (Chen, 1988).
Popescu (1980) divided shrinkage process into three stages: initial, normal, and
residual shrinkage. Critical moisture content range refers to water content range within which
shrinkage occurs. Beyond that critical moisture content range, any further change of moisture
content does not cause additional shrinkage. The work done by Nevels (2001) supports
Popescus claim that shrinkage ceases after reaching critical water content. This is illustrated in
Figure 2.12 where no change in void ratio is observed for soil with volumetric water content
smaller than 14%. The point where the void ratio becomes constant is referred to as the
shrinkage limit. A more extensive research in that field was done by Chen (1988) who studied
the relationship between swell and shrinkage of soil due to the variation in water content and
initial dry density.
Figure 2.13 is a plot of measured swelling and shrinkage for soil with various initial dry
densities and constant initial water content. It is seen from that figure that swelling increases
rapidly with an increase in initial dry density while shrinkage remains fairly uniform. Therefore, it

38
can be concluded that initial dry density has little effect on shrinkage behavior of soil.
Furthermore, there exists a critical dry density where the percent of swell of soil is equal to
percent of shrinkage. The critical dry density depends on soil type and initial moisture content
(Chen, 1988).

Figure 2.12. Change in void ratio due to change in volumetric water content (after
Nevels, 2001).

Figure 2.13. Effect of initial dry density on swell and shrinkage (after Chen, 1988).

39
2.5.3 Heave
Heave or increase in volume is time dependant expansive soil response to increased
moisture content. The heave characteristics are quantified by 1-D swell tests described in
Sections 4.2.6 through 4.2.8. These tests represent maximum potential swell since the soil
samples are allowed to become fully saturated. The potential magnitude of swell is associated
with the initial conditions of the soil such as the initial moisture content, initial dry density and
applied surcharge pressure. Chen (1988) established that linear relationship exists between
volume change and initial soil conditions such moisture content and dry density. In general,
heave increases as the initial dry density increases, or initial water content decreases.
Therefore, heave depends on both initial water content and initial dry density.

2.5.4 Fatigue of Swelling
Fatigue of swelling refers to the decrease of soils swell potential as the drying-wetting
cycles continue. The dry density reaches an equilibrium conditions also called a critical value
where magnitude of swell approaches magnitude of shrinkage and the dry density of a sample
approaches a constant value. The equilibrium dry density is smaller in magnitude than the initial
dry density. Based on this observation, it can be assumed that soil will undergo equal and
minimal volume change due to swell and shrinkage when initial dry density is equal to critical dry
density. Empirical data illustrated in Figure 2.14 show that swell levels off at fifth cycle when
relative equilibrium is reached. On the other hand, shrinkage behavior is unchanged with
number of cycles (Chen, 1988).
Limited empirical information is available on heave, settlement and shrinkage due to
partial moisture content change, which reflects the difficulties associated with measurement and
analysis of unsaturated, moisture sensitive soils. Few theoretical frameworks exist that aid the
analysis and estimation of unsaturated soil behavior. They are presented by Fredlund and
Rahardjo (1993), Alonso (Alonso et al., 1990), Wheeler (Wheeler et al., 1995) and others.

40

Figure 2.14. Swelling and shrinkage behavior of expansive soils subject to repeated
wetting and drying (after Chen, 1988).

2.6 Performance of Residential Construction
The performance of residential construction is typically assessed based on one of the
following criteria 1) floor levelness (American Concrete Institute, ACI, 117-90), 2) angular
distortion and 3) magnitude and extend of distress in vertical and horizontal construction, which
is the most important criteria by which to judge the significance of structure distress due to soil
movement. Various bodies developed standards for acceptable foundation movement and/or
minimum construction quality criteria. Some of the more important ones are: 1) the American
Concrete Institute (ACI), 2) the Building Research Advisory Board (BRAB), 3) the Department of
Housing and Urban Development and the Federal Housing Administration (HUD/FHA), 4) the
Post Tensioning Institute (PTI), and 5) the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Most of these
standards use language quantifying the floor levelness and the structure stiffness in terms of
angular distortion to preserve the structure severability within designed structure lifetime. The
angular distortion is defined as the maximum floor differential divided by the horizontal distance
between the measurements. Most design governing bodies limit the angular distortion at 1/240
as summarized in Table 2.1. The floor levelness is defined as the slab deviation from horizontal
over the entire area of the slab and expressed with F
F
values (of F
L
for local levelness over the

41
area of 10) and calculated as 12.5/z, where z is the floor differential measured in inches (ACI
117-90); see Section 3.6 for more details. As per the ACI standard, the FL is limited at 10 while
F
F
at 15. Local institutions, such as the Arizona Registrar of Contractors, AROC, specify the
local standard of care through publications quantifying the maximum acceptable distortions and
distress of horizontal and vertical components of the structure.

Table 2.1. Angular Distortion Criteria Based on Design Manuals (summarized in
Advanced Foundation Repair, 2007).
Construction
Type
Governing Body
ACI 318-89
(1992),
BRAB, Report No. 33
(NAC, 1968)
FHA 4900.1
(1982)
UBC Section
2307 (1988)
AROC
(1997)
Wood 1/240 1/240 1/240 1/240 1/580
Masonry 1/240 1/300 1/240 1/240

2.6.1 As-built Floor Deviation from Horizontal
Extensive research has been inspired by the assumption made in litigations that newly
constructed slab-on-grade deviation from the horizontal is negligible. As a consequence, the
obtained manometer results are evaluated as the net post-construction movement causing
structure distress. Table 2.2 presents summary of literature review of slab deviation from the
horizontal for newly constructed conventional and PT slabs-on-grade. It illustrates that the initial
slab deviations might be as large as 2.2, but more commonly are about 0.5. For newly
constructed slabs the average angular distortion was found to be about 1/340. Based on the
research done by Noorany et al. (2005) the local levelness FL numbers of the newly constructed
slabs in the study ranged from 7 to 175, with a mean value of 43. These results indicate that
small percentage of newly constructed foundation systems do not comply with the acceptable
slab distortions used in the identification of expansive soil problems. More commonly, however,
the in-compliance deviation leads to overestimate of actual slab movement and potentially
misdiagnosis of structure distress as expansive soil related.

42
Table 2.2. Newly constructed slab deviation from horizontal and angular distortion.
Ref. Location
# of
Slabs
Slab deformation [in] Angular dist.
min.-max. ave. min.-max. ave.
Koenig, 1991 San Antonio, TX 54 0.125-1.0 0.54
Marsh et al., 1999 S. CA 6 0.6-1.0 0.75
Walsh, et al., 2001 Phoenix, AZ 89 0.25-1.18 0.53 1/857-1/101 1/334
Noorany et al., 2005 CA 971 0.2-2.2 0.53 1/1000 - 1/71 1/346

2.6.2 Post-Construction Slab Distortion
Three studies of post-construction slab distortions correlated to the cosmetic and
structural structure distress were found. The results are presented in terms of the net angular
distortion and net relative deflection without the consideration for the initial state of the slab.
Skempton and MacDonald (1956) performed a long term study on numerous residential
structures to correlate the differential settlement of a foundation to building distress. The study
focused on pier foundations, not slab-on-grade. In spite of this, these results are frequently cited
in the literature concerning threshold criteria for cosmetic damage in wood frame houses
supported on slab-on-ground foundations with an argument that the interior partitions in a pier-
supported building are subjected to the same distress as interior walls supported by a slab-on-
ground foundation. Based on the Skempton and MacDonald study (1956) the cosmetic damage
occurs at angular distortion of 1/300 and maximum slab relative deflection of 1.75.
The study of 34 slab-on-grade residences in San Diego California by Day (1990)
concluded that cosmetic damage relates to 1.15 slab differential and 1/300 angular distortion.
Structural damage was observed to correspond to 3.5 slab deformation and 1/100 angular
distortion.
The study by Marsh and Thoney (1999) consisted of 12-year long monitoring program of
400 slab-on-grade, wood-frame residences. Different threshold criteria were developed for
heave and different for settlement where distress due to heave was found to occur at smaller
angular distortions. The onset of cosmetic damage was correlated with about 1.1 floor relative

43
deflection and 1/330 angular distortion. Structural damage was correlated with relative
deflection larger than 4 and angular distortion of 1/90.
The significance of these research findings is two-fold. 1) Cosmetic damage to
residential structures occurs at about 1/300 angular distortion, a value smaller then the design
requirements for floor levelness of 1/240. 2) The angular distortion of newly constructed slabs is
on average 1/340, a value almost equal to the value assigned to correlate with cosmetic
damage. Additionally, the angular distortion of newly constructed slabs can take values as small
as 1/71, a value correlated with structural damage The obvious question here is, what is the
magnitude of movement that contributed to the distress? The identification of soil movement
related structure distress appears to be bias and incomplete when limited to relative deflection
and angular distortion. The bias is caused by unknown initial conditions. There is a need for a
comprehensive protocol for residential construction distress identification due to expansive soil
movement.

2.7 Mitigation measures
Mitigation measures are aimed at preventing or limiting potential soil movement below
foundation pre-construction or post-construction. The employed mitigation measured in part
depends on the known or assumed distress mechanism. A summary of literature review of
mitigation measures is presented below.

2.7.1 Removal, replacement and recompaction
Substitution of the active clay by an inert material eliminates the problem. However, this
procedure is viable only when the active depth is shallow (one or two meters) and the
replacement material is readily available at a low cost. In many cases, it is possible to suitably
reduce expansion problems by processing the native soil at the site to water content above
optimum and recompacting it. This approach, which is frequently implemented in Southern
California, is most effective when the resulting elevated moisture content can be maintained until

44
the completion slab construction (Greenfield et al., 1992). An alternative but related technique is
to cover the expansive soil with minimum 3-ft of non-expansive material, placing the expansive
soil at an elevated overburden stress. These methods are not economically attractive when the
site requires moving large amounts of soil for grading.

2.7.2 Mechanical Stabilization
The mechanical stabilization consists of mixing the active soil with coarser material. As
with substitution, mechanical stabilization is limited to shallow active depths. The economical
feasibility of this method depends on the availability of coarse material and the depth of
expansive soil layer (Nelson and Miller, 1992).

2.7.3 Chemical Stabilization
Chemical stabilization of the clayey soil is accomplished with the use of one of the
following additives: lime, cement, fly ash and potassium solution. These additives are introduced
into the soil through injection to depths of 4 to 8 ft or mixing or recompaction to a depth of 2 ft.
The lime addition effects on active clays are well understood. Sodium is an exchangeable base
in most clayey soils which binds with lime. The saturation with lime reduces soil plasticity and
volume change potential (Jimenez-Salas, 1996). Benefits of lime addition for already calcium-
saturated clays are not so well understood. In addition, lime treatment of expansive soils
containing soluble sulfates can actually result in swell upon the application of lime. Laboratory
testing to investigate the reactivity of clay soils is recommended when considering chemical
stabilization methods (Jimenez-Salas, 1996).
Portland cement also provides highly effective clay stabilization. Similar to lime, cement
changes the properties of clays through cation exchange, flocculation and pozzolanic reactions.
In addition, cement increases strength and durability through cementious hydration (Prusinski et
al., 1999).

45
Research on chemical stabilization with potassium solution of expansive soils in North
Central Texas by Pengelly et al. (1997) illustrated that potassium solution is a viable material for
chemical stabilization. Performance of slab-on-grade constructed on chemically treated soil
with PI of 40% is illustrated. After 7 years, the relative deformation of foundation was about 1.
Recent research introduces the use of fly ash as a stabilizer for expansive soils (Cokca,
2001, Nalbantoglu et al., 2001, Puppala et al., 2001). The use of fly ashes is economically
attractive in regions near thermal power plants. The optimum use of fly ash requires the addition
of 20% of fly ash (Cokca, 2001). In general the introduction of fly ash increases hydraulic
conductivity, reduces PI and swelling potential of soil (Nalbantoglu et al. (2001). A reduction in
PI by 75% has been reported (Puppala et al., 2001).

2.7.4 Stabilization of Water Content
There are two ways of stabilizing water content of an expansive soil. Passive
stabilization involves maintaining soil moisture content through construction of vertical or
horizontal moisture barriers. The goal of active stabilization is to create future moisture
equilibrium conditions below the slab prior to construction by introduction of large quantities of
water to the pad.

2.7.4.1 Passive Stabilization
The purpose of a moisture barrier is to isolate the soil beneath a foundation from
seasonal wetting and drying. Horizontal moisture barriers are either in the form of a sidewalks or
geomembrane below the soil surface. Vertical moisture barriers are either concrete walls or
geomembranes below the foundation edge. The function of a moisture barrier depends on the
initial soil moisture conditions at a specific site. If the soil is initially desiccated, the barrier will
prevent access of free water through the cracks into the desiccated clay. If the soil is initially
wet, a moisture barrier will prevent seasonal moisture changes under the edges of the
foundation. Moisture barriers can also act as root barriers by preventing the roots from

46
neighboring trees from penetrating into the soil beneath a structure. Typically, vertical moisture
barrier design is based on the active zone depth. There seems to be a trend towards the use of
vertical barriers up to 2.5 m in depth. Even though the active depth is usually greater, results are
generally acceptable (Jimenez-Salas, 1996).
Moisture barriers have been used extensively and with positive results in transportation
projects in Texas and Arizona (Steinberg, 1992). Where results were not as favorable, problems
involved inadequate depth of the moisture barriers and problems with the backfill material for the
trench. A case study on effect of vertical geomembranes on pavement distress in semi-arid
region in Australia was reported by Holden (1992). He illustrated that at minimum 2.2 m deep
vertical barriers are needed to prevent seasonal moisture fluctuations below the pavement. With
a barrier constructed to a depth of 1.8 m significant moisture fluctuations were still observed.
In Texas, the use of geomembranes has recommended to residential construction. A
typical specification to use a 10 mm plastic liner attached to the outside edge of the grade beam
or slab that extends at least 6 ft away from the building. The plastic liner is covered with
landscaping soil and it conducts water away from the foundation. (Greenfield and Shen, 1992).
Similar approach is presented by Slabworks (2008). It is postulated that the expansive soil
problem is caused by water transfer through the surface soil prepared to engineered
specifications. The water collects at the surface of clay layer below the foundation where it is
allowed to pond and slowly infiltrate into the profile causing soil expansion, slab movement and
structure distress. In order to prevent this scenario, a cap consisting of fat clay is introduced at
the surface of the engineered fill. Proper site drainage would facilitate water removal from the
site and hence prevent moisture migration below the foundation system as presented in Figure
2.15. Due to the impermeable characteristics of clay, this solution is comparable to horizontal
moisture barrier. The postulated scenario is unlikely to occur in the Phoenix valley due to low
density of undisturbed soils found in this geographic region. The pad preparation effectively
increases the soil density which results in reduced saturated soil permeability. Therefore the

47
surface water might pond at the soil surface and the absorbed water will flow much easier
through the undisturbed profile layers.
Meyer et al. (2001) presented a theoretical procedure to model the effects of vertical
moisture barriers on foundation support resulting in significant reduction of the maximum vertical
differential movement (y
m
, a PTI design coefficient). The effects of either vertical or horizontal
moisture barrier on slab-on-grade performance are not reported yet in literature. There is a
needed to set up guidelines to effectively apply moisture barriers to expansive soils and control
the damage caused to light structures.
a)

b)

Figure 2.15. a) Bathtub effect of fill, b) Fat Clay cap and positive drainage to prevent
the bathtub effect of fill (SlabWorks, 2008).

48
2.7.4.2 Active Stabilization
In arid climates, the expansive soil problem is associated with monotonic moisture
increase below the slab. An active defense against future moisture increase consists of
moisture preconditioning the pads to the anticipated equilibrium water content prior to
construction of the foundation system. This approach has been used frequently in the Phoenix
area. Although this procedure is potentially very effective, it does present some serious
challenges. Firstly, pre-wetting to the final equilibrium moisture content pre-supposes that the
final value is known. To date, methods of estimating these values have not been very reliable
and more research is needed to improve these methods. Secondly, it is difficult to wet in-situ
natural layers of expansive clay in a reasonable time due to low hydraulic conductivity inherent
to this type of soil. Flooding of the foundation area is used sometimes, with variable results
(Blight et al., 1992). A more promising procedure consists of the controlled addition of water
using borings strategically distributed over the footprint of the building. Irrigation with sprinklers is
another procedure (Williams, 1980) that has been used with some success. Even in cases
where a fill soil is placed at controlled water content during pad grading, the time of the
development often makes it difficult to maintain the elevated water content.

2.7.5 Site Drainage and Control of Landscape Watering
Frequently the residential dwelling distress related to expansive soil is caused by
homeowner modified drainage and grading around the foundation perimeter, usually for
landscaping purposes (Greenfield and Shen, 1992). Remedial measures include re-instating an
adequate slope away from the foundation on all directions. The Colorado Geological Survey
(1987) recommends a slope of 10% for vegetated areas, being 5% the minimum slope to ensure
drainage and 15% the maximum slope to prevent erosion. For paved areas a slope of 1% is
recommended. In places where rain is a significant source of water, careful installation of roof
gutters and downspouts is needed.

49
A complementary remedial measure that can be used along with site grading is the
installation of subdrains around the perimeter of the foundation to collect the water that seeps
into the soil and drain it away from the foundation (Greenfield and Shen, 1992). Subdrains are
constructed in such a way that they outfall into the storm drain system. Figure 2.16 presents an
example of a subdrain around a house. To prevent moisture migration from the trench towards
the foundation, an impermeable waterproofing material shall be installed between the structure
and the trench, as illustrated. The subdrains need to be checked periodically for clogs and
deterioration.

Figure 2.16. Typical perimeter subdrain (after Greenfield and Shen, 1992).

Houston (1996) summarizes mitigation measures especially relevant to Arizona soil and
climatic conditions.
1. Restricted irrigation watering (e.g. desert landscaping);
2. Restricted landscape vegetation adjacent to structures, unless placed in a planter;
3. Paved surfaces around the structure to the practical extent;
4. Replacement and compaction of near-surface layers to form a low permeability barrier to
water. The barrier to water should be composed of moisture-insensitive soils.

2.8 Classification of Swell Potential Based on Soil Properties
Literature review of swell potential classification based on soil properties is presented for
two reasons: 1) some of the methodologies are implemented by practitioners to estimate the

50
active zone depth for residential construction purposes, e.i. PTI manual described in Chapter 6,
and 2) as part of this research project, swell potential based on soil properties was estimated
and mapped for soils in Arizona geographical region. There are three different methods of
classifying expansive potential of clayey soils. They are mineralogical classification, indirect
measurement and direct measurement. The mineralogical classification is done directly or
indirectly where the direct methods involve X-ray diffraction, differential thermal analysis, dye
adsorption, chemical analysis or electron micrographs. The indirect measurement method of
identifying expansive soil is based on measurement of index properties of soil that are related to
swell potential. Such properties include plasticity index, activity, gradation and suction. One-
dimensional swell test is typically used as direct measurement of swell potential.

2.8.1 Mineralogical Classification
Most soil classifications systems arbitrarily define clay particles as having an effective
diameter of two microns or less. However, particle size alone does not determine clay mineral
and its properties. Mineralogical composition plays a more important role in the classification of
expansive soils than the mare determination of the percent clay composition in a soil sample.
There are three main groups of clay: montmorillonite, illites and kaolinites where montmorillonite
is responsible for majority of the expansive soil problems (Chen, 1988). The formation of
montmorillonite is associated with extreme disintegration of the parent material, strong hydration
and restricted leaching, which allows for the magnesium, calcium, sodium and iron cations to
accumulate in the soil mass. Such conditions are favorable in semi-arid regions where the
evapotranspiration exceeds rainfall. Under such conditions, enough water is available for the
alteration process, but not enough for removal of cations with flush rain (Holtz and Kovacs,
1981).
The mineralogical composition of expansive soils has an important bearing on the
swelling potential. The negative electric charges on the surface of the clay minerals, the
strength of the interlayer bonding and the cation exchange capacity, CEC, depend on clay type

51
and contribute to the swelling potential of the clay. Therefore, it is claimed by clay mineralogists
that the swelling potential of clay can be identified by recognizing the constituent mineral of clay
(Chen, 1988).
In the clay-water-air system, the water within the clay is called the adsorbed water. The
water and ions with the clay lattice constitute diffuse double layer, where two types of forces
exist, attractive and repulsive. The attractive force is quantified by electrostatic Van der Waals
force, which depends on the distance between the clay layers. The magnitude of the Van Waals
force increases as the distance between the flat plate surface and water molecules or cations
decreases. High concentration of cations near the surface of the clay particle creates a
repulsive force between the diffuse double-layer system. The magnitude of this repulsive force
has been correlated to half distance between clay particles, which is presented in Figure 2.17
(Low, 1973). Additional studies by Warketine at al. (1957) resulted in the development of
experimental curves correlating swelling pressure and interlayer half distance for
montmorillonite, which has the same shape as the shape presented in Figure 2.17. A more
practical relationship of swelling pressure, mineralogy and percent clay was developed by Seed
(1956) and is given in Figure 2.18.

Figure 2.17. Relationship between repulsive forces of clay particles to half distance
between particles for montmorillonite (after Philip Low). Similar
relationship was developed by Warkentine et al., (1957) for swell pressure
vs. half distance.

52

There are five techniques to identify the mineralogy of clay. They are: x-ray diffraction,
differential thermal analysis, dye adsorption, chemical analysis and electron microscope
resolution. All of these methods have proved to be cumbersome in the geotechnical engineering
practice; therefore mineralogical soil classification is almost exclusively done through indirect
measurements of such soil properties such as cation exchange capacity, activity ratio, plasticity
index and liquid limit.

Figure 2.18. Relationship between percentage of swell and percentage of clay (after
Seed et al., 1962).

2.8.1.1 Cation Exchange Capacity
Clay minerals are capable of sorbing certain anions and cations and retain them in an
exchangeable state on the outside of silica-alumina clay mineral structural unit. The most
common exchangeable cations are Ca
++
, Mg
++
, H
+
, K
+
, NH
4
+
and Na
+
. The existence of such
charges is indicated by the ability of clay to absorb ions from solution. Cations are more readily
absorbed than anions; hence negative charges must be predominant on the clay surface. The
ions are temporarily attached to the clay structure. For example, clay mineral exposed to salt

53
solution will absorb Na
+
ion. The same clay mineral subsequently placed in solution of
potassium chloride, KCL, will release Na
+
ion and absorb K
+
Cation exchange capacity (CEC) is the charge or electrical attraction for cation per unit
mass as measured in milliequivalents per 100 grams of soil. Typical ranges of cation exchange
capacities for various clay minerals are shown in Table 2.3, which shows that montmorillonite is
10 times more active in absorbing cations as kaolinite. This is caused by the large net negative
charge carried by the montmorillonite particle and greater specific surface. CEC is a significant
factor in the determination of swelling potential since swell potential is associated with increased
cation concentration and increased cation valence (Nelson and Miller, 1992).

ion. The process of replacement by
excess cations is called cation exchange, where the exchangeable reactions do not influence the
structure of the clay unit (Chen, 1988).
Table 2.3. Mineral clay properties (after Woodward-Clyde and Associates, 1967).
CEC Clay Type Specific Surface Particle Diameter
[meq/100g] [m
2
[microns] /g]
70-80 Montmorillonite 50-840 0.05-10
10-40 Illite 65-180 0.5-10
3-15 Kaolinite 10-20 0.5-4

2.8.1.2 Cation Exchange Capacity and Soil Properties
In general, it was observed that soil with a high plasticity index, PI, experiences greater
volume change than soils with a low PI. Pearring (1963) used that observation to develop a
correlation between cation exchange activity ratio
%
CEC
CEAc
fc
| |
=
|
\ .
and activity ratio
%
PI
Ac
fc
| |
=
|
\ .
, where CEC is expressed in terms of milliequivalents per 100 grams of dry soil and
clay fraction, %fc is defined as the ratio of percent clay to percent of soil passing US sieve
number 200 , P
200
, expressed as a percentage. The obtained relationship is presented in Figure
2.19. The research done by Pearring (1963) inspired a follow up research, which produced the
correlation between Ac, CEC and swell potential, presented in Figure 2.20. This correlation

54
developed by Nelson and Miller (1992) is incorporated into 2
nd
Edition PTI slab-on-grade design
manual; see Appendices A and Chapter 6 for more detail.

Figure 2.19. Mineralogical classification (after Pearring, 1963).

Figure 2.20. Expansion potential based on cation exchange activity and soil activity
(after Nelson and Miller, 1992).

55
2.8.1.3 Atterberg Limits
Casagrande (1948) used Atterberg Limits for the mineralogical classification of clay. His
work, updated by Holtz and Kovacs (1981) is presented in Figure 2.21. The updated chart was
further used by Covar and Lytton (Covar et al., 2001) to develop a method of soil swell prediction
for slab-on-grade design purposes presented in Chapter 6.

Figure 2.21. Mineralogical classification based on Atterberg Limits (Holtz and Kovacs,
1981).

2.8.2 Indirect Measurement
Indirect measurement methods involve the estimation of parameter of interest based on
other measurements, which are either easy to perform and/or are commonly done. Indirect
swell potential estimation methods fall into two general groups, 1) index properties based, and 2)
based on fundamental soil mechanics.

2.8.2.1 Atterberg Limits
Holtz and Gibbs (1956) argued, since both liquid limit and swell potential depend on the
amount of water the clayey soil is able to absorb, these two values are related and plasticity
index alone can be used as a preliminary indication of the swelling characteristics of most clays.

56
This relation is given in Table 2.4. While it may be true that high swelling soil will manifest high
plasticity index, the converse is not true. Soils with high PI might not exhibit high swell potential
(Chen, 1988).

Table 2.4. Relation between swelling potential and PI (from Holtz and Gibbs, 1956).
Swelling Potential Plasticity Index
Low 0 - 15
Medium 10 - 35
High 20 - 55
Very High 35 and Above

Snethen et al. (1977) found that the soils' liquid limit, plasticity index and soil suction at
natural moisture content were the best indicators of potential swell. The resulting classification
system is shown in Table 2.5.

Table 2.5. Expansive Soil Classification based on Atterberg Limits (Snethen et
al.1977).
LL PI Suction Swell Swell Classification
[%] [%] [pF] [%]
> 60 > 35 > 4 > 1.5 High
50 - 60 25 - 35 1.5 - 4 0.5 - 1.5 Marginal
< 50 < 25 < 1.5 < 0.5 Low

Seed et al. (1962) noted that two soils with the same swell potential might exhibit
different swell behavior due to different environmental conditions. He made the distinction
between swell potential and actual swell, and indicated that soil should be evaluated in two
stages. The first stage is to determine the swell potential based on the type and amount of clay
present in the soil. The second stage is to evaluate the environmental conditions to determine
the actual amount of swell that can be expected. Figure 2.22 can be used for the first stage of
analysis, where swell potential is a function of activity ratio and percent clay.
A more recent study by Zapata et al. (2006) of indirect swell determination illustrated
that PI and P
200
, when considered separately correlate poorly to swell potential obtained by
Arizona Modified Expansion Index. The product of these two parameters, however, wPI,

57
improves the correlation from R
2

values of 0.41 and 0.27, respectively, to 0.67 as presented in
Figure 2.23. The Arizona Modified Expansion Index is a 1-D swell test performed on remolded
soil sample at 95% of maximum dry density and -1 to +4 of optimum moisture content. Low to
moderate expansive soils typical to Arizona geographic region were considered in this study.

Figure 2.22. Soil swell potential in terms of activity and percent clay (Seed et al., 1962).

EI (AZ) versus wPI
EI = 0.2014wPI + 1.682
R
2
= 0.67
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 10 20 30 40
wPI = P200 *PI/100
E
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n

I
n
d
e
x
(
A
Z
)

(
%
)

Figure 2.23. Swell potential as a function of wPI (after Zapata et al., 2006).

58
2.8.2.2 Linear Shrinkage
Shrinkage limit was presumed to be related to swell potential, where linear shrinkage is
the percent linear volume change of soil from liquid limit state to oven dry. Altmeyer (1955)
suggested a relationship presented in Table 2.6. Recent research, however, failed to show a
conclusive evidence of correlation between swelling potential and shrinkage limit.

Table 2.6. Relationship between shrinkage and swell potential (after Altmeyer, 1955).
Shrinkage Limit Linear Shrinkage Degree of Expansion
[%] [%]
Less than 10 Greater than 8 Critical
10 - 12 5 - 8 Marginal
Greater than 12 0 - 5 Non-critical

2.8.2.3 Colloid Content
Colloid content refers to percent of clay in soil sample as determined by hydrometer
testing. Percent of clay present is not sufficient to adequately predict swell potential. It needs to
be evaluated together with mineralogical classification or index properties. Figure 2.24 illustrates
the work done by Holtz and Gibbs (1956) and the dependence of swell potential on both colloid
content, plasticity index and shrinkage limit.

Figure 2.24. Expansive soil classification based on index soil properties (Holtz and
Gibbs, 1956).

59
2.8.2.4 Suction
Soil suction is a measure of a soils affinity for water; refer to Section 2.9.1 for rigorous
definition (Fredlund and Rahardjo, 1993). Soil suction describes the state of the soil and
indicates the intensity with which it will attract water. The drier the soil the greater the suction is.
Soil suction has two main components: matric and osmotic. The sum of matric and osmotic
suction is defined as total suction. Matric suction is the attraction of water to the soil particle
surfaces and depends on pore size distribution. The osmotic suction in clayey soils is related to
the forces from the osmotic repulsion mechanism arising from the presence of soluble salts in
the soil water. Suction changes resulting from covering an area with a slab are attributed to
changes in matric suction alone (Chen 1988). Therefore, expansive potential of soil and
moisture movement can be predicted with matric or total suction, however suction alone is
seldom used as swell potential predictor. Typically, together with soil index properties, it is
incorporated into effective stress methodologies.
An attempt was made by McKeen (2001) to develop a methodology of predicting
expansive potential of soil based on suction compression index, where the suction compression
index is defined as the change of soil volume with change in logarithm of total suction. The
magnitude of the suction compression index indicates if the soil is expansive or not. Small slope
characterizes a swelling soil while a large slope indicates a non-expansive soil. The
classification system introduced by McKeen for total suction is presented in Figure 2.25 and
Table 2.7 where the chart is divided into five sections. Each section represents soil with different
swell potential. In general, the closer the soil is to the left bottom corner, the less expansive it is.
The principle of soil suction has been utilized in number of total and differential heave
prediction methodologies. Practitioners currently implement one of these methodologies. It is
3
rd
edition PTI Standard for Design and Analysis of Slab-of-Grade. This method is based on
research done by Covar and Lytton (2001), who correlated index properties of 130,000 soil
samples compiled by the Soil Survey Laboratory (SSL) of the Natural Soil Survey Center to
suction compression index based on mineralogical classification. Here the suction compression

60
index is defined as the slope of volume change to logarithm of total suction change for 100% fine
clay. The result of their study was updated mineralogical classification chart introduced by
Casagrande (1948), section 2.8.1.3. The chart was partitioned into six mineralogical regions.
For each region a chart was developed that enables the determination of suction compression
index based on liquid limit, activity, P
200
and percent of clay. The suction compression charts are
given in Figure 2.26 and the complete design procedure based on their work is presented in
Chapter 5, PTI, Residential Foundation Design Method.

Figure 2.25. Soil characterization in terms of suction compression index (after McKeen,
2001).

Table 2.7. Soil classification based on suction compression index (after McKeen,
2001).
Category h/w Ch H* H Remarks
I >-6 -0.227 15.3(6.0) 10.0 Special Case
II -6 to -10 -0.227 to -.12 8.1(3.2) 5.3 High
III -10 to -13 -0.120 to -.04 2.7(1.1) 1.8 Moderate
IV -13 to -20 -0.040 to non expansive --- --- Low
V <-20 Non-expansive --- --- Non-expansive
*
H for f=0.5, active zone (Z
a
)=1.5 m (5ft), h=1.0 pF, s=0.9

61

Zone I

Zone II

Zone III

Zone IV

Zone V

Zone VI

Figure 2.26. Suction compression index based on mineralogical classification of soil
into six types and soil index properties (after Covar and Lytton, 2001 and
also PTI 3
rd
Edition).

62
2.8.3 Direct Measurement
The best method of predicting potential heave or potential swelling pressure of a soil
sample is to measure it directly. The measurement is typically obtained with one dimensional
oedometer test where a soil specimen is placed inside of a brass ring. The rigid brass ring is
placed inside of a confining base to eliminate lateral deformations during testing. Porous stones
are placed on top and bottom of specimen. Porous stones, which allow drainage during the
testing process, are typically made of sintered corundum and are 0.5 mm smaller than the ring.
The difference in diameter between stone and the ring prevents the stone from being dragged
along the side of the ring during consolidation test that is typically performed after the swell test.
The oedometer test can be performed by spontaneously compressing both sides of the
sample or by applying pressure from one face only. The first type of test is called floating-ring
test while the second one is referred to as fixed ring test. Soil specimen tested in the floating
ring oedometer typically experiences somewhat less friction (between the soil and the ring) than
the fixed ring test. However the advantages of the fixed ring test highly exceed the reduced
friction benefit. The primary advantage of the fixed-ring test is that drainage from the bottom
porous stone can be measured or otherwise controlled which allows for the measurement of soil
permeability (Holtz and Kovacs, 1981). The fixed ring oedometer is the most widely adopted
one-dimensional swell/compression measuring equipment.
There are three types of one-dimensional tests typically performed on expansive soils.
They are free swell test, swell pressure test and expansion index test. The free swell test
consists of applying 1 psi surcharge and submerging an undisturbed or recompacted soil sample
in distilled water. One dimensional volume change is observed and the percent swell is
calculated by dividing the change in soil height by initial height of the specimen. Table 2.8
provides a summary of values developed by U.S Bureau of Reclamation to predict the severity of
swell based on observed percent swell determined from the free swell test.
Swelling pressure is determined in a similar way to the procedure described above.
Overburden pressure is applied to an undisturbed or recompacted soil sample. The specimen is

63
submerged in distilled water, but this time the sample is not allowed to change in volume. The
tendency to swell is suppressed by applying additional load to the sample. The pressure
required to overcome the heave of soil is referred to as the swelling pressure.

Table 2.8. Classification of swell potential significance (after U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation, 1974; surcharge of 6.9 kPa; Holtz et al., 1981).
Classification of
Expansion
Percent Expansion
(Dry to Saturated Condition)
Very High > 30
High 20-30
Medium 10-20
Low <10

Expansion Index, EI test is performed on recompacted soil samples in general
accordance with ASTM D 4829 procedure. The test is performed on 50% saturated soil where
the sample is prepared by compacting moist soil in two layers with 15 blows of 2.5 kg hammer
from distance of 12 inches per layer. The specimen is placed in consolidometer and 1-psi
surcharge pressure is applied to it. The sample is submerged in distilled water and is allowed to
swell. Dividing the observed change in height by the initial height of the sample and multiplying
it by a 1000 calculates EI. Table 2.9 gives typical expansion index values per expansion
classification.

Table 2.9. Classification of swell potential as per U.S. ASTM Standard D 4829-03 for
Expansion Index.
Classification of Expansion Expansion Index
Very High > 130
High 91-130
Medium 51-90
Low 21-50
Very Low 0-20

In Arizona, the standard EI procedure has been modified and is referred to as EI
AZ
. The
soil sample is prepared at -1% to +4% less of optimum water content and at 95% of optimum dry
density as determined from the standard compaction test. Surcharge pressure of 1-psi is
applied to the specimen that is saturated with distilled water and allowed to swell. The results

64
are expressed in terms of percentage of swell. All of the procedures described in here are given
in more detail in Chapter 4, Laboratory Testing.

2.9 Unsaturated Soil Mechanics Theory
Unsaturated soil mechanics is a relatively new discipline derived from classical soil
mechanics, mass balance and equilibrium principles, which

2.9.1 Soil Suction and Soil Moisture
in part deals with mass transport
though vadose zone. Although this theory was developed almost 50 years ago, serious
challenges limit its applicability to research, soil science and high impact environmental projects.
These challenges include and are not limited to 1) measurement of unsaturated soil properties, a
time consuming process requiring specialized equipment and expertise 2) uncertainty associated
with unsaturated soil properties, and 3) numerical modeling. Although many commercial and
public codes solving moisture flow though unsaturated soil exist, numerical modeling continues
to be an active topic of research, mainly in the area of stability and convergence, which are
challenges inherent to advection-diffusion type problems, as well as long time simulations
requiring a lot of computational effort. This section contains a literature review of transient flow
theory and its application, including definition and measurement of soil suction, estimation of
unsaturated soil properties, description of partial differential equation describing moisture flow
through unsaturated soil, overview of currently available commercial software and current
developments in numerical methods.

An unsaturated soil is commonly referred to as a three-phase system of solid, water and
air. Recently, the importance of air-water interface (i.e. contractile skin) gain a recognition as an
additional phase significant in the explanation of unsaturated soil mechanics (Fredlund and
Rahardjo, 1993). According to the theory of molecular attraction, molecules of liquid below the
surface act on each other by forces that are equal in all directions. However, molecules near the
surface have a greater attraction for each other than to molecules below the surface. This

65
produces a surface on the liquid that acts like a stretched, elastic membrane exerting tension on
objects in contact with it. Its magnitude per unit length is defined as surface tension, . The
effect of surface tension can be demonstrated by water rise in capillary, expressed by equation
(2.1). The relationship can be also expressed in terms air and water pressure differential referred
to as matric suction, where h u u u
w a
= = = (Fredlund and Rahardjo, 1993). A basic
relation between surface tension, the diameter of the capillary tube, and the rise is given by
4
h
d
= (2.1)
where:
h = height of water in a tube [m];
= surface tension for air water interface [0.0073 N/m];
= specific density of water [9.81 kN/m
3

Soil suction is a measure of soils affinity for water; it is a free energy of the pore water
which can be expressed in terms of partial vapor pressure or relative humidity (Richard, 1965).
When expressed in terms of relative humidity it is referred to as total suction.
].
( ) RH
W v
RT
v w
T
ln =
vs
v
u
u
RH =
(2.2)
with
T

(2.3)
and
- total suction [kPa];
R -
universal gas constant
(
(
K mol
J
31432 . 8
T
;
- absolute temperature [K];
v
w
-
specific volume of water
(
kg
m
w
3
001 . 0 ,
1
;

66
W
v
-
molecular mass of water vapor
(
kmol
kg
016 . 18
RH
;
- relative humidity [%]
v
u - partial pressure of pore water vapor [kPa];
vs
u -
saturation pressure of water vapor over a flat surface of pure
water at the same temperature [kPa].

Total suction consists of matric suction and osmotic suction/ the matric suction depends
on the capillary phenomenon arising from the surface tension of water, whereas the osmotic
suction depends on the salt concentration in the pore water. The existence of salts in water
results in the reduction of the relative humidity of the water vapor pressure, which in turn causes
the reduction of total suction (Fredlund and Rahardjo, 1993).

2.9.2 Measurement of Soil Suction
Suction of soil can be measured directly or indirectly. The principle of the direct method
is to apply air pressure, causing the sample pore-water to increase or decrease until soil suction
equals the imposed air pressure. When equilibrium is reached between the pore water and the
imposed air pressures, the resultant water content is unique to this soil at this suction. Pressure
plate, tensiometer and pressure membrane are examples of direct measurement of soil suction.
Indirect measurement can be obtained with psychrometer, filter paper and thermal sensors. It is
based on thermodynamics, where the soil suction is evaluated from the measurement of relative
humidity or heat dissipation. Fredlund and Rahardjo (1993) presented a detailed description of
suction measurement methodologies with are briefly summarized below.
Total suction can be measured with psychrometers and filter paper or controlled with salt
solution in desiccators. The thermocouple psychrometers measure the total suction by
measuring the relative humidity in the air phase of the soil pores or the region near the soil. The
psychrometer consists of a semi-permeable ceramic tip protecting two metal wire conductors
welded together at the tip, which measures relative humidity by a technique called Peltier cooling

67
involving current flow, water condensation at dew point and measurement of voltage output.
Psychrometers must be calibrated prior to testing.
The filter paper method of suction measurement is based on the assumption that a filter
paper will come to equilibrium with soil suction. Equilibrium can be reached by either liquid or
vapor moisture exchange between the soil and the filter paper. When a dry filter paper is placed
in direct contact with a soil specimen in a closed container, it is assumed that water flows from
the soil to the paper until equilibrium is achieved (matric suction measurement). When a dry
filter paper is suspended above a soil specimen, vapor flow of water will occur from the soil to
the filter paper until equilibrium is achieved (total suction measurement). Upon equilibration the
water content of the filter paper is measured. The filter paper must be calibrated prior to use
which is achieved with salt solution of different molarities. When the water content of the filter
paper comes to equilibrium with the relative humidity of the solution, the water content is
determined and correlated with corresponding suction value. Filter paper is a very useful testing
methodology since wide ranges of soil suction can be determined with it. The measurement of
total suction in desiccator involves equilibrating the soil suction with the relative humidity
maintained by salt solution.
Matric suction can be measured with filter paper, tensiometer, pressure plate, pressure
membrane and thermal conductivity sensors. Tensiometer consists of fine porous stone placed
in contact with soil. A pressure gauge such as dial gauge, manometer or electronic transducer is
connected to the ceramic stone through a small bore tube to measure the pressure in the soil
water. Because the porous tip allows the migration of salts through the ceramic stone,
tensiometers measure only the matric suction component of the suction (Chen, 1988).
Matric suction can be also determined with pressure plate or pressure membrane
equipment that utilizes axis translation technique. The axis translation technique prevents water
cavitation allowing the measurement of matric suction above 101.3 kPa. Pressure plate device
consists of pressure chamber, high air entry ceramic disk, water chamber below the ceramic
disk, and water valves connected to the water chamber. The water valves allow for the

68
measurement of released or absorbed water by the soil sample located on top of the saturated
ceramic stone. The essential component of the device is the ceramic stone that is used to
separate the air and water phases. The purpose of the ceramic stone is to provide pore spaces
small enough so the air pressure required to force an air bubble through the stone is greater
than the anticipated applied air pressure. Therefore, the properties of the ceramic stone
determine the maximum allowed suction measurement; which usually is 1500 kPa. The ceramic
stone also provides a flow path for the liquid water from the soil through the ceramic stone and
into the water compartment below the stone and vice versa. The pressure membrane apparatus
is very similar to the pressure plate equipment. The pressure membrane apparatus uses
cellulose membrane instead of ceramic stone. The equipment allows for the measurement of
number of samples instantaneously up to the suction of 1500 kPa.
The measurement of matric suction can also be obtained with thermal conductivity
sensor that works on the basis of correlating the heat dissipation in a porous ceramic with its
water content. The water content, in turn is a function of the suction. Since the heat
conductivity of a porous material is lower than that of the water, the heat dissipation in a porous
material is sensitive to its water content. When a standard porous probe is inserted into a soil
sample with different pore-water suction, water passes from the area of low suction to the area
of high suction. The movement of water takes place through direct capillary flow until equilibrium
is reached. The rate of heat dissipation of the standard porous material, therefore can be
measured by supplying a precisely controlled amount of heat at a fixed rate at the center of the
porous block and by measuring the temperature rise at the same point after fixed period of time.
The temperature rise is inversely proportional to the moisture content in the standard porous
block. The measured temperature is calibrated to read matric suction (Chen, 1988).
Osmotic suction can be measured by squeezing technique. In this technique, distilled
water is added to the soil sample until the soil reaches near fluid consistency. The water is
extracted from the soil sample with fluid squeezer consisting of heavy-walled cylinder and piston
squeezer. The extracted water is subjected to electrical conductivity test. The electrical

69
conductivity of the squeezed water is used to indicate the concentration of dissolved salts that is
related to the osmotic suction of the soil.

2.9.3 Soil Water Characteristic Curve
Transient water flow problems require the relationship between soil moisture and suction
be defined. Two definitions of that relationship were found in literature. They are suction
compression index and water storage coefficient. Suction compression index defines the slope
of gravimetric water content (McKeen et al, 1990), or strain (Lytton, 1992) versus total suction.
McKeen et al. (1992) developed empirical equation presented developed using results from
CLOD test.

C
h
= 0.02673
h
w
|
\

|
.
| 0.388704
h
(2.4)
where:
= change in total suction [pF], and
w = change in gravimetric water content.

Using soils from the Denver area, this equation was further modified by Perko et al.
(2000) to

C
h
=
10
3
PL
2
e + F
e +1
PL
(2.5)
where:
= plastic limit [%],
F = percent of soil passing US sieve number 200, and
e = void ratio.

Lyton and Covar (2001) presented a methodology to estimate the suction compression
index based on index properties and gradation; refer to Section 2.8.2.4 for additional details.
The water storage coefficient is a slope of the Soil Water Characteristic Curve, SWCC.
The SWCC is defined as the relationship between water content and matric suction, where the

70
water content can be expressed in terms of volumetric water content, gravimetric water content
or saturation. Figure 2.27 shows a typical plot of SWCC. It can be seen from that figure that
there exists a unique function of SWCC for adsorping and desorping process where the
difference between these two curves is about one log of suction per specific water content. The
difference can be explained by hysteresis. Most of the empirical equations were developed for
drying process, and such the equations represent the desorption relationship between water
content and suction. Numerous empirical equations have been proposed for estimation of the
SWCC. Some of them are presented in Table 2.10.

Figure 2.27. Typical Soil Water Characteristic Curve (after Fredlund and
Rahardjo,1999).

Table 2.10. Proposed empirical and theoretical equations of SWCC.
Author Equation Description
Garner, 1958

=
1
1+ q
n
|
\

|
.
|

Brooks and Corey, 1964

=
|
\

|
.
|

Verified by many studies. Not valid
near maximum desaturation or
under fully saturated conditions.
Van Genuchten, 1980

=
1
1+ q
n
|
\

|
.
|
m

Frequently used. The parameter m
is sometimes calculated as
n
1
1
.
Williams et al., 1983

ln = a
1
+ b
1
ln

71
Author Equation Description
McKee and Bumb, 1984

= e
a
2
( )
b
2

Not valid near maximum
desaturation or under fully
saturated conditions.
McKee and Bumb, 1987

=
1
1+ e
a
3
b
3

Valid for suctions near saturation.
Not suitable in the high suction
range.
Fredlund, 1994
m
n s
a
e
C
(
(
(
(
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
=

ln
1
) (

|
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
=
r
r
h
h
C
1000000
1 ln
1 ln
1 ) (

Theoretical equation uniquely
determines SWCC. Fits
experimental data reasonably well
within suction range of 0 to 10
6

kPa.
=

r
s

, normalized water content, dimensionless,
= volumetric water content at saturation, dimensionless,
r
= residual volumetric water content, dimensionless,
= pore size distribution index, dimensionless,
= matric suction [kPa],
h
r
= total suction corresponding to the residual water content,
r
[kPa],
a = soil parameter that which is related to the air entry value on the soil
a, m, n, p
,
= different soil parameters,
a
1
, b
1
, a
2
, b
2
= curve fitting parameters,
e = natural log base,
n = controls the slope at the inflection point, and
m = residual water content in the soil.

2.9.3.1 Uncertainty Band
The research done by Zapata (1999) indicates that different saturation levels can be
obtained for the same soil sample at the same suction. This phenomenon can be explained by
the variation in dry density, hysteresis, different test methodologies, variability in test procedures
and operator error. Fredlund and Rahardjo (1993) determined that when testing is done on the
same soil material with different dry density, the soil behavior will follow a different path on the

72
saturation vs. suction curve. It is further explained that the change in dry density of soil results in
a change of soil fabric and the soil at new density exhibits the behavior of a somewhat different
soil. Many of the factors are hard to quantify. Hysteresis is one exception. It is well established
that SWCC will follow one path during desaturation process and another one during saturation
(Fredlund and Rahardjo, 1993, Hillel, 1980, Scott et al., 1983).
The uncertainty band reflects the influence of the above-mentioned factors; it is also a
function of soil type. Figure 2.28 shows experimental data for Fountain Hills, Arizona clay, the
best fit function, and the 95 % confidence band developed by Zapata (1999). The data points
vary over two orders of magnitude in suction per specific water content. Similar conclusion was
presented by Gribb (2000) who reported data scatter over one order of magnitude for sandy soil.
Figure 2.28 shows that the representation of the SWCC as a single unique curve is, in general,
just an approximation.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
1E-6 1E-4 1E-2 1E+0 1E+2 1E+4 1E+6
Matric Suction (kPa)
V
o
l
u
m
e
t
r
i
c

W
a
t
e
r

C
o
n
t
e
n
t

(
c
m
3
/
c
m
3
)
Experimental Results
Best-Estimated SWCC
95% Confidence Band

Figure 2.28. Uncertainty Band of Fountain Hills, Arizona clay (Zapata, 1999).

2.9.3.2 Hysteresis
Hysteresis is one of sources causing variability in the SWCC. Research done by Chen
(1988) provides valuable information about the variation of soil behavior during wetting and
drying cycles. He found that the drying soil follows a different path than the wetting soil on the
water content vs. dry density curve. This variation ceased at the fifth cycle in his studies and the

73
wetting and drying paths became the same. Fredlund observed similar behavior on the
saturation vs. matric suction curve presented in Figure 2.27 (Fredlund et al. 1993).
Hysteresis can be explained by an ink bottle effect. When an empty tube is placed in
water bath, the water will rise up until an equilibrium state is reached. A saturated tube with
large void below equilibrium water height, when allowed to drain, will drain to the same height.
This corresponds to drying soil behavior. If the same tube with the large void placed in the water
bath, the water will rise to a height below the void. This corresponds to wetting behavior, which
is visually presented in Figure 2.29 (Miyazaki, 1993).

Figure 2.29. Ink bottle effect (after Miyazaki, 1993).

0
10
20
30
40
50
1E-2 1E-1 1E+0 1E+1 1E+2 1E+3 1E+4 1E+5 1E+6
v
w
c

[
%
]
Suction [kPa]
Lab Data
Drying Curve
Wetting - back pressure
Wetting - ponding

Figure 2.30. Closed and open hysteresis loops developed for CH soil, Arizona.

74
Closed hysteresis loop is formed when backpressure saturated soil is desaturated and
then saturated again from bottom up. The wetting curve typically has the same slope as the
drying curve and is shifted to the left of drying curve by 0.5 to 1.5 log of suction (Fredlund and
Rahardjo, 1993, Zapata, 1999 and others). When the moisture is ponded on top of the soil, the
specimen reaches lower value of saturation due to high percentage of entrapped air, which
creates an open loop hysteresis with the drying curve. The ratio of
(sat ponding)
/
(sat Back Pressure)
has
been estimated by Hillel (1980) to be about 90% and Basile at al. (2003) providing range from
78% to 95%. An idealized open and closed hysteresis loops are presented above in Figure
2.30.

2.9.4 Unsaturated Soil Permeability
In order to solve seepage of water through unsaturated soil, it is necessary to define
permeability in terms of suction. The unsaturated soil permeability, k(h), describes moisture flow
characteristics of soil with decrease in pore water pressure. As the soil desaturates, the number
of saturated pores decreases, decreasing the number of moisture flow passages, hence the soil
permeability decreases when suction increases. It was first noticed by Richards (1931) that
capillary forces describe flow through unsaturated medium and the conductivity is related to the
moisture content of the medium. Furthermore, since moisture content uniquely varies with
suction, logical conclusion follows that the unsaturated soil permeability can be expressed in
terms of suction and it can be approximated from SWCC. Table 2.11 lists historical
advancement in this area of research. Many soil parameters in the proposed equations come
from estimated SWCCs with equations from Table 2.10.

75
Table 2.11. Proposed equations of unsaturated soil permeability as a function of
suction (from Fredlund, 1993).
Author Equation
( )
1
s
n
a w
w
k
k
u u
a
g
=
| |
+
|
\ .
Gardner, 1958

Brooks and Corey, 1964
k() = k
sat

for

u
a
u
w
( ) u
a
u
w
( )
b

( )
( )
a w b
s
a w
u u
k k
u u
| |
=
|
\ .
2 3 = +

for

u
a
u
w
( ) u
a
u
w
( )
b

( )
( )
'
1
s
n
a w
a w
b
k
k
u u
u u
=
| |
+
|
|
\ .
Arbhabhirama and Kridakorn, 1968

( )
( ) ( )
( )
( )
2
1
2
1 1
1
m
n n
s m
n
k k
(
+
(

=
(
+

van Genuchten and Maulem, 1980

( )
( )( )
min min
p
s
k k k k
= +
Modified Campbell, 1996

( )
pm
n
s
a
e k k
(
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ =
ln Leong and Rahardjo, 1997

=
diffusion coefficient,
= pore size distribution index, dimensionless,
s

=
volumetric water content at saturation, dimensionless
w
= density of water

=
matric suction [kPa],
= k() unsaturated soil permeability,
k
s
= saturated soil permeability,
u
a
= pore air pressure [kPa],
u
w
= pore water pressure [kPa],
u
a
u
w
= matric suction [kPa],
(u
a
u
w
)
b
= matric suction at air entry value [kPa],
a, m, n, n, p = different constant soil parameters,
a = Soil parameter that are related to the air entry value of the soil,
e = natural logarithm,
n = controls the slope at the inflection point, and
m = Residual water content in the soil.

76
Typically two empirical methods are used to determine k(h). Instantaneous profile
method is used in-situ, which gives wetting curve (Watson, 1966). The evaporation method
developed by (Wind, 1968), with the modifications by Tamari et al. (1993) and Romano and
Santini (1999) is typically adopted in laboratory setting for estimation of the drying curve. In
industry, empirical methods are rarely used to estimate them due to practical challenges
associated with test procedures which include test duration, sophisticated test equipment, the
procedure know-how and analysis of data, to name few. More commonly, the unsaturated soil
properties are estimated with presented fit functions. These functions commonly estimated with
statistical model based on typically quantified soil properties such as gradation and Atterberg
Limits. As shown by van Genuchten and Nielsen (1985), Vogel et al. (2001) and Vogel and
Cislerova (1988), the choice of the analytical model for SWCC estimation can significantly affect
the predicted k(h) function. Vogel et al. (2001) illustrated that small changes in SWCC near
saturation result in large changes in k(h). The differences are more pronounced in fine textured
soils than in coarse textured ones.

Figure 2.31. Typical unsaturated permeability variation with volumetric water content.
Comparison of empirical data to predicted values. (after Fredlund and
Rahardjo, 1993).

77
Limited empirical information is available about unsaturated soil permeability of clayey
soils. The available data usually illustrates k(h) only up to suction of 100 kPa. Its been shown
that within this suction range the k(h) variation due to hysteresis is insignificant (Mualem, 1986,
Kool and Parker, 1987 and Fredlund and Rahardjo, 1993), see Figure 2.31. It should be noted
that permeability presented in terms of suction, exhibits significant hysteresis, which usually
does not exceed one log of suction (conclusion drawn based on data by Brooks and Corey,
1964). As with SWCC estimate, k(h) as a single unique curve is, in general, an approximation
which is typically based on drying SWCC estimate. Additionally, small variations in SWCC
estimate near saturation cause large differences in k(h) estimate near saturation with
consequences on numerical results, stability of solution and rate of convergence (Vogel et al.,
2001).

2.9.5 Theory of Moisture Flow
The analysis of soil response due to atmospheric conditions consists of two
components: liquid water flow, and water vapor flow. Liquid water transfer is frequently
dominated by gravity flow especially in high permeability soils or stiff clays where flow might
occur in the bedding planes, continuous fissures or shrinkage cracks. Shrinkage cracks that
develop due to surface desiccation provide an easy access of water into the deep soils. In fine-
grained soils, moisture flow due to capillary force can dominate moisture transfer mechanism.
The moisture migration can occur in all directions. For example, under artesian conditions, the
flow can be upward. The height of water rise into the capillary fringe varies inversely with the
radius of the capillary tube. In clay a theoretical rise of 1000 ft is possible (Chen, 1988).
Moisture flows from an area of high potential energy to an area of low potential energy.
The first model of moisture flow through soil was developed by Darcy (1856) followed by
universally applied mass-conservation based Richards equation (1931), its form implemented in
this research work. The solution of Richards equation requires the computational power of a
computer and a sophisticated numerical method capable of solving a stiff partial differential

78
equation, PDE. The challenges associated with the solution of mass-balance based approach
yielded the development of empirical formulations by Kostiakov (1932), Horton (1940) and
Holtan (1961) and Green-Ampt method (1911). These approaches are attractive for simple
infiltration problems, which can be solved by hand.
There are few components of gas flow: advective due to pressure or thermal gradient
and diffusive into liquid in a form of occluded air bubbles. The diffusive flow is hard to
characterize and is not significant for majority of civil engineering, hydrology and soil science
applications. Advective gas flow can occur in all directions in response to thermal gradients,
where vapor travels from high temperature to a lower one or by pressure gradients where the
gas flows from area of high potential energy to area of low potential energy. The analysis of gas
flow is important when modeling atmospheric conditions and vapor flow due to potential
evaporative fluxes. Condensation of water vapor plays a role in moisture migration and soil
heaving, which might be a significant factor in moisture migration under covered areas.
Additionally, thermal gradients can cause moisture migration in the liquid phase. Experiments
conducted at Princeton University show that the temperature differential of 1 degree C was at
least equivalent to a hydrostatic head of 1 m. Thermal gradient reaches maximum efficiency
when the moisture content in the soil is near PL (Chen, 1988).
Thermal gradient is the basis of the thermodynamic theory of moisture migration first
introduced by Edlefsen and Anderson (1943) as moisture movement initiated by a total specific
free energy gradient. It was defined in terms of surface tension, hydrostatic pressure, dissolved
material and adsorptive forces. The thermodynamic approach distinguishes between the
different water phases and prescribes the liquid flux in the direction of the higher temperature
(Ten Berge, 1990). However, it is argued that if the soil water is divided into two sub-phases,
vapor and liquid, the driving forces on the respective sub-phases caused by a temperature
gradient will cancel each other out. This might lead to the conclusion that the effect of
temperature on the driving force for water movement is smaller than previously thought (Berge,
1990). Furthermore, Corey and Klute (1985) and Durkee (2000), critiqued that the effects of

79
gravity are not taken into account in the thermodynamic approach and that it is not analogous to
Darcys Law. More recent work done by Wilson et al. (1994) provides a modified Richards
equation for advective vapor flow coupled with heat transfer which is implemented in this
research work.

2.9.5.1 Saturated Flow
Hydraulic gradient is a central concept in fluid flow mechanics. It is defined as the
energy or head loss per unit length. For laminar flow and saturated soil conditions the
relationship between flow velocity and hydraulic gradient was found to be linear. The slope of
the linear function is referred to as proportionality constant, and more commonly coefficient of
permeability, permeability or hydraulic conductivity. This relationship was first discovered
experimentally by Henry Darcy in 1856 and then proven to satisfy principles of mass
conservation. Now, this fundamental concept in soil mechanics is referred to as Darcy Law
given in equation 2.6.
y
h
k v
=
v
(2.6)
where:
= Water flow rate [m/s]
y = Distance [m]
k = Saturated soil permeability [m/s]
h = u/

g+y, total head equal to pressure plus elevation heads [m]
The underlying assumption in Darcy law is that the flow velocity of water passing though
soil particles is small enough to satisfy laminar flow conditions. Figure 2.32 illustrates that as the
flux increases the hydraulic gradient increases linearly for Reynolds numbers smaller than 1,
where the Reynolds number is a measure of friction loss within a system distinguishing between
laminar and turbulent flow (see Tindall and Kunkel, 1999 for details). For Reynolds number

80
larger than 1, Darcy Law is not valid, the relationship becomes nonlinear and for Reynolds
number larger than 100 the flow becomes turbulent.
A deviation from Darcy Law was also observed in clayey soils with low permeability
under small gradient conditions. Small hydraulic gradients can cause no-flow situation or flow
rates smaller than anticipated from Darcy Law. Figure 2.32 illustrates a concept of threshold
gradient, where deviation from Darcy Law is observed for small hydraulic gradients, which is
attributed to clay microstructure and its interaction with water particles.

Figure 2.32. Schematic of flow classification based on Reynolds number (after Tindall
and Kunkel, 1999).

The first method of saturated moisture flow analysis was introduced by Cassagrande in
1937, who proposed a flow net technique, a graphical solution of Laplaces equation in two
dimensions presented in equation 2.7, where x and y are two coordinate directions. Laplace
equation represents energy loss through any resistive medium. The flow net solution assumed
no flow in the unsaturated zone. The flow line solution is obtained through trial and error by
sketching a network of flow lines and equipotential lines spaced in such a way as to divide the

81
flow area into equal squares. The flow net technique can be only used for simple saturation
seepage problems with simple geometry, soil properties and clearly defined boundary conditions
(Holtz and Kovacs, 1981).

2
h
x
2
+
2
h
y
2
= 0
2.9.5.2 Unsaturated Flow
(2.7)
With the introduction of computers, numerical methods made their way into geotechnical
application. In 1967 Taylor and Brown proposed a finite element model for seepage problems
with a free surface. This model considered only flow of water in the saturated zone and the
phreatic line was assumed to be the upper boundary of the flow region. The model often had
convergence problems due to incorrect assumption on the upper boundary of the flow region.
More recently Butterfield and Tomlin (1972) used Boundary Element Method, BEM, for solution
of flow through saturated soil. They used direct Green function formulation that incorporates
polynomial distribution of the medium property into the free space Greens function to obtain
solutions to steady flow in saturated heterogeneous media. The solution is obtained by iteration.
Currently there are many commercial and public domain software that implement finite element
or finite difference methodologies to solve Darcys equation for moisture flow through saturated
medium. The most commonly used MODLOW program uses finite difference and implicit,
backward Euler time discretization.

Unsaturated soil mechanics theory was developed as an extension of classical soil
mechanics, being a special case of unsaturated soil mechanics with its limited application to
groundwater flow and positive pore water pressures. Unsaturated soil mechanics applies to both
vadose zone and soil below ground water table providing smooth transition between them.
Unsaturated soil refers to a medium partially filled with water and partially with air. As the soil
de-saturates the pore water pressure changes from positive (compressive) to negative (tensile).
The magnitude of negative pore water pressure is a function of pore size distribution, where the

82
largest pores de-saturate first leaving tensile force acting on smaller gaps in the soil structure.
Because suction, equal to u
a
-u
w
, (Fredlund and Rahardjo, 1993) depends on the radius of pore
size, it increases nonlinearly with decrease of saturation. It is assumed that water flow can occur
only across pores filled with water. Because partially saturated soil has decreased number of
flow passages, the unsaturated soil permeability decreases with degree of saturation in a
nonlinear manner.
Unsaturated liquid moisture flow though soil in one dimension is described by Richards
equation, a parabolic, partial differential equation derived from mass conservation. It assumes a
continuum, homogeneous, incompressible and isothermal medium, as well as a negligible air
pressure, which is infinitely mobile in the unsaturated zone. The pressure head, h - based
formulation
( )
t
h
m S
y
h
k
y
w
w
y
= +
|
|
.
|
\
|
2

( )
0 = +
|
|
.
|
\
|
S
y
h
k
y
y
Transient Seepage (2.8a)

y
Steady State Seepage (2.8b)
is a nonlinear advection-diffusion equation involving:
- elevation [m],
t - time [h],
h - total head [m],
w
- specific weight of water [9.81 kN/m
3
m
2w

],
=
0 / u

, slope of SWCC
- volumetric water content
k(
- )y unsaturated soil permeability [m/h]

S - source or sink [m/h]

Both m
2
( ) u = , 0 max
w
and k(
)y are functions of h via the matric suction, [kPa],

where the pore water pressure, u, is defined by
( ) y h u
w
= [kPa] (2.9)

83
Applied boundary conditions are either
h = C

C =
y
h
k
y
prescribed pressure head (Dirichlet) (2.10a)

or

L h =
prescribed flux (Neumann). (2.10b)
In surface runoff (or seepage) conditions, a mixture of Dirichlet and Neumann boundary
conditions is applied, depending on the value of the pore water pressure:
for 0 u and C
x
h
k
x
=
for 0 < u , (2.10c)

where L
( )
t
h
m
y
h
D
y
h
k
y
w
w
my y
=
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|

2
1
represents the height of the computational domain.
For modeling of atmospheric conditions under the assumption of isothermal medium,
Richards equation is modified to include vapor based on from Ficks Law as per the work of
Wilson (1994),

RT
u W D
u
u u
D
v v
w
v
a
v a
my 2
+
=
(2.11)
RT
W
D D
v
vap v
=
(2.12)
3
2
=
(2.13)
n S) 1 ( =
(2.13a)
75 . 1
4
273
1 10 * 229 . 0
|
.
|
\
|
+ =
T
D
vap
(2.13b)
D
my

(2.13c)
where:
- vapor diffusion coefficient [m
3
u
a

*s/kg],
- pore air pressure [101.3 kPa],
u
v
- u
vs
RH, partial pore pressure due to water vapor [kPa],

84
RH - relative humidity [%],
w
- water density [1000 kg/m
3
D
v
],
- diffusion coefficient of water vapor through soil [kg*m/(kN*s)],
- tortuosity factor of soil,
- crossectional area of soil available for vapor flow
S - degree of soil saturation [%]
n - porosity
D
vap
- molecular diffusivity of water vapor in air [m
2

A coupled model of heat, mass and vapour flow developed by Wilson et al. (1994) can
be used to describe soil behavior under anisothermal conditions. In this model, Darcys and
Ficks Laws are used to describe moisture and vapour flow respectively while heat flow is
evaluated based on conductive and latent heat fluxes. Equation 2.14 gives transient liquid and
vapor water flow while equation 2.15 describes heat flow.
/s].
( )
t
h
m
y
u
D
y u
u u
y
h
k
y
w
w v
v
a
v a w
y
=
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
2
t
T
C
y
u
D
y u
u u
L
t
T
y
h
v
v
a
v a
v
=
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
| +
|
.
|
\
|
(2.14)

(2.15)
where:
- thermal conductivity [W/(m*C)],
L
v
- latent heat of vaporization for water [J/kg],
C
v
- volumetric specific heat [J/(m
3

*C)].
The solution of Richards equation requires that the variation of both volumetric water
content and unsaturated permeability, k(h), with matric suction are defined. The relationship of
volumetric water content or degree of saturation to matric suction is defined as the Soil Water
Characteristic Curve, SWCC. Empirical and numerical equations estimating SWCC are listed in
Table 2.10. The unsaturated hydraulic conductivity function is a time derivative of the SWCC. A
list of researchers proposed k(h) is given in Table 2.11.

85
The above presented theoretical methodologies are commonly applied in commercial
and public domain software developed in Canada and US. Literature review revealed that many
theoretical approaches to the solution of liquid moisture flow through unsaturated soil exist. All
of them have a form of Richards equation with diversity in the description of the source term, the
change in volumetric water content with time and expression of unsaturated soil permeability in
terms of diffusivity e.i. Taigbenu, 2001, Fredlund and Rahardjo, 1993, Wray et al., 2005 and
others. There are also few published coupled vapor, heat and water flow approaches. They
include work done by Schieldge et al., 1982, Camillo et al., 1983, Witono and Bruckler, 1989,
and Thomas (1999) which are not described here. In this research work, the above presented
equations are considered to be the governing, state-of-the art equations used for 1) modeling of
atmospheric conditions and 2) illustration of advanced numerical methodologies.

2.10 Numerical Methods
Richards equation is a parabolic partial differential equation, PDE, with advection-
diffusion characteristics. The lack of analytical solution has led to the development and
implementation of sophisticated numerical methods requiring both time and space
discretizations. Appropriate numerical tools to analyze advection-diffusion equation include finite
difference method, FD, finite volume method, FV, and finite element method, FE. FE methods
include classical Galerkin, nonconforming, discontinuous, mixed, adaptive and multiscale
(wavelet and multigrid schemes) methods. Time discretization involves explicit or implicit
methods with or without adaptive and iterative features. Up-scaling and mass lumping are
frequently implemented. Stability, convergence and time efficiency are issues inherent to this
class of problems, hence the ongoing research in the arena of numerical methods with aim on
overcoming these challenges.

86
2.10.1 Numerical Methods Used in Solution of Richards Equation
Initially, the numerical solution of Richards equation followed a simple finite difference
method, Freeze (1971) followed by more advanced finite element work by Neuman (1972), Lam
(1987), Papagianakis and Fredlund (1984 and 1995) and Celia et al. (1990). The currently
implemented standard approach follows a method of lines also referred to as semi-
discretization, where spatial derivatives are first approximated using a variety of (usually low
order) finite difference or finite element schemes, and the resulting discrete system of ordinary
differential equations (which also accounts for boundary conditions) is then solved using a time
integrator.

2.10.2 Available Commercial Software
Currently, there are many commercial and public domain software for vadose zone
analysis. They vary in complexity and solution algorithms based on the intended use. Bucket
codes are typically applied in large-scale groundwater recharge problems with statistical
averaging of the main hydrological processes. The groundwater recharge occurs when the
surface precipitation exceeds runoff and PE while the seasonal moisture content changes are
handled by a root zone storage capacity referred to as a reservoir or a bucket (Schaake, et al.,
1996). Simplified semi-analytical solutions have been developed for large-scale analysis of
surface moisture content and surface runoff determination as input parameters for climate
estimate programs. This method is frequently coupled with real moisture data collected on
hourly bases at selected sites, such as the Walnut Gulch, Arizona monitoring station. The loop
mechanism reduces uncertainty associated with the implemented simplifying assumptions.
Rutgers at http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/soil_moisture/ maintains large public domain
database of soil moisture with links to related research. The third methodology involves the
numerical solution of Richards equation applicable to relatively small-scale problems. The
solution is progressed with sophisticated numerical tools with high computational requirements.

87
Based on literature review and survey of practitioners a short list of most commonly used
programs for engineering design was established and it includes Hydrus, Vadose/W,
MODFLOW-SURFACT, Seep/W, Unsat-H, Shaw and STOMP, where Hydrus is among the most
popular ones. The choice of software frequently depends on the modeled scenario, for example
SHAW is preferred for analysis of cold climates while Unsat-H is the preferred choice in arid
regions with vegetation cover. Many commercial software for analyzing Richards equation
implement finite element discretizations and semi-implicit or implicit time integration schemes.
Mass lumping of soil properties is typically used to increase stability. Most software implement
some form of time step adaptivity involving the number of successful nonlinear iterations
performed in past time steps. When the maximum number of allowed iterations is reached the
step size is reduced and new solution is recomputed. A short overview of numerical methods
and numerical issues observed in the commonly used programs is given below.

2.10.2.1 SVFlux
SVFlux is a finite element program based on a FlexPDE kernel, a general software for
solving systems of PDEs in 1D, 2D or 3D. FlexPDE utilizes adaptive unstructured mesh
generation and adaptive time stepping based on an implicit Backwards Difference formula (BDF)
of low order (order 1 is implicit Euler, order 2 is Gear's method, a two-step method which
requires a proper initialization). By default at most 3 Newton iterations are allowed in the implicit
step, thereby transforming the implicit method into an explicit solver of predictor-corrector type
when used with a fixed time step. From an accuracy point of view this limitation can be
compensated by using smaller time steps. From a stability point of view however, such limitation
may cause local instabilities in highly refined or nearly saturated regions which may develop into
global instabilities.
Runoff boundary condition (2.10c) is handled by replacing the surface head boundary
condition by a Neumann boundary condition of the form (assuming no ponding)

88
u Fk
x
h
k
x x
=
for 0 u
( ) 0
1
= +
L h
x
h
F
w
(2.16)
where is a large relaxation constant (SVS, 2005). Using (2.9), Eq. (2.16) is equivalent to the
Robin boundary condition
for L h
2.10.2.2 Vadose/W
. (2.17)
Large values of in (2.17) provide a good approximation of the head boundary
condition, but if not implemented appropriately, may introduce large coefficients, i.e. stiffness, in
the semi-discretized system of ODEs, potentially causing instabilities in the time integration.
Note that (2.16) imposes a negative surface flux (evaporation) while (2.10c) imposes a positive
surface flux in infiltration problems (>0). The resulting discontinuity typically leads to oscillations
which appear in the form of excessive infiltration into or unexpected evaporation out of the soil
profile. Reducing together with mesh size and time step at the soil surface typically
overcomes these instability issues, but introduces errors in the solution which are hard to
quantify.

Vadose/W 2004 is a 2D finite element program for solving (2.8a) with either structured or
unstructured user specified mesh discretization. Vadose/W works much like SVFlux, with two
exceptions: (i) a semi-implicit integration based on an implicit Euler step is used. The soil
properties are evaluated at the midpoint of the time-step using already computed values, and the
resulting linear system is solved either directly or iteratively (with at most 5 iterations by default).
The resulting scheme is, again, equivalent to an explicit scheme, albeit with an increased
stability region compared to e.g. explicit Euler; (ii) seepage boundary conditions (2.10c) are
handled by flip-flopping between flux and head boundary conditions until either condition is
satisfied (to within a given tolerance) (Geoslope, 2005). Whether such iterative process is
guaranteed to converge remains unclear.

89
2.10.2.3 Hydrus
Hydrus 3.0 is a 1D software which solves a mixed form of (2.8a) obtained by defining the
time derivative in terms of volumetric water content, :
( )
t t
u
t t
h
t
S
y
h
k
y
w y
= +
|
|
.
|
\
|
( )
1 , 1
1 , 1
+ +
+ +
k n
n k n
h K
t

(2.18)
Equation (2.18) is advanced in time using Picard iterations based on an implicit Euler step
( )
k n k n
w w
k n k n
h h m
, 1 1 , 1
2
, 1 1 , 1 + + + + + +
+ =
(2.19)
with , starting with
+
= =
, 0 , 1 n n n
and
+
= =
, 0 , 1 n n n
h h h . Surface runoff is handled, as in Vadose/W, by switching between flux and
head boundary conditions until (2.10c) is satisfied.
Hydrus exhibits numerical oscillations when solving (2.18) in infiltration problems into
dry, clayey soil profiles, with large initial mass balance errors observed. Numerical oscillations
reportedly depend on both time step and mesh size, suggesting that the implemented time
discretization method is not fully implicit. These oscillations are in principle overcome by
applying upstream weighting and selecting a time step and mesh size satisfying CFL and other
appropriate criteria (UCR, 2005).

2.11 Summary
The estimation of moisture flow through unsaturated soil for geotechnical engineering
application is a multifaceted problem involving combination of empiricism and unsaturated soil
mechanics theory. Due to the complexity of the problem and difficulties associated with the
implementation of soil mechanics, the industry adopted a semi-empirical approach to the design
and mitigation of detached residential dwellings. The presented literature review summarizes
empirical findings relative to the moisture flow through unsaturated soil and the observed impact
on lightly loaded structures. Also, a brief introduction to unsaturated soil mechanics is presented

90
with discussion about commercial software implemented numerical methods that solve a form of
Richards equation.
Two types of slab systems are commonly used in residential construction, conventional
stem and footer with un-reinforced or lightly reinforced slab and post tensioned slabs. The
design methodologies, in part, are based on the anticipated post-construction change in the
depth of wetting and degree of saturation. It is assumed that the soil suction of undeveloped site
comes to equilibrium with the existing environmental conditions at depth unaffected by seasonal
climate variation referred to as the equilibrium soil suction at active zone depth. The active zone
depth was found to vary between 1.2 m to 12 m (4 feet to 39 feet) depending on the rigorous
definition of the term and environmental conditions of test region (McKeen, 1980, 1981, 1985;
ONeill 1980; ONeill and Poormoayed, 1980; Thompson, 1992; Thompson and McKeen, 1995;
Wray, 1989,1997; Wray and Ellepola, 1991; Durkee, 2000, Chao et al., 2006).
An introduction of an impermeable cover at the soil surface, such as a slab-on-grade or
a pavement, results in elimination of precipitation and reduction in potential evaporation (Day,
1994). With time the suction within the soil profile below the impermeable surface comes to
equilibrium with the new environmental conditions. It is postulated that the suction below the
slab is constant with depth and equal to the initial equilibrium suction (Nelson et al., 2001).
Based on empirical evidence, the process of monotonic moisture migration due to capillary
forces, moisture condensation below the slab and temperature gradients (Chen, 1988) occurs up
to six years (Donaldson, 1965). Furthermore, it was observed that the 6-10 year long
equilibration process is followed by a uniform drop in heave (Donaldson, 1965), which might be
related to fatigue of swelling. Fatigue of swelling refers to the decrease of soils swelling
potential as the drying-wetting cycles continue. Chen (1988) illustrated that swell levels off at fifth
cycle when relative equilibrium is reached.
A long-term study of slab-on-grade behavior by Wray (1992) illustrated that short-term
post-construction slab movement is attributed to seasonal climate variation resulting in edge lift
slab distortion in arid regions. Continued monitoring revealed slow but increasing mound in the

91
center of the slab indicating that subsequently center lift distortion might occur. On the other
hand in humid regions, the short-term edge lift slab distress is quickly replaced with a center lift
scenario (Wray, 1992).
An important parameter for slab design is the potential suction variation below the edges
of the slab due to environmental or human imposed conditions next to the foundation. Its been
postulated that the suction may vary 1) between liquid limit and shrinkage limit (conclusion
based on measured gravimetric water content data of SM and CL soils below 10 000 slab-on-
grades in Houston and San Antonio, Texas, (Stryron et al., 2001)), 2) between 98 kPa and 9 800
kPa (McKeen, 2001), and 3) between 33 kPa to 3 300kPa in terms of total suction (PTI, 2004).
m
, defined as the distance over which moisture
will change due to wetting or drying influences around the perimeter of the foundation (PTI,
2004) is difficult to measure experimentally. Few case studies measured e
m
in arid regions to
vary between 1.75 m (study of bike trail by Nevels, 2001) and more than 4.5 m (study of slab-on-
grade where em exceeded a half of slab by Durkee, 2000). The e
m
might approach the active
zone depth McKeen et al. (1990) although the PTI (2004) procedure limits e
m
magnitude at 3 m
(9 ft).
The slab-soil system performance is frequently evaluated in terms of slab relative
deflection, angular distortion or overall magnitude and extent of superstructure distress. Based
on forensic engineering studies, cosmetic damage was correlated to 1.1-1.75 slab relative
deflection and 1/300 angular distortion. Structural damage was found to occur at relative
deflection larger than 3.5 and maximum angular distortion of 1/100. (Day, 1990, Skempton and
MacDonald (1956), Marsh and Thoney (1999). The study of as-built floor levelness, however,
suggests that these distress markers should be used with sound engineering judgement. Newly
constructed slabs were found to exhibit on average 0.5 relative slab deflection and average
angular distortion of 1/340. These values were found to reach 2.2 and 1/71 respectively, values
corresponding to structural damage (Koenig, 1991, Marsh et al., 1999, Walsh, et al., 2001,
Noorany et al.2005).

92
Mitigation measures are employed to minimize potential soil movement and
superstructure distress. They include 1) removal, replacement and recompaction, 2) chemical
stabilization 3) passive moisture control with moisture barriers and 4) active moisture control.
The economical feasibility of mitigation measure depends on availability of material and
expertise of mitigation team. In Arizona, active moisture control in the form of pad pre-wetting is
the most commonly implemented method. The effectiveness of these methods remains to be
quantified.
The literature review consensus message is that the depth of moisture migration,
magnitude of suction variation with depth in open fields and below impermeable surfaces, the
distance of horizontal moisture migration below a slab and soil-slab system behavior with or
without employed mitigation measures are highly dependent on 1) soil properties and 2)
environmental and human imposed conditions around the edges of the engineered horizontal
surface. The geotechnical engineers are faced with the challenge of estimating these design
parameters for foundation system design purposes. In general, design guidelines provide a
cookie cutter methodology developed based on a local experience of a geographic region, which
may or may not be applicable to different soil and climatic conditions. When limited empirical
data is available, numerical modeling of moisture flow through unsaturated soil can be performed
for the identification of case specific design parameters.
The numerical analysis of moisture flow through unsaturated soil involves
implementation of unsaturated soil mechanics by solving Richards equation, a parabolic, stiff,
advection-diffusion partial differential equation derived from mass conservation. Stability,
convergence and time efficiency are issues inherent to this class of problems. The currently
implemented standard approach follows a method of lines also referred to as semi-
discretization, where spatial derivatives are first approximated using a variety of (usually low
order) finite difference or finite element schemes, and the resulting discrete system of ordinary
differential equations (which also accounts for boundary conditions) is then solved using a time

93
integrator. Three commonly used numerical software were reviewed, SVFlux, Vadose/W and
Hydrus.

3 CURRENT PRACTICE

3.1 Factors Affecting Residential Building Performance
Determining slab movements on expansive soils is a very challenging technical problem
involving coupled unsaturated flow and unsaturated soils stress-strain analysis, as well as soil
structure interaction. The engineering community makes extensive use of local experience and
empirical procedures to address factors affecting the performance of residential structures and to
identify acceptable structure performance. These factors can be divided into two categories,
geotechnical concept based and based on physical characteristics of construction materials.
The geotechnical factors include:
Soil type. There are two types of volume change- moisture sensitive soils, collapsible
and expansive. In Arizona, low to medium expansive soils are commonly encountered.
These soils tend to increase in volume when wetted under light load and compress
when wetted under heavy load. Shrinkage is observed when the soil is dried. The
magnitude of movement depends on the soil properties, initial and finial moisture
conditions (soil suction) and applied load (stress). The design of slab-on-grade
foundations must consider both movements of the soil and the structure, as soil-
structure interaction depends on foundation type, overall stiffness of the structure and
distribution of structure loads.
Soil preparation prior to vertical construction. It is recognized that the magnitude of soil
expansion depends on initial dry density. In general, the expansion potential increases
with increase in initial dry density. Typically, in the Phoenix region, the foundation pads
are prepared at 95
d max
as determined from the standard Proctor tests. For sites were
problematic soils are recognized, the foundation pads are prepared at lower dry density
to reduce the magnitude of both shrinkage and swell.
Drainage control. Problematic soils undergo volume change due to changes in the
controlling stress state variables, and for moisture sensitive soils the matric suction is the
primary variable controling the soil behavior. Matric suction is best described as

95
capillary potential, and the amount of soils suction that may develop depends on the soil
grain size distribution (pore space distribution). Inadequate site drainage is often the
source of moisture which leads to changes in the matric suction stress state variable,
and consequently soil and slab movement. Ideally, residential structures are designed
and built with appropriate site and region specific drainage considerations for removal of
rainwater and landscape water from the residential structure perimeter.
Environmental conditions. The suction at depth depends on environmental conditions
(Thornthwaite, 1948) and soil type (Perera, 2003) as illustrated in Figure 3.1 where the
weighted plasticity Index, wPI, is defined as the product of P
200
in decimal times the PI in
%. Soils with higher clay content will develop higher suctions at depth in all climatic
zones which has profound consequences on slab design, where the estimated suction at
depth identifies the suction range of to which the swelling soil will be subjected. The
research by Perera (2003) is not incorporated into design manuals, however, similar
findings have been reported by other researchers.

1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
TMI
M
a
t
r
i
c

S
u
c
t
i
o
n
,

k
P
a
Data Points
P200=10
P200=50/wPI=0.5 or less
wPI=5
wPI=10
wPI=20
wPI=50

Figure 3.1. Matric suction at depth as a function of TMI and soil type (after Perera,
2003).

96
Initial moisture conditions. Initial moisture conditions of the foundation pad affect the
type and magnitude of soil movement. Based on the literature review presented in
Chapter 2, the soil moisture is expected equilibrate within six years of construction.
Typically, site development leads to an overall increase in soil moisture compared to
pre-development conditions. Therefore it is anticipated by the engineering community
that relatively dry initial conditions may lead to significant swell. A commonly
implemented mitigation measure involves moisture conditioning of the pad. On the other
hand, relatively wet initial moisture conditions might result in differential soil shrinkage as
equilibrium is attained at the site.
Post construction moisture conditions are critical factors affecting the performance of
residential structures. In Arizona, the commonly implemented post construction
condition is assumed to be that associated with desert landscape for a minimum
distance of 5 ft from foundation edge. Homeowners frequently modify the perimeter
moisture conditions by planting high water use vegetation and modifying drainage to
meet vegetation needs. Although the design methodologies (e.g. PTI) account for moist
surface conditions, the actual extent and degree of wetting due to the homeowner
modifications might exceed design specifications.
Soil structure interaction. The type and magnitude of distress depends on the
foundation type and the distribution of structure loads.

The construction based factors include:
Temperature. Due to large temperature variation typical of Arizona climatic conditions,
concrete based materials such as flatwork, drywall and stucco will develop minor cracks.
Slab curling and cracking due to shrinkage is common. Newly constructed slabs will
release 75 to 80% of their moisture into the atmosphere within 4-6 months after
construction. Uneven moisture release from top and bottom of the slab may lead to slab
curling, more commonly observed in thick slabs and slabs with geo-membranes. After

97
the moisture release period has been completed the concrete slab will attain equilibrium
with the surround conditions. During the equilibration process, the concrete will shrink
resulting in concrete cracks, preferably at designed control joints.
Quality of workmanship and materials. The quality of workmanship and materials may
vary and construction defects may result. The significance of this factor is hard to
quantify.
The complexity of slab-on-ground design is handled by considering simplified scenarios
presented in design manuals. These methods have been developed over time for specific
regions, based on empirical evidence of slab performance. The main design guidelines used in
the USA include BRAB, WRI and PTI described below. Additionally, general standards for
drainage and soil investigations are currently given by the IBC, and FHA.

3.2 Drainage Design Standards and Standard of Practice
Since the early 1900s, the system of building regulations in the United States was based
on three regional model code groups: (1) National Building Code, NBC, developed by Building
Officials Code Administrators International, BOCA, and used on the East Coast of the USA, (2)
Standard Building Code, SBC, developed by Southern Building Code Congress International,
SBCCI, and used in the Southeast and Uniform Building Code,(3) UBC, developed by
International Conference of Building Officials, ICBO, and used on the West Coast. By early
1990s it became obvious that there is a need for a unified standard for the entire country. In
1994 the nations three model code groups formed the International Code Council, ICC, to
develop International Building Code, IBC that would have no regional limitations. The first
addition was printed in 1997, the same year as the last version of UBC; therefore many
practitioners did not adopt IBC until the 2000 version.

98
The UBC 1997 version gives limited drainage recommendations:
1. 1804.7 Drainage. Provisions shall be made for control and drainage of surface water
around buildings.
2. 1806.5.5 Foundation Elevation. On graded sites, the top of any exterior foundation
shall extend above the elevation of the street gutter at point of discharge or inlet of an
approved drainage device a minimum of 12 plus 2%.
In Arizona, during this 1997 design period, compliance with the standard was typically
achieved by developing swales sloping 1% towards a street and located 5-10 away from the
foundation. The positive ground slope away from structure was typically designed at 5%, as per
the adopted FHA, Local Acceptable Standard No. 3a (FHA, 1966). The residential structures
were typically erected with the three pure system also referred to as the stem and footer
design.
The IBC 2003 version defines expansive soils as soils satisfying all of the following
criteria: PI is larger then 15, more than 10% of soil passes US sieve # 200, and more than 10%
of soil particles are smaller than 0.005 mm; or a soil with expansion index greater than 20 as
determined with ASTM D4829. The standard allows for three design approached for dealing
with shallow foundations constructed on expansive clay (section 1805.8):
1. Removal of expansive soil to a depth sufficient to ensure constant moisture content in
the remaining soil.
2. Stabilization of soil by chemical, dewatering, pre-saturation or equivalent techniques.
3. Use of slab-on-grade of mat foundation designed and constructed in accordance with
the WRI/CRSI, PTI design methods or rational method accounting for soil-structure
interaction, deformed shape of the soil support, and plate action of the slab in center lift
and edge lift conditions.
This standard gives the following grading and drainage recommendations in section
1803.3 The ground immediately adjacent to the foundation shall be sloped away from the
building at a slope of not less than 5% for a minimum distance of 10 measured perpendicular to

99
the face of the wall. Exception: Where climatic or soil conditions warrant, the slope of the
ground away from the building foundation is permitted to be reduced to not less than 2%.
Section 1805.3.4 echoes UBC recommendation of minimum 12 plus 2% foundation elevation
above street gutter.
The IBC-2006 version did not introduce any changes into drainage, grading and dealing
with expansive soils recommendations. Currently Arizona practitioners design either 2% or 5%
positive slope away from foundations for a minimum distance of 5. The PTI design methodology
is the most commonly used option for dealing with expansive soil in the Phoenix region.
The Arizona Registrar of Contractors, AROC, (2004) defines ponding on permeable
surface as standing water to a height of 3/16, 30 min after flooding. Ponding on an
impermeable surface such as concrete is defined as standing water to a height of 3/32 30 min
after flooding. Additionally, "minor ponding (up to " deep in small areas) is acceptable
providing the roof is dry within 48 hours after the rainfall" (AROC, 2007).

3.3 Residential Foundation Design in USA
In the United States three design methodologies are most commonly implemented:
BRAB, WRI and PTI. Although the IBC allows for other rational methods accounting for soil-
structure interaction, deformed shape of the soil support, and plate action of the slab in center lift
and edge lift conditions such as a finite element analysis, for example ADAPT-SOG, these finite
element based methods are infrequently used, at least in Arizona region. The foundation
manuals provide design recommendations for three types of foundation systems, three-pour-
system, post-tensioned, and mat or raft foundations.
The three-pour-system, referred to as stem-and-footer, conventional design, or free-
floating floor slab, consists of deepened footings, reinforced perimeter and an interior floor slab
that is not connected to the perimeter foundation. The 4-6 thick interior slab is sometimes
reinforced with wire mesh. This type of construction has proven to perform very well in arid
Arizona region climatic conditions and low to medium expansive soil types, where up to recently,

100
it was the most common type of foundation design. A schematic of the three-pour-system is
provided in Figure 3.2. Here two types of design are possible, continuous footings or footing
provided below the load bearing columns with deepened perimeter. In Arizona the continuous
footing design was implemented more commonly.

Figure 3.2. Schematic of stem-and-footer.

In the post-tensioned foundation design, the footing and floor slab are poured
continuously to create a slab that acts as one unit. There are three possible designs with the
PTI procedure: ribbed foundation (Figure 3.3 and Figure 3.4), uniform thickness foundation with
minimum 7.5 thickness and deepened perimeter (Figure 3.5 and Figure 3.6) and uniform
thickness foundation with continuous rib around the structure perimeter. Approximately
diameter steel tendons are placed on a 5 grid in the concrete. The tendons are stretched
compressing the concrete. It results in a unified foundation structure with fewer cracks in the

103
The evaluation of potential moisture variation with depth and soil volume change below
the foundation are components of geotechnical analyses needed for the design of residential
foundations. All discussed methodologies implement some sort of climatic based approach
coupled with simplified soil response analyses based on soil index properties or simple
laboratory tests.

Figure 3.7. Schematic of raft foundation footing.

Figure 3.8. Schematic of raft foundation (AS2780, 1996).

104
In the PTI method, providing recommendations for PT foundations only, climate is
assumed to be the main factor affecting the differential movement. The soil movements are
evaluated using the assumption of a perfectly flexible slab, but the stiffness of the structure is
considered at a different point in the design. The procedure considers two possible scenarios:
edge lift where the soil below the foundation perimeter increases in volume and center lift where
the soil below the foundation perimeter shrinks. A correlation between matric suction at depth
and Thornthwaite Moisture Index, TMI, is used to estimate the potential range of suction
variation at the soil surface. The 1
st
and 2
nd
The more current PTI editions: Alternate Procedure for Determining Soil Support
Parameters for Shallow Foundations on Expansive Clay Soil Sites under PTI Technical Note 12
(PTI, 2003) and The 3
editions of the PTI Manual (valid for designs prior to
2003) limit the depth of moisture variation to 7 and matric suction at depth to 3.6 pF (390kPa).
m
, defined as the distance inward from the edge of the
slab, over which the moisture content varies due to anticipated changes in environmental
conditions, was estimated based on empirical model. The model was developed based on
analysis of successful foundations (primarily in Texas, evaluated over 10-year period), where e
m

was correlated to TMI and limited to 6. The soil response due to climatic conditions in terms of
volume change, y
m
, is estimated based on model correlating index properties to mineralogical
classification and permeability of clay. The charted design methodology does not consider non-
climatic factors such as drainage, slopes, cut/fill sections, soil conditions at time of construction
and vegetation, and therefore caution and engineering judgement should be exercised.
rd
Edition procedure (PTI, 2004) use the same as previously TMI
relationship for estimation of active zone depth and limit the distance to constant suction at 9.
The estimate of edge moisture variation distance is based on both TMI and soil index properties
as per work of Covar and Lytton (2001) on soil swelling and classification properties. The index
properties are related to the suction compression index, which is related to unsaturated soil
permeability and diffusivity. Therefore index properties can be used to estimate the lateral
extent of moisture variation, which is limited to 9 in these recent PTI manuals. Similarly, y
m
is

105
estimated using suction compression index and estimated matric suction change. Additionally,
the design requires the soil bearing capacity to be determined. Appendix A gives a historical
development of the geotechnical PTI procedure while Chapter 6 gives design details.
The BRAB design methodology provides recommendations for conventional and mat
foundations. The design is based on soil PI and climate conditions. Two design conditions are
considered, loss of support at the edges (center lift) and loss of support at the interior (edge lift).
The amount of slab support provided by the underlying soil is called the support index, C. The
support index is a function of the climatic rating, Cw, and the effective plasticity index of the soil,
PI
e
. The PI
e
is weighted PI from the top 15 of soil profile. The Cw indicates the intensity of dry-
moisture cycle or swell-shrink potential due to environmental conditions. In general, the higher
the climatic rating the more stable the moisture balance is. For Arizona Cw is 15-20. The BRAB
methodology also requires soil bearing capacity to be determined.
The WRI design is a modification of BRAB. It can be used to design both PT and
traditional reinforced concrete foundations. The analysis is based on PI, climate conditions and
soil bearing capacity. Additionally, a slope correction coefficient, Cs, and a consolidation
correction coefficient, Co, are introduced.

3.4 Residential Foundation Design in Other Countries
Literature review of implemented shallow foundation design methodologies in other
countries revealed that incorporation of unsaturated soil mechanics theory into standards is rare.
Design considerations of expansive soils and the extent of potential moisture variation with depth
is addressed in arid or semi-arid climatic regions such as Australia, South Africa, and Israel.
Countries in Europe started to work together in the 1970s to unify their design codes
which are now implemented in countries belonging to the European Union. Currently Eurocode 7
provides geotechnical design recommendations. Classical soil mechanics is implemented in
shallow foundation design. Limit state analysis (the structure is designed for a safety limit
required for the life of a structure) is used to check the foundation against settlement, sliding and

106
over-turning. (ENV, 2004). Similarly, Japan is developing Geo-code 21 which will unify currently
implemented different, locally developed methodologies into one national code. The foundation
types include individual stem-and-footers, continuous stem-and-footer and mat foundations.
Goe-code 21 implements limit state design presented in Eurocode 7. Sometimes countries
without codes borrow codes from other countries (Giao et al, 2002).
Radevsky (2001) compared residential construction types, remediation methods and
local acceptance of foundation movement in five countries: USA, UK, France, South Africa and
Australia. The UK and France typically have 2-3 story homes with masonry walls and plaster
finish supported on 3-9 deep unreinforced strip footings. Usually very small amount of
foundation movement is observed. When there is observed damage, it is commonly due to soil
shrinkage associated with an unusually dry season or large trees.
In South Africa, an arid region where expansive soil are common, single story brick and
plaster on unreinforced slab-on-ground with a 1.5 depth of embedment is the most frequently
used residential construction method. Edge lift foundation movement and associated structural
distress are common and widely accepted. Remediation method consists of development of
articulation joints installed in the house to allow flexing when additional change in soil elevation
occurs (Radevsky, 2001).
Australia is another arid and semi-arid climatic region where expansive soils are
common. The construction methods consist of brick, or timber framework and brick veneer with
suspended timber floor on timber piles, continuous stem-and-footer with minimum footing depth
of 18, raised floor stem-and-footer design or most common now raft foundations with footings
depth between 12 and 4. Vapor barriers or damp-proofing membranes are required below raft
foundations. Both swelling and shrinking behavior of soil is observed. Foundation movement
and structural distress are common and widely accepted (Radevsky, 2001). When distress is
observed, the homeowner is typically advised to re-establish the moisture conditions around the
structure perimeter, which typically involves watering of the perimeter area. In areas of

107
significant distress, vertical moisture barriers are installed. Underpinning is advised against and
used only as the last resort when the structure distress is associated with expansive soils.
The Australian Standard AS2870 Residential slabs and footings-construction was
introduced in 1996 and continues to be revised. The design considers influence of shrinkage,
swell, and compression settlement. The AS2870 is similar to the PTI procedure in the sense
that foundations are designed for edge lift and edge drop based on calculated edge moisture
variation distance and magnitude of differential swell or shrink anticipated due to climatic
conditions. The design is based on soil shrinkage indices, and suction variation with depth due
to climatic and human imposed conditions. The standard emphasizes abnormal moisture
conditions for which the slab is not designed for, such as removal of large tree, ponding, and
excessive watering of gardens. Normal conditions include seasonal moisture variation and
properly watered garden with maintained designed grading around the foundation perimeter and
no ponding. The grading is designed for 50 mm drop over 1 m distance (5% slope). Finished
floor elevation must be a minimum of 6 above finished ground, landscaping or paved areas. No
vegetation near the foundation is allowed. Trees should be plated up to 1.5 times the mature
tree height in highly expansive soils.
The standard is very easy to implement by practicing engineers due to the site
classification system with associated assigned appropriate foundation design for each and
tabulated geotechnical parameter estimates for different climatic zones and geographic
locations. A list of estimated parameters is given:
Site classification depends on soil type.
The standard provides estimates of site classification based on geographic region,
climatic zone and depth of clayey material.
The site classification is used to estimate amount of differential swell, footing
performance and slab type and design details.
Anticipated change in soil suction, u, is estimated based on geographic location. It is
estimated to be between 1.2 to 1.5 pF.

108
Depth to constant suction, Hs, depends on location and climatic zone. In moist climatic
regions, the depth does not exceed 3, while in dry climatic regions it is 12.
Depth of geotechnical investigation depends on location and climatic zone. It is typically
0.75Hs.
The differential soil movement can be calculated with equation (3.1), where I
pt
is
instability index obtained from laboratory testing of shrinkage. The differential center lift
movement, y
m
, is estimated to be 0.7y
s
. The differential for edge lift movement is estimated to
be 0.5y
s
.
dh u I y
s
H
pt s
=
0
100
1
(3.1)
The center lift edge moisture variation distance, e, is calculated as follows:
36 8
m s
y H
e + = (3.2)
where y
m
is in millimetres and H
s
is in meters. The edge lift edge moisture variation distance is
calculated with equation (3.3) where y
m
is in millimetres.
25
6 . 0 2 . 0
m
y
L e + = (3.3)
Crack width is the major assessment tool used in estimation of magnitude of soil
movement. Wall cracks smaller than 1 mm (5/128) are considered to be acceptable and do not
require repair. The AS2870 categorizes damage in Table 3.1, where 5 categories are
discussed. Categories 0 and 1 describe insignificant damage that does not require repair.
Category 2 describes floor noticeably out of level, minor wall cracks that need to be addressed
and binding doors and windows. Category 3 or higher relates to significant damage requiring
portions of wall to be replaced. Table 3.2 provides maximum floor differentials per construction
type.

109
Table 3.1. Description of distress per Damage Category in AS2870.
Damage Category Wall Distress Floor Distress
Crack width
[mm]
Crack width
[mm]
Differential over 3m
[mm]
<0.1 0 <0.3 <8
<1 1 <1 <10
<5 2 <2 <15
3 5-15 2-4 15-25
15-25 4 4-10 >25

Table 3.2. Description of distress per Damage Category in AS2870.
Construction Type Max. angular distortion
[L in mm]
Max. diff. footing movement
[mm]
Clod frame L/300 40
Articulated masonry veneer L/400 30
Masonry veneer L/600 20
Articulated full masonry L/800 15
Full masonry L/2000 10

3.5 Design and Construction Practice Interviews with Industry
As part of this research, building professionals, geotechnical, and structural engineers
were interviewed in an effort to identify current practice in the metropolitan Phoenix area. The
interviews were performed in 2005 with homebuilders, geotechnical engineers and structural
engineers. The summary of the interviews is presented below.

3.5.1 Geotechnical Engineering Interviews
3.5.1.1 Site Investigation and Soil Testing
Geotechnical engineers often use the Natural Resource Conservation Service maps,
and geological maps for investigation planning. They also rely on experience from previous
investigations. The time lapse between the site investigation and construction varies
substantially. For public agencies the time lapse is up to five (5) years while for the private
sector, it is from two (2) months to three (3) years. It is not uncommon for the soil investigation
to continue after construction has begun. The focus of this survey was on residential
construction practices.

110
The total number of samples taken per area varies widely and depends on project size
and uniformity of soil encountered. The soil investigation consists of preliminary and final
stages. During the preliminary investigation, one soil sample is taken every 20 acres. Three
values were obtained for the number of borings obtained during the final investigation. They are
1) one boring per 5 acres; 2) 8 borings per 100 homes, and 3) one boring per 600 x 600 area.
The depth of soil investigation varies from 5 to 20 depending on the company
performing the investigation. It is the industry consensus, however, that the top 4 to 5 feet of soil
are the most important for the slab design with active zone depth assumed to be within the upper
3 to 8 of the soil profile. Ring samples (56% area ratio samplers) are collected samples at 2, 5
and 10. The soil samples are stored for one week to three months after the field investigation.
The soil samples may be either sent back to the client or stored for some period of time, up to
two years.
Soil testing is performed on bulk samples obtained with an auger and undisturbed
samples collected in brass rings at the site. The dry density of soil is estimated from blow count
(STP) or determined from undisturbed ring specimens. The moisture content and percent of silt
and clay is visually estimated in the field from disturbed soil samples obtained with a split spoon
sampler.
The bulk samples are used to obtain gradation, Atterberg Limits, Proctor compaction
test, and reconstituted (re-compacted) sample swell tests EI
AZ
(see section 3.5.1.4 for
description). A few companies were found to perform additional soil testing including direct
shear, pH, resistivity, percent of chloride solvent, and soluble solids. For the reconstituted
specimen swell test (EI
AZ
), a token load of 100 psf is placed on top of the compacted specimen
that is contained in a ring. The specimen is given free access to water and is allowed to swell for
24 hours.
The undisturbed soil samples are used for moisture content determination and, in some
cases, density determination and response-to-wetting test. The soil with the lowest blow count is
commonly selected for the undisturbed response-to-wetting test wherein the ring specimen, at

111
in-situ moisture content, is loaded to overburden stress and then given free access to water.
Depending on the geotechnical firm, the response-to-wetting test specimen may be allowed to
dry some from in-situ moisture conditions prior to testing.
Most of the laboratory work is performed by the same company that completed site
investigation. Contract labs are only used in exceptional cases when in-house lab is too busy or
for tests not performed in-house, such as hydrometer testing. Soil suction is never measured.

3.5.1.2 Site Monitoring
Pad preparation is typically monitored by a geotechnical technician for moisture content
and dry density; the soil samples obtained are typically not stored by the firm. A builder
representative is typically present during the pad preparation process. The constructed pads are
certified for construction of slab-on-ground for three (3) months. It is not uncommon for the
builder to recondition the pads in order to obtain new pad certification.

3.5.1.3 Communication
Communication between geotechnical engineers and structural engineers/builders is
generally limited to clarifications and problems. The structural engineer needs e
m
, y
m
, soil
bearing capacity, subgrade modulus, and friction angle values from the geotechnical engineer.
The builder needs to know in general what kind of soil is present at the site and prevalence of
various materials, or in other words, if there is a problem with expansive soils. Additionally, the
builder needs to know and how to deal with expansive soils.

3.5.1.4 Geotechnical Report
The geotechnical report briefly describes washes and general topography of the site.
The location of underground utilities is not identified by the geotechnical engineers and their
location is not included in the report. Lot grading is discussed, and special consideration is given
when expansive soils are found at the site. General recommendations relative to expansive

112
soils are to not overconsolidate (or densify) the soil. The soil moisture is commonly specified to
remain between -1% to +4% of optimal water content as determined by standard Proctor.
Sometimes recommendations are given to avoid irrigation or to keep vegetation away from the
structure.
The swell potential of the soil is determined and it is reported using either ASTM D 4829
EI test or the Arizona modified Expansion Index, EI
AZ
test. The EI
AZ
test is performed on
reconstituted soil samples with water content decreased by 2 from optimum water content and
dry density 95% of the maximum dry density as determined with the standard Proctor
compaction test. The results are presented as a percentage of swell. The swell potential is
categorized as small when EI
AZ
is smaller than 2.5%. For EI
AZ
between 2.5% and 4.5% the swell
potential is defined as moderate, and for EI
AZ
larger than 4.5%, the swell potential is referred to
as high. All surveyed companies indicated that for sites with high swell potential, only PT slab
design is recommended post approximately 2003.

3.5.1.5 Design Procedure
Depending on client needs, both PTI (1996) and stem-and-footer, or only PTI (1996)
design recommendations are given. For PTI method, additional alternative recommendations
include deepening of the perimeter beam from 12 to 24, and lime stabilization. The PTI design
method indicates that center lift (which is actually edge drop) is the governing mode of slab
failure.

3.5.1.6 Mitigation Measures
The builder who uses a city-approved soil report is responsible for soils mitigation
(except for custom builders, who do not even need a soils report). Pre-construction mitigation
for expansive soils generally involves limiting compaction and trying to achieve the appropriate
water content (-1% to +4% of optimal moisture content is acceptable) and 95% of maximum dry
density by standard Proctor (+/- 2% is acceptable) to minimize swelling. Prior to construction,

113
the pads are reconditioned by applying an undetermined amount of water through a sprinkler
system or by flooding. A less common mitigation strategy is the removal of one to two feet of
problematic soil and replacing it a with non-expansive compacted fill material. Lime treatment is
generally dismissed as ineffective, although there are cases of use of lime treatment.
Post-construction monitoring has commonly been limited to drainage inspections.
Houses are typically investigated only after problems occur. The investigation consists of a
manometer reading (level survey) to estimate differential swell. Post construction soil
investigation and testing is done only in connection with litigation.

3.5.1.7 Areas of Problems
The main cause of excessive soil swell is the initial moisture state of pads prior to
construction. The time lapse between pad preparation and vertical construction is from a few
months to a few years. Typically, the pads are not reconditioned prior to construction, resulting
in over-dried pads. The most common mode of failure observed is edge lift. Center lift is
observed only when there has been a pluming leak; however, edge drop (center lift) could also
occur in response to excessive drying at the perimeter of the structure.

3.5.1.8 SWCC and Suction
Familiarity with the soil water characteristic curve was not extensive. This was also the
case for the terms matric, osmotic, and total suction. Units used for soil suction are those of
pressure psi, psf, and kPa. Engineers indicated that they do not work with suctions at all and
are therefore not familiar with these terms.

114
3.5.2 Structural Engineering Interviews
3.5.2.1 Occurrence of Expansive Soils
The estimated number of residential subdivisions with expansive soils varies from
engineer to engineer. Expansive soils are reported to be found on between 25% to 80% of
residential projects, with swell potential typically between 3% to 4%.

Communication with geotechnical engineers is limited to identifying the variables for the
PTI program, and/or when the information is missing or unclear from the geotechnical report.
The structural engineers are in frequent contact with homebuilders and architects.

3.5.2.3 Geotechnical Report
Three values are typically given by the geotechnical engineer: e
m
, y
m
and swell index
values. The typical y
m
values for center lift are less than and for edge lift less than . The
swell index value is not used directly in the PTI structural design.

3.5.2.4 Structural Analysis and Design Procedure
Two types of slab designs are available, post tensioned slab and conventional slab. The
type of slab chosen for the design depends on the client, the builder, for whom cost is a very
relevant parameter. Currently all builders choose the PT construction when expansive soils are
encountered with swell potential larger than 3%. When the swell potential is classified as low,
both PT and conventional designs are used. The alternative to the post-tensioned design is the
stem-and-footer design, which produces a 4 thick slab. When expansive soils are found, it is
recommended to increase the standard footing depth from 18 up to 24 or 30 Below Final
Grade (BFG).
The PTISlab 2.0 software is currently used for the design of post tensioned slabs on
expansive soil. The design is not used on collapsible soils, which were not discussed

115
extensively (or encountered extensively) with the surveyed structural engineers. There is also
ADAPT software available for the design of post tensioned slabs. ADAPT is a finite element
computer program. At the time of these interviews, structural engineers were concerned about
the ADAPT program results, and engaged in review and evaluation.

The structural engineers usually recommend mitigation measures. They include but are
not limited to improved grading and drainage. It is recommended to construct the slab on soil
placed at or near optimum moisture content, and to keep water away from the slab post
construction. When a problem with expansive soil is anticipated, the geotechnical reports are
redone augmented with additional soil investigation. The removal of expansive soil is another
mitigation measure. Due to the high cost associated with the implementation of this method, it is
only employed on seldom occasions when the EI
AZ
exceeds 10%. Post construction mitigation
measures, due to forensic investigations, include installation of gutters, regrading of the lot, and
chemical soil stabilization (ESSL). Overall, the best approach is to prevent the moisture content
variation under the slab. The structural engineers recommend emphasizing the importance of
maintaining proper drainage to the homeowner. The pad should be placed higher than the
surroundings as development typically lead to increased moisture conditions. The homeowner
should receive a letter from the homebuilder that grading and landscaping cannot be changed;
over-watering of lawn will lead to moisture migration and soil expansion.

3.5.2.6 Areas of Problems and Concerns
Edge lift is the most common failure mode of the PT slabs observed in the field in the
Phoenix region. In the Phoenix region, those surveyed estimated that 0.5% of constructed
homes on expansive soils exhibit excessive deflections and 90% of all PT slabs exhibit to some
degree edge lift deformation. The allowable deflection criteria are as follows: L/200 for edge lift
and L/360 for center lift. The PT slabs minimize slab cracking. Local engineers expressed

116
concern with the PTI method that the design is based on generalized climatic conditions only. In
general, they felt that local, in-situ conditions should be incorporated into the procedure to reflect
the actual soil/slab behaviour in the Phoenix region.
The conventional reinforced concrete slabs develop cracks during concrete curing. The
slabs are built with numerous control joints. The soil heave causes the slab to crack at the
control joint.

3.5.3 Home Builder Interviews
3.5.3.1 Site Assessment
Most builders completely rely on geotechnical engineers to perform site assessment.
Only one builder indicated that additional in-house site assessment is done by utilizing Soil
Conservation Map in conjunction with Public Reports that provide more detailed information than
the maps. The land for the subdivision construction is either purchased with or without
completed pads. When the pads are constructed by another developer, the site assessment
information comes from that selling developer. The time lapse between site assessment and
construction is reported to be up to three years.
A geotechnical engineer is employed to perform preliminary soil exploration prior to the
land purchase. Local site environment and prior issues with the site are also determined prior to
the land purchase. After the purchase, between 120 days to one year elapses before vertical
construction begins, and a more detailed site investigation (second phase, or supplemental
phase) is performed by geotechnical engineer. The structural design is based on that detailed
site investigation. It is not uncommon for the geotechnical site investigation to be augmented
after extensive soil movement due to over-lot grading. The structural design is then refined
based on the modified soils report. Such practice is meant to reduce the builders liability.
The site investigation is typically performed to a depth of 5. The following geotechnical
information is important to the builders: swell potential (if less than 3%, the builder is not
concerned), location and extent of clayey material, and the existence of vertical or horizontal

117
layers with problematic soil. If clayey material is found only in one lot, this particular lot alone is
treated differently.

3.5.3.2 Budget and Design
The budget for geotechnical investigation was reported as unknown. Typically more
money is spent on the construction process when expansive soils are found. In the past the
construction of PT slabs increased costs $2000 per slab compared to conventional foundation
construction. More recently, it is reported that the difference in cost is closer to $1000. Some
builders choose to construct only PT slabs, while others build PT slabs only when expansive
soils are found and the geotechnical engineer makes a recommendation to use a PT slab.

3.5.3.3 Site Preparation Process
The site preparation consists of de-vegetation, lot grading and placement of forms for
slabs. The pad preparation is followed by placement of wet and dry utility lines, and cutting of
sidewalks and streets. The lots are watered to specs the night before the slabs are poured,
however the amount of water added through sprinkling or flooding is not always monitored. ABA
is placed and slab is poured, and is post tensioned at latter time.

3.5.3.4 Site Monitoring
The site monitoring consists of three main components: pad preparation, slab
construction and lot grading. The dry density and water content of pads is monitored by
geotechnical engineers during pad preparation. The quality of concrete used in slab construction
is checked by a third party, and the placement of the tendons in the slab is monitored by a
structural engineer. The lot grading and drainage are checked by another company. This
practice appears to be voluntarily adopted by most builders, although it is not required by law. If
grading is found to be inadequate, it is redone at the end of construction. Some builders require
the homeowner to sign a contract stating that the grading and drainage cannot be modified, and

118
plats cannot be planted within 24 from the house. Unfortunately this information is not required
to be turned over to the next homeowner.

The builders are communicating a lot with both structural and geotechnical engineers.
Some builders have periodic meetings with them. In addition, the geotechnical engineer is
present at the site during pad preparation, and the structural engineer is on site during post-
tensioning of slabs. Typically the same geotechnical engineer that developed the report is
monitoring the site preparation.
The builder also communicates with the homeowner through purchase document which
discusses drainage, grading and typical behavior of construction materials. Relevant highlights
of some documents are listed below:
Soils. The soils in Arizona are known to be expansive in nature. These expansive soils
have been analyzed by a soils engineer who has recommended the type and design of
the foundation for your home. Any changes in the foundation, the grading and the
landscaping of your home and lot can result in severe damage to your property and to
neighboring properties. Consult a professional before any such changes are made.
Drainage.
o Do not alter the soil grade
o your lot has been graded to keep water away from your home. The grading plan
for your lot has been engineered and graded to local, state and federal standards.
Failure to maintain grading can result in damage to your home, your lot and to
neighboring property. Any alteration of the established grade plan for your lot may
void the landscaping and drainage and termite sections of your warranty.
o The soil around each home site is graded to channel storm water away from the
home. Please note that the rear yard grading in some communities is designed to
retain storm water.

119
o Berms and contours which are designed to direct the flow of water away from the
home are especially important and must not be altered.
o Keep water ditches or swales open and free of leaves and debris.
o Do not build sheds, sidewalks, hot tubs, decks, fences ,pools, or gardens in the
swales.
o Direct water away from the home to prevent washouts.
Pool. If you choose to have a pool or spa installed, we suggest that you give careful
consideration to the eventual drainage problems that could be created.
Landscaping.
o Do not plant along the foundation wall.
o Irrigate away from foundation, patio, porch, fence and sidewalks.
o Irrigation at or near the foundation will increase the likelihood of soil expansion or
settlement resulting in cracking and movement of the fence or home.
o We urge you to use drought resistant and drought tolerant plants.
o Landscaping can change the grading of your lot. The ground next to your home
should always slope away to prevent standing water.
o Do not allow sprinklers to wet the house or form puddles near or against the
foundation.
o Keep plantings in flower beds a minimum of 2-3 away from the foundation
o Improperly constructed planting beds can result in saturated soil around the
perimeter of the building, even when the soil surface nominally has positive drainage
away from the buildingIn this case, improperly constructed planting beds can act
to inject water directly into the select fill.
o Trees planted near a foundation can upset the soil moisture balance due to the
water demand of mature trees, especially during drought cycles. While it may take a
number of years before the tree gets large enough to cause structural damage, this
will eventually occur if the tree is close enough to the slab. In general, the distance

120
from the tree to the foundation must be at least half the height of the tree, but the
required distance varies with tree species.
o Do not remove trees near the vicinity of the foundation. Trees significantly alter the
soil moisture balance of the soil, reducing the equilibrium soil moisture in their
vicinity. After tree removal the soil will gain moisture over time and heave causing
slab movement.
Concrete. Do not allow water to pond near the foundation, patios, walks or driveways.
Water can cause soil expansion which can result in fractures to the concrete as well as
movement within the home. Small cracks, which are a result of contraction and
expansion of the concrete are characteristic of concrete and do not affect its
performance or durability.
Stucco. Stucco is a cement product and takes approximately 14 days to cure. Stucco
is susceptible to cracking due to expansion and contraction. Cracks should be expected
during the lifetime of the home due to fluctuating temperatures. This is normal and does
not reduce the function of the stucco in any way. Your limited warranty does not cove
normal hairline cracks in stucco.
Drywall. Nail pops and minor drywall cracks are normal and are caused by settlement
and the normal drying of stud framing and drywall materials.

Builders report that no pre-construction mitigation measures are employed beyond
grading and drainage. The practice is to follow geotechnical and structural specs. Sometimes,
problems are observed half way through completion of a subdivision; by then it is too late to
change. Post-construction monitoring of expansive soils typically does not occur; although
builders who encounter expansive soils are beginning to informally check problematic homes
(visually inspect the foundation, walls, and driveway for cracks, etc).

121
3.5.3.7 Sources of Problems
The time lapse between the pad preparation and slab construction is from a few months
to few years. During the time lapse, the pads are not covered to maintain the design soil
moisture state. In addition, the prepared pads are frequently driven over by construction trucks
to access the construction zone. Such practice leads to overcompaction of pads. The site
construction is monitored by superintendents who lack the knowledge of how s the dry density
and water content of soil influence post construction soil behavior.

3.5.3.8 Litigation
The homeowners rarely sue the homebuilder. Typically the homebuilder resolves issues
associated with expansive soils and litigation is avoided. Typically the pre-emptive action on the
part of the builder is cheaper than litigation. In most cases litigation is the result of buyer distrust
of builders rather than any negligence on the part of the builder. Emotional distress has not
been a litigious issue.

3.5.4 Forensic Investigation
3.5.4.1 Failure Modes
Forensic investigation indicates that problems with expansive soils might occur from few
months to as many as 20 years after construction. Frequently the problems are associated with
a change in landscape irrigation patterns and/or excessive rainfall. Depending on the soil
properties and irrigation conditions the following outcomes are possible:
Soil at center swells up - common with the stem and footer design.
Soil at center shrinks/consolidates - very uncommon, however was witnessed once.
Soil at the edge swells up (edge lift) - common with PTI method, and
The soil consolidates or shrinks under the edges (center lift) observed in stem and
footer design.

122
3.5.4.1.1 Center Lift
Center lift deformation is prevalent in the stem and footer design. It is speculated that
the failure occurs under following conditions. The soil stratum consists of layers of expansive soil
and more permeable sandy soil. During a wet event, the water may reach the permeable strata
through shrinkage cracks in the clay layers and travel horizontally under the slab within the
sandy layer. Once it happens, the water is trapped under the slab and the expansive soils start
to swell up. At the same time the soil under the footing is consolidating and loses water due to
the extremely hot desert conditions; the soil shrinks resulting is center lift slab deformation.
Center lift deformation is evident by more observable damage in the interior of the house such
as crushed drywall at the top of the wall next to the ceiling although this same type of damage
pattern is consistent with edge drop. It is rare to have benchmarked surveys to determine
whether deformations appearing to be center lift are actually due to center lift or edge drop.

3.5.4.1.2 Edge Lift
Edge lift deformation is observed when soil beneath the edges of the structure expand
relative to soils in the center, for example, from excessive wetting around the perimeter. It is
attributed to poor drainage. Larger stress levels around the perimeter of the structure can help to
reduce edge lift. This is one reason why edge lift is observed most commonly in PT slabs having
more uniform distribution of loads. Evidence of edge lift movement includes distorted exterior
doors, windows and cracks in stairways. Damage is most commonly noticed for edge movement
of 2.5" or more per 5'.

3.5.4.1.3 Settlement
Settlement (shrinkage of expansive soils due to drying) of structures is observed in
areas of excessive sunshine. It is manifested through cracks in stairways and gaps between a
fence and the house. Settling soils (compression) give the same pattern of deformation.

123
3.5.4.2 Remediation Methods
The following remediation methods are currently used in Phoenix region:
Cut off walls,
Installation of gutters,
Change watering pattern,
Intrusion of concrete is common where grout is pumped under sunken structure. This
solution does not perform as anticipated. The structures have a tendency to settle after
the procedure.
Chemical treatment with lime or ESLL.
Drying of soil with hot air. A hole is drilled in the center of the slab where hot air is
applied. It flows through the ABC layer and exits on the sides. It is effective for slabs up
to 30 ft long.
Helical anchors or push piers. The expanded soil is removed and the house is allowed
to be supported by either push piers or anchors that are installed under the houses
perimeter. Push piers are hydraulically driven into the soil under the slab until it locks
up. Once it locks up, it starts to push up the house to the required height. Due to the
lifting action, sometimes a significant space between the soil and the slab develops.
The space is filled with grout. In the valley the push piers are installed to a depth of 15-
25 and are spaced between 6 to 8 apart. They usually lock up at 50-60 blow count
(helical anchors locks up at 40-50 blow count). This remediation method is frequently
used in conjunction with cut off walls.

3.6 Failure Criteria
Soil movement below foundation is associated with foundation movement and structural
distress. The American Concrete Institute, ACI, and the Arizona Registrar of Contractors,
AROC, developed acceptable distortion criteria for residential construction, which are commonly
used by practitioners. The ACI 117 quantifies flatness and levelness criteria with F-Numbers, F
F

124
and F
L
respectively. Flatness refers to slabs waviness or roughness due to random bumps and
irregularities by limiting the magnitude of successive 1 slope changes when measured along
sample measurement lines in accordance with ASTM E 1155 (Standard Test Method for
Determining FF Floor Flatness and FL Floor Levelness Numbers). For slab-on-grade, minimum
allowable flatness is obtained with F
F
=15. Levelness refers to the slabs deviation from horizontal
over the entire area of the slab by limiting differences in departure from design grade over
distances of 10 ft when measured along sample measurement lines in accordance with ASTM E
1155. For slab-on-grade minimum local levelness (within 10) is obtained with
z
F
L
=
5 . 12
F
L
= 10 and
global levelness (over the entire floor) with F
L
=13. The Fl number can be calculated with
equation 3.4,
(3.4)
where z is the floor level differential. The F
L
of 10 produces maximum allowable floor level
differential of 1.25 per 10. The Arizona Registrar of Contractors, AROC, provides more
stringent requirement of differential per 12.
Floor survey elevation (non-benchmarked) alone is not an indicator of direction or
magnitude of soil movement. Section 2.6 provides evidence from literature review that newly
constructed slab-on-grade can deviate up to 1 from horizontal. Additionally, the structural
performance of slab-and-footer foundation system is, in general, independent of the performance
of the free floating slab in the areas between footings. The thin slab is designed to act as a
separator between the building and the soil below. Developed thermal or shrinkage cracks are
not evidence of post-construction structure distress or shoddy construction. Soil movement is
associated with distress in superstructure such as diagonal cracks in drywall and stucco,
separation of baseboard and wall fixtures from the walls and cracks near soil movement. The
AROC document Workmanship Standards for Licensed Contractors provides guidance with
respect to unacceptable quality of construction, unacceptable post construction deformations
due to either settlement or soil movement within 2 years of homeowner occupancy and

125
homeowner responsibilities which, among others, include: adjustment of doors and windows,
maintaining weather-stripping, interior and exterior caulking, leaks from plumbing fixtures and
cosmetic repair of hairline cracks on horizontal surfaces. The post construction performance
criteria are summarized in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3. Residential construction performance criteria in the first 2 years after
homeowner occupancy (AROC, 2004).
Distress
Stemwall
> 1/8 wide crack requires cosmetic repair
> wide crack, determine cause of distress and perform
appropriate repair
Stoops >1/4 differential
Stucco Excessive hairline cracks or larger then 1/16 wide
Drywall Excessive hairline cracks or larger then 1/16 wide
Bulge or sag in walls and ceilings 3/8 in 8 is acceptable
Ceiling sag 3/8 in 8 is acceptable
Flatwork: garage, patio, driveway
> 3/32 wide cracks
> 1/8 vertical differential, replace effected area
> 3/8 wide control joints
Flatwork: sidewalk > 3/16 wide cracks, replace effected area
Pool deck
> 1/16 wide horiz. and vert. displacements
> 1/8 wide control joint separation
Levelness >1/4 in 12
Concrete spalling unacceptable
Masonry 1/8 wide stair-step crack
Counter top and wall joint Caulk joint not to exceed 1/8
Tiles
Lose or cracked - Unacceptable
> 1/16 joint with other material separation

3.7 Summary
In this section the industry and Arizona practice (based on informal survey data) is
presented. Up to about 10 years ago stem-and-footer foundation design was the most
commonly constructed foundation system for detached residential construction. Currently post-
tensioned slabs are selected to mitigate potential soil movement of low to medium expansive soil
typical to the Phoenix metropolitan region. The design is carried out with PTI 3
rd
Interviews with industry revealed that professionals involved in construction and design
understand the importance of maintaining initial moisture conditions below the foundation by
proper grading, drainage and appropriate landscape in the vicinity of the foundation. The 5%
Edition.

126
positive slope away from the structure for a minimum of 5 was adopted long before the
governing standards (IBC) required it. It appears that homebuilders make a lot of effort to
communicate the significance of moisture control to new homeowners who frequently do not
follow the recommendations. When problems occur, remediation methods involve re-
establishing of arid moisture conditions around the foundation perimeter by removal of
vegetation and regarding the lot. In rare cases, when significant soil movement has occurred
and the potential for future soil movement exists, additionally some or all of the following
methods are employed: vertical cut-off walls, chemical stabilization, and push-piers. The soil
moisture below the structure is assumed to come to equilibrium with the new conditions within 6
months, at which time vertical structure distress remediation is performed consisting of cosmetic
repairs, partial removal and replacement of flatwork and walls.
The Arizona Registrar of Contractors, AROC, in Workmanship Standards for Licensed
Contractors provides guidelines for unacceptable construction quality, unacceptable post
construction deformations due to either settlement or soil movement within 2 years of
homeowner occupancy and homeowner responsibilities. A number of researchers attempted to
identify factors signifying foundation movement such as the angular distortion and crack width,
see Section 2.6, though it is not common for geotechnical engineers to present their design
recommendations in terms of limited angular distortion. Walsh (2001) writes about newly
constructed floor levelness, using angular distortion as a guide. In the Phoenix metropolitan
area the AROC document describes the governing standard of practice.

4 LABORATORY DATA

Laboratory testing was performed as a part of this research to identify typical Arizona
expansive soil properties and associated parameters employed in current foundation design
method (e.g. PTI design procedure), and to obtain transient moisture flow modelling input
parameters, which include unsaturated soil functions such as SWCC and hydraulic conductivity
and , initial matric suction profile data, and climatic and human-imposed soil surface conditions
for establishment of boundary conditions. The unsaturated soil properties, Soil Water
Characteristic Curve and unsaturated soil permeability, were either measured or estimated
based on measured index properties. The determination of initial and boundary conditions
involved the measurement of matric suction beyond the estimated active zone depth and beyond
the estimated edge moisture variation distance. To achieve these objectives, soil samples from
below slabs of 16 homes were obtained, one next to a residential property and one from
undeveloped desert conditions. The descriptions of soil testing performed and a summary data
are given below. Detailed soil profile information for each investigated site can be found in
Appendix B.

4.1 Field Exploration
The field exploration was aimed at obtaining undisturbed soil samples from under slabs-
on-grade of residential construction in Phoenix metropolitan area, Arizona, whose matric suction,
beyond that resulting from seasonal variation, had reached equilibrium. To satisfy this
requirement, structures five years old or older were chosen for the investigation. The edge
moisture variation distance was roughly estimated and the samples were taken at greater
distances from the edge of the slab. It was decided that the least inconvenient place to drill was
the garage. Before the soil samples were collected from the selected sites, special care was
taken in the gathering of related data such as landscape type, existence of gutters, quality of lot
grading, and identification of possible water sources such as pool or history of pipe leaks.

128
4.1.1 Equipment
The field sampling required equipment listed in Table 4.1. The main pieces of
equipment included: coring machine capable of coring 4-inch diameter holes in concrete,
generator and hand sampling equipment for thin walled tube sampling.

Table 4.1. Main Equipment used for Field Sampling and Coring (after Perera, 2003).
Item Use/Description
Coring Device
Core Bore Drilling Machine, Model M1capable of coring 4 holes through
concrete slabs (See Figure 5.1). Due to wet drilling, the top several inches
of the slab was drilled with the drilling machine and the last inch was
removed manually to prevent moisture contamination.
Coring Bits 4 diameter diamond coring bits for drilling through concrete.
Generator
Generac 7000-watt portable AC generator powered the coring machine
and other power tools.
Sprayer 3.5-gallon pump-up sprayer for supplying water for the coring machine.
Shop-Vac For cleaning waste (cooling water + cuttings) generated during coring.
Hand Sampling
Equipment
Consisted of 1.8 and 2.8 diameter stainless steel sampling tubes (Ar 10 -
15%), two sampling heads, extension pipes, a 45 lb hammer, slotted wood
plates to guide the pipes, and a jack.
Compaction
Device
A steel rod with a cylindrical base. With the help of the compaction device,
the holes were backfilled and compacted with sand and gravel mixed with
excavated soil.

4.1.2 Field Sampling
After arrival at the selected site, initial information was gathered. The site information
included: site location, site description with a sketch of site details, site identification number and
type of landscape. Special care was taken to identify possible sources of severe soil moisture
variations below foundation such as existence of large trees or tree removal, swimming pools
and history of broken pipes or irrigation system.
Drilling location was established in a garage at least six feet away from the edge of the
slab; 4-inch hole was drilled in the slab up to a depth of about 2.5-inches. To avoid
contamination of subsoil with water, 1-inch of the concrete was left un-drilled. The concrete core
was retracted and the water in the cut was removed with shop-vac. The remaining concrete in

129
the hole was chiselled out and extracted. In order to prevent damage of tube samplers by large
gravel particles, the granular base material under the slab was removed by hand until natural soil
surface was reached.
Soil sampling was done continuously utilizing stainless-steel-tube samplers 3-inches in
diameter and 11-inches long. Each tube was driven manually into the soil using a 45-lb
hammer. Two slotted wood plates placed on the concrete against the pipe maintained the
verticality of the sampling tube during the driving. The sample tube was retracted from the
ground by extracting the tube with a jack. Sampling was carried out to a depth of at least 6 feet
in an effort to reach active zone depth. Five (5) to nine (9) cores were collected from each site at
consecutive depths.
The soil in retrieved Shelby tubes was trimmed to have smooth, flat surfaces at both
ends. These ends were sealed with tight-fitting rubber caps and duct tape to prevent drying of
the soil. Each tube used in sampling was stamped for identification that consisted of four
numbers: site number, sequence at which Shelby tubes were used to retrieve soil (i.e., number
one refers to the first used tube), and starting and final depths from which the soil was removed
in inches. The tubes then were taken to the laboratory for testing. The same soil sample
identification is used in the presentation of laboratory work.
The holes were backfilled with sand and gravel. The soil was placed in 6-inch lifts and
compacted with a compaction device up to the bottom level of concrete. The remaining hole
was filled with specially prepared cement slurry, that consisted of non-shrinking cement grout
with an accelerator. It was ensured that the patching material was flush with the existing
concrete. The patching required only 20 to 30 minutes of hardening before the slab could be
used again.

4.2 Soil Testing for Input Parameters
Based on unsaturated soil mechanics theory, it was determined that Soil Water
Characteristic Curve, SWCC, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity, k(h), need to be either

130
measured or estimated in order to model transient flow through unsaturated soil. The in-situ soil
suction was measured followed by a more detailed SWCC measurement for selected
specimens. The k(h) was estimated using SoilVision 4.0 database based on SWCC and
measured Atterberg Limits. In order to benchmark obtained results to soil parameters typically
used by Arizona practitioners, additional soil testing was performed which included undisturbed
soil moisture and dry density, specific gravity, swell pressure, swell index, and Arizona modified
expansion index, EI
AZ
. Cation Exchange Capacity, CEC, was also determined to compare the
measured results to the answers obtained with correlation methods in the Post Tensioned
Institute, PTI, Design Manual.

4.2.1 Moisture Content and Dry Density
Most cores were tested for both water content and dry density. After plastic cap was
removed from the Shelby tube, the soil volume and soil mass were determined. Some of the soil
was extruded from the tube and the soil was cut flush with the tube. The cut off soil was broken
up and the inner part of the soil mass was removed (at least 100g), weighed, oven dried and
weigh again. The results were used in the calculation of in-situ water content with equation (4.1)
and dry density, equation (4.2), or dry unit weight, equation (4.3). Throughout this report dry
unit weight is listed as
d
. The water content and dry unit weight values were verified by
repeating the calculations with soil data obtained during suction and/or swell pressure testing
where the soil was extruded into brass ring of dimensions 2.54-cm height and 6.1-cm diameter.
s
w
m
m
w = (4.1)
s
d
m
V
= (4.2)
d d
g = (4.3)

131
where:
w - water content [%],
m
w
- mass of water in the sample [g],
m
s
- mass of dried soil [g],
d
- dry density [pcf]
V - total volume [ft
3
].
g - gravitational constant [9.81 m/s
2

]
4.2.2 Atterberg Limits
Atterberg limits test results, in part, were used in the evaluation of soil classification with
the Unified Soil Classification System in accordance with ASTM D 2488-93. The test was
performed based on ASTM D 4318-95 to obtain liquid limit, LL, plastic limit, PL, and plasticity
index, PI, where PI LL PL = . Tubes number 1, 3, 5, and 7 or 8 were selected for this test,
to give an indication of soil variability with depth.

4.2.3 Sulfate Content
The IAS laboratories were contracted out to measure the sulfate content of 10 selected
soils. The ADOT method ARIZ 733 was utilized in the determination, where 60 g of distilled
water was combined with 20 g of oven dried soil. The components were mixed for five minutes
and then allowed to stand for one hour with occasional shaking of each sample by hand. The
mixture was filtered through a #2 filter paper. The filtrate was analyzed for sulfate on Coupled
Plasma Spectroscope (ICP). The results are given in terms of ppm in Table 4.5.

4.2.4 Cation Exchange Capacity
Cation Exchange Capacity, CEC, test was performed on six (6) soils. The tests were
performed based on Department of Sustainability Natural Resources, soil survey standard test
method procedure (2004). It was found that the PTI presented correlation between CEC and
index properties adequately estimates CEC for soil types common to Arizona region. The
results are provided in Table 4.5.

132
4.2.5 Specific Gravity
Specific gravity was determined for each site at selected depths, typically soil from cores
number one (1) and five (5). The test was performed by first calibrating the pycnometer. The
container was filled with de-aired water up to the 500 mL mark; its weight and water temperature
were recorded. The water was removed and replaced with mixture of soil and water. The
pycnometer was attached to an air pump in order to remove all air bubbles from the mixture.
The removal of air took about two hours and was accompanied by occasional, manual swirling of
the mixture. When the air was removed from the soil-water mixture, the pycnometer was filled
up to the 500 mL mark with de-aired water. Its weight and water temperature were measured.
In the final step, the dry mass of the solids was measured. The specific gravity was calculated
using formulas described in ASTM D 854 standard.

4.2.6 Expansion Index
In an effort to benchmark swell pressure observed during laboratory testing to expansion
potential typically determined by geotechnical practitioners in Arizona, expansion index was
measured for four selected soils. The expansion index, EI, was determined using two methods.
The first method followed ASTM D 4829-03 standard test procedure for measuring expansion
index. The second one used modified ASTM D 4829-03 standard that is used by geotechnical
engineers in the Phoenix area.

4.2.6.1 Arizona Modified Expansion Index Procedure
Optimum water content and maximum dry unit weight of soil were determined from
compaction test as per ASTM D 698 standard. Soil samples were prepared in brass rings of
dimensions: 2.54-cm height by 6.1-cm diameter with the following properties:
w = w
opt
2 (4.4a)
d
= 0.95
d max
(4.4b)

133
where,
w - water content [%],
w
opt
- optimum water content [%]
d
- mass of dried soil [g],
d max
-

The prepared samples were placed in the consolidometer. Sitting load of 4.8 kPa
(100psf) was applied to them. The dial gage was zeroed out and the specimens were soaked in
distilled water. The soil samples were allowed to expand. The change in height was observed
and recorded 24 hours after the beginning of the test. The expansion index was calculated
using equation (4.5).
maximum specific weight [pcf]
100
0
H
H
EI
AZ
=
(4.5)

where:
H change in height of soil specimen [in] -
H
0
initial height of soil specimen [in] -

This procedure was followed by a typical consolidation test (see ASTM D 4546-96 for
details). Taylor method was used in the determination of compression curve. The results were
corrected for equipment deflection.

4.2.6.2 Expansion Index Procedure as per ASTM D 4829
The ASTM D 4829 modified sample size procedure was used to determine Expansion
Index, EI. Soil was passed through US standard sieve #4. In an attempt to achieve 50% degree
of saturation of the sample, the necessary water content of soil was approximated. The soil was
mixed with water and allowed to equilibrate for 12 hours. After equilibration, the soil-water
mixture was compacted in two layers into a metal ring of dimensions: 25.4 mm height and 101.9
mm diameter. The soil was compacted with 15 blows per layer of 5.5 lb hammer dropped from
12 in. Since the soil specimen of 101.9 mm diameter did not fit in the standard consolidation

134
apparatus, the prepared soil sample was pushed into a standard brass ring of dimensions: 2.54
cm height by 6.1 cm diameter.
The soil sample in the brass ring was placed in the consolidation apparatus and 6.9 kPa
(144 psf) was applied to it. The dial gage was zeroed out and the sample was saturated with
distilled water. The sample was allowed to expand. The change in soil height was observed
and recorded 24 hours after soil saturation. Equation (4.6) was used to calculate the expansion
index. The ASTM D 4829-03 also considers samples of saturation other than 50%. When the
expansion test is performed on a sample that is saturated between 40% to 60%, the expansion
index can be calculated using equation (4.7).
0
1000
measured
H
EI
H
= (4.6)

50
65
(50 )
220
measured
measured measured
measured
EI
EI EI S
S
+
=
(4.7)
The expansion potential is classified as follows:

Table 4.2. Classification of Potential Expansion based on EI (ASTM D 4829).
Classification of Potential Expansion EI
Very low 0-20
Low 21-50
Medium 51-90
High 91-130
Very High >130

This procedure was followed by typical consolidation test (see ASTM D 4546-96 for
details). Taylor method was used in the determination of compression curve. The results were
corrected for equipment deflection.

4.2.7 Constant Volume Oedometer Testing
Two cores per site were selected for swelling pressure testing with constant volume
oedometer method. Typically cores #1 and #5 were selected for this test. In this method an

135
undisturbed soil samples were directly extruded from Shelby tubes into brass rings of
dimensions 2.54-cm height by 6.1-cm diameter. The samples were weighed and placed in the
consolidometer between two porous stones. Based on soils moist density and depth from which
the sample was obtained, overburden pressure was calculated and applied to the sample. Next,
deformation gage was calibrated and distilled water was introduced to the sample. The
specimen was not allowed to deform in height by more or less than 0.0002-inch where the
deformation was controlled by either adding or removing weights. The system reached
equilibrium within 24 hours. The pressure required to maintain constant volume of the sample is
referred to as the swelling pressure of the soil that is further corrected for sampling disturbance
and consolidometer compressibility; see Section 4.2.7. The constant volume oedometer test
was followed by consolidation test.

4.2.8 Consolidation Test and Correction Factors
Consolidation test was performed on the same soil samples as the constant volume
oedometer test; cores #1 and #5. The test was performed in general accordance of ASTM
D4546-96 in order to determine soil compression and decompression indices. Once the swelling
pressure was determined, consolidation test was initiated by introducing an increment of load to
the specimen. Each increment typically resulted in doubling the applied load; and the first
increment would be equal to the overburden pressure.
The application of additional load was followed by recording soil compression with time,
where the readings were taken using the following increments of time: 0 sec, 6 sec, 15 sec, 30
sec, 1 min, 2 min, 4 min, 8 min, 15 min, 30 min and 1 hour. Typically 4 to 6 load increments
were applied to the soil. Once the final increment readings were completed, the rebound curve
was determined by removing an increment of load at a time. The reading of soil height was
recorded 24 hours after load removal, when recompression tendencies of soil have ceased. The
soil was maintained at saturation throughout the testing procedure.

136
The compression (consolidation for saturated specimens) at each load increment was
determined with Taylors method from displacement vs. square root of time curves. The
obtained results of void ratio vs. effective stress for compression and rebound curves were
determined and corrected for equipment compressibility and sampling disturbance. The first
correction, correction due to equipment compressibility, was determined by performing
consolidation test a steel plug. The system deflection was observed and plotted vs. increasing
and decreasing applied pressure on a semi-log scale. Good analytical correlations were found
between the deflections and applied load for both compression and recompression paths. The
results obtained included fitted trendlines, and are illustrated in Figure 4.1. The measured
system deflections were subtracted from the deflections measured on the tested soil to correct
for system compliance.
h
(compression)
= 1.412E-12x
3
- 3.523E-09x
2
+ 3.581E-06x + 5.635E-03
h
(decompression)
= 2.386E-12x
3
- 5.329E-09x
2
+ 4.312E-06x + 5.699E-03
0.0055
0.0057
0.0059
0.0061
0.0063
0.0065
0.0067
0.0069
0.0071
0.0073
0.0075
10 100 1000 10000
Pressure [kPa]
C
h
a
n
g
e

i
n

H
e
i
g
h
t

[
i
n
]
Compression Decompression

Figure 4.1. Consolidation test on a steel plug; dummy specimen.

The following procedure was used to obtain the Fredlund and Rahardjo, 1993 correction
to the swelling pressure values. The intent of the correction is to adjust for sampling disturbance;
refer to Figure 4.2 for details.

137
1. Draw horizontal line from the point of maximum curvature.
2. Draw tangent line to the compression curve from the point of intersection.
3. Find bisector line between horizontal and tangent lines.
4. Move the recompression line to be tangent with the compression line. The point of
intersection with the bisector line indicates the corrected swelling pressure.

Figure 4.2. Typical test results of constant volume oedometer test; correction to find
swelling pressure (after Fredlund and Rahardjo, 1993).

4.2.9 Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity
The saturated hydraulic conductivity was determined for two soil samples per site; cores
#1 and #5. The consolidation test results were used to calculate the saturated soil permeability,
k
sat
, with equations (4.8) through (4.10).

1
1
v w v
sat
c ga
k
e
=
+
(4.8)
2
90
90
dr
v
H
c T
t
= (Taylor method) (4.9)
1 2
' '
2 1
v
e e
a

(4.10)

138
where:
C
v

Coefficient of consolidation
-
2
cm
s
(
(

,
T time factor [T
90
= 0.848], -
H
2
dr

average height of the specimen when the pressure is increased
from
1
-
'
to
2
'
; the value is divided by two for double drainage
test [cm
2
t
90

],
the time it takes to reach 90% of primary consolidation due to
applied load; the value is used when Taylor method is applied
[s],

-
a
v

Coefficient of compressibility
-
2
m
N
(
(

,
e void ratio, -
e
1

void ratio from the consolidation curve; the first point considered
for the calculation,
-
e
2

void ratio from the consolidation curve; the second point
-
' effective stress applied to the sample [kPa], -
1

effective consolidation stress from the consolidation curve; the
first point considered for the calculation,
-
2

effective consolidation stress from the consolidation curve; the
second point considered for the calculation,
-
w

density of water [1000
-
3
kg
m
at T = 20 C], and
g
constant of gravitational acceleration
-
2
9.81
m
s
(
(

.

4.2.10 Soil Suction
The determination of Soil Water Characteristic Curve, SWCC, can be time consuming,
especially for clay soils. Because soil suction is such an important parameter in unsaturated soil
mechanics theory, a simplified method of SWCC determination was developed as a part of this
study. It is called One-Point Method of SWCC Determination. It is described in detail below and
in Appendix C. Tubes 1, 3, 5 and 7 or 8 were selected for this test. In order to verify the
obtained results with the proposed method, complete SWCC was performed on at least one
sample from each site. Additionally, filter paper and dessicator testing was performed on
selected soils to determine the moisture conditions corresponding to high suction values.

139
4.2.10.1 Pressure Plate
4.2.10.1.1 Equipment
In this study, matric suction was determined with pressure cells, Fredlund SWCC cells,
developed by GCTS, Tempe, AZ. This equipment is capable of testing desaturating or
saturating SWCC paths and allows for the determination of soil suction up to 1500 kPa which is
the air entry value of ceramic stone used in the cells. The schematic of the equipment is
illustrated in Figure 4.3 (after Perera, 2003). Figure 4.4 and Figure 4.5 illustrate one of the
pressure cells used in the lab set-up.

Plates
Soil Sample
Outer Cylinder
To pressure
source
To volume
tubes
Base Plate
Ceramic Stone
Top Plate
Socket-Head
Cap Screw
Inner Cylinder
Loading Pin
Loading Plate
Seal Screw

Figure 4.3. Fredlund SWCC cell schematic (after Perera, 2003).

The Fredlund SWCC pressure cell consists of pressure chamber with graduated volume
tubes attached to its base through Tygon tubing and QD valves. The pressure chamber consists
of base with room for ceramic stone, inner and outer cylinders, top plate and loading rod with
platen that goes through the top plate. The cell is equipped with four o-rings designed to prevent
air leaks. The first o-ring is located inside the base next to ceramic stone. The second one is
located between the top of the base and the outer cylinder. Another one is located between the
top of the outer cylinder and the top plate. The last o-ring is located between loading rod and top

140
plate (Perera, 2003). The soil sample is contained in a brass ring of dimensions 2.54-cm in
height and 6.1-cm in diameter. The sample is placed on top of the ceramic stone and topped
with a grooved platen transferring applied load through the loading rod. The soil suction
measurements (and associated water content and degree of saturation) are obtained by
applying air pressure to the sample and observing the amount of water released or absorbed by
the soil through the ceramic stone as well as the deformation of the specimen.

Figure 4.4. Fredlund SWCC cell.

The pressure plate device was prepared by cleaning accessible o-rings and surfaces.
The base of the cell was connected to the graduated volume tubes with Tygon tubing through
the two QD valves located on the sides of the base. The QD valves were opened and the o-ring
located inside the base was moistened to facilitate downward movement of the ceramic stone
ring. The ceramic stone ring was pressed very carefully into the well of the base; then the soil
sample was placed on top of the ceramic stone and the grooved metal platen was placed on top
Piston
Heater
Top plate
Volume Tubes

141
of the sample (not illustrated in figures). The inner and outer cylinders were placed on the base
surrounding the sample. The top plate was placed carefully observing proper alignment of top o-
ring with grove in the top plate. The top plate already contained the loading rod inserted through
the top screw and o-ring. A washer was screwed onto the bottom of the rod to prevent the rod
escaping from the cell when air pressure was applied. The top plate was tightly screwed on to
the base with four 5-inch long socket-head cap screws that sealed the cell. Air pressure was
applied to the Fredlund SWCC device set-up (Perera, 2003).

Figure 4.5. Fredlund SWCC cell set-up (grooved platen not in the picture).

Air pressure was applied through two types of regulators. Pressures up to 690 kPa were
regulated through bleeding type Fairchild pressure regulators. The higher pressures up to
1500 kPa were applied using nitrogen cylinder that was regulated through non-bleeding type
Fairchild pressure regulators. The applied pressure was measured with pressure gauges with
Inner and outer
cylinders
Ceramic stone

142
0.25 or 0.50 % full-scale accuracy. Pressure gauges with ranges of 0 to 200 kPa, 0 to 690 kPa,
and 0 to 1500 kPa were used in the setup. Pressures below 10kPa were measured with water
tubes attached to one of the gages and the SWCC cell.
Very recent modifications to the Fredlund SWCC device included addition of a small
heater block on top of the cell. The heater block, obtained from Soil Moisture, is intended to
maintain constant, slightly above ambient temperature within the cell. The use of the heater
block supposed to prevent condensation of water inside the cell producing in turn more reliable
results from the volume tube read out.

4.2.10.1.2 Issues Associated with SWCC Testing
There were few challenges that needed to be overcome when measuring soil suction in
general and when working with the pressure plate apparatus. Testing of soil suction requires
draft free, constant temperature environment. Temperature variations by more than 1C will
result in moisture condensation inside of the pressure chamber. At times the condensation
might appear on the bottom plate below cylinders, Figure 4.6, or on the brass ring containing soil
sample, Figure 4.7, or on the cylinders. Most of the condensation is observed at low suction
values. The Soil Moisture heater block has proven to be beneficial; however it did not eliminate
the condensation problem. Presented condensation pictures were obtained with SWCC cell with
attached heater block. Perez (2006) attempted to resolve this issue by introducing an insulation
sleeve around the cell. She found condensation in the pressure tube connected to the cell and
concluded that pressure plate suction testing should be conducted in an environmental chamber
capable of maintaining set temperature within 1C. If this condition cannot be satisfied,
condensation should be anticipated in different areas of the test apparatus. Since environmental
chamber was not available for all tests conducted in this study, the condensation issue was
overcome by taking a direct measurement of soil mass once the specimen reached equilibrium
with the applied air pressure. The pressure chamber was opened, the moist specimen weight

143
and then returned to the test equipment to measure soil response to the next applied pressure
value.

Figure 4.6. Condensation on bottom plate inside of SWCC cell.

Figure 4.7. Condensation on brass ring inside SWCC cell.

Lateral soil shrinkage is another issue. In order to properly describe SWCC in terms of
volumetric water content, the total volume of soil sample is needed for each measured suction.
As an expansive soil dries, its size decreases in both horizontal and vertical directions. The
Condensation
Condensation

144
Fredlund SWCC cell is designed to monitor vertical deformation of specimen through the
displacement of plate on top of the piston. Lateral shrinkage cannot be accounted for, and yet it
is a significant factor. Figure 4.8 illustrates lateral shrinkage of initially saturated clayey soil with
its volume equal to brass ring volume and final suction of 1500 kPa. It can be further observed
that the lateral shrinkage does not occur uniformly with depth. Typically, the soil diameter is
larger at the bottom and smaller at the top. To overcome these issues, the soil volume was
measured with callipers every time the equilibrated soil with applied pressure was removed from
the pressure cell to obtain its weight. When it was possible to remove the soil from the ring,
three measurements were taken in the middle of the specimen, otherwise diameter was
measured at the top and bottom of the sample to calculate average value. The analysis of data
further revealed the sensitivity of volumetric water content or saturation to the specimen volume.
Small changes in soil volume correspond to large changes in saturation. It is the opinion of the
author that SWCC uncertainty, to a large degree, is due to errors or variability in dry density.

Figure 4.8. Lateral soil shrinkage during SWCC testing.

145
Lateral and vertical shrinkage cracks present yet another challenge. Figure 4.9
illustrates an example of this phenomenon (vertical crack), which was found to occur rather
infrequently. When large shrinkage cracks occurred, the test was redone.

Figure 4.9. Soil cracking during SWCC test.

4.2.10.1.3 One Point Method of SWCC Determination
Perera et al. (2005) provided a model to predict drying SWCC from index properties.
Figure 4.10 illustrates the developed family of SWCC curves for plastic soils based on index
properties alone. The family of curves was calculated using equations (4.11) through (4.17) for
different values of wPI. This model can be configured to give unbiased estimates of the SWCC,
but some uncertainty associated with the estimate exists. As discussed in Appendix C, a band
of uncertainty exists even when direct measurements are made, and somewhat more
uncertainty exists when index properties alone are used to get the SWCC. The uncertainty is
reduced when one direct measurement of suction and saturation is coupled with index properties
to get the SWCC. Thus the one-point method entails measuring the existing suction and
saturation on either an undisturbed sample from an in-situ location in the field or on a sample
compacted in the laboratory.

146

Figure 4.10. Family of SWCC Curves for Plastic Soils Developed by Perera (Perera,
2003).

( )
( )
f
f
s
v
h c
b
f
C
h
ln e 1
a
(
| |
| |
( |
|
| ( |
|
\ .
(
\ .

=
+
(4.11)
( )
r
h
6
r
h
ln 1
h
C 1
10
ln 1
h
| |
|
\ .
| |
|
|
\ .
+
=
+
(4.12)
( )
f
a 32.835ln wPI 32.438 = + (4.13)
( )
0.3185
f
b 1.421 wPI
= (4.14)
( )
f
c 0.2154ln wPI 0.7145 = + (4.15)
f
h 500 = (4.16)
200
PI *P
wPI
100
= (4.17)

Family of Curves
wPI = 0.4 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 50
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
0 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Suction [kPa]
S
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

147
where:
v
-
volumetric water content,
s
-
saturated volumetric water content or porosity of the soil;
e -
exponent,
h -
matric suction [kPa];
C(h) -
adjustment factor which forces the SWCC through zero water
content at a suction of 106 kPa, and

The one point measurement was obtained by extruding undisturbed soil sample from
Shelby tube into a brass ring of dimensions: 2.54-cm in height and 6.1-cm in diameter. After the
initial readings of volume and weight were collected, the sample was placed in the pressure cell
on a saturated ceramic stone. Special care was taken for the soil sample not to undergo change
in volume or water content from the time it was collected from the field to the time of testing. The
soil sample was assembled inside the pressure cell and initial, trial air pressure, u
a
, was applied
to the specimen. This trial value can be selected by using the best available data to estimate the
initial saturation value and the best available index properties to estimate the SWCC. Then the
saturation value can be used to determine the first trial value of suction (u
a
) from the graph.
Alternatively, the first trial value of u
a
can be selected from experience and intuition.
The drainage valves were opened to expose the ceramic stone, on which the specimen
rested, to the water in the volume tubes, thus driving pore water pressure, u
w
to zero. The initial
air bubble flush was performed to ensure that there is no entrapped air bubbles in the system.
Weights were placed on top of the loading rod to compensate for the overburden pressure,
applied air pressure and the friction between the inner ring and the loading rod. Initial readings
of specimen height and water volume readings from volume tubes were obtained where the
initial height was measured with callipers as the distance from the top of the top plate and
bottom of the platen located on top of the loading rod.
h
r
, a
f
, b
f
and c
f
are fitting parameters.
Immediately after the initial readings were collected, the volume of water in the volume
tubes was monitored to detect any tendency for water to be expelled or absorbed by the

148
specimen. Depending on soil behavior, the applied pressure was reduced or increased and
appropriate amount of weights was removed or added. The observations were conducted on a
more or less logarithmic scale; i.e., the elapsed time, at which readings were taken and u
a

adjusted, from the test beginning were doubled or tripled. When the applied pressured resulted
in no change between the initial and the final water volume readings, or in other terms when
equilibrium applied pressure was found, the test was terminated. Cell drainage valves were
closed, the cell was disassembled and the specimen was removed as quickly as possible. Care
was taken to remove all of the specimen and to prevent moisture and specimen mass loss or
gain. The moist soil with ring was weighed and oven dried. The measurement of specimen
volume, water content and dry soil mass were used in the calculation of undisturbed soil
saturation. The matric suction of the undisturbed specimen was determined, and corresponds to
in-situ suction conditions of soil under the slab at tested depth. The results were used to
develop soil-water characteristic curves.
The pair of values, suction and saturation, obtained represents one value on the SWCC.
An SWCC that passes through the measured pair was estimated with equations (4.10) through
(4.16) based on an apparent wPI. If the computed suction agrees with the measured suction
then the fitting parameters are appropriate. If not, then the estimated wPI was adjusted up or
down until a match was obtained. A second SWCC estimate was obtained by varying equation
parameters in such a way as to produce a curve that goes through the measured point and
retains the slope of wPI SWCC curve. The determined suction value was further modified for
sampling disturbance. Typically, the saturation value of specimen prior to suction testing is
higher than after the test (condensation on the brass ring was observed). For this reason, the
suction value obtained may, in some cases, need to be corrected by accounting for the change
in degree of saturation. The corrected suction is simply read of from the lab-determined drying
SWCC curve.
When the insitu soil suction did exceed the testing equipment capabilities, 1500kPa, the
soil was allowed to come to equilibrium with the applied pressure. During the equilibration

149
process the soil absorbed water, potentially travelling on scanning SWCC. Filter paper testing
was performed on few soils for which direct measurement of matric suction with pressure plate
apparatus proved to be impossible. Figure 4.11 illustrates results obtained with both filter paper
and pressure plate apparatus together with fit curves for selected specimen. The measured data
points correspond to parallel SWCCs shifted by about one log cycle. The observations were
consistent with the literature review findings presented in Chapter 2.
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Suction [kPa]
S
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
d
e
c
i
m
a
l
]
Filter Paper
Pressure Plate
Fit through PP point (wetting curve)
Fit through FP point (drying curve)
wPI based
Scanning Curve

Figure 4.11. Pressure plate and filter paper test results, SWCC estimate.

When both, pressure plate and filter paper results were available, the filter paper values
were reported. The in-situ soil subjected to filter paper testing was observed to loose small
amount of moisture during the testing process, therefore the obtained suction value was
corrected for sampling disturbance. The matric suction corresponding to initial soil saturation
was read off from the best fit SWCC going though the measured pair of values.
On the other hand if only pressure plate results were available for specimen that did
undergo wetting, first a wetting SWCC going through the measured pair of values was
estimated. Next, a parallel drying curve to the wetting fit was developed. These two curves
were shifted by between half to one log cycle (depending on the magnitude of saturation

150
change). The matric suction corresponding to initial soil saturation was read off from the
estimated drying SWCC.

4.2.10.1.4 Complete SWCC
For selected samples, the same sample that was used in the One Point Method was
used in the determination of complete SWCC. The soil sample was removed from the pressure
cell after the One Point test was completed. Its weight and volume were recorded and it was
placed in a distilled water bath, where the soil sample was rested on a layer of filter paper and
porous stone. The sample was covered with another layer of filter paper and porous stone.
Number of weights was placed on top of the specimen to overcome the swell potential of the
soil.
The sample was removed from water bath and its weight recorded and then transferred
into prepared pressure cell. The cell was closed and the initial pressure was applied. The
applied pressure exerted an upward thrust on the loading rod causing friction between top plate
o-ring and the loading rod. Applying correct amount of weights on the loading platen
compensated the upward thrust and the friction forces. The weights were increased until the rod
would move down under the application of light touch. Additional weights were applied to
simulate the overburden pressure the soil experienced in the field. The overburden pressure
was calculated based on the depth and moisture content of the tested sample. The pressure cell
device, at this time, was checked for air leaks by wetting the locations with o-rings. The air was
flushed from the water tubes and initial readings were collected once the water height inside
both of the volume tubes equilibrated The height of the specimen was determined by measuring
the distance between the top of the top plate and the bottom of the loading platen with a pair of
spring clippers and a Vernier calliper.
The system was left with the applied pressure until the soil reached equilibrium. It was
determined that the equilibrium was reached once the soil stopped absorbing or expelling water
which was identified by the same water volume reading obtained from the volume tubes within

151
24 hours. The equilibrium was also manifested by no variation of soil height within 24 hours. At
that time, the weights were removed and the pressure cell was opened up. The soil sample was
removed, the condensed water was wiped out from the brass ring and the mass of the moist
specimen with brass ring was recorded. The dimensions of the sample were recorded as well.
The specimen was returned to the pressure cell and the test procedure was repeated for higher
suction. Minimum of three suction measurements were obtained per specimen; 50, 500 and
1500 kPa. Once the soil came to equilibrium at 1500 kPa, final moist sample readings were
obtained. The soil sample was placed inside an aluminium container and was oven dried. The
collected values of moist and dry soil mass and volume were used to calculate soil saturation
corresponding to tested matric suction. The results are presented in Appendix B.

4.2.10.2 Filter Paper
Filter paper test with Fisherbrand filter paper #P8 was performed on selected
undisturbed and disturbed samples. Filter paper is an indirect matric and total suction
measurement method. The matric suction is obtained by placing three filter papers between two
soil samples allowing direct contact of the filter paper and the soil. The actual filter paper used
for the matric suction calculation is located between the other two filter papers preventing filter
paper contamination with soil. A piece of tape was placed on the soil and filter paper joint to
reduce the affect of air relative humidity of the matric suction results. Total suction measurement
is obtained by placing the filter paper above the soil and preventing direct contact of the filter
paper with soil with a wire mesh. The filter paper and soil set-up was placed for up to two weeks
in an air tight jar in an environmental chamber capable of maintaining set temperature to within
1C. Once the filter paper was considered to be in equilibrium with the soil conditions the jar was
opened to retrieve the filter papers. The moist weight of filter papers was determined with a 10
-4

accuracy scale. The filter papers were placed in an oven; soil mass and soil volume
measurements were collected. Within an hour, the filter papers were removed from the oven to
collect their dry mass. The suction corresponding to filter paper water content was obtained

152
from presented below calibration curve developed by ASU researchers. The calibration curve
was determined with different salt concentrations.
Filter Paper - Fitting Curve
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Suction [kPa]
w

[
%
]
The preparation of undisturbed soil samples for filter paper took place in an
environmental chamber. The soil was extruded from the Shelby tube and cut into 1 to 2 long
pieces with a saw. Special attention was given to the smoothness of the soil surfaces meant to
be in contact with the filter paper. The One-Point Method discussion about drying, wetting and
scanning SWCCs is relevant here. It is unknown which path is obtained with this procedure.

Figure 4.12. Filter paper calibration curve.

The preparation of disturbed soil samples consisted of soil compaction at target dry
density and prepared moisture content. The samples were prepared in standard brass rings of
dimensions: 2.54-cm in height and 6.1-cm in diameter. This methodology produces wetting
SWCC. Also on few selected samples drying SWCC was obtained with filter paper. The
compacted soil samples were placed in water bath and allowed to become saturated. In
general, the calibration time decreases with increased soil saturation. Therefore the filter papers
were placed between the prepared samples for a period of few days only. Once the filter papers
come to equilibrium with the soil, the filter papers were removed, weigh and oven dried, the soil
mass and dimensions measured. New filter papers were placed between the soil samples to

153
obtain suction values corresponding to decreased soil saturation. Fungi growth was frequently
observed with the moist soil. When this occurred, the filter paper results were discarded.

4.2.10.3 Dessicator
Total suction at higher suction range was measured with saturated salt solutions. The
saturated salt solution was placed on the bottom of a dessicator. Compacted in standard brass
rings and saturated soil samples were placed on a dessicator rack above the solution. The soil
was allowed to come to equilibrium with the salt solution over a period of 2 to 3 weeks in an
environmental chamber at approximately 20C. Once the test was complete, the soil samples
were removed from the dessicator to measure soil mass and sample dimensions. The salt
solution was replaced with a different salt solution corresponding to a lower relative humidity.
The soil samples were returned to the dessicator and the equilibration process was repeated.
Overall three salts were used in this test, K
2
SO
4
, KCl, NaCl presented in Table 4.3. Once the
soil came to equilibrium with the final salt solution, the soil samples were oven dried.

Table 4.3. RH and suction per saturated salt solutions at 20C (based on Dean, 1999).
Salt RH
[%]
Total Suction
[kPa]
K
2
SO
4
97 4540
KCL 85 24200
NaCL 75.7 43000

4.2.11 Summary of Laboratory Results
4.2.11.1 Sampling Locations
The soil samples were obtained from below 16 slab-on-grade residential properties.
One was obtained next to a property experiencing distress due to expansive soil movement and
one from an open field where expansive soils were identified. The approximate locations of
sampling is given in Table 4.4 and illustrated in Figure 4.13 where the sampling locations were
superimposed on NRCS swell potential map. This map was used to identify areas of potentially
clayey soils to target as sampling locations.

154
Table 4.4. Locations of Soil Sampling.
Soil # Cross Roads City
1 Mill Ave./Broadway Rd. Tempe
2 Kyrene Rd./Guadalupe Rd. Tempe
3 Ray / Kyrene Chandler
4 Cooper Rd./ Chandler Blvd. Chandler
5 Chandler Heights Rd./Arizona Ave. Chandler
6 Southern Ave./Stapley Dr. Mesa
7 Southern Ave./Stapley Dr. Mesa
8 Gilbert Rd. /Baseline Rd. Gilbert
9 Warner / Alma school Chandler
10 Cooper Rd./ Ray Rd. Gilbert
11 Warner / Lindsay Gilbert
12 Chandler Blvd. / Cooper Chandler
13 Baseline Rd. / Lindsay Rd. Mesa
14 Hwy 60 / Lindsay Rd. Mesa
15 Litchfield Rd. / Indian School Byp Gilbert
16 Van Buren St. / 59th Ave. Phoenix
17 Dysart Rd./ Bethany Home Rd. Litchfield
18 Meridian Dr./ 23rd Ave. Anthem

155

3
8
9
1
2
1
0
1
1
5
1
2
7
6
1
4
1
5
1
3
1
6
1
7
1
8
F
i
g
u
r
e

4
.
1
3
.

S
a
m
p
l
i
n
g

L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

s
u
p
e
r
i
m
p
o
s
e
d

o
n

N
R
C
S

s
w
e
l
l

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

m
a
p
.

4.2.11.2 Summary Tables
Table 4.5. Summary Table
Sample #
Soil
Classification
LL PL PI P200
clay
[%]
ksat
[cm/s]
Gs CEC
Sulfate
[ppm]
Consolidation Test
w dry
Cor.
Ps Swell
[%] [pcf] [kPa] Index
1-1-7-18 CL 28.4 14.2 14 62.5 2.8E-07 2.738 11.8 102.4 77.2 0.0185
1-2-18-27.5 CL 31.5 20.1 11 72.1 12.3
1-3-27.5-38 CL 31.5 20.1 11 69.0
1-4-38-47 ML-CL 27.1 20.3 7 60.2
1-5-47-56.8 CL 30.1 22.3 8 59.5 4.4E-06 2.731 11.6 88.3 15.3 0.0154
1-6-56.8-66.5 ML 35.2 25.5 10 55.6
1-7-66.5-77 ML 36.2 24.9 11 52.4
1-8-77-85.5 ML 36.2 24.9 11 54.3
2-1-8.5-19 CL 30.9 19.2 12 71.2 2.5E-08 2.764 119.5 11.6 121.0 0.0150
2-2-19-27 CL 31.6 19.6 12 80.8
2-3-27-36 CL 31.6 19.6 12 74.8 9.8
2-4-36-46 CL 26.2 18.5 8 72.7
2-5-46-55 CL 26.2 18.5 8 72.7 1.1E-06 2.750 26.5 10.0 91.8 0.0111
2-6-55-66 CL 26.2 18.5 8 66.7
2-7-66-75 CL 29.9 19.3 11 68.8
2-8-75-85 CL 31.5 20.7 11 51.0
3-1-9.5-17.5 CL 28.8 17.5 11 73.6 2.7E-07 2.71 47 10.9 108 124 0.0155
3-2-17.5-25 CL 28.6 17.6 11 76.0 10.0
3-3-25-36 CL 28.6 17.6 11 76.0
3-4-36-45.5 CL 39.5 24.4 15 61.5
3-5-45.5-54.5 CL 47.7 24.5 23 52.7 6.6E-08 2.739 13.9 100 177 0.0202
3-6-54.5-64.5 CL 47.7 24.5 23 58.3
3-7-64.5-73.5 CL 47.7 24.5 23 52.7
3-8-73.5-84 SC 51.3 26.2 25 46.4
4-1-5.5-16 CL 34.5 20.5 14 67.4 1.6E-07 12.9 108.9 291.6 0.0358

Sample #
Soil
Classification
LL PL PI P200
clay
[%]
ksat
[cm/s]
Gs CEC
Sulfate
[ppm]
Consolidation Test
w dry
Cor.
Ps Swell
4-2-16-25 CL 37.9 20.4 17 64.9 17.0 2.823
4-3-25-35.5 CL 40.6 21.7 19 57.5
4-4-35.5-45.75 SM-SC 24.3 18.0 6 36.8
4-5-45.75-55 SM-SC 24.3 18.0 6 36.8 4.8E-07 2.764 12.4 97.2 20.0 0.0088
4-6-55-65 SC 32.5 21.3 11 44.0
4-7-65-75 SC 32.5 21.3 11 29.5
5-1-8.5-16.5 SM NP NP 42.9 3.4E-07 2.784 24 6.6 103.8 10.4 0.0048
5-2-16.5-27 SC 44.5 17.6 27 41.2 18.0 3.5E-07 25 0.0067
5-3-27-36 32.8
5-4-36.5-47
5-5-47-56 SC 39.8 22.0 18 37.2 2.8E-07 2.751 9.3 98.3 15.8 0.0122
5-6-56-66
5-7-66-75.75
5-8-75.75-83.5 SC 26.7 18.7 8 28.2
6-1-7.5-17 SC 32.9 18.2 15 36.2 2.5E-07 2.742

75 10.6 97.0 42.9 0.0173
6-2-17-29.5 21.5
6-3-29.5-39 CL 46.0 24.7 21 71.1
6-4-39.5-44.5 46.0 23.2 23 76.0
6-5-44.5-48 46.0 23 23 80.8
6-6-48-52.5 CL 46.2 21.8 24 85.7 30.0 2.668 32
6-7-52.5-62 CL 43.6 22.4 21 85.0 1.4E-08 12.3 119.1 179.4 0.0304
6-8-62-65.5 50.4 23.8 27 85.0
6-9-65.5-72 CH 57.2 25.2 32 85.1 41.0
7-1-6-17 SC
7-2-17-27
7-3-27-37 CL
7-4-37-47
7-5-47-50.5

Sample #
Soil
Classification
LL PL PI P200
clay
[%]
ksat
[cm/s]
Gs CEC
Sulfate
[ppm]
Consolidation Test
w dry
Cor.
Ps Swell
7-6-50.5-55 CL
7-7-55-60.5 CL
7-8-60.5-64.5
8-1-7-17 SM 40.2 19.3 21 49.9 5.8E-08 2.719 11.2 108.1 25.8 0.0105
8-2-17-27 CL 44.7 22.5 21.9 56.8
8-3-27-37.5 CL 49.1 25.7 23 63.6
8-4-37.5-47.5 CL 42.7 23.5 19.0 57.5
8-5-47.5-57.5 CL 36.3 21.2 15 51.3 8.0 5.3E-08 2.743 14.5 112.9 53.0 0.0201
8-6-57.5-67.5 SC 35.0 20.8 14.2 45.5
8-7-67.5-77.5 SC 33.7 20.4 13 39.6
8-8-77.5-88 36.4
8-9-88-96.5 SM NP NP 33.2
9-1-9-19 CL 28.0 16.9 11 54.3 7.1E-07 2.751 19 8.0 98.4 8.3 0.0126
9-2-19-29 SC 36.5 20.6 15.9 44.3
9-3-29-39 SC 44.9 24.3 21 34.4 6.9
9-4-39-49 SC 41.7 22.8 18.9 37.3
9-5-49-56.5 SC 38.5 21.3 17 40.3 7.0E-08 2.739 10.3 114.6 285.7 0.0241
9-6-56.5-65.5 CL 43.2 22.7 20.6 50.1
9-7-65.5-72 CL 47.8 24.1 24 59.9
10-1-7-17 SC 31.1 16.8 14 48.2 6.1E-08 2.714 11.2 124.3 154.3 0.0153
10-2-17-27.5 CL 29.7 18.9 10.7 53.4 3.7E-07
10-3-27.5-37.5 CL 28.3 21.1 7 58.6
10-4-37.5-47.5 CL 31.2 21.8 9.5 60.8
10-5-47.5-57.5 CL 34.0 22.4 12 63.0 21.0 3.3E-08 23 11.9 107.9 118.8 0.0219
10-6-57.5-68 SC 31.0 20.8 10.5 45.0
10-7-68-78 SC 28.0 19.2 9 27.1 2.736
10-8-78-84
11-1-14.5-24 CL 34.8 19.6 15 1.8E-07 2.684 40 15.2 111.2 35.2

Sample #
Soil
Classification
LL PL PI P200
clay
[%]
ksat
[cm/s]
Gs CEC
Sulfate
[ppm]
Consolidation Test
w dry
Cor.
Ps Swell
11-2-24-34 CL 40.8 21.2 20 55.9 16.6 109 50.1 0.2288
11-3-34-46.5 CL 39.1 20.6 18
11-4-46.5-59.5 CL 49.1 24.3 25 55.8 13.0
11-5-59.5-70 CL 49.1 24.3 25 1.7E-07 2.663 14.1 110.9 73.0 0.0207
11-6-70-80 CL 49.1 24.3 25
11-7-80-90 CL 38.6 21.7 17 52.4
12-1-6-12 CL 35.1 21.2 14 1.1E-07 2.77 52 19.1 107.4 60.0 0.0242
12-2-12-24.5 CL 38.0 20.1 18 61.5
12-3-24.5-37.5 CL 38.0 20.1 18
12-4-37.5-48 SC 32.8 18.7 14 46.8
12-5-48-62 SC 36.8 23.3 13 7.1E-08 2.717 14.7 116.7 80.0 0.0203
12-6-62-75 SC 37.7 21.7 16 29.0
12-7-75-85 SC 34.5 21.1 13.5 39.8 12.0
12-8-85-96 SC 31.3 20.4 11
13-1-7-13 CL 40.9 20.0 21 65.5 24.0 1.1E-07 2.727 12 11.5 11.3 263.7 0.0298
13-2-13-23.5 CL 37.8 19.4 18.4 62.1 26.5 4.0E-07 0.0177
13-3-23.5-33 CL 34.8 18.9 16 58.7 29.0
13-4-33-42.5 CL 42.0 20.6 21.4 65.6 34.0
13-5-42.5-51.5 CL 49.1 22.3 27 72.4 39.0 5.5E-08 2.716 34 16.0 115.2 212.0 0.0262
13-6-51.5-59.5 CL 44.5 21.3 23.2 68.8
13-7-59-5-66.5 CL 39.8 20.3 19.5 65.2
13-8-66.5-71 CL 35 19.3 16 61.4
14-1-8-17.5 CL 37.8 20.4 17 64.9 28.5 9.8E-08 2.726 17.5 110.0 62.3 0.0197
14-2-18.5-34.5 CL 43.4 20.5 22.8 69.4
14-3-34.5-47.75 CL 48.9 20.7 28 73.8 44.0 2.755 33
14-4-47.75-60 CL 41.4 18.8 22.6 63.0
14-5-60-68 CL 33.8 16.9 17 52.2 2.4E-07 2.754 10.3 105.6 18.4 0.0172
14-6-68-77 CL

Sample #
Soil
Classification
LL PL PI P200
clay
[%]
ksat
[cm/s]
Gs CEC
Sulfate
[ppm]
Consolidation Test
w dry
Cor.
Ps Swell
15-1-9-15 SM NP NP 31.5 2.726
15-2-15-21 SM 21.4 18.5 3 37.7 7.1
15-3-21-32 SC 29.1 19.0 10 48.9
15-4-32-42 SC 26.6 17.8 9.0 37.6
15-5-42-55 SC 24.1 16.5 8 26.3 4.7E-06 2.723 12.6 110.9 5.5 0.008
15-6-55-64 SC 28.1 18.5 9.8 34.0
15-7-64-73 SC 32.0 20.4 12 41.6
16-1-10.5-21 CL 29.2 17.9 11 53.7 1.5E-07 2.802 76 14.9 113.3 50.0 0.0161
16-2-21-34 CL 32.0 19.2 12.8 72.6
16-3-34-46 CL 34.7 20.4 14 91.5 20.0
16-4-46-58 CL 40.0 21.5 18.5 82.7
16-5-58-68 CL 45.3 22.6 23 73.8 30.5 4.5E-08 2.793 45 16.9 112.7 235.2 0.0316
16-6-68-77.25 CL 44.9 23.4 21.5 81.5
16-7-77.25-85 CL 44.4 24.1 20 89.1 25.4
17-1-8-16 SC 99.1 35.0 64 28.7 2.75 220
17-1-8-16 SC 37.4 13.2
17-2-16.25.5 SC 48.0
17-3-25.5-30 CH 85.1 32.5 53 62.1 19.9 2.4E-07 2.797 29.6 85.0 91.6 0.0264
17-4-30-38 SC 61.6
17-4-30-38 CH 61.6 30.1 32 83.8
17-4-30-38 CH 86.3 34.6
17-5-38-44 SC 29.1 3.78E-07 18.9 90.5 90 0.0277
17-5-38-44 2.829
17-5-38-44 CH 80.0 30.2
17-6-44-50 SC 47.2
17-6-44-50 CH 67.8 30 38 81.4 23.7 2.85E-07 20.8 90.5 361 0.0825
18-12-18 CH 55.0 26.0 26
18-14-20 CH 93.8 40.1

Sample #
Soil
Classification
LL PL PI P200
clay
[%]
ksat
[cm/s]
Gs CEC
Sulfate
[ppm]
Consolidation Test
w dry
Cor.
Ps Swell
18-26-31 CH 2.811
18-27-32 CH 94.0 39.4 11.7 108.7 479.9 0.057
18-36-41 CH 56.6 21.4 35 6.3E-08 2.829
Footnotes: Shaded background used for estimated values

Test Type
Table 4.6. Summary Table Response to wetting and compaction tests.
Parameter Name
Soil (soil number and extruded depth range [in])
Soil 5-16.5-47 10-17-27.5 13-13-23.5 18-20-23
Corrected Swell Pressure [kPa] 10.4 154.3 263.7 479.9
Constant Volume Dry Density [pcf] 103.8 124.3 111.5 108.7
Oedometer Test Initial Water Content [%] 6.6 11.2 11.3 11.7
Saturation [%] 27.4 84.9 59.0 53.4
Expansion Index 9.0 22.5 42.6 33.0
Modified Expansion Dry Density [pcf] 110.6 110.3 104.6 108.5
Index Test Initial Water Content [%] 11.5 12.7 14.6 18.2
Saturation [%] 56.7 64.9 64.1 83.5
EI
50
6.3 12.5 41.7 77.3
Expansion Index Test Expansion Index 4.0 14.9 43.2 78.3
as per ASTM D 4829-03 Dry Density [pcf] 109.0 98.8 95.9 92.6
Standard Initial Water Content [%] 11.7 11.7 13.8 15.4
Saturation [%] 55.4 44.8 48.9 48.7
Compaction Test
w
opt
13.2 15 16.65 20
max
[pcf] 116.9 117 110.31 114.2

162
4.2.12 Selection of Input for Modeling
Field investigation yielded three types of soil, CH, CL and SC with average soil properties
given in Table 4.7. The most commonly encountered soil has characteristics of low plasticity clay
or clayey sand to silty clay with PI smaller then 17. Fat clay, CH, occurs infrequently; it
represents the worst case scenario for residential construction in Arizona, therefore it was chosen
as one of the representative soils for modeling. Low plasticity clayey material with PI smaller then
15 is the second soil type of interest. Modeling of moisture flow through these two soils creates a
range of potential soil response due to typical Arizona and human imposed flux conditions on
soils found in Phoenix metropolitan region. Selected soil properties are given in Section 6.6.

Table 4.7. Average soil values.
Soil Classification LL PL PI P
200
%clay
CH 64 28 36 83 33
CL 38 21 17 66 23
ML to SC 33 19 13 40 11

Laboratory obtained soil profiles were used in the determination of appropriate initial
matric suction conditions. Wide range of matric suctions below a slab for different soil types and
under different landscape conditions was identified. This finding suggests that the soil samples
were obtained within edge moisture variation distance and within active zone depth; in other
words, the edge moisture variation distance exceeds the 9ft suggested by the PTI manual (PTI,
2004). The results are presented visually in Appendix B for each individual profile and in Chapter
9 per landscape type.
In the determination of initial suction profile for modeling purposes, the suction profiles
obtained for desert landscape are especially valuable since they potentially describe suction
conditions beyond the active zone depth. The active zone depth is expected to be smaller for dry
surface conditions. Suction at depth depends on soil type, where larger suctions are obtained for
lower plasticity soils. The values range between 8000 kPa for SC and 700 kPa for CL at the
approximate depth of 6.5 ft. The measured matric suction for CH soil under free field conditions
was measured only down to 2.5 ft and ranges between 2000 to 2500 kPa. Because only minor

163
volume changes are expected for suctions larger than 1500 kPa, initial suction profile of 1500kPa
was considered to be appropriate for all soil types, and subsequent data at depth obtained from
correlations between SWCC curves and degree of saturation data confirmed this to be a
reasonable range/value of suction at depth for the clay soils.

5 MAP OF EXPANSIVE SOIL DISTRIBUTION IN PHOENIX VALLEY

As part of this study, regions of low, medium and moderate expansion potential were
identified by updating the NRCS Soil Shrink/Swell Potential map; original map illustrated in
Figure 5.1. This map is frequently used by practitioners in the preliminary analysis of the site
expansion potential. Due to the importance placed on this map by the practitioners, the ArcGIS
9.1 software was used to produce an updated map illustrating maximum potential soil expansion
determined with EI
AZ
(the test methodology details given in Section 4.2.6.1), The map was
created based on NRCS identified soil units, soil property data released by Arizona practitioners
(860 borings scattered throughout the Valley with reported index properties, insitu moisture,
density and EI
AZ
) and correlation of expansion potential to index properties presented below.

Figure 5.1. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Swell Potential Map.

Typically geotechnical practitioners in Phoenix Metropolitan area rely on modified
Expansion Index procedure, referred to EI
AZ
or Arizona Swell Potential, to quantify soil response
to wetting. This procedure, described in detail in Section 4.2.6.1, is similar to the ASTM D 4829
method for Expansion Index determination; therefore the results obtained with these two

165
methods should be similar or at least correlated. A comparison of EI
AZ
to the ASTM EI,
developed by the ASU team as a part of the HBACE (2006) study, shows large scatter of data for
EI
AZ
between 0.1 and 1. The scatter is reduced for EI
AZ
between 1 and 10. For this range of
values, to a good approximation the ASTM EI can be obtained by multiplying the EI
AZ
by a factor
of 10. Limited data is available for EI
AZ
larger than 10, hence no conclusions can be drawn.
Refer to Figure 5.2 for details.
The Arizona Expansion Index was found to correlate with the weighted PI, wPI, defined
as the product of the percent passing US sieve # 200 in decimal and the PI in %. The
correlation, illustrated in Figure 5.3 is a continuation of research work first presented by Zapata et
al. (2006), to whom 736 data points were available. The linear correlation
EI
AZ
= 0.2655wPI + 0.5 (5.1)

developed with additional 124 data (mostly in the lower wPI range; previous study had limited
information for wPI less than 8) has R
2
of 0.57. Based on this correlation, the following swell
potential classification was identified:

166

E
I
A
S
T
M

=

0
.
1
6
E
I
A
Z
2

+

6
.
3
E
I
A
Z

+

1
1
.
7
R
2

=

0
.
8
7
N

=

1
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
.
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
A
E
I
(
A
Z
)

[
%
]
F
i
g
u
r
e

5
.
2
.

A
S
T
M

D

4
8
2
9

E
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n

I
n
d
e
x

c
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n

w
i
t
h

A
r
i
z
o
n
a

E
I

t
e
s
t

(
H
B
A
C
A
,

2
0
0
6
)
.

167
Table 5.1. Classification of Potential Expansion (EI
AZ
) based on wPI.
Classification of Potential Expansion wPI EI
AZ

Low < 5.65 < 2.00
Medium 5.70 16.95 2.01-5.00
Moderate 17 35.8 5.01-10.00
High >35.85 >10.01

EI
AZ
= 0.2655wPI + 0.5
R
2
= 0.5704
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
wPI [%]
E
I
(
A
Z
)

[
%
]

Figure 5.3. Modified wPI vs. EI
AZ
relationship.

The updated swell/shrink map, presented in Figure 5.4 is the continuation of the HBACE
(2006) study. In that study the map was developed in collaboration with the ASUs Geography
department which constructed the geodatabase for storing spatial data obtained from the United
States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service Soil Data Mart,
located at http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/, ESRI at http://www.esri.com/data/index.html,
Maricopa County, the United States Census Bureau, GIS Data Depot at
http://data.geocomm.com/, and the Arizona Land Resource Information System at
http://www.land.state.az.us/alris/layers.html. The map developed for Central Arizona, Phoenix

168
region consists of approximately 30 000 projected soil units. Note that not all soil units contained
soil information, hence grey regions on the map where soil properties were not projected. Based
on equation (5.1), soil unit maximum PI and maximum P
200,
the maximum swell potential was
identified and then used in the calculation of EI
AZ
. The engineering community provided

data
were projected on top of the developed swell potential map and the soil unit information was
updated to represents the maximum potential swell within the upper 5-ft of the soil profile.
The NRCS developed map does not specify the implemented swell potential
identification methodology. Therefore only quantitative comparison can be made between the
NRCS map and the updated one. In general, Figure 5.4 identifies more regions with potentially
moderate to medium high swell potential. These types of soil properties are dominant in the East
Valley and the North Valley (up to Loop 101 and 303). High swell potential soils (EI
AZ
larger than
10) was found to be very rare, scattered and with small spatial extent. Based on the available
information, the soils most common to the Central Arizona have low expansion potential
characteristics.
It would be errorous to assume homogenous soil properties within each soil unit, but
rather a wide range of values with identified maximum soil response to wetting, as illustrated in
Figure 5.5. This figure presents the distribution of measured data over the identified soil unit
information. Potentially, the map could benefit from higher soil unit discretization based on the
practitioner provided data. However, a conservative approach, such as was adopted in this
study, would be to assign the maximum swell potential to the entire unit. Natural soil variability
resulting in variable expansion index supports this finding. Refer to taoofdirt.com for future
research, the swell potential map and public domain based files used in the development of the
presented map.

169

F
i
g
u
r
e

5
.
4
.

U
p
d
a
t
e
d

S
w
e
l
l

P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

M
a
p

f
o
r

C
e
n
t
r
a
l

A
r
i
z
o
n
a
,

P
h
o
e
n
i
x

R
e
g
i
o
n

i
n

t
h
e

U
p
p
e
r

5
-
f
t
.

170
17
Maximum Shrink/Swell Potential in Central Arizona in Upper 5-ft
Created by: Heather Dye, Drew Lucio & Sonal Singhal
Dye, H.B. (2008). "Moisture Movement Through Expanisve Soil and Impact on Performance
of Residential Structures." PhDDissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ
Map Date: 05/02/08
Map Projection: NAD 1983, UTMZone 12, feet
0 1 2 3 0.5
Miles
EI(AZ) measured data
<2.0
2.01-3.50
3.51-5.00
5.01-7.50
7.51-10.00
Swell Potential*
Low (<2.00)
Medium (2.01 - 5.00)
Moderate (5.01 - 10.00)
High (>10.01)
Transportation data was acquired from both
Maricopa County GIS and the U.S. Census
Bureau. Soil data was derived from GIS data
created by the USDA National Resources
Conservation Service and from contributions of
local practitioners.
*Estimated maximum swell potential based on
correlations with soil index properties.

Figure 5.5. Updated Swell Potential Map for Central Arizona, Phoenix Region in the
Upper 5-ft with few measured EI
AZ
data points.

6 PTI RESIDENTIAL FOUNDATION DESIGN

6.1 Introduction
The PTI procedure for the design of slabs-on-grade on expansive soils is currently the
most commonly used design methodology in Arizona. Several changes have been introduced in
going from the 2
nd
Edition to the 3
rd
Edition of the PTI design manual. The changes, when
applied to desert regions, tend to result in doubling of the edge moisture variation distance and a
change from center lift to edge lift design governing conditions. The new design parameters
along with the change of critical mode of slab deformation lead, in general, to somewhat thicker
slabs. It is the objective of this chapter to discuss the PTI design procedure in detail, examine
the changes in the PTI design method, Version 3, and compare the results obtained with both
the 2
nd
and the 3
rd
6.2 Historical Background
Edition design procedures for typical Phoenix, Arizona climatic and soils
conditions presented in Chapter 4.

Wray (1978) developed a procedure for determining the edge moisture variation
distance based on the Thornthwaite Moisture Index (TMI), Thornthwaite (1948), for structures
constructed on expansive soils. This method was later adopted by the Post-Tensioning Institute
(PTI) and was kept intact in the 1
st
Edition of the PTI design manual that was developed for
ribbed foundations (PTI, 1980). Extensive clarifications of definitions and limitations of the
design were added into the design manual published in 1996 as the 2
nd
Based on the research work done by Covar and Lytton (2001) significant changes have
been introduced into the geotechnical evaluation of the PTI design procedure published as
Alternate Procedure for Determining Soil Support Parameters for Shallow Foundations on
Expansive Clay Soil Sites under PTI Technical Note 12 (PTI, 2003). The Alternate 2
Edition PTI design
procedure (PTI, 1996). In this procedure, the soil analysis remained unchanged and the design
applicability was extended to both ribbed and uniform thickness foundations on expansive soils
with provisions also given for stable and compressible sites.
nd
Edition is
applicable to sites with expansive soils and it is not applicable to soils with collapsible or

172
compressible characteristics. In this procedure, the soil analysis is based on soil index
properties that are correlated to soil mineralogy. The estimated dominant clay type and soil
index properties are both used to obtain a suction compression index for soil consisting of 100%
clay, which is modified for gradation and used to estimate an unsaturated diffusion coefficient
that is correlated to the edge moisture variation distance, e
m
. The modified suction compression
index is also used in the prediction of differential soil movement, y
m
, based on the estimated
variation in total soil suction.
The 3
rd
Edition procedure (PTI, 2004) introduces significant changes as compared to the
2
nd
Edition procedure (PTI, 1996), where only the method of constant suction at depth
determination remains the same. At the same time, the 3
rd
Edition procedure is very similar to
the Alternate PTI 2
nd
Edition, first published in 2003 (PTI, 2003). The main differences include
modified sections on procedure applicability and updated figures and equations. The 3
rd
Edition
also contains design provisions for compressible and stable soils, as well as additional methods
of obtaining suction compression index modified for gradation. In addition, it includes an
updated suction vs. TMI relationship first presented in the PTI 1
st
The 3
Edition procedure (PTI, 1980).
rd
Edition PTI procedure is currently adopted by practicing engineers. From a
historical perspective and for forensic engineering purposes the difference in solutions between
different editions is significant. This chapter summarizes and provides a comparison of the
geotechnical design parameters obtained with the 3
rd
Edition procedure (PTI, 2004) and the
results of the former 2
nd
Edition version (PTI, 1996) design method. For selected soils a
comparison of slab thickness calculated with PTISlab 2.0 (implements PTI 2
nd
Edition), PTISlab
3.0 (implements PTI 3
rd
Edition) and the newest modifications to the structural design
implemented in PTISlab 3.1 is also illustrated. The geotechnical (VOLFLO) and structural
(PTISlab) software developed based on the PTI manual are available through Geostructural Tool
Kit, Inc.

173
6.3 Definitions
The definitions of edge moisture variation distance, differential swelling mode and
differential soil movement introduced in the 1
st
Edition (PTI, 1980) remained unchanged in the
subsequent PTI design manuals. The edge moisture variation distance, e
m
,

is a distance
measured inward from the edge of the slab over which the moisture content of the soil varies
due to wetting or drying. Prior to the 2003 publication, the magnitude of the moisture variation
distance depended mainly on climate. Starting with the Alternate Procedure (PTI, 2003) the
unsaturated diffusion coefficient was recognized as the major factor influencing the edge
moisture variation distance. Roots, fissures, fractures or joints in the soil increase e
m
while
moisture barriers at least 2.5 ft deep can be used in to reduce e
m
.
Differential soil movement, y
m
, also known in the 2
nd
The swelling mode depends on the y
m
value. The edge lift condition often occurs when
the slab is constructed on a relatively dry pad. Due to wet environmental conditions the soil
swells around the perimeter of the structure creating a dish-shaped deformed slab. Center lift
condition often occurs when the slab is constructed on a relatively wet pad and dry
environmental conditions lead to soil shrinkage around the slab perimeter. Both conditions are
illustrated in Chapter 2 (Literature Review),
Edition as differential swell, is the
change in soil elevation between the two points separated by e
m
. The amount of expansion or
contraction a soil stratum will undergo depends on the amount of clay minerals, thickness of
stratum, depth and uniformity of clay layer below the ground surface, surcharge pressure,
severity of climatic change, and the proximity to ground water table. It also depends on factors
such as deep tree roots and zones of high osmotic suction. Moisture barriers of at least 2.5 ft
deep can be used in to reduce y
m
.
Figure 2.6.
In all PTI procedures, e
m
and y
m
are computed under the assumption that the slab is
perfectly flexible. Also, in all PTI chart-based procedures climate is assumed to be the main
factor affecting differential soil movement, y
m,
and edge moisture variation distance, e
m
. The
factors affecting soil behavior other than climate include: vegetation requiring large amounts of

174
water, fence lines, trails and tracks which leave bare soil drier than the surrounding soil; cut and
fill sections that experience differential soil movement; poor drainage that causes runoff water to
collect near the structure; time of construction; and post construction practices. Factors not
related to climate may induce soil movements much larger than the climate dependant
movements; and the 3
rd
6.4 PTI 2
nd
Edition Design Procedure, 1996
PTI Edition (Chapter 4 - Design Commentary) clearly states that the
design procedure is invalid when the site is influenced to any significant degree by non-climate
conditions, but special provisions allow for their consideration in Chapter 3 of the manual,
Geotechnical Investigation.

The 2
nd
Edition procedure (PTI, 1996) is applicable to ribbed and uniform thickness
foundations on expansive soils with Plasticity Index (PI) equal to or greater than 15%. The
applicability is extended to stable and compressible soils. In addition, this procedure is valid only
when site conditions are governed by climate and the calculated differential soil movement, y
m
,
does not exceed 4 inches [10.2 cm]. The input parameters needed for the PTI 2
nd
Edition
procedure include Liquid Limit, LL, Plastic Limit, PL, percentage of clay, %clay (defined as
percent of soil particles smaller than 0.002 mm), predominant clay material, Thornthwaite
Moisture Index for the design region, suction at the active zone depth, and the depth to constant
suction.
To determine e
m
for both edge lift and center lift conditions, the 2
nd
Edition procedure
(PTI, 1996) makes use of a correlation with TMI (Figure 6.1). The TMI is determined for mean
annual climate conditions (Thornthwaite, 1948). Engineers have adopted a value of 40 as a
representative value for the Phoenix area, Arizona. The proposed figure gives a range of
potential results, hence slab design conservatism is left up to the engineers discretion.

175

THORNTHWAITE MOISTURE INDEX
Figure 6.1. Edge Moisture Variation Distance as a Function of Thornthwaite Moisture
Index (after Wray, 1978).

To determine y
m
, the following properties shall be measured or estimated based on the
following procedure:
1. Predominant clay mineral, which can be obtained from a figure presented in the PTI
manual. The clay type is a function of Activity Ratio, Ac, defined as
200
100%
P PI
clay
, and
Cation Exchange Activity, CEAc obtained by
1.17
200
100%
P PL
clay
, where Plastic Limit (PL),
Plasticity Index (PI), percent soil passing US sieve # 200 (P
200
) and %clay are expressed
as percentages. The use of Montmorillonite is recommended if a conservative estimate
is desired (Pearring, 1963).
2. Depth to constant soil suction defined by
PL
w
, where w is the gravimetric water content.
It occurs at the depth of inert material, unweathered shale or high water table. When

E
D
G
E

M
O
I
S
T
U
R
E

V
A
R
I
A
T
I
O
N

D
I
S
T
A
N
C
E

[
F
T
]

176
sufficient data is not available, the depth to constant suction can be assumed to be 7 ft
[2.1 m].
3. Equilibrium total soil suction, which in absence of measured values is estimated based
on a correlation with TMI (Figure A3.6 in 2
nd
Edition PTI, 1996).
4. Moisture flow velocity defined by V = 0.5TMI, where the magnitude of TMI is used.
Though TMI is a dimensionless parameter, this is an empirical correlation that yields
velocity in units of in/year. The moisture flow velocity is limited to values not smaller
than 0.5 in/month [1.3 cm/month] or larger than 0.7 in/month [1.8 cm/month]. For
Arizona conditions, where TMI = -40, the velocity has a magnitude of 1.7 in/month [4.3
cm/month], therefore 0.7 in/month [1.8 cm/month] ought to be used.
In absence of the computer program, VOLFLO 1.0 developed by Geostructural Tool Kit
Inc., read off the magnitude of the differential soil movement from charts provided within the
manual. The charts include all parameters determined in steps 1 through 4 above. Note that in
the tables Percent Clay (%) refers to
200
%clay
P
expressed as a percentage.

6.5 PTI 3
rd
Edition Design Procedure, 2004
The 3
rd
Edition procedure is applicable to two types of slabs. The first one is a ribbed
foundation of uniform thickness slab with stiffening ribs projecting from the bottom of the slab in
both directions, schematic given in Figure 3.4. The second one is a uniform thickness slab
foundation with no interior stiffening ribs, schematic given in Figure 3.5 and Figure 3.6. This
Edition gives provisions for design on compressible and non-active soils, which are not
summarized in this chapter. In addition, it is possible to model the influence of vertical moisture
barriers, planter areas and variable soil suction profiles with a commercial computer software,
VOLFLO 1.5 developed by Geostructural Tool Kit Inc.
The 3
rd
Edition procedure is applicable to soils with Expansion Index, EI, greater than
20, as determined per ASTM standard D 4829, or where the following three requirements are

177
met: Plasticity Index, PI, is equal to or greater than 15 %, more than 10 % of soil passes US
sieve #200, and more than 10 % of soil particles are smaller than 0.005 mm in size. The
parameters needed in this procedure include: initial and final suction profiles, TMI, moisture
active zone depth, and mineral classification. Soil properties for each representative layer are
required: LL, PL, PI, % passing sieve #200 and %clay. In addition other soil parameters are
suggested to be determined experimentally: dry density, moisture content, cohesive strength,
confined or unconfined compressive strength, total suction, swell pressure, and Expansion
Index.

6.5.1 Additional Definitions Provided in the Procedure.
The following definitions are introduced in the 3
rd
Edition design procedure.
1. Moisture Active Zone Depth refers to the depth below the ground surface at which
changes in moisture content (soil suction) can be expected due to environmental
changes or other causes. This is also the location of the equilibrium moisture content.
2. Movement Active Zone Depth refers to the depth to which the soil experiences changes
in volume. The movement active zone depth is usually smaller than the moisture active
zone depth due to overburden restraint.
3. Soil Suction quantifies the energy level in the soil-moisture system. An imbalance of
total suction between adjacent soils tends to drive moisture towards regions of higher
suction. Total suction can be measured by filter paper method and psychrometers;
while pressure membranes or ceramic pressure plates measure matric suction.
4. Equilibrium (Constant) Soil Suction represents a total suction value that develops in a
soil deposit at the depth of moisture active zone as a result of multiple weather cycles at
the surface. The climate controlled equilibrium suction is expressed as a function of
TMI. The constant suction is also dependant on local site conditions such as cemented
soil, high osmotic suction, and presence of high water table or rocks, in which case the
correlation with TMI is invalid.

178
5. Suction Compression Index is a soil property that is analogous to the Compression
Index utilized in the settlement analysis of saturated soils. It is defined as the change in
volume related to a change in suction for an intact specimen of soil.

6.5.2 Assumptions.
In absence of the computer program VOLFLO 1.5, the 3
rd
Edition Stress Change Factor
Chart procedure solves for the following simplified conditions.
Steady state unsaturated flow;
The active zone is assumed to be 9 feet below the ground surface;
Suction Compression Index does not vary by more than 10% between layers;
The suction at active zone depth is climate controlled. Although the initial correlation of
equilibrium suction to TMI presented in 1
st
and 2
nd
Editions was developed for
homogeneous profiles, in the 3
rd
Edition an assumption is made that the equilibrium
suction is independent of soil type and profile homogeneity. This relationship was
updated in version 3 and it is presented in Figure 6.2 (Fig. 3.4 in PTI, 2004). Recent
studies have shown that the suction at a given TMI heavily depends on soil type (Perera,
2003), which agrees with the scatter of values and the poor statistical significance, R
2

equal to 0.36, of the proposed correlation. The correlation is not valid for soils with high
osmotic suctions or where high water table is present.
Initial suctions, h
i
, at the soil surface below the edge of slab and at the edge moisture
variation distance under the slab are assumed to be equal to the equilibrium suction at
the moisture active zone depth as determined from the suction vs. TMI correlation. Due
to environmental and human induced flux at the soil surface, the soil at the edge
becomes wetter or drier, resulting in different final suction values under the edge of the
slab, h
f
. The initial suction, h
i
, is based on TMI while the final suction, h
f
, is based on
assumed, suction variations at the soil surface. These assumptions result in constant

179
initial suction profiles at both ends of e
m
and in a trumpet shaped final suction profile
under the edge of the slab.

Figure 6.2. Variation of Soil Suction with Thornthwaite Moisture Index (PTI, 2004).

The PTI 3
rd
Edition procedure is also valid for a wider range of conditions through the
use of the computer program VOLFLO 1.5. These conditions include but are not limited to
deeper active zone, significantly different suction compression index values for adjacent layers,
high osmotic suction zones, influence of vegetation, and initial soil suction profiles drier or wetter
than equilibrium.

6.5.3 Procedure.
A summarized step-by-step procedure for the 3
rd
Edition follows.
To calculate the edge moisture variation distance, e
m
:
1. Determine the mineral classification zone for each significant layer. A chart that relates
the mineral classification with Atterberg limits is provided in the procedure (Covar and
Lytton, 2001).

180
2. Calculate percent fine clay, %fc, for each significant layer defined as
100
P
clay %
fc %
200
= , where P
200
is the percent soil passing US sieve # 200.
3. Calculate Liquid Limit and Plasticity Index ratios for each significant layer. These ratios
are defined as
fc %
LL
LLratio = and
fc %
PI
PIratio = respectively.
4. Calculate the Suction Compression Index,
h
, for each significant layer. The 3
rd
Edition
PTI procedure provides four methods as presented below. When procedures 2 through
4 are used,
h shrink
is read off from a figure which is based on the calculated
h swell
and
which is presented in the 3
rd
Edition.

Procedure 1: Method based on mineralogical soil classification. A figure for each
mineralogical soil class is provided within the 3
rd
Edition PTI procedure. It relates LLratio
and PIratio to the suction compression index for soil consisting of 100% clay,
o
. Once
o

is read off from the graph, the actual soil suction compression index for swelling and
shrinking conditions is calculated as follows:
( )
( ) 0.01 %
0.01 %
h
fc
o
fc e
o
swell
= (6.1a)
( )
( ) 0.01 %
0.01 %
h
fc
o
fc e
o
shrink
= (6.1b)

Procedure 2: Expansion Index Procedure. Determine the Expansion Index, EI, per
ASTM D 4829 (ASTM, 2006) and calculate the swell suction compression index by
1700
h swell
EI
= .

Procedure 3: Consolidation Test Procedure. The
h
is expressed in terms of the
slope of the compression rebound curve, C
s
, and the void ratio corresponding to the

181
effective stress at the bottom of the curve, e
2
, obtained from a consolidation test. The
relationship reads
2
0.7
1
s
h swell
C
e
=
+

Procedure 4: Overburden Pressure Swell Test Procedure. In the last procedure,
h
swell
is correlated to the vertical strain |
.
|
\
|
H
H
, due to increased water content and
overburden pressure, P. The following relationship is used:
10
1.7 log
h swell
H
H
P
+
= . (6.2)
5. Calculate
h
corrected if more than 10% of the soil passes US Sieve #10.
( )
( )
( )
100
100
h h corrected
t wet
d dry
F F

=
+
(6.3)
( )
( )
100
1
100
t wet
w s coarse
F
J
J G
=
| |
| |
+ |
|
|
\ .
\ .
(6.4)
where
t(wet)
is the moist unit weight of soil when soil suction is about 2.5 pF;
d(dry)
is the
dry unit weight of soil at its natural water content (optimum water content or shrinkage
limit); J is the % of soil by weight greater than US sieve #10 (2.0 mm diameter); G
s(coarse)

is the specific gravity of solids; and
w
is the unit weight of water.
6. Find the modified suction compression index,
mod
, for both swell and shrinkage. In this
step,
h
is weighted based on the location of different layers in the soil profile; for
example:
mod
3 2
6
topsoil middle bottom h h h

+ +
= .
7. Calculate the modified unsaturated diffusion coefficient for each significant layer up to a
minimum of 9 ft for both swelling and shrinkage modes:

182
'
swell/shrink
= (0.0029 - 0.000162*S 0.0122*
h swell/shrink
)F
f,
(6.5)
where S is the slope of the total suction in pF vs. water content relationship defined by:
S = -20.29 + 0.1555*LL - 0.117*PI + 0.0684*P
200
, (6.6)
and F
f
is defined as the soil fabric factor, which is a function of the amount of roots and
fractures present in the soil. F
f
varies from 1.0 for soils with less than 1 root or fracture
per vertical foot up to 1.4 for soils with five or more roots/fissures per vertical foot.
8. Calculate the weighted modified soil diffusion coefficient for both swell and shrinkage
cases as a function of layer location within the soil profile:
( )
3 (3 2 )
'
18
topsoil middle bottom f
weighted
F
+ +
= (6.7)
SCF y
mod m
= (6.8)
9. Read off e
m
from Figure 6.3 for both center lift and edge lift conditions. Use values of
weighted ' and TMI for both conditions and choose the largest e
m
value.

Figure 6.3. Edge Moisture Variation Selection Chart (PTI, 2004)

183
To find the differential soil movement, y
m
:
1. Measure or estimate initial, controlling soil suction. This procedure assumes that the
initial suction is the same at the soil surface at two locations separated by e
m
and at the
moisture active zone depth, where suctions in the horizontal plane do not vary. The
magnitude and depth to constant suction is to be determined at a depth where soil
suction does not vary by more than 0.0027 pF per ft (per 0.3 m). If direct estimation is
not possible, the initial or equilibrium suction can be estimated directly from Figure 6.2,
unless scenarios unrelated to climate conditions prevail. The most common cases are:
a. When shallow water table is present and osmotic suction is negligible, the method
recommends using a suction equal to 2.0 pF.
b. When large trees are present at the site: In this case, the controlling suction should
be equal to 4.5 pF throughout the tree root zone.
c. When soil is cemented or it is known to have high osmotic suction: In this case, the
controlling soil suction must be determined experimentally.
2. Estimate the final suction at the ground surface under the edge of slab. In absence of
local measurements, final soil suction values at the ground surface are recommended to
be 2.5 pF for the wettest condition; and 6.0 pF for surfaces controlled by evaporation
from bare soil or wilted vegetation. For Phoenix conditions, limits of 2.9 pF and 4.5 pF
are commonly used.
3. Calculate the differential soil movement, y
m
, based on the modified suction compression
index,
mod
, and the Stress Change Factor, SCF. A set of Stress Change Factors is
given in the procedure as a function of the difference between initial and final suction
values at the edge of the slab.

6.6 Design Parameters for Arizona
Three representative expansive soils collected from around the metropolitan Phoenix
area (data from Chapter 4) were used in the comparison of the 3
rd
Edition PTI procedure to the

184
2
nd
Edition in terms of e
m
, y
m
and slab thickness. The 3
rd
Edition slab thickness was calculated
with two versions of PTISlab, 3.0 and 3.1. The 3.1 version, produced in 2007, modifies the
program for a calculation error resulting in overestimation of the slab thickness. Laboratory
testing was performed to determine typical Phoenix area input parameters needed for the
calculation of e
m
, y
m
, and the slab thickness. The soil data are shown in Table 6.1 and analysis
results in Table 6.2. In the 2
nd
Edition analysis, 7ft [2.1 m] moisture active zone depth was used.
In the 3
rd
Edition analysis, 9 ft [2.7 m] active zone depth and final suctions at the edge of the slab
of 2.9 pF (78 kPa) and 4.5 pF (3100 kPa) for the edge lift and edge drop mode respectively were
used. From the PTI 2
nd
Edition suction vs. TMI correlation, the suction at the moisture active
zone depth is 4.36 pF (2290 kPa) and from 3
rd
Edition (Figure 3) it is 4.18 pF (1500 kPa). The
common practice in Phoenix is to use 4.2 pF (1555 kPa) for suction at depth, which is the value
used in this analysis.

6.7 Discussion
Several observations can be made from Table 6.1 and Table 6.2. 1) The controlling
swelling mode switches from Center lift to Edge lift in the transition from the 2
nd
Edition to the 3
rd

Edition PTI method; 2) In the 2
nd
Edition, e
m
is environment dependent while in 3
rd
Edition e
m
is
also a function of the soil conductivity, i.e. the diffusion coefficient; 3) The 2
nd
Edition allows for a
range of possible e
m
and y
m
values resulting in a range of slab thicknesses, while the 3
rd
Edition
estimates unique values of slab thicknesses; 4) The average (referring to the range of values
obtained with 2
nd
Edition) slab thickness increases for all soils in these sample calculations in
going from the 2
nd
Edition to the 3
rd
Edition PTI. The general observation is, the average slab
thickness increases as the PI increases. For Soil 1, which has the lowest average PI, the
thickness increased by 6% with 3.1 version of PTISlab (43% with PTISlab3.0), while for Soil 3,
which exhibits the largest PI, the thickness increased by 38% with 3.1 version of PTISlab (112%
with PTISlab3.0), The range of slab thicknesses increased from 7.5 to 10 inches [19 to 25 cm] to

185
a range of 12.5 to 18 inches [32 to 46 cm] with PTISlab3.0 and 9.25 to 11.75 inches [23.5 to 30
cm] with PTISlab 3.1.

Table 6.1. Soil Index Properties Used in VOLFLO Input for Representative Soils
Soil #
Layer Thickness LL PL PI P
200
%clay
[ft/m] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%]
1
0.6/0.2 11 9 2 43 2
2.6/0.8 45 18 27 41 19
0.7/0.2 40 22 18 37 18
5.1/1.5 27 19 8 28 9
2
1.2/0.4 41 20 21 66 24
0.9/0.3 35 19 16 59 30
0.9/0.3 49 22 27 72 38
6.1/1.9 35 19 16 61 30
3
1.2/0.4 99 35 64 29 13
0.9/0.3 93 33 60 46 13
1.6/0.5 65 30 35 78 26
5.4/1.6 68 30 38 47 24

Table 6.2. Design Parameters for Representative Soils
Soil

2
nd
Edition PTI, 1996
(4)
3
rd
Edition PTI, 2004; PTISlab 3.1(3.0)

Number center lift
(2)
edge lift center lift edge lift
1
e
m
[ft] 4.6/6.1 2.0/2.8 9 5
y
m
[in] 1.59/4.59 0.41/0.83 0.12 1.02
slab [in]
(1)
7.5/10 9.25(12.5)
2
e
m
[ft] 4.6/6.1 2.0/2.8 9 4.6
y
m
[in] 2.11/6.55 0.58/1.19 0.14 1.19
slab [in]
(1)
8/10 9.75(14)
3
e
m
[ft] 4.6/6.1 2.0/2.8 7 3.7
y
m
[in] 1.81/4.03 0.5/0.67 0.27 2.73
slab [in]
(1)
7.5/9.5
(3)
11.75(18)

(1)
Assumed sub-rectangle 40 ft x 60 ft; perimeter load 800 psf; E
s
= 1000 psi, = 1.0.
(2)
y
m
obtained with 2
nd
Edition PTI procedure exceeds the maximum 4" for soils 1 and 2.
Results for 4" y
m
value are presented. For the calculated 4.6" and 6.6" y
m
values, the
slab thicknesses would be 10" and 10.5" respectively.
(3)
The y
m
values for large e
m
values from 2
nd
Edition procedure were obtained with computer
program VOLFLO 1.0 for soils 1 and 2. The procedure charts were used in the remaining
calculations. The smaller of y
m
values for soil 3 represent the limitations of the charts,
where 3.6 pF is the maximum equilibrium suction value at depth.

In addition, PTI 3
rd
Edition geotechnical and structural analyses were performed on all
non-homogeneous soil profiles obtained as part of this study. The soil index based PTI analysis

186
was performed based on previously specified assumptions and initial conditions. The calculated
edge moisture variation distance has a range between 3.6-feet and 5.0-feet for the edge lift
condition and a range between 7.5-feet and 9.0-feet for the center lift condition. The differential
swell was found to vary between 0.8-inches and 2.65-inches for the design controlling edge lift
condition. The calculated slab thickness was found to vary between 9-inches and 11.0-inches
with an average of 9.8-inches. The results of the analysis (edge moisture variation distance,
differential swell and slab thicknesses) are given in Table 6.3.

Table 6.3. Design Parameters for All Soils from Chapter 4.
Soil #
Center lift [inch] Edge Lift [inch]
Slab Thickness
[in]
em ym em ym 3.1
1 NA
2 NA
3 9 0.09 4.5 0.97 9
4 9 0.11 4.8 1.01 9.25
5 9 0.1 5 1.07 9.75
6 8 0.14 4.1 1.54 9.75
7 8 0.14 4.1 1.54 9.75
8 9 0.11 4.6 1.37 9.75
9 9 0.1 4.7 1.22 9.75
10 9 0.08 4.9 0.8 9.25
11 9 0.14 4.4 1.67 10.5
12 9 0.11 4.8 1.19 9.75
13 9 0.12 4.6 1.25 9.75
14 9 0.12 4.6 1.17 9.75
15 NA
16 8.5 0.11 4.3 1.18 9.75
17 7.5 0.21 3.7 2.65 11
18 7 0.22 3.6 2.45 10.75
Average 8.6 0.13 4.45 1.41 9.83

6.8 Sensitivity Analysis
Five sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the influence of various parameters
on the overall solution. Influence of Soil Properties on Geotechnical Parameters.

187
6.8.1 Influence of Suction Profiles on Geotechnical Parameters
A sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of soil parameter variability
on y
m
estimation. Table 6.4 gives basic soil values used in the analysis. The values of LL, PL
and % clay were varied one at a time in each soil layer and the results are plotted in Figure 6.4
through Figure 6.6. For example, in Figure 6.4, the plot for Layer 3 corresponds to holding all
parameters constant in Layers 1 and 2, and varying the LL in Layer 3 only. The figures include
results corresponding to PI larger than 15% unless the original soil values fall below it, than they
are included as well.

Table 6.4. Design Parameters for Sensitivity Study.
Layer
Number
Layer Thickness LL PL P
200
%clay
[ft] [%] [%] [%] [%]
1 1.5 29 18 76 10
2 1.5 40 24 62 9
3 6.1 50 25 53 9

The sensitivity analysis illustrated that as LL increases the values of y
m
increases as well
to a certain point, and then decreases. This results is somewhat unexpected and might be
related to the correlation of LL with other input parameters, which were maintained constant. OF
course it is important to have consistent and compatible soil properties, and this sensitivity
analysis did not consider limitations for natural soils conditions. The sensitivity analysis of y
m
to
PL clearly illustrates points of discontinuity within the developed empirical correlation
implemented in the PTI procedure. Small changes in PL result in up to 0.2-inch drop or increase
in the y
m
value; see Figure 6.5. Beyond the points of discontinuity, the values or y
m
remain
almost constant. The y
m
estimate increases as the percent of clay increases up to about 15%.
For %clay larger then 15, the %clay increase results in insignificant drop in y
m
estimate followed
by another increase for %clay larger than 30%.

188
Overall, from geotechnical engineering perspective, it was determined that small
variations in input parameters lead to small variations in the estimate of y
m
. The significance of
small y
m
variation on slab thickness is considered next.
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
LL [%]
y
m

[
i
n
]
Layer 1
Layer 2
Layer 3

Figure 6.4. The y
m
sensitivity to LL.

0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
10 15 20 25 30 35
PL [%]
y
m

[
i
n
c
h
]
Layer 1
Layer 2
Layer 3

Figure 6.5. The y
m
sensitivity to PL.

189
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
% clay [%]
y
m

[
i
n
c
h
]
Layer 1
Layer 2
Layer 3

Figure 6.6. The y
m
sensitivity to % clay.

6.8.2 Influence of Geotechnical Parameters on Slab Thickness
The program PTISlab 3.1 was used in the sensitivity analysis of slab thickness to y
m
. In
this study, e
m
of 4.5 was assumed. It was found that for the anticipated range of y
m
for Arizona
soil and climatic conditions, between 0.8 and 3.0, the thickness of slab increases almost
linearly with the increase in y
m
as illustrated in Figure 6.7. The minor perturbations are
associated with constant depths and widths of both longitudinal and transverse beams in the
ribbed design.
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
10.5
11.0
11.5
12.0
12.5
13.0
0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3
y
m
[inch]
S
l
a
b

T
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s

[
i
n
c
h
]

Figure 6.7. The y
m

190
6.8.3 Sensitivity of y
m
to Suction Profile
The sensitivity to suction was considered for two scenarios with constant initial
conditions and varying final suction conditions. The final suction has default trumpet shape with
user defined surface suction. In the first scenario, the initial condition of 3.0 pF (100kPa) was
used. In the second one, initial conditions of 4.2 pF (1555 kPa) was considered. The results are
presented in Figure 6.8. The y
m
increases or decreases almost linearly as the suction profile
decreases or increases, respectively. This mini-study illustrates that the PTI 3
rd
Edition
procedure implements linear variation of volume change with log cycle change in suction. A
better approach would be to limit the soil swell or shrinkage at volume change limiting suction
values such as the shrinkage limit (see Figure 6.8). Similarly, it is widely accepted that in
confined soil the swell will cease at some small suction value, and further decrease in suction
results in no additional volume change. Consequently, the selection of final surface suction
values for PTI design purposes should not be based on the anticipated minimum and maximum
suction variation with depth, but rather the minimum and maximum suctions corresponding to
volume change.
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Final Suction

[pF]
y
m

[
i
n
c
h
]
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
Final Suction [kPa]
IC=3.0pF
IC=4.2pF

Figure 6.8. The y
m

191
6.8.4 Comparison of Different Suction Compression Index Methodologies
A mini study was performed to observe the effect of alternative procedure use, included in
the PTI 3
rd
Edition Design Procedure, on the overall design recommendations. For this purpose
a medium expansive soil profile was chosen with the following soil properties:
PL = 45,
LL = 20
PI = 25
P
200
= 94.0%
% -2 m = 40.0%
EI
AZ
= 3.3%
Percent swell = 2.65% at 1000 psf load.
Cs = 0.05049.
For the edge lift condition it was determined, that depending on used methodology, the
calculated edge moisture variation distance might vary between 4.0 and 4.3 ft and the calculated
differential swell has a range from 0.68 inches to 1.54 inches. This exercise indicates that the
Index Properties method, strongly recommended by the PTI procedure, results in the most
conservative slab design, 9.75inches thick. The least conservative design was obtained with
the EI method, which resulted in 8.25 thick slab; see Table 6.5 for details. Further research
must be performed to statistically validate the preliminary findings and conclusions presented
herein.

Table 6.5. PTI 3
rd
Edition Calculations for Example Profile for Various
h
Methods
Method
Suction Compression Index
Edge Lift Center Lift
ym em Slab ym em
h swell

h

0
[in] [ft] [in] [in] [ft]
Index Properties 0.0444 0.0426 0.1000 1.54 4 9.75 0.17 7.8
EI 0.0194 0.0190 0.0447 0.68 4.3 8.25 0.08 8.5
Overburden Swell 0.0309 0.0300 0.0704 1.08 4.2 9.25 0.12 8.0
Consolidation Swell 0.0245 0.0240 0.0564 0.86 4.3 9.0 0.10 8.3

192
6.8.5 Influence of Gravel Correction
The influence of the gravel correction given by equation (5.3) and equation (5.4) was
considered with the following values: J = 50; Gs = 2.65,
t
= 125 pcf and
d
= 105 pcf. The
procedure offers modest reduction for
h
, as illustrated in Figure 6.9. The methodology is
insensitive to variation in Gs. In general, the reduction in moist unit weight leads to increase of
correction factor from minimum value of 0.88 to 0.97. The increase in correction factor with
increase in J is unexpected for J defined as the percent of soil by weight greater than US sieve
#10. One would expect a decrease resulting in the reduction of
h
. Per values considered, a
minimum correction factor of 0.85 can be expected, which leads to very modest reduction in the
design parameters e
m
and y
m
.
0.80
0.82
0.84
0.86
0.88
0.90
0.92
0.94
0.96
0.98
1.00
0 25 50 75 100 125 150
Variable
C
o
r
r
e
c
t
i
o
n

F
a
c
t
o
r
2.5 2.55 2.6 2.65 2.7 2.75 2.8
Gs
Wet Unit Weight
J
Gs

Figure 6.9. Sensitivity Analysis of Gravel Correction Factor.

6.9 Conclusions
The comparison of PTI version 2 (PTI, 1996) and PTI 3
rd
Edition (PTI, 2004) can be
summarized as follows: 1) The 2
nd
Edition provides a range in e
m
and y
m
values, while the 3
rd

Edition provides unique values; 2) The mode of failure changes from center lift (2
nd
Edition) to
edge lift (3
rd
Edition) for the sample Arizona conditions conducted herein; 3) The slab thickness

193
for Arizona conditions increased in going from version 2 to version 3 for the sample soils and
conditions used in this study.
Sensitivity analysis of the 3
rd
Edition procedure showed that 1) Discontinuities exist in
the empirically based method for
h
estimation with index properties, which leads to unexpected
y
m
results; 2) Small changes in index properties typically lead to insignificant changes in the
design parameters, e
m
and y
m
; 3) The slab thickness varies linearly with geotechnical design
parameter, y
m
; 4) The y
m
varies linearly with change in the log of the final surface suction. The
final suction values should be selected based on anticipated suction values corresponding to soil
volume change limits; 5) The index property methodology is the most conservative when
compared to other methods of suction compression index estimation provided in the manual;
and 6) The correction factor due to gravel content offers only modest reduction in suction
compression index.
The PTI 3
rd
Edition procedure adds some rationality to slabs-on-grade design and
covers a wider range of practical problems, with less empiricism than the PTI 2
nd
Edition
procedure. Hence, it may lead to more appropriate design values, although it remains to be
seen how conservative the design is and what are its limitations. Historical performance data
covering a wide range of soils and environmental conditions is needed, however, for further
evaluation.

7 MODELING NUMERICAL METHODS

The numerical analysis of the research problem required enhanced understanding of the
numerical methods used and of problem specific challenges. This chapter describes stability,
convergence and accuracy issues relevant to stiff problems, such as Richards equation used in
this research work, which are known to exhibit oscillatory behaviour under certain conditions. An
attempt was made to identify sources of numerical challenges and introduce ideas aimed at
increasing stability or solution efficiency as illustrated on sample problems. These ideas were
implemented using the commercial software FlexPDE 5.0.18. A discussion of program
selection, uncertainty associated with the soil properties and literature review of typical input and
program specific controls is also included. This discussion provides a good starting point for
understanding potential problems in numerical simulations.

7.1 Modeling Challenges
Unsaturated moisture flow through porous media is usually described by Richards
equation, a parabolic partial differential equation (PDE) presented in detail in Section 2.9.5.2.
The lack of analytical solution has led to the development of sophisticated numerical schemes by
the mathematical community. The standard approach implemented follows a method of lines,
where spatial derivatives are first approximated using a variety of (usually low order) finite
difference or finite element schemes, and the resulting discrete system of ordinary differential
equations (which also accounts for boundary conditions) is then solved using a time integrator.
Explicit time integrators such as forward Euler typically have strong restrictions on the
maximum time step which can be used in order to preserve stability. These restrictions largely
depend on the spatial discretization through a so-called CFL (Courant-Friedrichs-Levy)
condition. Several physical conditions severely limit this time step:
(i) strong nonlinearities in unsaturated soil properties,
(ii) abrupt changes of moisture conditions at the surface boundary,
(iii) the presence of surface runoff conditions (Scanlon et al, 2002).

195
Condition (i) can manifest itself in two ways. Sharp variations in the unsaturated soil
permeability or the Soil Water Characteristic curve (SWCC) manifested as sharp wetting front
may require locally refined grids, which may impact the overall stability of the time integration.
The slope of the SWCC also directly influences the stiffness of the ODE system, i.e., the
presence of several time scales in the solution (see Higham & Trefethen 1993 for other
definitions of stiffness), and the choice of a suitable time step.
Condition (ii) typically results in large gradients of matric suction and sharp wetting or
drying fronts, which again require a fine grid for proper modeling.
Type (i) or (ii) difficulties are especially pronounced in moisture sensitive soils such as
collapsible or expansive materials.
The stability constraints arising from condition (iii) are more subtle. As for condition (ii)
an appropriate (usually fine) mesh size must be used at the surface boundary in order to
properly capture suction or pressure head gradients. This is true in general of problems with flux
(Neumann) or flux-pressure head (Robin) boundary conditions in standard formulations, where
first-order spatial derivatives (fluxes) are directly approximated from the pressure head (or the
suction). One should note that inconsistencies between initial and boundary conditions may also
lead to local instabilities requiring small initial time steps to be resolved without long term effects.
Runoff conditions are algebraic constraints on the pressure head at the soil surface.
From a mathematical point of view the resulting differential-algebraic system of equations (DAE)
is equivalent to an infinitely stiff system, for which no explicit time integrator, even with small time
steps, can be stable in longer time windows.
The difficulties associated with (i) or (ii) are typically overcome by implementing gross
simplifications of both soil properties and surface fluxes (precipitation and irrigation are typically
averaged over a day). When field data are available, the program performance is matched to
empirical data via modification of k
sat
values (Chao, et al., 2006, Scanlon et al., 2002). The
solution is frequently obtained with large mesh size and large time steps, resulting in a stable,
but not always accurate or converged solution. Table 7.1 summarizes some of the literature

196
review findings, where mesh size as large as 2.5 m were reported. Smaller mesh sizes lead to
better spatial approximations but they require smaller time steps and often prohibitively long
simulation times. The solution dependence on time and space discretization is rarely discussed,
and when it is sufficient detail is not given about performed (or not) convergence studies.

Table 7.1
#
. Literature Review of Implemented Modeling Controls.
1D/2D Domain
size
WxH
dx dt IC Flux Type Time
Modeled
Conv.
study?
Code Ref.
[m] [m] [h] [kPa] [d]
1 2D 5x5 0.05 3e-10-0.03
near
sat.
Pressure
head
5 yes
custom
based on
Celia et al.,
1990
Soraganvi
et al., 2003
2 1D 3
0.002-
0.24
not
specified
0-1100
PE, prec.,
irrig.
1095
not
spec.
Hydrus,
Unsat H,
SHAW,
SoilCover,
SWIM,
VS2DTI
Scanlon et
al., 2002
3 2D 12X3 0.008-0.1
not
specified
400 PE 5 no SVFlux
Fredlund et
al., 2006
4 2D 2x1 0.1 0.27 10 Irrig. 1 yes Seep/W
Fuselier et
al., 2006
5 2D 16x30 unknown
not
specified
500-
1500
PE, prec.,
irrig.
36500 no Vadose/W
Chao et al.,
2006
6 2D 115x30 2.5
not
specified
near
sat.
prec. 31 no Seep/W
Ng and Shi,
1998

On the other hand, implicit time integrators must be used to deal with (iii). These
methods have no CFL restriction and lead to unconditionally stable schemes (in which case the
time step is only determined by accuracy considerations), when applied to asymptotically stable
discretizations (i.e., the exact solution of the spatially discretized problem has finite energy
bounded by a constant independent of time). Note that here asymptotic stability refers to a
property of the spatial discretization, to which boundary conditions directly contribute, while
unconditional stability refers to a property of the time integration scheme. Of course one typically
needs both in order to obtain an overall stable solution.
Unfortunately, implicit integrators require the solution of (usually) nonlinear systems at
each time step, thereby increasing the complexity of the solution process. These nonlinear
equations are usually solved using a fixed-point (Picard) or Newton iteration (in either case
possibly in combination with some form of relaxation). However, the success of the time stepping

197
scheme often relies on allowing as many iterations as necessary to resolve the nonlinearities.
Because small time steps presumably lead to small changes in the solution, it is not unusual to
replace a larger cap on the number of Picard or Newton iterations by a stronger restriction on the
time-step.
In many commercial software at most a few iterations are allowed under normal settings,
with the underlying argument that too many iterations must be a sign of an inaccurate solution in
the first place (e.g. the Newton iterates wander off from the correct solution). Such a simplified
view is probably sufficient to deal with problems on a fixed mesh, with fixed pressure head
(Dirichlet) boundary conditions, and with simple unsaturated soil properties. In more complex
situations, such as those associated with moisture sensitive soils in dry climates and run-off
boundary conditions, this approach may however lead to unexpected stability problems. A basic
explanation is that the implicit time integrator is used in an explicit predictor-corrector mode
(each iteration corresponding to a correction on the predicted initial estimate of the nonlinear
solver) when the cap on the number of nonlinear iterations is reached, and is therefore subject
again to CFL restrictions on the time step. Even for moderately stiff problems (i.e., with relatively
distinct time scales in eigenmodes of the linearized problem) the resulting constraint on the time-
step can be so severe that it leads to a failure in the adaptive time stepping procedure.
This chapter emphasizes some of the issues discussed above, which are rarely, or only
superficially, discussed in the geotechnical engineering literature, in particular the connection
between nonlinear iterations and time-stepping. Van Dam & Feddes briefly summarize the
situation: The result is that calculated soil water fluxes may depend largely on the structure of
the numerical scheme and the applied time and space steps. (van Dam & Feddes, 2000), while
Tan & al. echo a similar advice: ... proper time step must be used with proper mesh size to
satisfy both stability and convergence criteria... (Tan et al., 2004).

198
7.2 Selection of Program
In Section 2.10.2 (Available Commercial Software) numerical tools most commonly used
by practitioners were identified and described. Three of them were selected as potential
software for this research study, namely Hydrus, Vadose/W and SVFlux (with FlexPDE kernel).
Selected programs where evaluated for accuracy, convergence, stability, efficiency and user
interface on a simple 1-D problem.

7.2.1 Convergence, Stability and Accuracy
Convergence, stability and accuracy are fundamental issues in the numerical simulation
of ODEs and PDEs. In the absence of computational experience, one would not be able to
identify and mitigate issues associated with them or comprehend their significance and on the
quality of the numerical solution. Yet, these concepts set the basic criteria in any numerical
model and are the source of continuous research in numerical methods.
Accuracy of a numerical solution is a measure of the closeness between the
approximate solution and the exact solution (Reddy, 1993). When the exact solution is
unknown, as in most engineering problems, the accuracy is increased through reduction of mesh
size or increased order of the polynomial in the approximation function (Zienkiewicz and Taylor,
1988). Therefore, the concept of accuracy in numerical methods is closely related to
convergence and precision.
Convergence means the tendency of a numerical solution to a particular result as the
numerical error is reduced (Baguley and Hose, 1994). For adaptive mesh generation schemes,
the solution convergence depends on tolerance criteria. A small tolerance results in generated
small mesh size distribution, which is especially important in regions of sharp gradients.
Maximum mesh or maximum tolerance criteria requirements should be identified by performing
convergence studies, where further reduction in mesh size corresponds to negligible or no
change in the solution.

199
Precision of a solution relates the reproducibility of the answer, which may or may not be
accurate. For example, a number of software could be used in the analysis of a simple
unsaturated moisture flow problem. The obtained solutions could be very similar to each other
and yet very different from the available empirical results. One would say that these results are
precise and not accurate. Depending on the magnitude of inaccuracy, one could further state,
that the model is not robust. A model is robust if the conclusions it leads to remain true even
through the model is not completely accurate, or in other words, the results obtained with a
robust model are close enough to be useful in a real-world context (Meerschaert, 1999). The
robustness of a model is determined through sensitivity analysis to model input and initial
assumptions.
For time dependent problems, the selection of a time step discretization is just as
important as the mesh size criteria. A selection of large time step leads to numerical oscillation,
producing unstable results. Tan et al. (2004) further illustrated the correlation between mesh
size and time step. In general, small mesh size requires small time step. Most programs solving
Richards equation have adaptive time step generation. If the user specified criteria are not met,
the time step is reduced, until a preset tolerance is met.
Computer precision, round-off error, truncation error and loss of significance (when two
almost identical values are subtracted from each other, the difference is small and the precision
is lost) are also relevant concepts in numerical modeling. The significance of these errors can
be observed when small output quantities are acquired, such as the surface runoff in desert
landscape modeling considered in Chapter 8. In this problem, no runoff occurred, yet small
value of runoff was calculated in the mass balance analysis. This value represents the sum of
errors attributed to the above mentioned issues. These errors are also important in the analysis
of convergence studies.
A study by Scanlon et al. (2002) compared the numerical results obtained with seven
different programs designed to analyze moisture flow through unsaturated soil,
Unsat-H (SWCC and k(h) van Genuchten fit),

200
Hydrus (SWCC and k(h) van Genuchten fit),
Shaw (SWCC Campbell fit, k(h) Burdine fit),
Soil Cover (SWCC and k(h) Fredlund fit),
SWIM (SWCC and k(h) van Genuchten fit),
VB2DTI (SWCC and k(h) van Genuchten fit), and
HELP (SWCC Brooks and Corey fit, k(h) Burdine fit),
The 1D analysed scenario consists of 3.05 m deep sandy loam profile in Texas, a semi-
arid region experiencing 1.64 m/year (64 inch/year) of PE and 0.367 m/year (14.5 inch/year) of
precipitation and irrigation specified on daily bases. The initial conditions vary from about -1100
kPa at the soil surface to about 0 kPa at the bottom boundary. The one year long analysis was
progressed with a total of 103 nodes. Fixed mesh spacing varying from 0.002 m at the soil
surface to 0.15 m at depth was applied. It is unclear if convergence studies were performed,
however, the extensive discussion about proper time stepping and mesh size imply as much.
Figure 7.1 illustrates the results of Scanlons analysis in terms of cumulative AE and
domain accumulation presented as magnitude and relative error. The relative error is defined as
abs(measured value-calculated value)/abs(measured value). Most of the programs calculated
zero runoff (SHAW calculated 0.1 cm, which is negligible), which matches the empirical data.
The mass balance also showed very small error in all the programs. Large discrepancies,
however, were observed in both cumulative AE and domain accumulation. Although only 0.041
m did accumulate in the profile, the calculated values varied from 0.012 m to 0.188 m which
corresponds to 17% to 360% relative error. This discrepancy is attributed to the calculation of
AE. It should be noted that not all the programs implement the same k(h) and SWCC functions,
a limitation of programs. The different estimates of k(h) and SWCC are known to diverge at both
high and low suction values, which at least in part did contribute to the total analysis error.
Comparison of results obtained with van Genuchten fit alone, still exhibit large discrepancies; the
domain accumulation relative error varies between 37% to 360% suggesting that the diversity of
unsaturated soil functions contributed very little to the overall error. Similar results were

201
obtained by Scanlon et al. (2002) for cold desert with calculated surface runoff, when none was
observed. In this case, large discrepancy were attributed to the runoff boundary condition, which
at least in part, is also due to the variability in k(h) estimates at low suction values. Other
contributing factors include different methodologies to calculate AE and surface runoff, time
discretizations and the properties of he applied numerical schemes.
a)
4.1
6.7
1.2
4.8
2.1
2.6
18.8
14.2
32.6
29.7
35
31.5
34.6
34.1
17.9
21.5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

[
c
m
]

b)
63
71
17
49
37
359
246
9 7
3 6 5
45
34
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
d
U
n
s
a
t

H

H
y
d
r
u
s
S
h
a
w
S
o
i
l

C
o
v
e
r
S
W
I
M

V
S
2
D
T
I

H
E
L
P

R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

E
r
r
o
r

[
%
]
Domain Accumulation
Cumulative AE

Figure 7.1. Comparison of modeling results with different programs, Texas site, a)
cumulative AE and domain accumulation, b) relative errors (after Scanlon
et al., 2002).

The discouraging conclusion that can be drawn from the Scanlon research is that none
of the considered programs were able to produce accurate or precise solution. Although in
some codes the discrepancy between measured and calculated cumulative AE was quite small
(3%), it did translate into significant error in domain accumulation. The literature review

202
presented in this and previous section, set proper context with which to view results of numerical
solution. The apparent diversity in answers to the same problem can be attributed to three
sources:
1) a discrepancy in unsaturated soil functions due to the use of different fits, and more
broadly, uncertainly associated with the soil properties and initial conditions,
2) the satisfied convergence and stability criteria and
3) difficulties associated with implemented numerical method.
The diversity of solutions obtained with different tools is not limited to the problem of
moisture flow through unsaturated soils, but rather to a wide range of complex, open-ended
problems ranging from climate predictions to the assessment of risk factors to human health.
This is a classic case for science of decision making that deals with prediction and unknown
uncertainty. Surprisingly, the standard approach is to choose a solution that fits ones needs best
(Sarewitz et al., 2000). The Scanlon et al. (2002) research showed that none of the considered
tools yielded accurate results, however they all lead to a similar quantitative soil response.
Therefore, the program selection is based on attributes other then accuracy, such as
computational effort, stability behavior, user interface, and required post-processing effort.

7.2.2 Experiment Set-Up
Three commercial software packages capable of handling large problems, SVFlux,
Hydrus 1D and Vadose/W, were used in the analyses of 10-hour long transient infiltration with
surface runoff into 1D, 0.5-m deep clayey soil profile with increasing initial total head from -250
m at the soil surface to -200 m at the bottom boundary. Dirichlet BC (-200 m) was applied to the
bottom boundary and flux BC (0.001 m/h) to the soil surface. The clayey soil (soil 17-3 from
Appendix B) has the following properties: LL = 85, PL = 53, Gs = 2.797, p
d
= 1.36 g/cm
3
,
w
=
51.2%, Fredlund and Xing unsaturated SWCC parameters: a = 140, n = 0.6, m = 0.9, hr = 2000
and Leong and Rahardjo unsaturated soil permeability parameter p = 16 with k
sat
of 8.71e-6 m/h.
Van Genuchten and Mualem fit with parameters of = 0.1 and n = 1.25 was used in analysis

203
with Hydrus 1D for which the previously described fit was not available. These two fits are
similar in the suction range of interest and are illustrated in Figure 7.2a and b.
a) b)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
v
w
c

[
m
3
/
m
3
]
Matric Head [m]
Fredlund and Xing Fit
van Genutchen and Mualem Fit
Measured Data
1E-16
1E-14
1E-12
1E-10
1E-08
1E-06
1E-04
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
k
u
n
s
a
t

[
m
/
h
]
Matric Head [m]
Leong and Rahardjo Fit
van Genutchen and Mualem Fit

Figure 7.2. Unsaturated soil properties a) SWCC and b) k(h).

7.2.3 Presentation of Results
The quality of numerical solution, in terms of matric suction and mass balance, depends
on both, space and time discretizations. Figure 7.3a to Figure 7.5a illustrate a convergence
study for the problem described above in terms of matric suction variation with depth. Through
numerical experiments it was found that mesh size needed to obtain a convergent solution
depends on both soil properties and magnitude of applied flux. An adequate solution can be
obtained with relatively large mesh for problems with small flux. Significantly smaller mesh
spacing must be used to model flux large enough to invoke surface runoff condition, which
occurs in the considered scenario. A mesh spacing of 0.005 m at the surface yielded a
convergent solution in all considered software.
Hydrus 1D has a user friendly pre-processing interface with easy, fixed mesh generation
set-up, adaptive time step and few tolerance controls, which makes it easy to modify criteria and
re-run the analysis. The program appears to be very efficient; the analysis never took longer
than one second. The available post-processing through Hydrus interface typically did not
provide sufficient information to access stability, therefore additional post-processing had to be
performed by the user. In general, very small changes in tolerance controls did result in

204
problematic, oscillatory solution in instantaneous surface flux and sometimes in suction profile.
With this program, oscillatory behavior was observed for both too large and too small mesh
spacings. Overall, it was quite difficult to obtain non oscillatory flux results. Also, a concern
about proper precision maintained throughout calculation did arise from output node
discretization truncated to second decimal place. The final concern is about identification of a
converged solution. The wetting depth does not increase or decrease consistently with a
reduction in mesh size, making it hard to determine whether the solution is converged or not.
a)
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Suction [kPa]
D
e
p
t
h

[
m
]
Initial condition
dx = 0.01
0.005
0.0025

b)
0.0000
0.0002
0.0004
0.0006
0.0008
0.0010
0.0012
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time [h]
F
l
u
x

[
m
/
h
] Applied Flux
dx = 0.01
0.0025
0.005

Figure 7.3. Convergence Study for Hydrus, a) suction profile b) instantaneous flux.

The analysis with SVFlux can be described as almost painless, at least for this simple
problem. The pre-processing user interface is straight forward with automatic mesh generation
(not implemented in this scenario) and adaptive time step feature. The program has many
tolerance controls, requiring the user to spend more time on learning the software. Another

205
benefit of SVFlux is that the analysis results are presented visually as the solution progresses.
Therefore there is no need for post-processing to access solution stability. Oscillatory behavior
was observed with large mesh spacing, perhaps as a result of larger time steps performed in the
adaptive time integration, while reduced oscillations were observed with smaller mesh
discretizations. The program robustness with respect to small mesh sizes is a great benefit. The
only concern in SVFlux has to do with the unacceptable shape of the instantaneous flux the
program outputs, as presented in Figure 7.4b. The output flux starts at the value of zero,
followed by an overestimation of the applied flux, which slowly converges to the applied value.
This behavior leads to an overestimation of absorbed water, which can be reduced by taking
smaller mesh spacing.
a)
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Suction [kPa]
D
e
p
t
h

[
m
]
Initial condition
0.01
0.005
dt= 0.001

b)
0.0000
0.0002
0.0004
0.0006
0.0008
0.0010
0.0012
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time [h]
F
l
u
x

[
m
/
h
]
Applied Flux
0.01
0.005
dx=0.001

Figure 7.4. Convergence Study for SVFlux, a) suction profile b) instantaneous flux.

206
Vadose/W was found to be the least efficient program. The pre-processing was found to
be quite cumbersome because 1) initial conditions for transient analysis can come only from a
steady state analysis with the same amount of nodes as the transient analysis, 2) artificial
division of time options into days or seconds while the preferred choice is hours, and 3)
cumbersome mesh spacing generation requiring a lot of user time. Similarly to Hydrus, the
solution stability can be assessed only during post-processing, making the program less efficient
from a users perspective. On a more positive note, the presentation of the results was found to
be quite nice. Finally, the reduction in mesh spacing led to an increased wetting front, and the
monotonic behaviour of the solution with a decrease in mesh size made it easy to identify a
convergence. In particular, small mesh spacings did not result in numerical oscillations more
commonly visible in calculations with Hydrus.
a)
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Suction [kPa]
D
e
p
t
h

[
m
]
dx=0.0025m
0.005
0.01
0.02
0.05
Initial Condition

b)
1E-10
1E-09
1E-08
1E-07
1E-06
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time [h]
F
l
u
x

[
m
/
s
] dx=0.0025m
0.005
0.01
0.02
0.05
Initial Condition

Figure 7.5. Convergence Study for Vadose/W, a) suction profile b) instantaneous flux.

207
As discussed previously, the implementation of inadequate mesh spacing or time step
leads to numerical oscillations in the form of unexpected and large suction oscillation with depth,
Figure 7.7a, flux oscillations with time, Figure 7.7b, or monotonic increase or decrease in suction
to unexpected and unreasonable values as presented in Figure 7.7c. The second condition is
associated with handing of surface water runoff and soil properties, in particular the flatness of
one or both SWCC and k(h) functions and the existence of discontinuity at u=0.
a) b)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
-100000 -50000 0 50000 100000
Pore Water Pressure [kPa]
D
e
p
t
h

[
m
]
Solution
Initial Condition

-4E-03
-3E-03
-2E-03
-5E-04
5E-04
2E-03
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time [h]
I
n
s
t
a
n
t
e
n
o
u
s

F
l
u
x

[
m
/
h
]
Applied Flux
Solution

c)
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000
Suction [kPa]
D
e
p
t
h

[
m
]
Initial condition
dx= 0.005

Figure 7.6. Examples of stability issues in various software a) suction oscillation with
depth, b) actual flux oscillation at soil surface, and c) suction with depth
increased monotonically to unreasonable values.

7.2.4 Discussion and Conclusions
The performance of three commercial software was evaluated, SVFlux, Hydrus and
Vadose/W on a challenging problem of moisture infiltration into dry soil profile. The focus of the
evaluation was to access computational effort, stability and convergence behavior, user
interface, and required user post-processing effort. In general, it was determined that SVFlux is
the most user friendly program requiring the least amount of post-processing work from the user

208
with adequate stability and convergence behavior, therefore it was selected as the numerical tool
for this research work. Hydrus was determined to be the most computationally efficient program,
however its sensitivity to small time stepping was viewed as a liability. The actual research work
involves modeling of complex surface flux scheme. The inability to view the analysis results as
the solution progresses is a definite drawback. Potentially, at post-processing stability issues
are very likely to be discovered, which would require the modification of tolerances and starting
over the analysis. Vadose/W was found to be the least efficient program with the same
drawbacks as Hydrus.

Table 7.2
#
. Summary Table of Convergence Results
run time
[min]
dx average dt
[h]
# Newton iterations abs. water [m3]
Vadose/W 9 0.005 0.018 65.19 2.87E-05
SVFlux 0.35 0.005 0.012 2.4 9.87E-03
Hydrus >0.001 0.005 0.172 5.8 4.57E-03

In terms of performance, the nonlinearity of unsaturated soil properties and existence of
boundary condition that switches between Dirichlet and Neumann, introduces difficulties that are
not easily handled by any of the packages. The transition between unsaturated soil surface to
saturated one is typically accompanied by oscillatory behavior of flux and surface suction with
time. The numerical stability is almost always improved by decreasing time step or both time
step and mesh size.
The solutions obtained with these three packages were found to produce markedly
different results, somewhat expectedly based on literature review (Scanlon, 2002). SVFlux
produced the shallowest depth of influence (0.05 m at suction of 1000 kPa) while Vadose/W
calculated the deepest one (.0625 m at 1000 kPa) as illustrated in Figure 7.7a. Hydrus results
showed the sharpest transition from moist region to a dry one. The surface runoff was observed
to occur at different times, for Vadose/W the soil surface became saturated within the initial few
steps but around the 8
th
hour for SVFlux, see Figure 7.7b. It is very surprising to observe the
least amount of absorbed water to result in the largest depth of influence (Vadose/W). Similarly,

209
Hydrus absorbed about half of water volume absorbed by SVFlux and yet plotted below it. The
variability of the results can be attributed to three sources 1) discrepancy in unsaturated soil
functions due to the use of different fits, 2) handling or runoff boundary condition and 3)
difficulties associated with implemented numerical method.
a)
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Suction [kPa]
D
e
p
t
h

[
m
]
Initial Condition SVFlux
Vadose/W Hydrus

b)
1E-06
1E-05
1E-04
1E-03
1E-02
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time [h]
I
n
s
t
a
n
t
e
n
o
u
s

F
l
u
x

[
m
/
h
]
Applied Flux
Hydrus
Vadose/W
SVFlux

Figure 7.7. Software comparison a) Suction profile, and b) Instantaneous flux.

7.3 Sensitivity analysis of SWCC and k(h)
The quality of numerical modeling solution of moisture flow through unsaturated soil, in
part, depends on properly described unsaturated soil properties. It is postulated that the
uncertainty associated with k(h) is greater than inaccuracies caused by numerical oscillation and
inaccurate convergence (Fuselier et al, 2006). The variability of SWCC is attributed to
hysteresis and difficulties associated with its measurement. The variability of unsaturated soil

210
permeability contributes to the uncertainty associated with the estimation of this parameter via fit
functions, hence a range of reasonable variation was considered. A one-dimensional analysis of
expansive soil under dry initial conditions (-1500 kPa) was performed, in which both potential
evaporation and infiltration boundary conditions were considered. It was found that small
variations in the unsaturated soil permeability function result in significantly different modeling
outputs while variations in SWCC produced almost identical soil responses in terms of soil
suction when considered independently of each other.

7.3.1 Uncertainty of Unsaturated Soil Functions
The quality of numerical solutions partly depends on properly described unsaturated soil
properties such as SWCC and unsaturated soil permeability, k(h). In industry, empirical
methods are rarely used to estimate them due to practical challenges associated with test
procedures, which include test duration, sophisticated test equipment, the procedure know-how
and analysis of data, to name a few. More commonly, the unsaturated soil properties are
estimated with fit functions such as van Genuchten, Brooks and Corey, and Fredlund and Xing
equations for SWCC and van Genuchten and Mualem, Brooks and Corey, and Leong and
Rahardjo equations for unsaturated soil permeability; see Section 2.9 for detailed descriptions.
These functions are estimated either by fitting them through few measured data points or by
statistical models based on commonly quantified soil properties such as gradation and Atterberg
Limits. As shown by van Genuchten and Nielsen (1985), Vogel et al. (1988) and Vogel and
Cislerova (1988), the choice of the analytical model for SWCC estimation can significantly affect
the predicted k(h) function. Vogel (2001) illustrated that small changes in SWCC near saturation
result in large changes in k(h) with consequences on numerical results, stability of solution and
rate of convergence. The differences are more pronounced in fine textured soils than in coarse
textured ones (Vogel et al., 2001). Section 2.9.3 (Soil Water Characteristic Curve) and 2.9.4
(Unsaturated Soil Permeability) discuss in great detail the uncertainty associated with each
parameter.

211
7.3.2 Problem Set-Up
The influence of unsaturated soil properties uncertainty on the numerical solution is
examined on a simple 1-D problem with 10-m deep soil profile. Both infiltration and potential
evaporation are considered separately on estimated ranges of SWCC and k(h).

7.3.2.1 Soil Properties
A clayey soil from Litchfield, Arizona with the following properties: LL = 85, PI = 53, Gs
= 2.797, p
d
= 1.36 g/cm
3
,
s
= 51.2% and k
sat
= 8.71e-6 m/h was used in this analysis (the same
soil as in previous section). The drying SWCC up to 1500 kPa suction was obtained
experimentally on undisturbed specimen with pressure plate apparatus, and one filter paper test
was performed on air dried reconstructed specimen. Fredlund and Xing equation was used to
estimate SWCC while Leong and Rahardjo equation was used to define k(h).
Based on the literature review presented in Section 2.9.3 both open and closed loop
hysteretic soil behaviours were considered, which roughly includes the expected data scatter.
F1 represents a drying curve of back pressure saturated soil, F2 describes the wetting curve
obtained with soil saturated from bottom up and finely F3 represents the expected wetting curve
under ponding conditions, where a ratio (sat ponding)/(sat Back Pressure) = 0.8 was assumed. All three
curves are used in the sensitivity analysis. Table 7.3 summarised the SWCC parameters while
Figure 7.8a provides a visual representation.
Based on the literature review presented in Section 2.9.4, the data scatter of k(h) is
expected to range over two orders of magnitude for suction values smaller than 100 kPa, which
is inclusive of the k(h) variation due to hysteresis. For suctions larger than 100 kPa the
uncertainty is hard to quantify. Different values of p produce different k(h) slopes for suctions
larger than 10 kPa, with large p values producing larger k(h) slopes. The k(h) estimate with F1
and p = 12 was obtained by fitting the Leong and Rahardjo model to the k(h) slope obtained from
experimental data for similar soils available through SoilVision 4.0. Values p = 8, 20 were
considered to produce sufficient k(h) variability at high suction values. The estimate of k(h)

212
based on wetting SWCCs and the value p = 12 produced significantly different curves, with
deviations from k(h) obtained in the case F1 with p = 12 appearing at much smaller suctions, see
Figure 7.8b. The k(h) curves 1) F1, p = 8, 2) F1, p = 12 and 3) F2, p = 12 are considered to be
representative of the range of variation of this parameter and are used in this sensitivity analysis.
a)

0
10
20
30
40
50
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 1E+05 1E+06
Suction [kPa]
v
w
c

[
%
]
-0.15
-0.10
-0.05
0.00
0.05
0.10
v
w
c
/
Lab Data
F1
F2
F3
F1'
F2'
F3'

b)

1E-16
1E-14
1E-12
1E-10
1E-08
1E-06
1E-04
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 1E+05 1E+06
Suction [kPa]
k
u
n
s
a
t

[
m
/
h
]
F1, p=12
F1, p=8
F1, p=20
F2, p=12
F3, p=12

Figure 7.8
Table 7.3
. Unsaturated soil properties; a) SWCC and b) Unsaturated soil permeability
where F1 is drying curve fitted though experimental data, F2 is wetting
curve due to backpressure saturation, and F3 is wetting curve due to
ponding.

Function #
. SWCC parameters
Description vwc
[%]
a n m hr
F1 drying 51.2 140 0.6 0.9 2000
F2 wetting from bottom up 51.2 10 0.7 0.9 200
F3 wetting from top down 41.0 40 0.7 1.1 2000

213
7.3.2.2 Initial and Boundary Conditions
Insitu matric suction measurement at depths larger then active zone depth for Arizona
climatic conditions and clayey material was determined to vary between 1000 kPa and 2500
kPa. Therefore the initial constant profile condition and bottom boundary condition are
considered to be equal to total head of -152.9 m. Two surface boundary conditions were
considered. The first one consists of constant irrigation of 0.001 m/h applied for 50 h. The
second one is a potential evaporation, PE, flux simulating average flux conditions in Jun in
Arizona where PE is 0.0002 m/h, relative humidity is 18% and temperature is 32C. The
duration of PE flux is 500 h.

7.3.2.3 Modeling Software, Mesh Size and Time Step
Numerical analysis was performed with commercial software, SVFlux 5.80. Infiltration
flow is analysed with h-form of Richards equation. More complex atmospheric conditions
consisting of both infiltration and potential evaporation are solved with a form of Richards
equation modified for vapour flow based on the work done by Wilson (1994). Convergence
studies resulted in the application of mesh spacing varies exponentially with depth where mesh
spacing of 0.05 m was used at the bottom of the profile and 0.0005 m was applied at the soil
surface. The adaptive time step increased from 1e-7 h at the beginning of the analysis to 0.1-h at
the end with average time step of 0.1 h. Tighter mesh and time step had to be used for the
infiltration problem with wetting SWCC (F2) and k(h) based on F2 and p=12. Here dx of 0.00012
m and average dt of 4e-3-h had to be used to reduce numerical oscillations.

7.3.3 Numerical Simulation
Three sensitivity studies have been performed. The first one involved soil response in
terms of both soil suction and degree of saturation due to SWCC variation alone and irrigation
flux; Table 7.4, run 1,2 and 3. The h-formulation of Richards equation involves for slope of
SWCC, namely d/d, where the slope of all considered curves is almost 0 for suctions larger

214
than 100 kPa. Therefore sensitivity study due to PE flux was considered unnecessary since
identical results in terms of soil suction were expected with all SWCCs. The second sensitivity
study was aimed at quantifying the effect of k(h) variability during irrigation process; Table 7.4,
run 1,4 and 5. The last study involved sensitivity analysis due to PE and k(h) variability; Table
7.4, run 6,7 and 8.

Table 7.4
#
. Summary of Modeled Scenarios
Flux
[m/h]
SWCC K(h) p
1 Irrigation = 0.001 F1 F1 12
6 PE = 0.0002 F1 F1 8
7 PE = 0.0002 F1 F1 12
8 PE = 0.0002 F2 F2 12

7.3.3.1 Hysteresis in SWCC
Soil response due 50-hour irrigation flux of 0.001 m/h, SWCCs described by F1, F2 and
F3 and k(h) obtained with F1 and p=12 is presented in Figure 7.9. It is observed that pore water
pressure variation with depth is almost identical in all considered scenarios, where the depth of
influence is about 0.2 m; Figure 7.9a. Similarly, the instantaneous actual flux profiles show that
soil surface saturation occurred at almost the same time (7
th
hour of analysis) followed by almost
identical absorption rate; Figure 7.9c. It is no surprise then that the total absorbed flux is almost
identical in all three scenarios: 0.0248-m, 0.0268-m and 0.0248-m for F1, F2 and F3
respectively. The discrepancy between runs is observed when the soil response is considered
in terms of degree of soil saturation, Figure 7.9b, which is consistent with the vwc to suction
relationships presented in Figure 7.8a.
It is concluded that soil response in terms of matric suction is independent of SWCC as
long as the slopes of SWCC derivatives remain similar. In the analyzed clayey soil, F1, F2 and
F3 are almost identical and close to zero for suctions larger than 30 kPa. This finding has

215
consequence on dealing with uncertainty associated with SWCC and the assumption of non-
hysteretic k(h), where the potential variation in degree of saturation can be obtained from post
processing of numerical modeling results.
a) b)

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
-2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

S
u
r
f
a
c
e

[
m
]
F1
F2
F3
IC
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 20 40 60 80 100
Degree of Saturation [%]
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

S
u
r
f
a
c
e

[
m
]
F1
F2
F3
IC

c)

0
0.0002
0.0004
0.0006
0.0008
0.001
0.0012
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time [h]
I
n
s
t
a
n
t
e
n
o
u
s

F
l
u
x

[
m
/
h F1
F2
F3

Figure 7.9.
7.3.3.2 Uncertainty in k(h)
Influence of SWCC variation for the same k(h) obtained with F1 and p=12
and irrigation of 0.001 m/h. a) pore water pressure variation with depth, b)
degree of saturation with depth and c) instantaneous actual flux.

7.3.3.2.1 Infiltration
Soil response due 50-hour irrigation flux of 0.001 m/h, and varying unsaturated soil
properties as described in Table 7.4, runs 1, 4 and 5 is presented in Figure 7.10. It is observed
that different pore water pressure variation with depth is obtained with each scenario. In
general, large k(h) slope produces smaller depth of influence and reduced effect of diffusion
component manifested in decreased spreading and sharper wetting front. The change in k(h)
has also a consequence on stability and convergence criteria. The soil characterized by
advective dominated mass transfer exhibits more numerical instabilities requiring the

216
implementation of tighter mesh and smaller time step with consequences on run time and
needed computational resources.
For modeled soil the depth of influence is 0.2 m, 0.42 m and 0.03 m for scenarios 1, 4
and 5 respectively. The instantaneous actual flux profiles show that soil surface saturation
occurred at different times as well, Figure 7.10c, with consequences on total absorbed flux:
0.0248 m, 0.0313 m and 0.0119 m for 1, 4 and 5 respectively. Figure 7.10b illustrates partial soil
wetting with depth. SWCC serves as a translation of suction, for which Richards equation is
solved for, into terms of engineering significance, namely degree of soil saturation. It is
observed that both scenarios 1 and 4, for which SWCC and k(h) are described with F1, start with
the same initial degree of saturation, S, profile. The final profile variations in S are attributed to
depth of influence and degree of spreading, which are the artifacts of k(h) variability.
a) b)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
-2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

S
u
r
f
a
c
e

[
m
]
F1, p=12
F1, p=8
F2, p=12
IC
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 20 40 60 80 100
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

S
u
r
f
a
c
e

[
m
]
F1, p=12
F1, p=8
F2, p=12

c)
0
0.0002
0.0004
0.0006
0.0008
0.001
0.0012
0.0014
0.0016
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time [h]
I
n
s
t
a
n
t
e
n
o
u
s

F
l
u
x

[
m
/
h F1, p=12
F1, p=8
F2, p=12

Figure 7.10. Influence of k(h) variation coupled with appropriate SWCCs and irrigation
of 0.001 m/h. a) pore water pressure variation with depth, b) degree of
saturation with depth and c) instantaneous actual flux.

217
The presented analysis illustrates that numerical solution of moisture flow though soil is
very sensitive to variations in k(h). Unlike SWCC, the effect of k(h) variability cannot be
accessed through post-processing. It is suggested that a range of k(h) functions is modeled to
find bounds of potential soil response.

7.3.3.2.2 Evaporation
Soil response due 500 hour PE flux of 0.0002 m/h, and varying unsaturated soil
properties as described in Table 7.4, runs 6, 7 and 8 is presented in Figure 7.11. Similarly to
infiltration analysis, different pore water pressure variation with depth is obtained with each
scenario, Figure 7.11a. The profiles converge at the soil surface to about 200 000 kPa matric
suction. The depth of influence was found to be 0.25 m, 0.92 m and 0.18 m for scenarios 6, 7
and 8 respectively.
a) b)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1000 10000 100000 1000000
Suction [kPa]
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

S
u
r
f
a
c
e

[
m
]
F1, p=12
F1, p=8
F2, p=12
IC
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 20 40 60 80 100
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

S
u
r
f
a
c
e

[
m
]
F1, p=12
F1, p=8
F2, p=12

c)
-0.0002
-0.00015
-0.0001
-0.00005
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time [h]
I
n
s
t
a
n
t
e
n
o
u
s

F
l
u
x

[
m
/
h
]
.

F1, p=12
F1, p=8
F2, p=12

Figure 7.11. Influence of k(h) variation coupled with appropriate SWCCs and PE of
0.0002 m/h. m/h. a) pore water pressure variation with depth, b) degree of
saturation with depth and c) instantaneous actual flux.

218
Figure 7.11b, illustrates partial soil wetting with depth. The characteristics of S variation
with depth due to k(h) uncertainty are the same as for irrigation boundary flux. As before, the
presented data illustrate the significance of k(h) estimate on the numerical solution. For
engineering purposes, matric suction variation beyond 1500kPa bears no significance since it is
associated with wilting point beyond which insignificant soil volume change is expected.
However, within the context of numerical modeling, appropriate estimation of soil response due
to PE is as important as due to infiltrating flux since it determines how much water can enter the
profile for hourly discretized flux.

7.3.4 Conclusions
The quality of numerical solution of moisture flow though unsaturated soil described with
Richards equation, in part, depends on properly described unsaturated soil properties, namely
Soil Water Characteristic Curve, SWCC, and unsaturated soil permeability, k(h). The variability
of SWCC has been studied by many authors, see Section 2.9.3. Currently it is well understood
that the SWCC can vary over two orders of matric suction per specific saturation. On the other
hand, k(h) variability is hard to quantify, especially for clayey soils with limited available empirical
data above 100 kPa suction. For small suctions, the overall variability of k(h) can span over two
orders of matric suction and one order due to hysteresis. For the purpose of this mini study, a
range of SWCC and k(h) was considered for three sensitivity studies: 1) varied SWCC, one k(h),
irrigation flux, 2) varied k(h) with variation in SWCC for irrigation flux, and 3) varied k(h) with
variation in SWCC for potential evaporation flux.
It was found that the numerical solution in terms of matric suction is independent of
SWCC variation. SWCC serves as the translation of suction into terms of engineering
significance such as degree of saturation. This conclusion has mathematical bases. In the h-
form of Richards equation, the derivative of SWCC is used. For the family of considered SWCC
curves, the SWCC derivatives have almost the same slopes for suctions larger than 30 kPa,

219
hence the numerical solutions are almost identical. Since the numerical solution is independent
of SWCC, the significance of SWCC variability can be quantified with post-processing.
The numerical solution is very sensitive to k(h) variability with consequences on
numerical stability and convergence. In general, large k(h) slope produces smaller depth of
influence and reduced effect of diffusion component manifested in decreased spreading and
sharper wetting front. The soil characterized by advective dominated mass transfer exhibits
more numerical instabilities requiring the implementation of tighter mesh and smaller time step
with consequences on run time and needed computational resources. In order to determine the
range of possible soil response to implemented initial and boundary conditions it is necessary to
identify a range of potential k(h) variability followed by numerical analysis with identified
maximum and minimum k(h) functions.

7.4 SVFlux Program Behavior
The literature review presented in this work discusses the importance of using small time
and spatial discretizations, dt and dx, respectively, in practical numerical implementations. The
lack of both proper time and space discretizations may reportedly lead to unstable solutions.
The best description of what unstable solutions look like is given in the Vadose/W manual
(2004). The information missing in the literature review includes guidelines with respect to the
magnitude of appropriate dt, dx and limitations that still need future research work. Despite a
typical lack of specific dt and dx used in the available literature, a few general guidelines as
presented in Table 7.1 can nonetheless be usually derived. The following sections describe
difficulties experienced in numerical simulations of moisture flow problems and observations
related to stability and convergence issues, which point towards a need for improvements in
practical codes.

220
7.4.1 Numerical Oscillations Lessons Learned
When stability problems exist, one of the following can be observed:
(i) Temporal oscillations in the computed instantaneous and cumulative fluxes at
the surface, almost always associated to matric suction oscillations.
(ii) Spatial oscillations of matric suction with depth at selected times.
(iii) Divergence (drift) of the matric suction to unexpected values.
(iv) Temporal and spatial oscillations in unsaturated soil permeability (more
sensitive than the matric suction to numerical perturbations).
(v) Discrepancies in mass balance. Most stability challenges were observed during
the infiltration process (more significantly during a cyclic application of
infiltration followed by PE every day, resulting in very dry and very moist
regions next to each other within the soil profile) and were overcome by
applying smaller (nonuniform) mesh discretization at the soil surface.
(vi) Sudden increases in mesh spacing with depth also resulted in oscillatory
solutions; especially in 2D problems with implemented PE flux, oscillations
were observed at the (surface) corners of the domain.
Difficulties due to mesh spacing were generally resolved by implementing an
exponential mesh discretization function in the form of
) ( b y a
e

for 1D problems with 10 m deep
profile. A minimum surface node spacing of 0.0001 m was applied to the most difficult scenario.
The adaptive time step feature determines an appropriate time step for the given mesh spacing
and tolerance controls. Typically, for small tolerances large/small mesh spacings lead to
large/small dts. Too small tolerances may however lead to inefficient simulations.
Stability issues also can be triggered by abrupt input flux changes such as the onset of a
precipitation or irrigation event, and manifest themselves in the form of large positive or negative
spikes in absorbed or lost flux (with similar spikes in matric suction at the soil surface). On rare
occasions, the solution can completely diverge to incorrect flux and suction values. Reduction in
dt tolerance controls typically solves this problem, however the solution is very inefficient. The

221
(small) dt required to resolve sharp changes in flux is usually very expensive in terms of
computational effort and time. The adaptive time step determined by SVFlux on a sample
problem reached values of 1e-7 h, resulting in slower run time than actual implemented flux time.
An alternate and more efficient approach was to provide input flux with smooth transitions
between small and large values (say, over 15-30 minute periods).
Similarly, the surface runoff boundary condition was found to be problematic. The
transition from unsaturated soil surface condition to saturated frequently resulted in oscillatory
behavior. Oscillations in the computed surface flux were found to vary between negative and
positive values, corresponding to soil response ranging from large matric suctions to build up of
small positive pressures respectively. The runoff boundary condition is handled in 1D problems
with equation (7.1), which reads, h = Flux if u <0, and then Flux, else F*ky*(-u).
point load(h)= SWAGE(u, Flux, F*ky*(-u), w) (7.1)
The swage function is aimed at providing a smooth transition over discontinuities with a
polynomial over the width w. The difficulty in the equation arises from the alternating positive
and negative fluxes implemented as the equation (6.1) criterion is or is not met respectively.
Such handling of the boundary condition leads to oscillatory actual surface flux and matric
suction behavior. Frequently, the magnitude of these oscillations can be reduced by using
smaller dt and/or dx. If this approach fails, one should try increasing the transition width w,
decrease the F parameter or implement the boundary condition as a RAMP function. The RAMP
function, which has the same format and basic concept as the SWAGE function, reduces the
applied flux as the limits of the interval of applicability of the piecewise formulae are approached.
The modeled 2D scenario consisted of a surface region with applied zero flux below the
slab-on-grade next to a region with applied atmospheric conditions. Numerical oscillations were
observed at the junction using relatively small dx and dt. The instability was overcome by
implementing a smooth BC transition from the edge of the slab to the atmospheric BC over a
distance of 0.2 m.

222
The collapsible soil was found to be quite difficult to model. In this type of soil the
advective moisture transfer dominates. Mesh spacing and time step reductions did not improve
the stability of the solution. The observed oscillatory behavior was in fact reduced by
implementing a fixed time step (the number of Newton iterations was also increased). Due to
the advective nature of moisture flow through collapsible soil, a proper mesh spacing had to be
applied at the wetting front to avoid numerical issues. Since it is difficult to predict the depth of
the wetting front, an exponentially graded mesh spacing (as described above) was used
throughout the domain.

7.4.2 Numerical Challenges
Two scenarios were identified for which the numerical solution was not found or the
implementation of the modeling criteria was prohibitive in terms of required computational effort
and time. Both of them have to do with moisture infiltration.
. The first scenario is an infiltration into collapsible soil described in Chapter 8 with flux
into the profile large enough to invoke runoff boundary condition and soil suctions smaller than 7
kPa. Potentially, this behavior is associated with the inflection point in the derivative of the
SWCC at about suction of 7 kPa. It should be noted that the flux considered in the research
project rarely invoked surface runoff conditions in the collapsible soil, and when it did, the
surface soil suctions did not became smaller than 10kPa, hence major stability problems are not
part of the presented solution.
The 2D analysis of infiltration into clayey soil described in Chapter 8 is the second
problematic scenario. One hour long large precipitation flux (May) applied into dry profile with
adaptive time step generation took approximately four days to analyze. The obtained solution is
stable and seemingly converged. The obvious challenge here is the reduction in analysis time,
which cannot be obtained with SVFlux.

223
7.5 Numerical Experiments
In this section, a number of relevant concepts to the numerical solution of Richards
equation is presented. Some of them are illustrated on simple scenarios while others are merely
discussed setting the stage for future research.

7.5.1 Fixed vs. Adaptive Time Step
Richards equation is typically solved using a fixed-point (Picard) or Newton iteration (in
either case possibly in combination with some form of relaxation). The success of the time
stepping scheme often relies on satisfied CFL restrictions on the time step typically
accomplished with adaptive time discretization scheme, which should implement smooth
increase or decrease in adaptive time step as the solution progresses. The adaptive time
stepping subroutine selects the appropriate dt to satisfy user specified accuracy criteria.
Generally, the stability of the solution is not considered in commercial programs implementing
adaptive dt. Stability performance is typically evaluated for fixed time step methods. The
change in dt is comparable to a change in solution method, therefore adaptive methodologies
are more susceptible to solution instabilities which are not well understood. A range of time step
change ratios between 0.5 to 2 is typically implemented in order to more or less guarantee
stability for a time integrator which is normally stable with fixed time stepping (i.e., ratios of 1).
On a simple numerical experiment, the effect of decreased mesh spacing, decreased
adaptive time step control and increased number of Newton iterations on stability are illustrated
separately. The commercial software SVFlux was used in transient analysis of 12-hour long flux
consisting of constant PE and periodic precipitation with surface runoff into 1D, 10-m deep SM-
ML soil profile. The applied flux is illustrated in Figure 7.12. The initial conditions were obtained
from the turf landscape analysis at the end of April presented in the next chapter. The initial soil
suction decreases from 42 000 kPa at the soil surface to 10 kPa at the approximate depth of
0.05-m, then it increases to 1500kPa at about 1.5-m from the soil surface and remains constant
through the remainder of the profile. Dirichlet (h = -152.1 m) and Neumann (flux) were applied to

224
the bottom boundary and soil surface, respectively. The SM-ML soil has the following properties:
LL = 29, PL = 17, Gs = 2.64, p
d
= 1.36 g/cm
3
,
w
= 43%, Fredlund and Xing unsaturated SWCC
parameters: a = 4.5, n = 3.2, m = 0.35, hr = 600 and Leong and Rahardjo unsaturated soil
permeability parameter p = 16 with k
sat
of 0.01944 m/h. The unsaturated soil properties are
illustrated in Chapter 8, Figure 8.6 and Figure 8.7.
-0.002
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Time [hour]
F
l
u
x

[
m
/
h
]

PE
Precipitation

Figure 7.12. Input flux for numerical experiment.

Four numerical scenarios are presented. The first one consists of adaptive time step
and fixed mesh spacing with depth, Mesh 1, as illustrated in Figure 7.13. For Mesh 1, the node
spacing increases from 0.00024-m at the soil surface to 0.05-m at depth of 4.9-m. The adaptive
time stepping scheme limits the number of Newton iterations to 3. Scenario 2 illustrates the
effect of reduced time stepping criterion on the set-up of Scenario 1. Scenario 3 implements
adaptive time step scheme and fixed, reduced mesh spacing, Mesh 2, where the surface node
spacing is 0.00012-m. The final scenario illustrates fixed mesh spacing, Mesh 1, and fixed time
step of 0.0002-h with 3 default Newton iterations allowed. In an effort to eliminate numerical
issues associated with sharp flux variations, the precipitation data were ramped up and down
over the period of 0.2-h. The periodic flux is representative of actual precipitation and irrigation
pattern considered in research scenarios presented in Chapter 8. The alternating infiltration and

225
evaporation events were found particularly difficult to handle for the program due to near surface
developed layers of very wet and very dry regions next to each other.
1E-04
1E-03
1E-02
1E-01
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Depth [m]
N
o
d
e

S
p
a
c
i
n
g

[
m
]

Mesh 1
Mesh 2

Figure 7.13. Implemented node spacing.

The numerical experiments revealed that the numerical oscillations of both actual flux
and matric suction at the soil surface are highly dependent on the implemented mesh spacing.
Figure 7.14 illustrates that reducing the mesh spacing reduces the magnitude and frequency of
the numerical oscillations. As the mesh spacing decreased the average and minimum dt
increased, however the overall solution time took 50% longer; see Table 7.5. The quality of the
analysis can be aided by decreasing the time step, presented in scenario 4, or time step control
criteria, scenario 2. Table 7.5 illustrates the computed dt with time and dt ratios. The observed
stability issues might be associated with sudden increase or decrease of time step. As
discussed previously, the appropriate dt ratios are in a range between 0.5 to 2, but the observed
values sometimes go beyond this acceptable range.
In summary reducing the mesh spacing resolved SVFlux instabilities in this example
(somewhat oddly, the decrease in mesh spacing was accompanied by an increase in average
dt). The observed instabilities occured when the soil surface suctions became smaller than 4.5
kPa (for other soils this value would have been much smaller). A minimum surface node
spacing of 0.00012-m is required to resolve flux into SM-ML soil of 0.0106 m/h magnitude.
Alternately, a reduction in tolerance (TERRLIM) or the implementation of a fixed dt with larger

226
mesh size offers acceptable stability improvement. The modeling of slightly larger flux into the
soil profile results in the reappearance of the instability. A deeper understanding of this effect,
possibly due to increased stiffness associated to either under-discretization or inadequate time-
stepping control strategies, would be needed.

10
-6
10
-4
10
-2
10
0
10
2
I
n
s
t
.

F
l
u
x

[
m
/
h
]

Adaptive dt, Mesh 1

0
0.003
0.006
0.009
0.012
0.015
I
n
s
t
.

F
l
u
x

[
m
/
h
]

Adaptive dt, Mesh 1, decreased time cotrol

0
0.003
0.006
0.009
0.012
I
n
s
t
.

F
l
u
x

[
m
/
h
]

Adaptive dt, Mesh 2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0
0.003
0.006
0.009
0.012
I
n
s
t
.

F
l
u
x

[
m
/
h
]
Time [hour]

Fixed dt, Mesh 1

10
-3
10
-1
10
1
10
3
10
5
S
u
c
t
i
o
n

[
k
P
a
]

10
1
10
3
10
5
S
u
c
t
i
o
n

[
k
P
a
]

10
1
10
3
10
5
S
u
c
t
i
o
n

[
k
P
a
]
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
10
1
10
3
10
5
S
u
c
t
i
o
n

[
k
P
a
]
Time [hour]

Figure 7.14. Instantaneous flux and surface matric suction for adaptive and fixed dt
formulations.

227
Table 7.5. Summary of numerical experiments, dx and dt.

Analysis
1 2 3 4
Mesh discretization 1 1 2 1
Surface node spacing 0.000237 0.000237 0.000118 0.0002372
Fixed/Adaptive Adaptive Adaptive Adaptive Fixed
ave dt [h] 0.0023 0.0013 0.0038 0.0002
min dt [h] 8E-06 5E-06 1E-04 NA
#Newton iterations 3 3 3 100
terrlim 0.0001 0.00001 0.0001 0.0001
errlim 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
xerrlim 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005

7.5.2 Mixed Formulation
Mixed formulation is a technique were a higher order PDE is solved as a system of first
order ODEs. For Richards equation the mixed formulation involves the solution of the second
order PDE
( )
t
h
m
y
h
k
y
w
w
y
=
|
|
.
|
\
|
2
(7.2)
with prescribed Robin BC, (
( ) ( )
u Fk else C then u if
y
h
k
y y
=
0 , where F is large
relaxation constant) at the soil surface as a system of first order equations.
t
h
m
y
f
w
w
2
(7.3a)
( )
0 =
f
y
h
k
y
(7.3b)
with prescribed Dirichlet BC on f. In mixed formulations the flux is considered directly. The
benefit is that fluxes are now stored and integrated in time as separate variables rather than
computed approximately from matric suction values using finite difference approximation
requiring small dx, especially near the soil surface. On the other hand, the mixed formulation
introduces an algebraic constraint (equation (7.3b)) which can be interpreted as an infinitely stiff
PDE which must be handled implicitly.

228
7.5.3 Normalization
Normalization/scaling is a technique which transforms the solution of a problem into a
non-dimensionalized form. It reduces potential problems (and sometimes instabilities)
associated to the effect of round-off errors such as those occurring in calculations involving
values on different scales. Normalization can also help identify independent control parameters
in a problem.
In a similar vein change of variables/coordinate transformation can reduce the variability
of dependent or independent variables (e.g., redefining Richards equation in terms of the
logarithm of matric suction rather than matric suction itself) and improve problem conditioning
(e.g. via preconditioning).

7.5.4 Spatial Discretization - Pseudospectral Method
Pseudospectral methods are high order accuracy methods applicable to and frequently
implemented in the solution of PDEs. The solution with pseudospectral methods involve the
substitution with global smooth function (typically interpolating polynomial) into the PDE. The
benefit of pseudospectral methods is faster convergence. Difficulties arise however when sharp
fronts and discontinuities are part of the considered problem. In the presence of such
phenomena the accuracy of high order methods deteriorates. This is due to the well known
Gibbs phenomenon that states that the pointwise convergence of global approximations of
discontinuous functions is at most first order. In the presence of a shock wave global
approximations are oscillatory and converge nonuniformly. Recent advances in the theory and
application of spectral methods indicate that high order information is retained in stable spectral
simulations of discontinuous phenomena and can be recovered by suitable post processing
techniques. (Gottlieb and Gottlieb, 2003). Due to the high accuracy and fast convergence
qualities of pseudospectral methods, they still represent very attractive alternatives for the
solution of Richards equation, provided suitable post-processing (e.g. front reconstruction) is
available.

229
7.5.5 Time Discretization - Exponential Integrator
Exponential integrators form a class of numerical methods used to integrate the solution
of a semi-linear PDE in time. The equation is usually split into linear, typically stiff part and
nonlinear, usually nonstiff part in a form
) ( ' y f Ly y + =
0
t t (7.4a)
0 0
) ( y t y = (7.4b)
where L is a matrix and f(y) is a continuous function. The aim of exponential integrator is to
solve the linear part exactly and the nonlinear part using standard numerical integrator.
Exponential integrators are especially designed to handle stiff systems, and accomplish this
goal by constructing exact integral curves for the linear part of the differential operator.
Constructing the integral curves entails the application of the matrix exponential and related
functions (Berland and Skaflestad, 2005). The incentive of exponential integrator application,
especially exponential time differencing types, into stiff parabolic equations, such as the
Richards equation lies in its superior performance when compared to typically implemented
implicit numerical schemes (Berland and Skaflestad, 2005). Jackiewicz, et. al. (2006) presents
implementation of exponential integrator methods into the solution of a parabolic equation on a
sample problem. The presented methodology can be expanded into the solution of moisture
flow through unsaturated soil. Arraras et al. (2007) recently showed how such a strategy can be
successfully applied to Richards equation.

7.5.6 Time Discretization - ADI
Alternating direction implicit, or ADI, schemes are unconditionally stable time integration
methodologies applicable to advection-diffusion type problems (Hout and Welfert, 2007). In 2-D
or 3-D domain, the solution is integrated in time one coordinate direction at a time (1-D problem)
in a cyclic fashion. At each time step, the results from the 1-D analyses are combined to create
input for the next time step. In general, implicit time integrators are unconditionally stable, and

230
are more efficient for solving stiff parabolic PDEs. The adaptation of ADI technique makes the
implementation of implicit methods more feasible.

7.6 Conclusions
The unsaturated moisture flow though soil is analyzed by solving Richards equation,
a diffusion-advection PDE with stiff and parabolic characteristics. This type of equation is known
to exhibit numerical challenges in the form of errors in mass balance, numerical oscillations in
actual flux, pore water pressures at the soil surface and with depth. These difficulties are
especially pronounced for dry, moisture sensitive soils with steep unsaturated soil properties and
sharp wetting fronts. The nonlinearity of unsaturated soil properties and the existence of
boundary conditions switching between Dirichlet and Neumann introduce difficulties that are not
easily handled by any of the commercial software packages reviewed in literature and this
chapter. Additionally, the solutions obtained with different packages were reported to produce
significantly different answers (Scanlon,2002 Tan, 2004, SVS, 2000, and GeoSlope, 2004).
These discrepancies are attributed to minor differences in available unsaturated soil property fit
functions in each software, different methodologies for the calculation of AE and surface runoff
and finally different implemented numerical methodologies. These discrepancies and errors
associated with inadequate convergence and solution stability, however, are considered to be
insignificant when compared to the uncertainty associated with k(h) and its impact on the
numerical solution variability (Fuselier et al, 2006).
The consensus approach to deal with numerical difficulties is centered on the reduction
of mesh size and time step in an adaptive manner. This approach, however, may result in very
long computational times and if not handled properly may lead to unrecoverable errors and
failure of the time scheme. In this chapter few options and ideas which might improve the
accuracy and/or stability of the numerical solution of Richards equation were presented. A
proper study of the impact these ideas/techniques may have on this solution are out of the scope
of the present work and would need additional research.

8 MODELING NUMERICAL RESULTS

8.1 Modeling Objective
In part, the objective of this research program was to analyze moisture movement
through unsaturated soil in the context of residential slab-on-grade construction on expansive
soil found in Arizona. The objective was satisfied by performing moisture flow analyses through
two soil types, fat clay (PI=53) and silty sand (PI=12). Modeling was carried out to determine the
suction (degree of saturation), the horizontal and the vertical distance of moisture penetration
under the slab as per typical Arizona environmental and human imposed flux boundary
conditions.
The implementation of unsaturated soil mechanics involves the use of numerical tool
such as a finite element method. Currently, few commercial programs solving the partial
differential equation of water flow through unsaturated soil, are available. SVFLUX was chosen
for this research project due to its user friendly interface and visual presentation of results while
the program performs the analysis. As a consequence, the solution stability can be visually
assessed while the program is running. In other programs, the outputs must be post-processed
to access the solution stability, hence reducing the overall efficiency of analysis.
Both 1-D and 2-D scenarios were considered in the analysis of a uniform soil profile due
to two environmental conditions. The first condition mimicked the typical desert or low water use
landscape. For this input type, it was assumed that the amount of water introduced into the soil
through irrigation is negligible, hence only the actual precipitation data were used. The
appropriate precipitation input was determined by performing a statistical analysis of 24 years of
precipitation data, where the data was obtained from Natural Climatic Data Center, NCDC. It
was found that average annual rainfall is 8.0 inches while the potential evaporation is 91 inches.
Turf landscape is the second type of flux boundary condition considered, where the irrigation
provides 93 inches of water annually, precipitation is 8 inches and the average annual potential
evapotraspiration is about 46 inches.
The results of the analyses were used to better understand the depth and extent of
wetting and suction variations that occur within expansive soils beneath residential structures.

232
Conditions for the Phoenix metropolitan area, Arizona, only were considered. To extent the
results of this research study to other climatic conditions where expansive soils of different soil
characteristic are typical, additional finite element analysis must be performed that includes
those specific soil and boundary flux conditions.

8.2 Design of Experiment
The analyses of moisture movement through unsaturated soil for residential slab-on-
grade construction on expansive soil involved the identification of appropriate modeling tool,
determination of boundary conditions, domain size, and input parameters. The input parameters
include soil characteristics obtained through laboratory testing and literature review, moisture
flux and other modeling program specific input. A list of analyses performed is provided below in
Table 8.1. The modeling results are presented in terms of matric suction and degree of
saturation (detailed modeling results presented in Appendix D). These results can be further
used to obtain the soil/slab system deformation using a stress-deformation finite element code
such as SVSolid.

Table 8.1. List of Performed Analyses.
Analysis Type SM-ML CH
1-D Desert, hourly flux 6 years 6 years
1-D Desert, average flux 1 year 1year
1-D Desert, roof runoff ponding,
hourly flux
1 year 1 year
1-D and 2D Desert, IC= 34
th
year
of turf
1 year
2-D Desert
1 year, average
flux
1 year, hourly flux
1-D Turf, hourly flux 2 years
11 years followed by 23 years of
ave. flux analysis
1-D Turf, average flux 1 year 1 year
1-D Turf, Irrig. = PE, hourly flux 1 year 1 year
2-D Turf, hourly flux 0.35 year
2-D Turf, average flux 1 year 4 years

233
8.2.1 Problem Assumptions and Restrictions
The following general and problem specific assumptions were made in the solution of
moisture flow through unsaturated soil.
The suction value at the bottom of the profile was determined based on insitu soil testing
and literature review that indicated a wide range of suction variation at depth from
800kPa to 10000kPa for undeveloped desert regions and below slab-on-grade
surrounded by desert landscape. From geotechnical engineering perspective, suction
values larger then 1500kPa have a limited impact on soil behavior and soil-structure
interaction; therefore in this analysis a 1500 kPa suction value was used as the base
boundary condition.
Based on the PTI 3
rd
Edition procedure, the active zone depth is 9 ft. A larger depth of
30 ft (10 m) was selected as the profile depth to observe the moisture flow within the
active zone depth.
A constant head of -153 m was assumed for initial condition resulting in 1500 kPa matric
suction at the bottom boundary and 1600 kPa matric suction at the soil surface.
The flux into the soil profile is modeled on hourly bases and is representative of actual
precipitation and irrigation patterns.
Soil particles and water are incompressible;
The effect of air diffusing through water, air dissolving in water, and water condensation
are ignored;
The model is inclusive of water vapor flow;
The pore air pressure is constant and atmospheric;
Air phase is assumed to be continuous;
Soil properties such as the coefficient of volume change, m
2
w
, vary linearly within a finite
element;
The system is isotropic, k
x
= k
y
;
The soil is homogeneous;

234
Overburden pressure is negligible;
Osmotic suction is negligible;
Concrete slab in impermeable, zero flux is applied;
Isothermal system; moisture flow within soil mass due to temperature gradients is not
considered.

8.2.2 Program
SVFlux 5.80 is a finite element program designed to solve Richards equation for
moisture flow through unsaturated soil. It is based on a FlexPDE kernel, a general software for
solving systems of PDEs in 1D, 2D or 3D. FlexPDE utilizes adaptive unstructured mesh
generation and adaptive time stepping based on an implicit Backwards Difference formula (BDF)
of low order (order 1 is implicit Euler, order 2 is Gear's method, a two-step method which
requires a proper initialization). The program runs under Microsoft Windows NT/2000/XP
operating system and requires a minimum of 128 MB RAM and 150 MB hard drive space. More
space is needed for the storage of large output files, where the amount of that space is
determined by the complexity of the problem and the type of output specified by the user. The
generated input and output data are stored with Microsoft Access.
The required input parameters consist of the following soil properties: SWCC, k
unsat

function, G
s
, saturated volumetric water content, and saturated soil permeability. The required
problem set up consists of domain size, boundary and initial conditions. The boundary
conditions can be entered in terms of hydraulic head or flux where the flux can be positive
(infiltration) or negative (evaporation). The flux can be entered as a constant value, in terms of
equation or as a step flux. The program is also capable of calculating evaporative flux by using
the Penman (1948) formulation or the Ward Wilson method (Wilson et al., 1994).
The type of output is specified by the user. It is possible to obtain initial or final pore
water pressures as well as the difference between them. The analysis results can also be
displayed in terms of total or pressure head, volumetric or gravimetric water content, unsaturated

235
hydraulic conductivity, gradient, final water storage coefficient, void ratio, porosity, total unit
weight, total or dry density, and degree of saturation. When the evaporation option is used
additional variables can be obtained as well: volumetric air content, diffusion coefficient, vapor
gradient, relative humidity, and pore-air pressure.

8.2.3 SVFlux Specific Restrictions
In the process of moisture flow modeling with SVFlux some program restrictions
(limitations) were identified. These limitations and the methods used to overcome them are
described below.
1. SVFlux automatically removes entries in output files when the output files become
relatively large. It was observed that initially reported results at small time increments of
0.02 h are output using time increments of up to 2.5 h. This difficulty was overcome by
subdividing the analysis into shorter run-time parts. The input for each part of the
analysis was taken as the output from the preceding analysis (part). For a one year
long analyses, 2 to 8 time subdivisions were used.
2. The following Figure 8.1 illustrates the unexpected consequence of automatic output file
reduction described above. The results of 1D, hourly flux, desert landscape CH are
presented, where unmodified analysis of 10-h input (0.02-h time increments) is
compared to the modified file after 4380-h of analysed input (increased to 0.75-h time
increments). It was observed that the quality of the solution appeared to deteriorate,
appearing oscillatory about the unmodified solution for all outputs: matric suction,
instantaneous and net fluxes.
The significance of this complication lies in a suggestive lack of stability, which is
not actually present in the internal computations of the program although the
automatically reduced data typically oscillated about the non-reduced solution. This can
be seen in Table 8.1, where the reduced output results are plotted along with the
unmodified files.

236
a)
b)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-2
0
2
4
6
8
x 10
-4
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

[
m
/
h
]
Time [h]

Precipitation
Potential Evaporation

0 2 4 6 8 10
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
x 10
-3
N
e
t

F
l
u
x

[
m
]
Time [h]
0 2 4 6 8 10
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
x 10
-3
N
e
t

A
E

[
m
/
h
]
Time [h]

Automatically Reduced Data
Not Reduced Data

c)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0
500
1000
1500
2000
S
u
c
t
i
o
n

[
k
P
a
]
Time [h]

Dist=0, Automatically Reduced Data
Dist=0,Not Reduced Data
Dist=0.03, Automatically Reduced Data
Dist=0.03,Not Reduced Data

Figure 8.1. Analysis results: a) Input Flux, b) Net fluxes, and c) Matric suction at
selected depths.

237

3. A small error is introduced into the actual instantaneous flux calculation from program
overshooting the solution and then converging to the applied value, which can be
observed in Figure 8.2. This error is reduced with reduction of both time step and mesh
size, which is computationally time-expensive. In part, the goal of stability and
convergence studies was to reduce this error by implementing the optimal mesh grid
and time step.

Figure 8.2. Analysis Results - Instantaneous flux.

4. The automatic mesh generation feature was found to be unsatisfactory. This SVFlux
feature is controlled with two tolerances, errlim and xerrlim. The reduction in these
controls results in reduction of mesh spacing to a certain value. It was observed that
further reduction in those controls did not lead to a further reduction in space
discretization, yet convergence studies did identify the need for smaller mesh spacings.
As a consequence, the numerical results obtained with the automatic mesh generation
feature almost always displayed stability issues.
In addition to the automatic mesh generation, the SVFlux program has two built-
in user specified mesh generation features, constant dx at specified depth, and dx as a
function of depth. The first feature, constant dx, was applied to the soil surface while the

238
mesh generation at depth was progressed with the automatic method. It was observed
that the mesh size increases very rapidly from the surface to some other, default mesh
size value shortly below the surface. This sudden increase was correlated to increased
solution instability in general and significant oscillatory behavior near the domain
boundaries. This challenge was overcome by introducing an exponential function to
control the gradual increase in mesh spacing with depth. For 1-D analyses, the function
alone was used. For 2-D problems, two mesh controls were utilized. The first one
involved specified, usually uniform mesh within an expected area of moisture movement.
The second control involved utilizing the soil surface mesh spacing control, where the
mesh spacing was increased with horizontal distance beneath the slab.
5. A large discrepancy was observed between the actual net flux provided in SVFlux output
and the change in domain accumulation of water volume (v
w
), while it is expected that
these values be identical. It was further observed that this discrepancy occurs when the
applied flux out of the profile, PE, exceeds the flux into the profile. In the absence of
runoff the net flux computed by SVFlux is correct and matches that computed from V
w
.
Due to this limitation, the cumulative flux presented in this dissertation was obtained
from the change in domain accumulation. This is not an error in the program results, but
rather an error in output reporting.

8.2.4 Boundary and Initial Conditions
Figure 8.3 illustrates applied boundary conditions to the 2-D domain. In an effort to
simulate symmetry lines, the vertical boundary conditions were set to zero flux. Zero boundary
flux was also applied to the region directly under the slab. Neumann BC simulating
environment/human imposed flux was applied to the remaining portion of the domain along the
top boundary. It consists of precipitation, typically applied irrigation, potential evaporation,
relative humidity and temperature parameters representative of Arizona climatic conditions (see
section 8.2.7 for details). The bottom boundary consists of a constant head value determined

239
from soil testing beyond the estimated active zone. The initial profile of matric head was
assumed to be constant with depth and equal to 153 m. The water table in Arizona is commonly
very deep, and therefore its inclusion in shallow moisture migration analyses was not
considered.
The 1-D analyses simulated the moisture flux beyond the distance of structure influence.
This is achieved by applying Specified Input Flux to the top boundary, matric suction of 1500
kPa to the bottom boundary (as for 2D analysis) and constant initial matric head condition of 153
m.

Flux = 0 Flux = 0
Constant Head
Specified Input Flux
Flux = 0
x
y

Figure 8.3. Boundary condition of control volume.

8.2.5 Domain Size
Stepped flux consisting of positive and negative values was applied to the above-
mentioned control volume of relatively permeable soil, SM-ML. The size of the control volume,
CV, was determined by an iterative process, where the bottom and both vertical boundaries
were moved in and out from the edge of the slab one at a time. With each iteration, the suction
output was compared to the previous suction output. The distance from the edge of the slab that
did not influence the output results by more than 1 % was considered to be the correct length
and the iteration process was stopped. It was found that a 5 meter deep profile with a 5 meter
wide slab region and 2 meter wide Specified Input Flux region were sufficient domain size
dimensions for the slab-on-grade on expansive soil modeling. The 1-D analyses were
performed on a 10 m deep profile.

240
8.2.6 Soil Input Parameters
SVFLUX required the following parameters to be specified: equilibrium soil suction at
the bottom of the profile, specific gravity, saturated hydraulic conductivity, volumetric water
content of saturated soil, SWCC and unsaturated soil permeability function. Field exploration
and soil testing were carried out in an effort to determine the typical range of soil properties
found in Phoenix region and to obtain the necessary input data. The summary of both activities
are described in Chapter 4.
In an effort to identify the range of potential moisture migration depth and degree of
saturation, two soil types were selected based on plasticity index and saturated soil permeability,
The CH soil with PI of 53 was expected to produce maximum e
m
and minimum depth of
influence, SM-ML soil with PI of 12, was expected to produce minimum e
m
and maximum depth
of influence. The properties of the CH were obtained experimentally, where SWCC was
performed on undisturbed sample with pressure plate apparatus and filter paper. The k(h) curve
was estimated based on experimental data for similar soils available through SoilVision (SVSb,
2005). The Leong and Rahardjo fit with Fredlund and Xing SWCC parameters were used to
estimate k(h) function such that the curve slope matched the slope of the k(h) of experimental
data, which was accomplished by varying the parameter p. The available experimental data
were limited to suction of 100 kPa, therefore some uncertainly exists for the unsaturated soil
permeability function corresponding to matric suction larger than 100 kPa. The soil properties
are presented in Table 8.2 while the unsaturated curves are illustrated in Figure 8.4 and Figure
8.5.
The properties of the SM-ML soil were obtained from literature review rather than in-
house experimental data because well documented unsaturated soil properties, including
experimental k(h), were found (Pereira at al., 2005). The soil properties are presented in Table
8.2, Figure 8.6 and Figure 8.7. The figures also illustrate the derivatives of SWCC, S. It is
postulated that the shape of the S has a consequence on convergence and stability criteria of
the numerical solution when the soil surface becomes saturated and the surface runoff boundary

241
condition is invoked. The S for the CH soil converges exponentially from value smaller then -
0.05 1/kPa at suction of 0.01 kPa to zero value at suction of 1000 kPa. The S for the SM-ML
soil has a value of zero 1/kPa for small and large values of suction. The function reaches a
minimum of -0.047 1/kPa at suction of 5 kPa. Coincidentally, the SM-ML soil was observed to
present numerical challenges at suction values smaller than 10 kPa.
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Suction [kPa]
S
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
d
e
c
i
m
a
l
]
-0.050
-0.045
-0.040
-0.035
-0.030
-0.025
-0.020
-0.015
-0.010
-0.005
0.000
0.005
d
S
/
d

[
1
/
k
P
a
]
Laboratory Data - Drying
Fredlund and Xing Fit
S'

Figure 8.4. SWCC CH soil.

1E-16
1E-15
1E-14
1E-13
1E-12
1E-11
1E-10
1E-09
1E-08
1E-07
1E-06
1E-05
1E-04
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Suction [kPa]
k
u
n
s
a
t

[
m
/
h
]

Figure 8.5. Unsaturated Soil Permeability CH soil.

242
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Suction [kPa]
S
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
d
e
c
i
m
a
l
]
-0.050
-0.045
-0.040
-0.035
-0.030
-0.025
-0.020
-0.015
-0.010
-0.005
0.000
0.005
d
S
/
d

[
1
/
k
P
a
]
Experimental Data - Wetting Experimental Data - Drying
Fredlund and Xing fit S'

Figure 8.6. SWCC SM-ML soil (after Pereira at al., 2005).

1E-11
1E-10
1E-09
1E-08
1E-07
1E-06
1E-05
1E-04
1E-03
1E-02
1E-01
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Suction [kPa]
k
u
n
s
a
t

[
m
/
h
]
Leong and Rahardjo Fit
Experimental Data - 1
Experimantal Data - 4

Figure 8.7. Unsaturated Soil Permeability SM-ML soil (after Pereira at al., 2005).

243
Table 8.2. Soil Properties.
Classical Soil Properties
Soil Type CH SM-ML
LL 85 29
PL 32 17
PI 53 12
P
200
86 48
%clay 33 13
Gs 2.797 2.64
d
[pcf] 85 85
SWCC a 140 4.5
(Fredlund and b 0.6 3.2
Xing Fitting Equation) c 0.9 0.35
h 2000 600

w
[%] 51.2 48.3
m
v
(Default) 1.00E-07 1.00E-07
Transition width (Default) 0.02 0.02
Permeability Function k
x sat
[m/h] 8.71E-06 1.94E-02
(Leong Fitting Equation) k
y sat
[m/h] 8.71E-06 1.94E-02
p 12 16
Vapor Diffusion
D
my
1 1
0 0
Sink/Source none none

8.2.7 Determination of Appropriate Input Flux
Expansive soil supporting slab-on-grade in the Phoenix metropolitan area can
experience a wide range of flux conditions consisting of precipitation, potential evaporation and
irrigation. Two extreme flux conditions typical for the Phoenix region were identified. They are
turf landscaping, were the lawn is irrigated every day, and desert landscaping or xeriscape
where negligible amount of water is introduced to the soil surface. Landscape professionals and
government employees were surveyed in an effort to determine the appropriate and typically
applied irrigation patterns in the Valley. This information was used to develop input flux applied
in the finite element modeling requiring four flux components to be described, flux onto the soil
such as irrigation or precipitation, potential evaporation, relative humidity and temperature.

8.2.7.1 Evaporation
Wilson et al. (1995) demonstrated through laboratory drying tests that actual evaporation
rate from bare soil is a function of total soil suction at the soil surface. The actual evaporation

244
from soil depends on temperature and relative humidity, where the relative humidity can be
expressed in terms of total soil suction. These relationships are given in equations 8.1 and 8.2.
The SVFLUX computer program utilized these equations to calculate actual evaporation based
on potential evaporation rates with modified Richards equation for vapor flow, Equation 2.11.
1
1
v
W
RT
e
AE PE
RT
| |
|
=
|
|
\ .
(8.1)
v
W
RT
RH e
= (8.2)

where:
AE -
actual soil evaporation
mm
day
(
(

,
PE -
potential evaporation
mm
day
(
(

,
K - absolute temperature [K],
R -
universal molar gas constant
8.314
J
mole K
(
(

,
RH - relative humidity of the air above the soil surface [%],
- total soil suction in the soil [kPa], and
W
v
-
molecular weight of water
0.018
kg
mole
(
(

.

Figure 8.8 illustrates, for three different soil types, the dependence of actual evaporation
on total suction at the soils surface, where the ratio of actual evaporation to potential
evaporation, AE/PE, is plotted on a semi-log scale against total suction. The value of AE/PE
begins to decline when the suction exceeds 3000 kPa for all tested soils. The decline is
attributed to the decline of surface vapor pressure to below the saturated vapor pressure; and
thus the relative humidity declines as well. The ratio of AE/PE continues to decline and
approaches zero as the soil surface suction increases toward 100,000 kPa; a value that
corresponds to applied 50% relative humidity and the evaporation ceases. Figure 8.8 further

245
indicates that the relationship between AE/PE to suction is independent of soil type, hence the
relationship developed for sand, silt and clay produces very similar results.

Figure 8.8. Relationship between AE/PE to total suction for sand, silt and clay (after
Wilson, 1997).

The potential evaporation data for the Phoenix region were obtained from three internet
sources 1) US Weather Service, Arizona Department of Water Resources (2006), 2) NOAA,
Western Regional Climate Center (2006), and 3) Arizona Meteorological Network (2006).
Measured data for one year were available from source 1 and 2, while source 3 provided 6 years
of estimated PE based on measured relative humidity, RH, and temperature data, T. The
average from all three sources was used to develop PE flux used in the desert landscape
analysis presented in Table 8.3 and Figure 8.9. The 6-year averages of RH and T from source 3
were further used to develop RH and T program input, Table 8.3.
The potential evapotranspiration data, PET, for tall, well watered, cool season grass
were obtained from University of Arizona for a golf course in Cave Creek, Arizona (UA, 2000).
Based on Table 8.4, the evapotranspiration rates were modified by a 0.6 landscape coefficient to
simulate the evapotraspiration experienced by warm season Bermuda grass, a plant commonly
used in Phoenix landscapes. The plant evapotranspiration rate is, in part, a function of leaf
length, since PET was determined for long leaf vegetation, the correction was necessary to

246
adequately describe typical site conditions (UA, 2000). The applied PET is presented in both
Figure 8.9 and Table 8.3.

Table 8.3. Potential evaporation rate for Phoenix area, Arizona (from ADWR, NOAA
and AMN 2006) and potential evapotranspiration rates for Bermuda turf
landscape, Cave Creek, Arizona (UA, from Dep. of Agriculture, 2000).
Month
PE - Potential Evaporation
0.6PET - Evapotranspiration of
RH T
warm season, Bermuda grass
[in/mo] [m/h] [in/mo] [m/h] [%] [C]
1 -3.3 -1.16E-04 -1.3 -4.45E-05 52.7 11.9
2 -4.1 -1.46E-04 -1.8 -6.35E-05 49.5 13.1
3 -6.4 -2.26E-04 -2.7 -9.59E-05 44.9 16.6
4 -8.7 -3.07E-04 -4.0 -1.39E-04 33.9 21.0
5 -11.3 -4.00E-04 -5.1 -1.81E-04 25.7 27.0
6 -11.9 -4.20E-04 -6.0 -2.11E-04 24.5 31.3
7 -12.3 -4.35E-04 -6.1 -2.16E-04 32.4 33.8
8 -10.3 -3.62E-04 -5.6 -1.97E-04 42.2 32.2
9 -8.7 -3.06E-04 -4.9 -1.72E-04 39.3 29.9
10 -6.6 -2.32E-04 -3.9 -1.38E-04 49.6 22.4
11 -4.2 -1.50E-04 -2.8 -9.75E-05 49.5 14.9
12 -2.8 -9.84E-05 -1.6 -5.75E-05 51.5 10.3
Sum
-91 -2.3 -46 -1.2
[ in(m)/year]

-13
-11
-9
-7
-5
-3
-1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Time [month]
R
a
t
e

[
i
n
/
m
o
]
PE
PET of tall, well watered grass
PET of Bermuda grass

Figure 8.9. PE for Phoenix area, Arizona (from ADWR, NOAA and AMN 2006) and PET
rates for tall, well watered grass and Bermuda turf landscapes, Cave
Creek, Arizona (from Dep. of Agriculture, 2000).

247
Table 8.4. Landscape coefficients (from Dep. of Agriculture, 2005).
Grass Type Coefficient
Cold season grass 0.8
Warm season grass - Bermuda 0.6

Based on equation 8.2, and available RH and T data, the maximum potential soil surface
suction can be calculated. For both desert and turf landscape scenarios the minimum RH of
24.5% occurs in Jun, which corresponds with the maximum anticipated soil surface matric
suction of 198 000 kPa at T = 31.3C. Figure 8.10 illustrates that the soil suction is highly
dependent on RH, where small changes in RH translate into large suction changes for RH larger
than 90%. For RH smaller than 90%, which corresponds to about 14 000 kPa, small RH
changes translate into insignificant suction changes from the perspective of engineering
application. On the other hand, the surface soil suction is almost independent of air
temperature. For suctions smaller than 10 000 kPa, the calculated RH is almost identical for
a range of temperatures between 5 and 40C. For suctions larger then 10 000 kPa the potential
change in T corresponds to a maximum RH change of 4% at 100 000 kPa suction, resulting in
potential suction variation between 90 000 to 100 000kPa, a difference which again is
insignificant for engineering application.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
R
H

[
%
]
Suction [kPa]
T = 40 C 20 5

Figure 8.10. Suction as a function of RH and T.
v
W
RT
RH e
=

248
8.2.7.2 Desert and Low Water Use Landscaping
8.2.7.2.1 Irrigation Needs of Desert and Low Water Use Landscape
Desert landscaping consisting of native Arizona plants does not require irrigation. A
landscape consisting of low water use plants also referred to as xeriscape is recommended to
be irrigated once to twice a month. The amount of water applied should match and not exceed
plant water needs specified in Table 8.5 (Landscape Watering by the Numbers, 2005). Special
care should be exercised to apply only as much water as the plant needs since over watering
can lead to wilting of the plants. The water should be applied infrequently to ensure deep root
system development.

Table 8.5. Gallons of Water needed to Wet Root Zone per Irrigation Event (from City
of Mesa, Department of Water Use, 2005).
Plant Type
Diameter of Plant Canopy [ft]
1 2 3 4 5 6
Trees 1.5
5 11 16 22 26
Shrubs 1
4 8 12 17 20
Ground Cover/Cacti 0.5
2 3.5 5 7 9

8.2.7.2.2 Irrigation Systems
Irrigation of xeriscape is typically managed with water drip system which produces 1
gal/h of water. The drip system must be maintained and regulated frequently to perform as
designed. Irrigation professionals report that drip systems in Arizona are often poorly installed
with substandard materials, which leads to the development of leaks. Because the tubing is
installed below ground surface, those leaks are rarely caught in a timely manner. As a result, in
some instances, the system was found to use more water than the sprinkler system. The lack of
education about the proper use and maintenance of the drip system and the fact that the amount
of water provided to the plants is not easily observable are the main causes of water overuse.

249
8.2.7.2.3 Input Flux for Desert and Low Water Use Landscape
The amount of water typically applied to desert or low water use landscape is negligible.
Therefore, for modeling purposes, desert flux is exclusively based on the amount of water
applied to the soil surface from precipitation and potential evaporation. For the purpose of
developing a reasonable input flux, 24-year daily precipitation data and 9-year hourly
precipitation data was obtained and analyzed for Phoenix Airport meteorological station from
NCDC. Statistical analysis revealed that average rainfall in Phoenix is 8.04 in/year with standard
deviation of 3.0 in/year. The maximum rainfall was found to be 15.1 in/year and the minimum
was 0.06 in/year. Further analyses indicated that, for the most part, rainy days within a month
occur close to each other and rainy hours within a day occur consecutively. Therefore the
precipitation data was applied in the model on the beginning of each month for the specified
number of rainy days and for the duration of rainy hours per day. The precipitation input was
further modified for potential evaporation. This modification simplified the potential evaporation
input from numerous PE intervals applied between the rain events to a constant PE per month.

Table 8.6. Average precipitation data from Phoenix Airport metrological station (from
NCDC).
Month
Average
Precipitation
Average Number
of Rainy
Desert Input [ m/h]
Precipitation applied as per
PE [in/mo] Days Hours Prec. Scheme Ave. flux per mo.
1 0.98 6 7 7.20E-04 4.00E-05 -1.16E-04
2 0.9 6 8 6.40E-04 4.44E-05 -1.46E-04
3 1.1 7 8 7.30E-04 5.45E-05 -2.26E-04
4 0.32 4 5 7.00E-04 1.98E-05 -3.07E-04
5 0.15 3 1 1.65E-03 6.73E-06 -4.00E-04
6 0.03 2 1 7.80E-04 2.23E-06 -4.20E-04
7 1.02 8 5 1.06E-03 5.82E-05 -4.35E-04
8 0.82 9 2 1.45E-03 3.67E-05 -3.62E-04
9 0.7 5 3 1.49E-03 3.11E-05 -3.06E-04
10 0.58 4 4 1.17E-03 2.48E-05 -2.32E-04
11 0.69 4 6 9.00E-04 2.93E-05 -1.50E-04
12 0.78 5 6 7.70E-04 3.06E-05 -9.80E-05

250
A mini study was performed to observe if the application of PE during rain event
increased by PE value modified the output results when compared to the results obtained due to
rain event alone. It was found that the soil response in terms of suction was identical for both
cases justifying the use of modified rain data for potential evaporation values. The applied
precipitation and PE data are given in Table 8.6 as well as presented in Figure 8.11.

8.2.7.2.4 Average Input Flux
As part of this research work, flux simplification was performed and its consequences on
the quality of the numerical solution were observed. It was accomplished by substituting the
hourly discretized flux with average monthly flux. The simplified average flux scheme consists of
the same PE, RH and T input data and averaged precipitation over the period of each month.
The value of averaged precipitation was increased by the amount that would evaporate during
the rainy hours. Consequently, the net average applied flux is equal to 10.6 inches/year. The
data are given in Table 8.6 and illustrated in Figure 8.11.
-0.0005
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0.002
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360
Time [day]
F
l
u
x

[
m
/
h
]
Precipitation
PE
Average Flux

Figure 8.11. Desert Landscape Flux.

251
8.2.7.3 Turf Landscaping
8.2.7.3.1 Irrigation Needs of Grass
Proper irrigation of turf landscape consists of a yearly flux equal to the yearly
evapotranspiration rate. Therefore, the warm season Bermuda grass requires 46 in/year of
water. The grass is semi-dormant in the wintertime (November through February) when a
reduced watering regimen is required when compared to the summer months. The local
irrigation recommendation is to apply 0.75-in of water during every irrigation event. In general,
the warm season grass should be provided with about 1-in of water once a month between
November through February and 2 to 3-in of water a week from May through September when
the plants are irrigated once every few days; see Table 8.7 for proper irrigation schedule. For
turf landscapes developed on clayey soils, that are known to absorb only about 0.1 in/hour of
water, the irrigation pattern presented in table 4 is still valid. The frequency of watering during
the scheduled irrigation day should be appropriately increased to provide the soil with the
recommended dosage of absorbable water. This kind of infrequent watering pattern encourages
the plants to develop deep root systems and produces hardy plants (McCaleb, 2005 and City of
Mesa, 2005).

Table 8.7. Recommended irrigation pattern for warm season Bermuda grass (from
City of Mesa, Department of Water Use, 2005).
Month Frequency once every
January 4 weeks
February 21 days
March 14 days
April 7 days
May 4 days
June 3 days
July 3 days
August 4 days
September 6 days
October 6 days
November 14 days
December 4 weeks

252
Sometimes people choose to over-seed their lawns with cold season grass for the winter
growth. The new seeds are introduced to the landscape from September to October. The new
plants require watering of up to six times a day for a few minutes at a time to ensure germination
and maintenance of the new plants (City of Mesa, 2005).

8.2.7.3.2 Irrigation Systems
There are two watering systems commonly used in Phoenix: pop-up sprinklers and
rotors. The pop-up sprinklers produce 1.6-1.87 in/hour of water while the rotors output 0.2-0.8
in/hour of water depending on the manufacturer of the product. The pop-up sprinkle system is
about 70% efficient while the rotor system is 90% efficient. Because the watering system is not
100% efficient, the yard must be over-watered by the deficiency factor to ensure that all the
plants in the lawn are provided with a sufficient amount of water.

8.2.7.3.3 Typical Water Use on Turf Landscaping
Based on information obtained from the landscape professionals and Phoenix area
government agencies, it is estimated that the turf landscapes are often over-watered by 2 to 5
times the above recommended amount. The mismanagement of water use is mainly attributed to
homeowners lack of knowledge about grass needs. Landscapes are typically irrigated every
day where the water is applied once or twice a day. The common once a day option consists of
a 15-20 minute watering period while the twice a day watering pattern typically last 5 to 10
minutes per application.

8.2.7.3.4 Flux Input for Turf Landscaping
Based on the investigation of typical irrigation patterns and amount of water used per
day in the Phoenix area on turf landscaping, it was concluded that large variability exists in the
amount of water applied per irrigation event. This variability is associated with the diversity of

253
available watering equipment and the variability of time the equipment is used for. Due to those
factors, the following assumptions were necessary to develop a reasonable turf flux:
It was determined that the most commonly applied irrigation pattern is to water once per
day throughout the year; therefore irrigation is assumed to be applied once a day;
The total amount of water applied to the turf landscaping is 2.2 PET; that translates to
103 in/year.
It is reasonable to assume that the amount of water applied per day in the winter time is
much smaller than the amount of water applied per day during the summer months
when the grass shows signs of distress very easily. Winter irrigation is assumed to be
1.5 of corrected PET
(February)
(0.0023 m/day) and summer irrigation is 2.0 of corrected
PET
(Jun)
(0.005 m/day).
Drainage from the landscaped lot is assumed to be fairly good. Most of Arizona turf
landscapes are surrounded by a curb, where the difference between the curb and the
soil surface is about 0.3; measurement performed by the author on 47 turf landscapes.
Therefore, it is assumed that some of the excess water will be available for absorption
up to one hour from the onset of the irrigation event. This is accomplished by applying
constant flux for a period of one hour. The use of runoff option ensures that only water
absorbed within the irrigation period is utilized by the computer program.
Assume 0.4 in/hour (0.0102 m/h) rotor water system is used; 0.5 h in winter and 1h in
summer.
The applied turf landscape scheme for the numerical models in this study consists of
half an hour to one hour of irrigation every day followed by 23 hours of evapotranspiration.
There are two magnitudes of applied irrigation. The first flux has magnitude of 0.2 in/hour and is
applied between November through April; it is referred to as the Winter irrigation. The second
flux, also called the Summer irrigation is applied during the remaining portion of the year and has
magnitude of 0.4 in/hour. The evapotranspiration rate increases from winter months to the mid-
summer and then it decreases towards December. The available evapotranspiration rate varies

254
parabolicly with time, but for the purpose of modeling, the rate was simplified to vary on monthly
basis. The applied flux consists of precipitation and irrigation where the precipitation data are
given in Table 8.6, while the irrigation and PET data are provided in Table 8.8 as well as plotted
in Figure 8.12. In addition, a flux scenario was considered, where the applied irrigation
constitutes 1.3 of PE, the input data are also given in Table 8.8.
-0.001
0.000
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.008
0.009
0.010
0.011
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360
Time [day]
F
l
u
x

[
m
/
h
]
Irrigation Potential Evapotranspiration
Average Flux Precipitation

Figure 8.12. Turf Landscape Flux.

Table 8.8. Amount of irrigation and potential evapotranspiration used in modeling of
turf landscape.
Month
Irrigation Magnitude of Irrigation Magnitude of Irrigation Average Flux PET
Period Flux = 2.2PE Flux = 1.3PE per mo.
[h] [m/h] [m/h] [m/h] [m/h]
1 0.5 0.0046 0.0031 1.32E-04 4.45E-05
2 0.5 0.0046 0.0031 1.35E-04 6.35E-05
3 0.5 0.0046 0.0031 1.42E-04 9.59E-05
4 0.5 0.0047 0.0032 1.13E-04 1.39E-04
5 1 0.0106 0.0054 4.41E-04 1.81E-04
6 1 0.0106 0.0054 4.37E-04 2.11E-04
7 1 0.0106 0.0054 4.82E-04 2.16E-04
8 1 0.0106 0.0054 4.68E-04 1.97E-04
9 1 0.0106 0.0054 4.63E-04 1.72E-04

255
Month
Irrigation Magnitude of Irrigation Magnitude of Irrigation Average Flux PET
Period Flux = 2.2PE Flux = 1.3PE per mo.
[h] [m/h] [m/h] [m/h] [m/h]
10 1 0.0105 0.0053 4.57E-04 1.38E-04
11 0.5 0.0046 0.0031 1.25E-04 9.75E-05
12 0.5 0.0046 0.0031 1.25E-04 5.75E-05

8.2.7.3.5 Average Input Flux
Similarly as for the desert landscape, consequences of flux simplification were analysed
for the turf landscape by averaging both irrigation and precipitation over each month. In addition,
PET with RH and T input data were used. The implemented average flux is presented in both
Table 8.8 as and in Figure 8.12.

Table 8.9. Average Input Flux for 2-D Analysis of CH Soil.
Average Flux [m/h]
month Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
1 5.32E-05 2.96E-05 2.95E-05 2.86E-05 2.78E-05
2 2.77E-05 1.40E-05 1.04E-05 1.04E-05 9.73E-06
3 6.25E-06 -2.11E-06 -3.90E-06 -4.78E-06 -6.58E-06
4 -1.85E-05 -2.46E-05 -2.65E-05 -2.78E-05 -2.80E-05
5 8.83E-06 1.76E-06 -6.45E-07 -1.61E-06 -2.33E-06
6 -1.95E-06 -6.58E-06 -8.42E-06 -9.43E-06 -1.00E-05
7 1.11E-05 6.47E-06 5.23E-06 3.91E-06 4.24E-06
8 9.44E-06 5.20E-06 4.33E-06 3.00E-06 2.13E-06
9 1.21E-05 6.64E-06 3.90E-06 6.25E-06 3.84E-06
10 1.90E-05 2.71E-05 3.21E-05 3.13E-05 2.45E-05
11 1.85E-06 -4.93E-06 -7.49E-06 -9.74E-06 -6.20E-06
12 2.72E-05 2.64E-05 2.22E-05 2.29E-05 2.30E-05

In addition, an average absorbed flux was used to analyse CH 2-D scenario and
efficiently obtain an estimate of edge moisture variation distance. This input was derived from 1-
D output analyses and consists of only one flux component summarized in Table 8.9. The
results of 11 years 1-D analyses were also used to develop an average flux to estimate long-
term depth of influence. Figure 8.13 illustrates that after 5
th
year of analysis the yearly flux levels
off, in this particular case to a value of 0.022 m/year, which was applied to subsequent 23 years
of analysis.

256
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Time [year]
F
l
u
x

[
m
/
y
e
a
r
]

Figure 8.13. Turf landscape, average absorbed flux per year for CH soil.

8.2.8 Output Presentation - Definitions
The numerical results are mainly illustrated in terms of matric suction, in kPa, and
degree of saturation, as a percentage, calculated based on matric suction results and soil
properties. The quality of the numerical solution, in part, is judged based on the mass balance.
Therefore, the presentation of the numerical results requires that the following input and output
quantities are clearly defined:

Table 8.10. Definitions of Input and Output Quantities.
Quantity Name Units Quantity Description
Instantaneous
Precipitation/
Precipitation/
Precipitation Rate
m/h
Rainfall rate is the positive flux into the profile obtained from
historical data and applied on hourly bases to simulate the
actual precipitation pattern and magnitude.
Cumulative
Precipitation
m
Total applied precipitation within modeled time period. The
applied volume of water is given per 1 m
2
surface area.
Instantaneous
Irrigation/ Irrigation /
Irrigation Rate
m/h
Turf irrigation rate is the positive flux into the soil profile
estimated based on recommendations of landscape
professionals and government officials; applied on hourly
bases to simulate the actual irrigation pattern and magnitude
applied by residents of Phoenix valley.
Cumulative Irrigation m
Total applied irrigation within modeled time period. The
2
surface area.

257
Cumulative Irrigation
and Precipitation
m
Sum of applied positive soil fluxes into the soil profile within
considered time period given per 1 m
2
surface area.
Instantaneous PE/ PE/
PE Rate
m/h
Potential evaporation or evapotranspiration rate is the applied
negative flux out of the profile. It is obtained from historical
data and applied on hourly bases to simulate the average
monthly potential PET or PET magnitude.
Cumulative PE m
Total applied PE or PET within modeled time period. The
2
surface area.
RH %
The average monthly relative humidity obtained from historical
data.
T C
The average monthly temperature obtained from historical
data.
Flux m/h
Generic term used in describing instantaneous applied flow
rate which might include all or some of the applied flux
components.
Net Cum. Flux/ Net
Cum. Applied Flux
m
Sum of all applied fluxes: net precipitation, net irrigation and
net PE given per 1 m
2
surface area.
Average Flux m/h
The average applied flux either into or out of the profile. It
either represents the average irrigation and/or precipitation
applied over the period of each month (in this case PE is
also applied) or it constitutes one and only one applied flux
component varying on monthly bases and obtained from 1-D
output analysis as the absorbed or lost volume of water per
modeled period of time.
Instantaneous AE/ AE/
AE Rate
m/h
Actual Evaporation rate is the negative flux out of the profile
calculated by the program based on PE, RH and T.
Cumulative AE m
Total volume of water lost from the soil profile within modeled
time period due to evaporation. The program output
quantity is given per 1 m
2
surface area.
Domain Volume of
Water/ V
w

m
The volume of water retained in the entire domain at specified
time. The output quantity is given per 1 m
2
surface area.
Instantaneous Flux m/h
Term used to in describing net flux at the soil surface in
response to the applied precipitation, irrigation and PE;
quantity calculated by the program. This is the rate of water
absorption or loss from the domain per 1 m
2
.
Domain Accumulation/
V
w

m or
m
3

The volume of water absorbed in or lost from the domain within
analyzed time period calculated as the difference between
the final and initial volume of water in the profile. The output
quantity is given per 1 m
2
surface area in 1D analysis and as

258
volume (m
3
) in 2D analysis.
Cumulative Runoff m
The volume of water that did not get absorbed by the domain.
Calculated as the applied precipitation + irrigation AE-
V
w
. It is given per 1 m
2
surface area.

8.3 Convergence Studies
The research done by Thiam-Soon among others illustrated that two important issues
are found to create difficulties in the finite element analysis of moisture flow through unsaturated
soils (Thiam-Soon et al., 2004). They are oscillations of pore water pressures within the soil
profile and solution convergence to the correct answer. Both of these problems are caused by
the implementation of improper mesh size, dx or dy, and/or time step, dt. Thiam-Soon further
illustrated that an appropriate ratio between the element size and time step exists that will
ensure a nonoscillatory, convergent solution, which is a valid assessment of numerical solution
behavior per the applied numerical method. Refer to Section 2.9 for detailed discussion about
stability, convergence and accuracy.
Through numerical experiments performed for this study, it was further observed that the
mesh size and time step requirements change with a change in applied flux magnitude. In
general, the larger the inward flux, the smaller the required dx and dt. Additionally, initial
conditions and steepness of flux (e.i. a transition from small or zero value to a large value over a
short period of time) have a consequence on convergence and stability criteria. Since the flux
considered in this analysis consists of periods of precipitation discretized hourly followed by
prolonged periods of potential evaporation, the convergence and stability experiments were
performed on characteristic problem segments. The desert landscape was divided into
precipitation and evaporation periods in each month, while the turf landscape was analysed on
monthly bases. The solution convergence was observed on domain accumulation, net AE, soil
surface matric suction and depth of influence. Only stable results, typically achieved by reducing
dt, were used in the convergence analysis. They are characterized by lack of matric suction

259
oscillations with depth and at the soil surface with time. The determined maximum dx for the
most challenging flux period was then used in the entire analysis, while maximum dt was allowed
to change from one flux period to another based on the results of convergence studies.
Convergence studies were not performed on average flux scenarios. It was assumed that the
stringent convergence criteria developed for the hourly flux analyses are sufficient for the
average flux scenarios; the anticipated program runtime with average flux is smaller than the
time required for convergence study.
An illustrative example of convergence analysis is presented in Figure 8.14, through
Figure 8.16. They show results obtained with 1-D analyses of the SM-ML soil for January desert
landscape flux. The solution of SM-ML soil required the implementation of constant dt with
increased number of Newton iterations (adaptive dt generation lead to unstable behavior during
precipitation events). The mesh discretization for the 10-m deep profile was implemented with
an exponential function,
) ( b y a
e

with origin of the domain at the base boundary. The results are
presented in terms of the node spacing at the soil surface.
For problems involving only evaporation, Figure 8.14a, convergence criteria require dx
smaller than 0.00048-m. Implementation of larger mesh size results in overestimation of both,
domain accumulation and cumulative AE. When the applied flux consists of PE only, for 1-D
problems the domain accumulation and cumulative AE should be identical. Figure 8.14 further
illustrates that these values differ when the solution is obtained with large mesh spacings, and
converges to a single value as the mesh size decreases. Figure 8.14b shows that modeling of
evaporation (PE) alone is insensitive to dt. Time step of 0.5 h was found to be adequate.
Figure 8.15 illustrates the convergence study performed on precipitation period in
January for 1-D analyses of the SM-ML soil. The flux consists of precipitation and PE. The
figure shows that when AE is almost equal to PE (this is always true when flux into the soil
exceeds PE), AE result is insensitive to considered variation in both dx and dt. As the mesh
spacing decreases for constant dt, the domain accumulation values approach a converged value
exponentially. A reduction in dt produces similar results, where these two solutions plot parallel

260
to each other; see Figure 8.15a. The same general behavior was observed when keeping dt
constant and varying dx. When a small enough dx is used, the curves obtained overlap and vary
with dt in the same way. Based on the results presented in Figure 8.15b, it was determined that
dt of 0.01-h and dx of 0.00024-m are required to obtain a stable and convergent solution for this
particular soil type and applied flux scheme.
a) b)
-0.040
-0.035
-0.030
-0.025
-0.020
-0.015
0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1
Node Spacing [m]
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

[
m
]
Net AE
Domain Accumulation
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Time Step [h]

Figure 8.14. Convergence analysis, January, PE only, desert landscape, SM-ML.

a) b)
0.0138
0.0140
0.0142
0.0144
0.0146
0.0148
0.0150
0.0001 0.001
Node Spacing [m]
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

[
m
]
ICum. AEI Vw, dt = 0.001h Vw, dt = 0.01h
Vw, dt = 0.025h Vw, dt = 0.05h Vw, dt = 0.075h
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1
Time step [h]
Cum. AEI Vw, dx = 9e-4
Vw, dx=5e-4m Vw, dx = 2e-4
Vw, dx = 1e-4

Figure 8.15. Convergence analysis, January, precipitation, desert landscape, SM-ML.

261
Initially, both soil surface matric suction and the depth of influence where tracked for
convergence purposes. Figure 8.16 plots results for end of January, desert landscape, 1-D SM-
ML soil. It was determined that these two parameters are not good indicators of solution
convergence. The domain accumulation is the best indicator; therefore convergence analysis
was focused on domain accumulation, while the matric suction output was used to access
solution stability; in other words the selection of appropriate dt per applied dx.
a) b)
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1
Node Spacing [m]
D
e
p
t
h

o
f

M
o
i
s
t
u
r
e

I
n
f
l
u
e
n
c
e

[
m
]
Infiltration
Evaporation
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1
Node Spacing [m]
M
a
t
r
i
c

S
u
c
t
i
o
n

a
t

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

[
m
]
Infiltration
Evaporation

Figure 8.16. Convergence analysis, end of January, desert landscape, SM-ML.

Table 8.11 and Table 8.12 summarize analyses run time, dx and dt used in both 1-D and
2D scenarios. In general, the most efficient way of analysing desert landscape was to specify
one large maximum dt for the entire problem (dt all) and smaller maximum dt for irrigation
periods (dt(prec.)). For SM-ML soil, stable and convergent solution was easier to obtained with
fixed dt formulation and increased number of Newton iterations, while analysis of CH soil
progressed smoother with the adaptive dt generation. Even in the adaptive analyses, different
output dt was specified for the PE periods and different for the precipitation events to facilitate a
better selection of dt, which is especially problematic for the program during the transition from
evaporation to precipitation.

262
Table 8.11. Mesh spacing, time step and run times for SM-ML analyses.
Analysis Type
dx equation

dx at
surface
dt
generation

dt all

dt(prec.)

Run time
per year
( ) 3 y a
e [m]
[10
-5
m] [h] [h] [h]
1-D Desert, hourly
flux
a = 1.1 24 fixed 0.5 0.01-0.05 67
1-D Desert,
average flux
a = 1.1 24 adaptive 0.017-0.5 NA 10
1-D Desert, roof
runoff ponding,
hourly flux
a = 1.1 24 fixed 0.5 0.0025-0.06 131
2-D Desert,
average flux

1-D Turf, hourly flux a=1.1&1.2 12-24 fixed 0.0025-0.01 NA 360
1-D Turf, average
flux
a = 1.1 12-24 adaptive 0.012-0.5 NA 14
1-D Turf, Irrig. =
PE, hourly flux
a=1.1&1.22 10.3-24 fixed 0.0002-0.02 NA 141
2-D Turf, average
flux

Table 8.12. Mesh spacing, time step and run times for CH analyses.
Analysis Type
dx equation

dx at
surface
dt
generation

dt all

dt(prec.)

Run time
per year
( ) 3 y a
e [m]
[10
-5
m] [h] [h] [h]
1-D Desert, hourly
flux
a = 1 48 adaptive 0.5 0.0013-0.03 48
1-D Desert,
average flux
a = 1 48 adaptive 0.014-0.5 NA 13
1-D Desert, roof
runoff ponding,
hourly flux
a = 1.15 17 adaptive 0.5 (0.054-9)e-3 47
1-D Desert, IC= 34
th

year of turf
a = 1 48 adaptive 0.5 0.0013-0.03 40
2D Desert, IC= 34
th

year of turf
0.03
throughout
profile
125 adaptive 0.005-0.5 NA
2-D Desert
0.03
throughout
profile
125 adaptive 0.005-0.5 NA 379
1-D Turf, hourly flux a = 1.15 17 adaptive 2.7e-6-0.1 NA 59
1-D Turf, average
flux, years 12-34
a = 1.15 17 adaptive 0.5-1 NA 6
1-D Turf, average
flux, year 1
a = 1 48 adaptive 0.05-0.5 NA 5.5
1-D Turf, Irrig. = PE,
hourly flux
a = 1.15 17 adaptive 0.00027-0.1 NA 69
2-D Turf, hourly flux
0.03
throughout
profile;
250 adaptive 7.6e-6-0.1 NA 1965
2-D Turf, average
flux
0.0375
throughout
profile;
500 adaptive 0.02-0.1 NA 31

263
8.4 Simplification of Flux
The quality of the numerical solution of moisture flow through unsaturated soils for the
purpose of depth of moisture influence determination depends, in part, on properly described flux
boundary conditions including appropriate environmental factors and inclusion of the
microclimate created by human activity. Rigorously described surface flux boundary conditions
were used in the analyses of CH and SM-ML soils, and simplifications to these conditions were
systematically made to determine the impact of simplified boundary conditions on the final
solution. The problem set-up is described in Section 8.2. It was found that major simplifications,
through averaging of flux conditions and increased time-steps for application, result in only
negligible difference in computed matric suction compared to more detailed simulations of flux
when the capacity of the soil to absorb applied surface water is not exceeded, such as for the
desert landscape conditions of this mini-study. Otherwise, as observed for the turf irrigation
case of this study, averaging surface flux can result in significant over-estimate of the extent and
degree of wetting in the profile.

8.4.1 Potential Evaporation
Simplification of potential evaporation flux alone was considered in this part of the study
on CH soil. Based on AZMET data the potential evaporation rate increases as the air
temperature increases and relative humidity decreases (2006). Figure 8.17 presents the
estimated hourly and average values for January 2000, Phoenix airport, with cumulative PE of
0.09-m. The PE hourly data fluctuate daily from a maximum value at mid afternoon each day to
a minimum value at night. During the winter months, the RH fluctuates between 12% during the
daytime hours to 100% at night while the minimum PE reaches a value of zero. The complexity
of the PE flux discretized on hourly bases presents the modeler with already discussed in
Chapter 7 numerical challenges requiring the implementation of small mesh and time steps,
which is computationally expensive. On the other hand, the implementation of flux averaging
provides a very attractive, time efficient alternative. The presented mini-study illustrates that PE

264
flux simplification is an appropriate method yielding similar soil response in terms of matric
suction.
The one-month long PE analysis revealed that results obtained with average PE are
very similar to the results obtained with hourly discretized PE. Figure 8.18 illustrates that the
hourly discretized instantaneous AE fluctuates about the average instantaneous AE, as
expected. As the soil surface becomes desaturated, the oscillations decrease resulting in
cumulative AE of -0.0149 m as compared to -0.0160 m lost from the domain due to the average
flux. For hourly discretized flux, in general, diffusion of soil moisture from inside of the domain
towards the soil surface occurs when PE is at minimum. The increased moisture content of the
soil surface provides larger amount of water available for evaporation during the day time hours
resulting in increased domain moisture loss when compared to the average flux analysis.
-1.3
-1.2
-1.1
-1.0
-0.9
-0.8
-0.7
-0.6
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0
12
24
36
48
60
72
84
96
108
120
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750
P
E

[
m
m
/
h
]
R
H

[
%
]

a
n
d

T

[
C
]
Time [h]
RH, hourly RH, average T, hourly T, average PE, hourly PE, average

Figure 8.17. Components of PE for PE flux simplification analysis.

The most important parameter, to judge the moisture flow analysis with is matric suction.
In terms of matric suction, the soil surface values obtained with hourly flux fluctuate about the

265
average PE soil response as presented in Figure 8.19. Both flux scenarios produce profiles
where suction decreases gradually from the maximum suction of 90 000 kPa at the soil surface
to initial suction profile at approximate depth of 0.3 m from the soil surface, see Figure 8.20. A
slight discrepancy between these two profiles is observed below the soil surface. The average
flux solution plots parallel and above the hourly discretized flux solution.
Based on the PE flux simplification study it was concluded that PE averaging is an
adequate flux modeling methodology. A small discrepancy was observed in both outputs, net
AE and matric suction. This quantifiable discrepancy, however, should be considered against
the unquantifiable uncertainty associated with hourly measured RH and T data, and estimated
PE based on the measured RH and T data. The hourly discretized flux took approximately 9-
times longer to analyze then the average flux. Due to these factors, average PE is implemented
in this entire study.

-2
-1
0
x 10
-4
I
n
s
t
.

A
E

[
m
/
h
]

Hourly Flux
Average Flux
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-0.02
-0.015
-0.01
-0.005
0
C
u
m
.

A
E

[
m
]
Time [hour]

Figure 8.18. Instantaneous and net AE for PE averaging analysis; CH soil.

266

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
M
a
t
r
i
c

S
u
c
t
i
o
n

[
k
P
a
]
Ti me [hour]

Hourly Flux, x=0 m
Average Flux, x=0 m
Hourly Flux, x=0.07 m
Average Flux, x=0.07 m

Figure 8.19. Suction at depth vs. time for PE averaging analysis; CH soil.

10
3
10
4
10
5

Matric Suction [kPa]
10 20 30 40 50 60
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

[
m
]

Initial Profile
Hourly Flux
Average Flux

Figure 8.20. Suction profile at the end of the PE flux averaging analysis; CH soil.

267
8.4.2 Precipitation and Irrigation
8.4.2.1 1-D Desert Landscape
Both CH and SM-ML soils were used in the desert landscape flux simplification analysis.
The desert or low water use landscape consists of 2.3 m of PE and 0.2 m of rainfall annually.
The analysis with hourly discretized flux, HF, produced large matric suction variations at the soil
surface ranging from 190 000 kPa at the end of dry period in Jun to 10 kPa after a precipitation
event for SM-ML soil and 20 kPa for CH soil. These suction swings are not present in the
average flux, AF, analysis as expected.
For CH, the soil surface suctions approach the values calculated with HF analysis
except for very shallow depth. Just below the surface, the soil response in terms of suction is
similar for both types of analysis as illustrated in Figure 8.21a. Figure 8.22a (suction variation
with depth at the end of year) further shows that the discrepancy between these two approaches
exists only in the initial 0.2 m of the profile. At larger depths the solutions are almost identical.
Similar soil response was observed for the SM-ML soil. A discrepancy in profiles due to
the HF fluctuations is observed to a depth of 0.2 m., Figure 8.22b. Both profiles merge with the
initial condition plot at about 1.3 m from the soil surface. In general, the AF overestimates the
cumulative water loss resulting in suction profile, which plot parallel and below the suction profile
obtained with the HF.
The cumulative flux, as calculated by the computer program for 1 m
2
surface area, is
presented in Figure 8.23 for both HF and AF analyses. The domain accumulation is similar for
HF and AF runs, and approaches -0.0561 m and -0.0555 for CH soil HF and AF respectively at
the end of one year. For SM-ML soil the domain accumulation is -0.0457 and -0.0494 for HF and
AF respectively. This helps explain why the results for CH soil obtained with both approaches
produce similar results and why a small discrepancy is observed in SM-ML soil. Although
surface runoff boundary condition was utilized for the desert landscape flux (i.e. well-
graded/sloped soil surface), the surface flux conditions are such that essentially no runoff
occurred for either hourly or monthly averaged flux steps.

268
a)

M
a
t
r
i
c

S
u
c
t
i
o
n

[
k
P
a
]
Ti me [day]

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
Hourly Flux, x=0 m
Average Flux, x=0 m

b)

M
a
t
r
i
c

S
u
c
t
i
o
n

[
k
P
a
]
Ti me [day]

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
Hourly Flux, x=0m
Average Flux, x=0m
Hourly Flux, x=0.5m
Average Flux, x=0.5m
Hourly Flux, x=1.0m
Average Flux, x=1.0m

Figure 8.21. Suction at depth vs. time for desert landscape analysis, a) CH, b) SM-ML.

269
a)

10
3
10
4
10
5

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

[
m
]

Initial Profile
Hourly Flux
Average Flux

b)

10
3
10
4
10
5

0 10 20 30 40
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

[
m
]

Initial Profile
Hourly Flux
Average Flux

Figure 8.22. Suction profile at the end of analysis for desert landscape analysis, a) CH,
b) SM-ML.

270
a)

-5
0
5
10
15
x 10
-4
I
n
s
t
.

F
l
u
x

[
m
/
h
]
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
0.02
D
o
m
a
i
n

A
c
c
u
m
m

[
m
]
Time [day]

Hourly Flux
Average Flux

b)

-5
0
5
10
15
20
x 10
-4
I
n
s
t
.

F
l
u
x

[
m
/
h
]
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
0.02
D
o
m
a
i
n

A
c
c
u
m
.

[
m
]
Time [day]

Hourly Flux
Average Flux

Figure 8.23. Instantaneous and cumulative flux for desert landscape analysis, a) CH, b)
SM-ML.

271
8.4.2.2 1-D Turf Landscape
Both CH and SM-ML soils were used in the turf landscape flux simplification analysis.
The turf landscape consists of 1.16-m of PE, 0.2-m of precipitation and 2.37-m of irrigation per
year. The hourly discretized flux was applied daily per half an hour during the winter regiment
and per one hour during the summer irrigation schedule. The analysis with hourly discretized
flux, HF, produced large matric suction variations at the soil surface ranging from 50 000 kPa at
the end of April to 5 kPa after precipitation or irrigation event at the soil surface of SM-ML soil
and between 50 000 kPa to about 0 kPa for CH soil as illustrated in Figure 8.24.
The results obtained with monthly average flux are very different from the results
obtained with hourly discretized conditions for both analysed soils. For the average monthly flux
and CH soil, the surface matric suction decreases from the initial condition to near 0 kPa,
increases to about 200 kPa in April and goes back to 1 kPa after April, where it remains
essentially constant. In contrast, the surface suction varies widely for the HF input. The depth of
influence obtained with AF is 2.5-m, compared to 1.9-m with HF, Figure 8.25a, and the AF
results in higher degree of saturation. The increased depth of wetting is associated with larger
amount of water absorbed in the AF scheme, Figure 8.26a. After one year, the domain
accumulation is 0.33-m for AF and 0.11-m for HF. The difference is attributed to runoff and
reduced time for infiltration in the HF analyses.
Similarly, the AF analysis overestimates the depth and degree of wetting in SM-ML soil.
The advective character of this material results in a very sharp wetting front, with suctions behind
the front maintained at about 10kPa throughout the analysis for both flux scenarios. The depth
of influence obtained with AF is 7.1-m, compared to 5.6-m with HF, Figure 8.25b. The difference
is attributed to surface runoff in HF, which is completely nonexistent in the AF analysis. It is
reflected in the domain accumulation of 0.93 for HF and 1.34 for AF analyses as illustrated in
Figure 8.26b. In conclusion flux simplification through averaging for turf landscape analysis is
not recommended since the depth and magnitude of wetting are overestimated.

272
a)

M
a
t
r
i
c

S
u
c
t
i
o
n

[
k
P
a
]
Ti me [day]

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
Hourly Flux, x=0m
Average Flux, x=0m
Hourly Flux, x=1m
Average Flux, x=1m
Hourly Flux, x=2m
Average Flux, x=2m

b)
M
a
t
r
i
c

S
u
c
t
i
o
n

[
k
P
a
]
Time [day]

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
Hourly Flux, x=0m
Average Flux, x=0m
Hourly Flux, x=3m
Average Flux, x=3m

Figure 8.24. Suction at depth vs. time for turf landscape analysis; a)CH, and b) SM-ML.

273
a)

10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4

40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

[
m
]

Initial Profile
Hourly Flux
Average Flux

b)
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4

20 30 40 50 60 70 80
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

[
m
]

Initial Profile
Hourly Flux
Average Flux

Figure 8.25. Suction profile at the end of analysis for turf landscape analysis; a) CH,
and b) SM-ML.

274
a)
I
n
s
t
.

F
l
u
x

[
m
/
h
]

0
5
10
15
x 10
-3
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
D
o
m
a
i
n

A
c
c
u
m
.

[
m
]
Time [day]

Hourly Flux
Average Flux

b)
I
n
s
t
.

F
l
u
x

[
m
/
h
]

-3
0
3
6
9
12
x 10
-3
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
0
0.5
1
1.5
D
o
m
a
i
n

A
c
c
u
m
.

[
m
]
Time [day]

Hourly Flux
Average Flux

Figure 8.26. Instantaneous and cumulative flux for turf landscape analysis; a) CH, and
b) SM-ML.

277

Figure 8.28. Variation of matric suction at the soil surface with time for 2D turf
landscape analysis; a) HF, and b) average absorbed flux from 1D analysis.

a)
b)
E
d
g
e

o
f

S
l
a
b

278

Figure 8.29. Variation of suction with depth and time below the edge of the slab-on-
grade for 2D turf landscape analysis; a) HF, and b) average absorbed flux
from 1D analysis.

Table 8.13. HF to AF ratio of distance to 1000 kPa.
Distance to 1000 kPa Ratio
Horizontal distance measured inward from the edge of the slab 1.7
Vertical distance below the edge of the slab 1.3
Vertical distance in side yard 1.1

a)
b)

279
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time [day]
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

[
m
]
Horiz. Dist to 1000kPa, HF Horiz. Dist to 1000kPa, AF
Vert. Dist to 1000kPa below Edge of Slab, HF Vert. Dist to 1000kPa below Edge of Slab, AF
Vert. Dist to 1000kPa 1-m away f rom Slab,HF Vert. Dist to 1000kPa 1-m away f rom Slab,AF

Figure 8.30. Comparison of distance of influence to 1000kPa obtained with HF and
average absorbed flux obtained from 1D analysis.

8.4.3 Key Findings of Flux Simplification
The flux simplification analysis of potential evaporation revealed that the averaging of
PE produces adequate approximation of soil response. Similarly, the analysis of desert
landscape revealed that simplification of precipitation data by averaging produces adequate
approximation of soil behavior. This finding is applicable to flux conditions dominated by
evaporation. However, the flux simplification scheme, wherein averaging of flux over each
month is employed, is not appropriate for irrigation or precipitation dominated scenarios such as
the turf landscape example of this mini-study. The averaging overestimates both the degree of
saturation and the depth of wetting for cases where excessive surface runoff occurs. On the
other hand, if the amount of surface runoff is known or can be estimated, flux averaging
developed with the absorbed water provides adequate soil response in 1-D analysis. In the slab-
on-grade 2-D scenario, flux averaging with absorbable water (determined from HF 1-D analysis)
underestimates both degree of saturation and distance of wetting. This is a result of using 1-D

280
runoff estimates for a 2-D analysis, which is clearly not appropriate and leads to error as shown
herein.
It is recommended that the effect of simplification of surface flux conditions be carefully
considered on a case-by-cases basis. While there is a high price to pay with regard to run-times
for detailed modeling of actual surface flux conditions, it is clear that there are many important
problems for which highly detailed flux input is required to achieve reasonable simulation of field
conditions. For the purpose of this research study, PE averaging is employed while precipitation
and irrigation are modeled on hourly bases.

8.5 Depth of Influence and Suction Variation with Depth
8.5.1 Desert Landscape Dry IC
Both CH and SM-ML soils were used in 1D, six year long desert landscape analysis.
Both soils were observed to experience large matric suction variations at the soil surface ranging
from 193 000 kPa at the end of dry period in Jun to 10 kPa after a precipitation event in January
for SM-ML soil and 62 kPa after precipitation in March for CH soil. Figure 8.31 illustrates very
shallow moisture infiltration depths for both soils. The wetting front (distance to 1000 kPa matric
suction) is limited to 0.025-m for CH soil and 0.04-m for SM-ML soil, while the progression of
drying front continuously increases in the modeled time period for both soils suggesting that
equilibrium conditions have not been reached yet. The rate of domain moisture loss significantly
decreases after the first 2 years of analysis and then varies linearly with time as illustrated in
Figure 8.32.
The progression of both wetting and drying fronts is very well illustrated in Figure 8.33.
The drying front reaches approximate depth of 2.5-m in SM-ML soil and only about 1.6-m in CH
soil. The difference is attributed to larger volume of water retained in CH soil. On the other
hand, for both soils the wetting front occurring after precipitation events reaches approximately
the same depth each time. The progression of the wetting front with precipitation for the CH soil
is shown in greater detail in Figure 8.35. Initially, the moisture flow is characterised by a very

281
sharp transition from moist to dry soil conditions. With time the wetting front takes on diffusive
characteristics with surface suctions reaching only 70 kPa, which approximately corresponds to
80% degree of saturation for this soil, based on the drying curve SWCC. Overall, the deviation
of wetting and drying suction profiles within a precipitation period occurs only to a depth of 0.08-
m for the CH soil.
a)
b)
Figure 8.31. Suction variation with depth and time, a) CH, b) SM-ML.

282
-0.06
-0.05
-0.04
-0.03
-0.02
-0.01
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time [year]
F
l
u
x

[
m
/
y
e
a
r
]
SM-ML CH

Figure 8.32. Net flux per year for CH and SM-ML soils.

0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time [year]
D
e
p
t
h

f
r
o
m

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

[
m
]
SM-ML (2000kPa)
SM-ML (1000kPa, Dec.)
CH (2000kPa)
CH (1000kPa, Dec.)

Figure 8.33. Progression of wetting and drying fronts.

Desert landscape modeling on range of typical Arizona soil properties illustrates that
under desert preconstruction conditions, maintained desert landscape and properly maintained
grading and drainage conditions around residential property, issues associated with moisture
migration are essentially non-existent. Suction variation with depth due to precipitation events is
very shallow and never exceeds 0.05-m. The seasonal suction variation with depth is also very

283
shallow. For the CH soil it is observed to a depth of 0.4-m and 0.6-m for SM-ML soil as
illustrated in Figure 8.34.
a)
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5

0 20 40 60 80 100
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

[
m
]

Initial Prof ile
Year 6 - Jun
Year 6 - Wettest Cond. (March)

b)
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

[
m
]

Initial Profile
Year6-Jun.
Year6-Wettest Cond. (Jan.)

Figure 8.34. Profile at wettest and driest conditions in year 6, a) CH, b) SM-ML.

284

10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5

0 20 40 60 80 100
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

[
m
]

Initial Profile
Before Prec. in Nov.
After first rain in Nov.
After all Rain in Nov.

Figure 8.35. Progression of wetting front for CH soil due to rainfall.

8.5.2 Desert Landscape Wet IC
The influence of initial conditions on soil response to desert landscape was considered
on the CH soil only. The suction profile obtained after 34 years of turf landscape analysis
(presented below in section 8.5.4.) was used as initial conditions. The matric suction gradually
increases from 80 kPa at the soil surface to 293 kPa at the depth of 5-m and 1195 kPa at 10-m.
This modelling scenario represents either the existence of turf landscape for prolonged period of
time followed by change in landscape scheme or abandoned agricultural activity for residential
development using desert landscape.
As in the previous analysis, the matric suction at the soil surface undergoes significant
variations from 180 000 kPa at the end of Jun to about 73 kPa during precipitation after summer.
Prior to summer the minimum matric suction of 0.2 kPa was observed. The moist initial
conditions resulted in very shallow drying front. In the first year of analysis, the short-term drying
front does not exceed the depth of 0.17-m (depth to 2000 kPa), as illustrated in Figure 8.36. In
this scenario, the monotonic moisture loss with depth bears more engineering significance than

285
in the desert pre-construction conditions considered previously. Figure 8.37 shows that beyond
the depth of seasonal moisture variation, which is less than 0.2-m, an increase in matric suction
up to 100% is observed to a depth of 1.5-m from the soil surface. This soil response has
consequences on soil volume change.

Figure 8.36. Suction variation with time and depth for CH soil, desert landscape with
moist IC.

10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5

0 20 40 60 80 100
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

[
m
]

Initial Profile
Jun-driest condition
December after rain

Figure 8.37. Profile at wettest and driest conditions for CH soil, desert landscape with
moist IC.

286
The wetting front due to precipitation is very shallow and does not exceed 0.024-m
(depth to 1000 kPa). In clayey material, the absorbed water very quickly diffuses with depth.
which results in a characteristic plum matric suction distribution with time and depth as illustrated
for December precipitation in Figure 8.38. The large PE and low RH typical to Arizona
environmental conditions result in loss of all the absorbed water within a few days of the
precipitation.

Figure 8.38. Suction variation with time and depth for CH soil zoomed in on
precipitation in December, desert landscape with moist IC.

8.5.3 Desert Landscape - Ponding near Structure
Frequently, lot drainage of a single family Arizona dwelling consists of a properly
designed swale. The roof runoff is designed to flow into the side yard swale, which provides the
water with an access into the street and off the property. This type of drainage system is
expected to perform very well under Arizona environmental conditions, removing the need for
more expensive gutter system. Practicing engineers and building professionals report that the
designed swale drainage system is often modified by the homeowner who installs sidewalks and

287
planters in the vicinity of the foundation. This type of lot modification has a potential of trapping
the roof runoff on site and developing areas of potential water ponding.
A numerical simulation was performed to access the impact of impeded roof runoff
drainage on moisture flow through unsaturated soil in 1-D domain on two soil types, namely SM-
ML and CH. The amount of roof runoff was calculated based on an assumed 10-meter wide
total roof area. The ponding scenario was modeled by applying desert flux boundary conditions
without runoff option and with precipitation magnitude increased by a factor of 6. The initial
conditions were obtained from 6
th
year of desert landscape analysis for the CH soil and 5
th
year
for the SM-ML soil, discussed in section 8.5.1. Figure 8.39 illustrates the migration of moisture
with depth and time. The initially dry soil conditions at depth are quickly eliminated by the
progressing wetting front in both soil profiles. Due to ponding, the CH soil has the potential of
becoming essentially completely saturated up to an approximate depth of 0.8-m (based on the
assumed drying SWCC). Beyond this depth, the suctions increase gradually up to the initial soil
conditions, see Figure 8.40. The maximum depth of wetting front (distance to 1000 kPa) was
observed to occur in December at the depth of 1.9-m.
In general, the selection of minimum suction profile is hard to identify due to plum like
moisture distribution with depth and time as illustrated for SM-ML soil in Figure 8.41. Figure
8.40b gives the suction distribution for SM-ML soil shortly after precipitation event. In this figure
the minimum surface suction of 4.5 kPa increases to about 8 kPa at the depth of 0.8-m from the
soil surface, however, due to diffusion, the suction of 8 kPa is observed down to a depth of 1.8-m
sometime after the precipitation. The SM-ML soil is characterised by sharp wetting fronts and
very moist soil conditions behind the front with approximate suctions of 10 kPa. The maximum
depth of influence (depth to 1000kPa) was observed to occur in December at the depth of 3.2-m.
The drying front for both soils is very shallow with maximum depth of influence in Jun.
The depth to 2000 kPa is 0.126-m for the CH soil and 0.194-m for the SM-ML soil. The
modeling of ponding scenario illustrated that although the PE exceeds the contribution of water

288
from roof runoff, under poor drainage conditions significant moisture migration within typical
Arizona soils should be anticipated.

b)

Figure 8.39. Suction variation with depth and time, a) CH, b) SM-ML.

289
a)

10
-3
10
-1
10
1
10
3
10
5

0 20 40 60 80 100
0
1
2
3
4
5
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

[
m
]

IC-End of Year 6, Desert Flux
Driest Cond. - Jun
Wettest Cond. (Dec.)

b)

10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5

0 20 40 60 80 100
0
1
2
3
4
5
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

[
m
]

Driest Cond. - Jun
Wettest Cond. - Dec.

Figure 8.40. Profile at wettest and driest conditions, a) CH, b) SM-ML.

290

Figure 8.41. SM-ML soil, plum like distribution of moisture with depth and time to
maximum depth of 1.8 m in November.

8.5.4 Turf Landscape Dry IC
Both CH and SM-ML soils were used in 1-D, turf landscape analysis, where precipitation
and irrigation approximately exceed PE by a factor of 2.2. Long-term moisture migration in CH
soil was analysed (34 years), while short-term (only 2 years) of simulation with SM-ML were
performed. Both soils were observed to experience large matric suction variations at the soil
surface ranging from 37 700 kPa at the end of dry period in Jun to 0.001 kPa after a precipitation
event for the CH soil and 42 600 kPa at the end of dry period in April to 4.6 kPa for SM-ML soil.
The progression of moisture through the soil should be considered on three time scales,
daily, seasonal and long-term monotonic suction change dictated by annually dominating surface
fluxes. Figure 8.42 illustrates very shallow moisture gain or loss with depth for CH soils due to
short-term daily precipitation, irrigation and evaporation events. The short-term cyclic depth of
moisture variation is better illustrated in Figure 8.45, where the suction profiles obtained before
and after irrigation events diverge only in the upper 0.01-m for both types of soil. The influence
of PE (depth to 2000 kPa) is limited to shallow depths and does not exceed 0.004-m for CH soil

291
and 0.02-m for SM-ML soil. The seasonal suction variation is limited to 1.2-m for CH soil and
0.5-m for SM-ML soil as illustrated in Figure 8.46. Overall, the excessive irrigation results in a
monotonic progression of wetting front in both soils. Within the first year of the analysis the
maximum depth of wetting front is 1.07-m for CH soil (Figure 8.42) and 4.6-m for SM-ML soil
(Figure 8.43). The depth of influence due to monotonic moisture migration continues to increase
after 34 years of CH soil analysis and reaches almost 9-m. After 2 years of the SM-ML soil
analysis the depth of influence reached 7-m and also continues to increase.
a)
b)
Figure 8.42. Suction variation with depth and time for CH soil, a) surface detail in 3-D ,
b) 2-D plot.

292

Figure 8.43. Suction variation with depth and time for SM-ML.

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time [year]
D
e
p
t
h

f
r
o
m

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

[
m
]
SM-ML (2000kPa)
SM-ML (1000kPa)
CH (2000kPa)
CH (1000kPa)

Figure 8.44. Depth of Influence for CH and SM-ML Soils.

293
a)

b)
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5

0 20 40 60 80 100
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

[
m
]

Initial Profile
Before Irrig. (April)
After Irrig. (April)

Figure 8.45. Depth of influence due to irrigation a) CH (year 1), b) SM-ML (year 1).

294
a)

10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4

0 20 40 60 80 100
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

[
m
]

Initial Profile
Wettest Cond. - March.
Driest Cond. - Jun

b)
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5

0 20 40 60 80 100
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

[
m
]

Initial Profile
Driest Cond. - April

Figure 8.46. Profile at wettest and driest conditions, a) CH (year 6), b) SM-ML (year 1).

Additionally, the soil response due to more appropriate irrigation was considered for both
soils. In this scenario, the magnitude of precipitation and irrigation is approximately equal to 1.3
PE. The short-term daily moisture migration has very similar pattern to the soil response
obtained with the excessive irrigation described above. The surface suctions were observed to

295
vary between 0.005 kPa after irrigation or precipitation event to 75770 kPa at the end of April for
CH soil. Similarly, suction variation between 5.0 kPa and 86160 kPa at the end of April occurs
for the SM-ML soil. The depth of seasonal moisture influence is approximately 0.5-m for both
soils (Figure 8.47), while the monotonic wetting front is 1.0-m for CH soil and 1.7-m for SM-ML
soil on the end of the first year as illustrated in Figure 8.49.
a)
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5

0 20 40 60 80 100
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

[
m
]

Initial Profile

b)
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5

0 20 40 60 80 100
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

[
m
]

Initial Profile

Figure 8.47. Profile at wettest and driest conditions, a) CH, b) SM-ML.

296
8.5.5 Turf Landscape Wet IC
The influence of initial conditions on moisture migration through soil was considered on
CH profile with precipitation and irrigation equal to 1.3PE. This scenario illustrates the effect of
proper irrigation on previously agricultural land or change in irrigation magnitude. The initial
suction conditions were obtained from the 34-year turf landscape analysis, where the applied
flux into the soil profile was equal to 2.2PE. In general, the daily moisture migration exhibited
similar pattern as the overwatered turf landscape scenario with large surface suction swings
between 0.0001 kPa after irrigation or precipitation event to 57278 kPa at the end of Jun. The
seasonal moisture migration occurs to an approximate depth of 0.5-m. In this modelling
scenario, the initial suction conditions are smaller than 1000 kPa, hence the identification of the
depth of influence as the depth to 1000 kPa is inappropriate. The moisture loss due to PE
(depth to 2000 kPa) is limited to 0.005-m, which is illustrated in Figure 8.48. The partial drying
with depth is very consequential on soil volume change behavior. Note that a 100% increase in
suction occurs to a depth of 0.5-m. The moist initial soil conditions will result in soil shrinkage as
the suction increases.
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5

0 20 40 60 80 100
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

[
m
]

Initial Profile
Driest Cond. - Jun

Figure 8.48. Depth of influence due to irrigation for CH soil and moist IC.

297
8.5.6 Key Findings of 1D Analysis
The objective of 1D modeling was to determine the depth of suction variation (wetting
and drying), at equilibrium or pseudo-equilibrium, for desert and turf landscapes for a range of
soils typical for Arizona geographic region. The modeling results were considered on three time
scales, daily, seasonal and monotonic moisture loss or gain. In general, it was found that the
daily suction fluctuations are limited to 5 cm from the soil surface independent of soil type and
type of analysis (i.e. desert or turf landscapes). The depth of wetting and drying front due to
seasonal moisture migration is summarized in Table 8.14, while the values of suction variation at
the soil surface are provided in Table 8.15. The wetting front (defined as the depth to 1000 kPa)
due to monotonic moisture migration is illustrated in Figure 8.49.

Table 8.14. Summary Table Seasonal Depth of Influence; 1 Year Long Analysis.
Landscape Scenario
Depth to Suction [m]
CH SM-ML
1000 kPa 2000 kPa 1000 kPa 2000 kPa
Desert, IC1 0.025 0.67 0.04 1.030
Desert, IC2 0.024 0.17
Ponding, IC1 1.9 0.126 3.22 0.194
Turf, Irrig = 2.2PE, IC1 1.065 0.004 4.63 0.019
Turf, Irrig = 1.3PE, IC2 NA, IC<1000kPa 0.005
Turf, Irrig = 1.3PE, IC1(3) 0.600 0.047752 (1.68) (0.077)
IC1 - const head=-153m,
IC2 - after 34 years of turf landscape,
IC3 - after 5 or 6 years of desert landscape.

Table 8.15. Summary Table Seasonal Surface Suction; 1 Year Long Analysis.
Landscape Scenario
Surface Suction [kPa] (Saturation [%])
CH SM-ML
min max min max
Desert, IC1 62.5015 191671 10 193262
Desert, IC2 73 180000
Ponding, IC1 0.001 206388 4.5 179463
Turf, Irrig = 2.2PE, IC1 0.001424 37725 4.6 42683
Turf, Irrig =1.3 PE, IC2 0.001 57278
Turf, Irrig =1.3 PE, IC1(3) 0.005 75770 (5) (86160)
IC1 - const head=-153m,
IC2 - after 34 years of turf landscape,
IC3 - after 5 or 6 years of desert landscape.

298

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0
5
0
1
0
0
1
5
0
2
0
0
2
5
0
3
0
0
3
5
0
T
i
m
e

[
d
a
y
]
D
S
M
-
M
L
,

D
e
s
e
r
t
S
M
-
M
L

D
e
s
e
r
t
,

P
o
n
d
i
n
g
S
M
-
M
L
,

T
u
r
f
,

F
l
u
x
=
2
.
2
P
E
S
M
-
M
L
,

T
u
r
f
,

F
l
u
x
=
1
.
3
P
E
C
H
,

D
e
s
e
r
t
C
H
,

D
e
s
e
r
t
,

P
o
n
d
i
n
g
C
H
,

T
u
r
f
,

F
l
u
x
=
2
.
2
P
E
C
H
,

T
u
r
f
,

F
l
u
x
=
1
.
3
P
E
F
i
g
u
r
e

8
.
4
9
.

M
o
n
o
t
o
n
i
c

P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n

o
f

W
e
t
t
i
n
g

F
r
o
n
t
.

299
A six-year long analysis was performed for desert landscape. The highest suctions at
the soil surface and at depth were found to occur in June while the lowest suctions were found to
occur at the end of March for the CH soil and the end of January for the SM-ML soil. The
analysis revealed that for desert landscape and a well-drained site the drying front continues to
increase after six years of analysis, however, the depth of influence of wetting (i.e. reduced
suction that would result in swell/edge lift) is only about 5 cm. Although the monotonic drying
front continues to increase, the seasonal moisture loss is limited to 0.7-m for the CH soil and
about 1-m for the SM-ML soil. The consequence on constructed facilities of moisture migration
through soil exposed to desert landscape and good drainage is insignificant. That is of course
true only for desert pre-construction conditions. Moist preconstruction conditions, resulting from
agriculture, for example, might be related to some shrinkage with depth. Up to 100% increase
(100 kPa to 200 kPa) in soil suction can be expected to a depth of 1.5-m from the soil surface.
The effect of poor drainage on progression of wetting and drying fronts was considered
next. When a site is characterized by poor drainage and the accumulation of the roof runoff
water can be expected, deep wetting fronts develop in both soil types; up to 1.9-m for the CH soil
and up to 3.2-m for the SM-ML soil. In this case, the drying front is very shallow and does not
exceed 20 cm. A soil/slab system built on desert pre-construction conditions and post-
construction conditions consisting of poor drainage will experience severe moisture migration
potentially resulting in significant soil volume increase and slab movement. This finding is
consistent with the forensic studies gathered to date in that desert landscape sites with poor
drainage seem to be susceptible to expansive soil damage in regions of high expansion potential
soils.
The seasonal moisture migration due to turf landscape is limited to 1-m for the CH soil
and 0.5-m for the SM-ML soil. The soil profile exposed to turf landscape should be expected to
experience continuous monotonic progression of wetting front. The CH soil was used in a 34-
year long study. The wetting front reached the approximate depth of 9-m and had not yet fully

300
attained equilibrium. Depending on the initial, pre-construction, conditions, the soil profile might
gain of loose moisture resulting in either soil swell or shrinkage.

8.6 Edge moisture Variation Distance Degree of Saturation
8.6.1 Desert Landscape
The CH soil was used in 2D desert landscape analysis to identify the seasonal
horizontal distance of moisture variation. Figure 8.50 illustrates that within the first year of
analysis, the depth of influence, both wetting and drying are limited to 10 cm from the edge of
the slab. Such shallow distance of influence has no consequence on the performance of
residential structures.

10
-1
10
1
10
3
10
5
M
a
t
r
i
c

S
u
c
t
i
o
n

[
k
P
a
]
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1
0
20
40
60
80
100
D
e
g
r
e
e

o
f

S
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
%
]
Distance from Edge of Slab [m]

Initial Cond.
Wettest - March
Driest - Jun
End of Year

Figure 8.50: Suction variation at the soil surface for CH soil and desert landscape

8.6.2 Turf Landscape
The CH soil was used in 2D turf landscape analysis to identify the seasonal and
monotonic horizontal distance of moisture variation. This modeling scenario was particularly

301
difficult to model therefore flux averaging was implemented. Section 8.4.2.3 describes the
performed flux averaging where results obtained with hourly discretized flux are compared to
results obtained with average flux over 123 days. The average flux was obtained from the
domain accumulation of 1D turf landscape analysis. Due to lateral moisture migration in the 2D
analysis, a discrepancy between these two methods (i.e. AF and HF) was observed. Correction
factors for the average flux analysis were identified and are given in Table 8.13. Uncorrected
average flux results are given in both Figure 8.51 and Figure 8.52.
Under turf landscape condition, seasonal moisture fluctuation up to 0.34-m should be
expected. The analysis illustrates that monotonic moisture migration starts to level off in the fifth
year of analysis and reaches horizontal distance of 2.2-m (corrected distance to 1000kPa). This
finding qualitatively matches literature review and forensic engineering observations, where slab
movement levels of in about 5
th
year post-construction.

10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
M
a
t
r
i
c

S
u
c
t
i
o
n

[
k
P
a
]
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5
20
40
60
80
100
D
e
g
r
e
e

o
f

S
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
%
]
Distance [m]

Initial Cond.
Wettest Cond. - January (Year 5)
Driest Cond. - April (Year 5)

Figure 8.51. Suction variation at the soil surface for CH soil, 2D turf landscape, average
flux analysis.

302
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
0 1 2 3 4 5
Time [year]
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

[
m
]
Horiz. Dist to 1000kPa
Vert. Dist to 1000kPa below Edge of Slab
Vert. Dist to 1000kPa 1-m away from Slab

Figure 8.52. Depth of influence: horizontal inwards the slab, vertical below the edge of
slab and vertical 1-m away from the edge at landscaped conditions; 2D turf
landscape, average flux analysis.

Similar, the SM-ML soil was used in the identification of lateral moisture migration
through soil below a foundation due to turf landscape. Only 1.8 year was analysed with the
average absorbed flux, obtained from the domain accumulation of 1-D analysis. Based on the
numerical modeling results, it was observed that the lateral moisture migration levels off in the
second year of the analysis at the approximate distance of 1.5-m from the edge of the slab, as
illustrated in Figure 8.53. The magnitude of soil suction within the distance of moisture migration
is approximately 20 kPa. As expected, the lateral transition width between the wetting front and
the initial conditions, which is approximately 0.5-m, is much larger than the transition width
observed in the vertical direction. In highly permeable soils such as the SM-ML material
considered in this study, the vertical moisture flow is dominated by advection, while the lateral
mass transfer is mostly occurs due to diffusion.
The distance of seasonal moisture migration is insignificant for this type of soil and turf
landscape. Figure 8.54 illustrates that this distance is limited to approximately 20-cm. Directly
below the edge of the foundation, soil suctions were found to vary between 7 kPa and 100kPa,
which potentially is inconsequential on the soil/structure interaction.

303

Figure 8.53. Distance of lateral moisture migration through soil below a slab.

10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
M
a
t
r
i
c

S
u
c
t
i
o
n

[
k
P
a
]
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
20
40
60
80
100
D
e
g
r
e
e

o
f

S
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
%
]
Distance from the Edge of Slab [m]

Initial Cond.
Wettest Cond. - Dec. (Year 1)
Driest Cond. - April (Year 2)
End of Analysis (Day 275 of year 2)

Figure 8.54. Suction variation at the soil surface for CH soil, 2D turf landscape, average
flux analysis.
E
d
g
e

o
f

S
l
a
b

304
8.7 Conclusions and Recommendations
Moisture flow through unsaturated soil is a complex modeling problem whose solution
requires large computational resources and a lot of available time. Towards the goal of
enhanced understanding of the matric suction variation within the soil profile, and the horizontal
and vertical distance of moisture penetration for residential construction, modeling efforts
utilizing current unsaturated soil mechanics theory and the latest developments in computer
programming geared towards the solution of the unsaturated flow were pursued. The results of
the analyses were used to better understand the influence of climatic conditions, drainage, and
landscape scheme on performance of residential structures constructed on expansive soils in
Arizona specific region.
The analyses were performed on two soils with low and medium expansion potential
typical of the Phoenix region. An appropriate control volume size was determined to be 10-
meters for one-dimensional analysis and 7-meter length by 5-meter depth for two-dimensional
problems with 5-meter long slab. In the analysis, an initial, equilibrium suction value of 1500 kPa
was used. This value was obtained through laboratory testing of insitu soil at depth. Landscape
professionals and government employees were surveyed in an effort to determine the
appropriate as well as the commonly applied irrigation patterns in the Valley; as a result two
dominant flux conditions were identified. They are turf landscaping, were daily one-hour long
irrigation is followed by potential evaporation as provided by Department of Agriculture, and
desert or Xeriscape landscaping where negligible amount of water is introduced to the soil
surface. The appropriate precipitation input was determined by performing a statistical analysis
of 24 years of precipitation data, where the data was obtained from NCDC. It was found that
average annual rainfall is 8.0 inches while the potential evaporation is 91 inches. The desert
landscape was modeled by applying average monthly precipitation per average number of rainy
days and average hourly rain duration and discretized on hourly bases. The rain events were
assumed to occur on the beginning of each month and were followed by potential evaporation,
as obtained from Arizona Department of Water Resources, US Weather Service.

305
The objective of 1D modeling was to determine the depth of suction variation (wetting
and drying), at equilibrium or pseudo-equilibrium, for desert and turf landscapes. A six-year long
analysis was performed for desert landscape. The highest suctions at the soil surface and at
depth were found to occur in June while the lowest suctions were found at the end of March for
the CH soil and January for the SM-ML soil. The analysis revealed that for desert landscape
and a well-drained site the seasonal suction variation is limited to about 0.5-m from the soil
surface, however, the depth of influence of wetting (i.e. reduced suction that would result in
swell/edge lift) is only about 10 cm. The monotonic drying front continues to move downwards
within the 6 years of analysis to a depth of 1.6-m in the CH profile and 2.5-m in the SM-ML
profile. Because the monotonic suction variation with depth occurs over a range of suctions that
do not correspond to soil volume change, the consequence on soil/slab system would be
expected to be insignificant. Findings from the 2-D desert flux modeling are consistent in that
they show significant suction variation only within about 0.1 m of horizontal distance measured
inward from the edge of the slab after one year of application of desert flux surface conditions.
Such shallow moisture migration has no consequence on soil/slab system. The conclusion from
this modeling study is that the depth of influence of surface flux (precipitation and evaporation) is
quite shallow, provided the drainage conditions at the site are good and provided recommended
desert irrigation practices are followed (i.e. negligible additional water is added to the site over
and above normal precipitation).
The same conclusion cannot be drawn, if the initial conditions are representative of
previously agricultural use of land. In this scenario, the seasonal moisture migration is very
shallow as well (within 20 cm) and inconsequential to the behavior of constructed facilities. The
monotonic moisture loss with depth is the governing mechanism resulting in 100% suction
increase to a depth of 1.5-m within the first year of analysis. The suction variation with depth
occurs over a range of suctions that do correspond to soil volume change, hence soil shrinkage
and slab movement should be anticipated.

306
The influence of wetting is quite different when desert landscape is combined with poor
site drainage. When roof runoff was allowed to concentrate at the soil surface after a rainfall
event, the depth of wetting became quite significant. The effect of poor drainage and roof runoff
water ponding near residential structure is the worst case scenario resulting in high soil
saturation (100% for the assumed SWCC) to a great depth of 0.8-m for the CH soil. The
suctions gradually increase with depth to the initial suction values with maximum 1.9-m depth of
influence (depth to 1000kPa). Similarly the SM-ML soil has a 3.2-m deep depth of influence.
The conclusion from this modeling study is that uncontrolled drainage and water ponding near
the foundation lead to significant suction reduction to great depths which will result in differential
soil swell and slab movement. This finding is consistent with soil/slab system behavior reported
by practicing engineers.
The turf landscape analyses were completed for 1-D conditions to assess the depth of
suction variation resulting from typical Phoenix-area lawn watering practices, and for
assumptions of good site drainage. These analyses show that the seasonal suction variation
occurs to a depth of 1.2-m for CH soil and 0.5-m for SM-ML soil. The excessive watering
scheme results in monotonic moisture increase with depth. After the first year of analysis the
depth of influence (depth to 1000 kPa) is 1.07-m for the CH soil and 4.6-m for the SM-ML soil.
The analysis with the CH soil was continued for 34 years. The wetting front continues to
increase and reaches the approximate depth of 9-m. Greater depths of influence would be
experienced with poor drainage conditions. Findings from the 2-D desert flux modeling show
significant seasonal suction variation only within about 0.34-m of horizontal distance measured
inward from the edge of the slab. The monotonic moisture migration occurs to a depth of 2.2-m
and levels of during 5
th
year of analysis. Again these findings are consistent with reported
soil/slab behavior by practitioners.
General conclusions from the modeling study include: (1) It is very important to
accurately model the flux boundary condition so that both duration and intensity of wetting and
evaporation episodes are accurately represented, (2) It is very important to accurately model

307
surface drainage conditions with respect to their influence on surface flux, (3) When equilibrium
is reached the net surface flux (water that actually goes into and out of the soil) is, on average,
zero. Steady state of equilibrium, in this context, does not mean constant rainfall or irrigation or
evaporation, but it does mean that the same pattern is repeated year after year the pattern
does not have to be identical, just similar in important parameters such as inches of
rain/irrigation, site grading, duration of rain/irrigation event, actual evaporation. Drought and
unusually wet years will cause fluctuations about this equilibrium (mean), (4) At points beneath
the slab, and at some depth, these fluctuations are very small.
In arid and semi-arid regions, actual evaporation will exceed rainfall. Reasonable
landscaping will add some to the soil moisture state, but at a degree of wetting that is well below
saturation. The high soil storage capacity helps keep water from going to great depth. There is
a Shut-off suction that has been found to occur. Once total suction reaches about 3000 kPa
the actual evaporation begins to shut off as the k
unsat
goes very low, and in spite of high gradient,
flow is seriously restricted into very dry surface soils. Suction at the surface is further controlled
by the relative humidity of the air.

9 FIELD EVIDENCE OF WETTING/DRYING INDUCED DAMAGE

The discussion presented about field evidence of wetting/drying induced damage was
made possible through the contribution of data from numerous Arizona based engineering
companies. The data on soil index and moisture conditions with depth under free field
conditions was used in the identification of the depth of wetting, the depth of active zone and
equilibrium suction at depth. The data on soil index and moisture conditions with depth under
slab-on-grade foundations were used in the identification of saturation and suction conditions
below residential structures. The spatial distribution of the data was further used in the
development of the updated swell potential map illustrated in Chapter 5. The map together with
the collected soil index properties were used in the identification of forensic investigation
incidence to soil type. Additionally, the forensic investigation data formed the bases for
identification of sources of suction change related distress, types of slab deformation, magnitude
of relative slab differential and impact of landscape and drainage to distress magnitude.

9.1 Depth of Wetting and Depth of Active Zone
The local community of geotechnical engineers was solicited for information on
moisture, dry density, soil classification and index properties data with depth. The information
from 575 borings was compiled. The data were group based on the soil classification, CH, GC,
CL, SC and low plasticity or NP soils (SM, SW, ML, SP, GM and GP). Note that only visual soil
classification was performed on many of the soils. The data was further subdivided based on
depth. The information was used in the identification of average degree of saturation, range of
saturation, and corresponding average wPI and average
d
. When insignificant variability in
terms of degree of saturation beyond the depth of 10 was observed, the values obtained below
this depth were averaged and then used in the estimation of equilibrium matric suction.
An empirical method of equilibrium matric suction determination was developed based
on laboratory obtained SWCCs, insitu matric suction and saturation measurement obtained
below residential foundations located in Phoenix Valley (discussed in Chapter 4 and presented
in Appendix B). The need for new methodology is rooted in SWCC variability due to 1)

309
hysteresis; in general, it is unknown whether the equilibrium point lies on the drying, wetting or
scanning path. The measured one-point suctions obtained from below residential foundations in
the Phoenix region almost always did plot below the drying curve, indicating scanning curve
behavior. Most SWCC estimation methodologies were developed for the drying path, therefore
one should anticipate an error up to one order of magnitude in the estimated matric suction,
expressed in kPa; 2) dry density; the sensitivity of SWCC to dry density was identified during
laboratory testing. Figure 9.1 illustrates SWCCs with up to one order of matric suction
magnitude difference between them for the same saturation level. The curves were developed
on undisturbed soil samples obtained from consecutive depths with very similar soil index
properties and different initial dry density values. Similarly, Figure 9.2 presents SWCCs
obtained on recompacted specimens. Again, a difference of up to one order of matric suction
magnitude in kPa was observed. Typically, the available SWCC estimation methodologies do
not include the contribution of dry density, hence it is unknown how is the resulting suction
estimate effected; and 3) soil structure (i.e. undisturbed vs. compacted soil); the majority of
SWCC estimation methods were developed based on results obtained from recompacted
specimens. The soil recompaction homogenizes the soil structure by destroying preferential
flow paths and exposing more clay particles to water absorption. As a result, recompacted soils
are capable of retaining higher water content per the same suction when compared to an
undisturbed specimen, or in other words, the SWCC of recompacted soil has characteristics of a
soil with higher wPI (weighted Plasticity Index; a product of PI and the percent passing US sieve
#200 expressed as a decimal). Due to these challenges, the estimate of equilibrium suction at
depth for Arizona climatic and soil conditions was based on SWCCs developed with the One-
Point Method (see Appendix C) on undisturbed, insitu samples extruded from beneath
residential foundations (i.e. equilibrium conditions have been reached), hence matching the
model conditions to the prediction scenario and reducing the uncertainty associated with the
hysteresis (measured data are on scanning curve), dry density (the measured data are in a dry

310
density range common to the region) and soil structure (the measured data represent insitu,
undisturbed conditions).
0
20
40
60
80
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
D
e
g
r
e
e

o
f

S
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
%
]
Depth [in] wPI Dry Unit Weight [pcf] 8 9.4 119
10 9.4 105 30 10.9 116
44 10.9 110 50 2.2 101
54 2.2 93 72 3.2 99
Suction Identification Curve

Figure 9.1. SWCCs and Equilibrium Conditions below Residential Foundation for Site
#4; Insitu, Undisturbed Soil Testing; Equilibrium Suction Identification
Curve.

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 1 10 100 1000
S
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
%
]
dry unit weight = 106 pcf
dry unit weight = 80pcf

Figure 9.2. SWCC dependence on dry density; Reconstructed Soil Testing on CL with
LL=29, PI=12, and P
200
=63%.

311
Analysis of the laboratory data revealed that the equilibrium suction is a function of soil
index properties, which was previously reported by Perera (2003). In general, as the wPI
increases, the equilibrium suction and saturation increase. For all sites, a straight line could be
drawn through the points as illustrated in Figure 9.1 (note that SWCC is on a semi-log scale).
This line is referred to as the Suction Identification Curve, which was found to have a matric
suction range over one to three orders of magnitude. The range depends on soil index
properties and the starting matric suction value of the Suction Identification Curve. The matric
suction range increases as the wPI decreases or as the starting point on the Suction
Identification Curve decreases; see Figure 9.3.
y = -0.728x + 3.015
R
2
= 0.4553
0
1
2
3
4
0 1 2 3 4
Starting Point of Curve, log(Suction) [kPa]
C
u
r
v
e

R
a
n
g
e

l
o
g
(
S
u
c
t
i
o
n
)

[
k
P
a
]

Figure 9.3. Suction Range of the Suction Identification Curve.

Based on the findings above, an empirical model was developed in the following way:
1. The laboratory obtained SWCCs were group and plotted based on the soil classification,
CH, CL, SC and SM.
2. The equilibrium degree of saturation was identified from geotechnical data per each soil
category and each field condition (i.e. undeveloped desert and agricultural land).

312
3. The suction Identification Curve was constructed in such a way as to pass through the
degree of saturation identified in (2) and the center of the family of curves developed in
(1). The corresponding matric suction was read off. It represents the average matric
suction per the soil classification under identified environmental conditions.
4. The minimum and maximum matric suctions were read off at the points where the
Suction Identification Curve crosses the outer most and the inner most SWCCs. These
suction values usually correspond very well with the identified through range of degree
of saturation from the field data.
The developed plots are illustrated in Figure 9.4 through Figure 9.7. Additionally, based
on the average wPI, the Fredlund and Xing fit for wetting and drying paths are plotted. In all
considered scenarios, these two curves plotted below and above the identified average
equilibrium condition. This indicates that the implemented methodology estimated suction on the
scanning curve, as expected.

313

0
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
0
7
0
8
0
9
0
1
0
0
0
.
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
S
u
c
t
i
o
n

[
k
P
a
]
S
w
P
I

D
r
y

U
n
i
t

W
e
i
g
h
t

[
p
c
f
]
3
3

1
2
4
3
2

9
0
2
9

1
1
8
2
9

8
8
2
4

1
0
9
2
7

1
1
6
F
&
X

F
i
t
,

d
r
y
i
n
g

c
u
r
v
e
F
&
X

F
i
t
,

w
e
t
t
i
n
g

c
u
r
v
e
S
u
c
t
i
o
n

I
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

C
u
r
v
e
,

D
e
s
e
r
t
S
u
c
t
i
o
n

I
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

C
u
r
v
e
,

A
G
F
i
g
u
r
e

9
.
4
.

C
H

s
o
i
l

I
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

E
q
u
i
l
i
b
r
i
u
m

S
u
c
t
i
o
n

314

0
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
0
7
0
8
0
9
0
1
0
0
0
.
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
S
u
c
t
i
o
n

[
k
P
a
]
S
w
P
I

D
r
y

U
n
i
t

W
e
i
g
h
t

[
p
c
f
]
1
0
.
4

1
0
7
5
.
8

9
8
5
.
6

9
4
4
.
2

9
2
2
.
2

1
1
0
2
.
2

1
0
1
2
.
2

9
3
1
.
1

1
0
4
1
.
1

1
0
4
N
P

9
8
N
P

9
7
S
u
c
t
i
o
n

I
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

C
u
r
v
e
,

D
e
s
e
r
t
S
u
c
t
i
o
n

I
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

C
u
r
v
e
,

A
G
F
i
g
u
r
e

9
.
5
.

S
M

s
o
i
l

I
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

E
q
u
i
l
i
b
r
i
u
m

S
u
c
t
i
o
n

315

w
P
I

D
r
y

U
n
i
t

W
e
i
g
h
t

[
p
c
f
]
4
.
1

1
0
0
4
.
8

8
8
5
.
6

8
8
5
.
8

9
3
6

1
0
4
6
.
1

1
1
4
6
.
1

1
1
9
7
.
6

1
1
1
7
.
6

9
7
7
.
6

9
6
7
.
7

1
1
4
7
.
9

9
7
8
.
1

1
0
8
8
.
5

1
1
2
8
.
5

1
1
3
8
.
5

1
2
0
8
.
8

1
0
6
8
.
8

1
0
3
8
.
9

1
0
7
9

1
1
2
9

9
6
9
.
4

1
1
9
9
.
4

1
0
5
9
.
4

1
1
0
9
.
6

1
0
6
9
.
9

1
0
6
1
0
.
9

1
1
6
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
.
3

1
1
2
1
2

1
0
0
1
2

1
0
7
1
3
.
7

1
1
7
1
3
.
8

1
1
1
1
3

9
5
1
4
.
4

1
0
9
1
4
.
4

1
1
0
1
4
.
6

1
0
3
1
5
.
1

1
0
7
1
6

9
5
1
6
.
8

1
0
9
1
8
.
1

1
0
0
1
8
.
7

1
0
9
2
0
.
9

1
1
1
2
0
.
6

1
1
6
1
9
.
5

1
1
6
F
&
X

F
i
t
,

w
e
t
t
i
n
g

c
u
r
v
e
F
&
X

F
i
t
,

d
r
y

S
u
c
t
i
o
n

I
n
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

C
u
r
v
e
,

D
e
s
e
r
t
S
u
c
t
i
o
n

I
d
e

L
e
g
e
n
d

f
o
r

F
i
g
u
r
e

9
.
6
.

C
L

s
o
i
l

I
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

E
q
u
i
l
i
b
r
i
u
m

S
u
c
t
i
o
n

316

0
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
0
7
0
8
0
9
0
1
0
0
0
.
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
S
u
c
t
i
o
n

[
k
P
a
]
S
F
i
g
u
r
e

9
.
6
.

C
L

s
o
i
l

I
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

E
q
u
i
l
i
b
r
i
u
m

S
u
c
t
i
o
n

318

0
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
0
7
0
8
0
9
0
1
0
0
0
.
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
S
u
c
t
i
o
n

[
k
P
a
]
S
F
i
g
u
r
e

9
.
7
.

S
C

s
o
i
l

I
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

E
q
u
i
l
i
b
r
i
u
m

S
u
c
t
i
o
n

319
The analysis of field data revealed that the degree of saturation with depth remains
approximately constant for all soil types under undeveloped desert conditions. The range of
values observed varies between 30% for low plasticity soils to about 70% for fat clays as
provided in Table 9.1. This data suggests that under undeveloped desert conditions the depth of
active zone is very shallow. Based on numerical modeling presented in Chapter 8, the depth of
active zone and the depth of wetting are limited to the upper one meter under natural climatic
conditions. The available field data is not discretized enough to verify this finding, however the
lack of variation in the soil saturation with depth suggests as much.
Only one value of average matric suction was calculated per each soil classification. For
this purpose the average saturation and average wPI beyond the depth of 10 was used. An
average equilibrium suction of 2550 kPa was identified for CH soil, about 5000 kPa for CL and
SC and approximately 500 kPa for low plasticity or NP material. Under undeveloped desert
conditions it is possible to obtain suctions as small as 230 kPa (SM soil) or as large as 18 000
kPa (SC soil).
A similar analysis was performed on soil profiles obtained from agricultural land or land
used for agriculture in recent months prior to the soil testing. It was determined that the degree
of saturation increases with depth from about 40% (SM soil), to 50% (CL and SC) within the
upper 10 to a range from 46% (SM) to 70% (SC and CL) at depth. (Note that limited data was
available for CH soils and no data below 5'. The average surficial degree of saturation for CH
soil was found to be about 86%). The data suggest moisture accumulation beyond the depth of
10. This data, presented in Table 9.2, further provides evidence that the depth of wetting
exceed 15 under moist surface flux conditions, while the evaporative fluxes have consequence
on the soil moisture in the upper 10. This finding supports the results presented in Chapter 8,
where the depth of wetting of CH soil under excessively irrigated turf landscape was found to
reach 9-m (27) after 34 years of analysis.
The average equilibrium matric suction for all soils was identified beyond the depth of
10. Agricultural use of land leads to decreased suction at depth for all types of soil found in

320
Arizona to a range between 220 kPa for SM soils to approximately 500 kPa for CL soils. The
maximum estimated suction value does not exceed 1300 kPa for CL soil. On the other hand, it
is possible to obtain suctions as small as 70 kPa (SC soil).

Table 9.1. Saturation and Suction Variation with Depth for Undeveloped Desert.

Average Degree of Saturation [%]
Count 0'-2' 2'-5' 5'-10' 10'-15' 15'-20' 20'-30' >30'
CH 11 69.1 61.1 68.5 70.8
GC 15 45.1 29.5 36.7 37 27 18
CL 72 45.5 40.7 44.7 40.5 35.1 36.8 57.1
SC 111 39.5 33.3 44.0 39.2 38.7 35.0 32.9
SM, ML, SP 135 30.4 38.5 37.8 26.3 37.3 29.7 40.1

Range of Degree of Saturation [%]
Count 0'-2' 2'-5' 5'-10' 10'-15' 15'-20' 20'-30' >30'
CH 11 62-76 50-81 68-68 66-76
GC 15 38-57 17-41 36-36 25-50 23-31 18-18
CL 72 25-71 12-80 19-80 23-69 25-65 19-72 25-85
SC 111 11-92 12-85 21-95 15-57 17-84 15-65 18-86
SM, ML, SP 135 10-61 6-93 10-81 10-50 17-64 16-45 9-86

Average wPI
Count 0'-2' 2'-5' 5'-10' 10'-15' 15'-20' 20'-30' >30'
CH 29.8 27.9 23.3 21.2
GC 2 6.8 2.6
CL 27 6.3 8.3 9.1 8.3 6.9 14.9
SC 44 3.5 4.9 4.3 6.7 10.4 9.1
SM, ML, SP NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Average
d
[pcf]
Count 0'-2' 2'-5' 5'-10' 10'-15' 15'-20' 20'-30' >30'
CH 111.1 103.4
GC 15 104.0 108.3 108.6 115.1 98.8 97.6
CL 75 98.7 98.6 100.2 95.1 100.7 99.3 103.0
SC 112 107.1 106.4 106.7 108.2 100.4 104.1 101.3
SM, ML, SP 135 111.6 105.7 106.3 105.8 108.7 110.4 106.7

Equilibrium Conditions at Depth
S [%] Average Suction Min. Suction Max. Suction
[%] [kPa] [kPa] [kPa]
CH 69 2550 1000 4580
CL 42 5200 2800 10 000
SC 36 4900 2100 18 000
SM, ML, SP 32 470 230 1200

321
Table 9.2. Saturation and Suction Variation with Depth for Agricultural Land.
Soil Classif.

Average Degree of Saturation [%], Agricultural Land
Count 0'-2' 2'-5' 5'-10' 10'-15' 15'-20' 20'-30' >30'
CH 6 82 86
GC 0
CL 92 50.0 56.7 49.5 73.7 63.1
SC 62 46.6 51.6 47.6 68.7 71.6
SM, ML, SP 77 37.0 39.0 42.4 46.8 21.4 30.0
Soil Classif.

Range of Degree of Saturation [%]
Count 0'-2' 2'-5' 5'-10' 10'-15' 15'-20' 20'-30' >30'
CH 6 82-82 78-86
GC 0
CL 92 14-97 22-92 17-87 21-100 43-84
SC 62 25-90 15-99 24-84 45-97 52-88
SM, ML, SP 77 7-86 12-82 10-91 14-92 16-33 8-92
Soil Classif.

Average wPI
Count 0'-2' 2'-5' 5'-10' 10'-15' 15'-20' 20'-30' >30'
CH 5 31.7 30.5
GC 0
CL 32 10.2 9.7 11.0 11.8
SC 17 6.6 4.4 2.6 10.6
SM, ML, SP NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Soil Classif.

Average
d
[pcf]
Count 0'-2' 2'-5' 5'-10' 10'-15' 15'-20' 20'-30' >30'
CH 6 96.3 93.4
GC 0
CL 93 99.4 96.0 98.0 95.3 106.5
SC 62 98.8 101.3 101.3 100.2 108.7
SM, ML, SP 77 103.3 97.5 103.5 105.8 114.1 109.8
Soil Classif.

Equilibrium Conditions at Depth
S Average Suction Min. Suction Max. Suction
[%] [kPa] [kPa] [kPa]
CH 84 380 180 700
CL 68 480 150 1260
SC 70 350 70 1200
SM, ML, SP 43 220 100 450

322
Through this study it was determined that the degree of saturation under undeveloped
desert conditions averages about 30%, 40%, and 70% for SM, SC/CL, and CH respectively,
which is reached within the upper 1-m (3). The corresponding equilibrium matric suctions are
470 kPa / 5000 kPa / 2500 kPa. Agricultural land use modifies the surface flux conditions
resulting in increased degree of saturation for all plastic type of soils. In the upper 3-m (10) the
saturation values were found to be 40%, 50% and 80% for SM, SC/CL and CH respectively.
The degree of saturation increases with depth up to 45% and 70% for SM and SC/CL. These
increased saturation values correspond to decreased suctions (when compared to the desert
surface flux) to 200 kPa for SM soil and about 500 kPa for CL soil.
More detailed analysis is needed to develop initial suction recommendations for the use
in the slab-on-grade design methodology. The presented observations illustrate the general
dependence of the soil suction on both soil properties and surface flux conditions with potential
consequences on post-construction soil movement. Under initial dry conditions, poor drainage
and turf landscape are critical design scenarios resulting in potential soil swell or consolidation of
low density soils. On the other hand, slab-on-grade constructed on previously agricultural land
might experience movement associated with soil shrinkage in addition to soil movement caused
by poor drainage and turf landscape.
Soil topography, surface slope, vegetation and the surficial soil properties, which dictate
the amount of water that can enter the profile during precipitation events, play a role in the
equilibrium suction at depth for undeveloped sites. On the other hand, the equilibrium suction
appears to be independent of the depth to water table (Perera, 2003). Future research should
focus on identification and quantification of factors that significantly alter the suction at depth as
well as the development of methodology to estimate the equilibrium suction.

9.2 Forensic Investigations
The local community of geotechnical, structural engineers and homebuilders was
solicited for information on forensic investigations thought to be related to expansive soils. The

323
response to this solicitation, which was issued by ASU researchers as well as the HBACA staff,
was very impressive. The input from multiple geotechnical firms which consisted of 742 different
forensic investigations became available for this research study. The data obtained is not non-
uniform in detail. For many, only location of investigation is known while for others (163
investigations) all information obtained during the forensic investigation became available,
including soil data obtained from underneath the slab-on-grade. The forensic data was used 1)
in correlating moisture conditions below foundations to soil type and landscape conditions, 2) to
identify landscape, drainage and grading conditions associated with unacceptable residential
structure distress, 3) to identify sources of suction change related distress, and 4) to analyse
floor level surveys, identify dominant slab shape and range of relative slab differential. 5)
Additionally, the forensic investigation incidence was correlated to soil type and swell potential.
For this purpose, the forensic data was coupled with the NRCS soil unit data and soil properties
obtained during the forensic investigation.

9.2.1 Type of Data Collected
Different degree of detail is available for the collected forensic data. Most of the
performed forensic investigations are limited to visual observations of distress, landscape and
drainage conditions. Some investigations in addition to the visual observations include some of
the following information: slab-on-grade level manometer results, lot grading monometer results,
post-construction soil profiles below and adjacent to the foundation, initial soil conditions
(preconstruction geotechnical report and pad construction data) and post construction history
such as the existence of leaks, change in landscape scheme and previously performed chemical
stabilization with data from the previously performed forensic evaluations. None of the data
included all of the discussed details, but rather one or two additional sets of information.
The data based on visual observations included locations and magnitudes of distress.
The evidence of superstructure movement includes and is not limited to 1) cracks in slab-on-
grade, 2) diagonal drywall, stucco and ceiling cracks, 3) cornerbead separation, 4) wall and

324
ceiling separation, 5) baseboard or cabinetry and wall separation, 6) cracks in ceramic tile or
grout separation, 7) door and windows binding, 8) horizontal or vertical sidewalk panels
separation, 9) flatwork cracks, 10) stair step block separation in perimeter fence and 11) pillar
and wall separation. Additionally, the quality of drainage including existence of sidewalks, areas
of potential ponding, and existence of gutters were identified and collected. Analyses were
performed on the data to identify general trends.

9.2.2 Sources of Suction Change Related Distress
The soil volume change and soil/structure interaction related sources of distress are not
discussed here. The identification of these factors would require much more detailed analysis
with postulated potential distress mechanisms. The author is very reluctant to speculate on the
potential sources of soil volume change related distress based on very limited physical evidence.
Rather, the conclusions based on sufficient facts are given and are limited to sources of suction
change related distress, which can be categorized into three groups design considerations,
quality of construction and post construction modifications.
The first category, design considerations, deals with architectural design concept,
location of utilities, location of AC condensation discharge, location of roof runoff discharge from
gutters, designed drainage and location of perimeter walls and weep screeds. Two problematic
architectural roof designs have been identified, the first one includes small courtyard, where up
to 1/3 of the roof runoff can concentrate, see birds eye view of residence with courtyard in
Figure 9.8a. The second, more common design leads to the roof runoff concentration from
about th of the roof area in one spot, typically the front or the back of the property, as
illustrated in Figure 9.8b. Inadequate drainage and grading in those locations might potentially
result in relatively substantial increase of soil moisture causing soil volume change and structure
distress.

326

Figure 9.9. Sources of structure distress a corner the house creates with garage
where positive drainage away from structure is hard to maintain.

Figure 9.10. Sources of structure distress poor drainage, utilities in side yard,
vegetation in side yard, gutter discharge into side yard.

327

Figure 9.11. Sources of structure distress AC condensation discharge next to
foundation.

In Arizona, swale is the most commonly implemented drainage system. The roof runoff
is designed to fall next to the foundation, drain into the side yard swale and migrate at about 1%
slope to the street in front of the property or into a small retention basin in the property backyard.
The roof runoff has the potential of eroding the soil and creating areas of potential ponding.
Figure 9.12 illustrates the roof runoff eroded area parallel to the foundation with accumulated
precipitation. It is recommended to install a gutter system in place of the swale drainage
mechanism for regions with moisture sensitive soils. If this solution is not feasible, it is
recommended to construct the swale system with larger slope towards the street and cover the
side yards with sufficient amount of gravel, which should reduce the soil erosion. Although as
designed, unmodified by homeowner drainage conditions appear to work properly for a period of
time, unexpected long-term performance was observed in many forensic investigations. Soil
erosion creates areas of potential ponding directly next to the foundation and with time reduces
the slope of the swale.

328

Figure 9.12. Sources of structure distress soil erosion due to roof runoff.

The adequate quality of construction (soil density, drainage and grading) is very
important for the proper performance of residential dwellings. Typically, the as-constructed
quality of drainage and grading is hard to identify during forensic investigations. The difficulty is
commonly caused by homeowner modified surface conditions. Soil erosion or slab undermining
is sometimes observed at homeowner installed flatwork. It is mostly caused by construction on
low density, improperly compacted soils and/or negative drainage next to the flatwork, see
Figure 9.13. The existence of low density soils, in general, is problematic when next to the
foundation. Regions with loose, high permeability soils allow moisture infiltration to great depths.
The absorbed moisture has the potential of lateral migration from the infiltration region to area
below the foundation. The moisture migration might occur either due to capillary forces or along
interbed layers. Depending on the soil type and insitu conditions, the soil below the foundation
might respond to decrease in matric suction as soil volume reduction (compression) or increase
(swell). The existence of low density soils next to the foundation was rarely reported in the
forensic investigations.

329

Figure 9.13. Sources of structure distress soil erosion/undermining of low density
soil below homeowner installed flatwork

The maintenance of adequate grading and drainage are essential for proper
performance of residential structures. Homeowners typically lack the basic understanding that
modifications of grading, drainage and surface flux conditions lead to soil suction changes
associated with soil volume change and structure distress; hence the landscape and surface
conditions are frequently modified. The various modifications resulting in poor drainage are
illustrated in Figure 9.14 through Figure 9.20. The typical modifications include constructed
flatwork (mostly sidewalks), pools, planters, decorative boarders and vegetation planted next to
the foundation or vegetation with berms further impede the drainage. The introduction of a pool
into the backyard is especially problematic. The pool deck, commonly sloped towards the
residential property, causes additional moisture to flow from the pool deck area into the area of
potential ponding developed directly next to the foundation.
The acceptable levels of ponding on site and next to the foundation are quantified by
AROC (2007) and summarized in Section 3.6 of this dissertation. For residential construction in

330
Arizona, the discussed grading and drainage challenges should be viewed in the context of
those tolerances.

Figure 9.14. Sources of structure distress poor drainage.

Figure 9.15. Sources of structure distress poor drainage (positive slope), AC
condensation discharge next to foundation, turf landscape adjacent to
foundation.

331

Figure 9.16. Sources of structure distress homeowner modified drainage and
grading, sidewalk blocks drainage, AC condensation discharge next to
foundation.

grading, sidewalk/pool blocks drainage, vegetation next to foundation.

332

grading, vegetable garden is a source of water.

grading, decorative boarder blocks drainage, sprinkler discharge next to
foundation.

333

Figure 9.20. Sources of structure distress area of potential water ponding, sprinkler
discharge next to foundation.

9.2.3 Degree of Saturation and Suction Conditions below Foundations
Two sets of data were available for saturation or suction determination below residential
foundations. In the first set, obtained from practitioners, the soil samples were typically obtained
2-5 away from the edge of the slab and to a depth of about 5 below the soil surface. This set
consists of 99 borings with measured soil index properties, gravimetric water content and dry
density. The available information was group based on the soil classification, CL, SC, SM to
identify the range of degree of saturation found at depth (CH soil data were not available). The
deepest value in a profile was used for the analysis, typically located between 3-5 below the soil
surface. Large data scatter was observed for all soil types as illustrated in Figure 9.21. For the
CL soil, the degree of saturation varies between 29% and 89% with an average of 65%. For the
SC soil, the degree of saturation varies between 19% and 85% with an average of 47%. For the
SM and ML soil, the degree of saturation varies between 16% and 55% with an average of 33%.

334
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
5
-
2
0
2
0
-
2
5
2
5
-
3
0
3
0
-
3
5
3
5
-
4
0
4
0
-
4
5
4
5
-
5
0
5
0
-
5
5
5
5
-
6
0
6
0
-
6
5
6
5
-
7
0
7
0
-
7
5
7
5
-
8
0
8
0
-
8
5
8
5
-
9
0
O
c
c
u
r
a
n
c
e

F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
CL
SC
SM

Figure 9.21. Degree of saturation below residential foundations at depth between 3-5.

The calculation of the equilibrium suction at depth for this set of data was considered to
be inappropriate. Many of the forensic investigations were performed only few years after the
construction, hence the equilibrium conditions have not been reached yet as characterized by
large saturation variability at different slab locations and with depth. Additional information
needed for comprehensive equilibrium suction determination include pre-construction land use
and the post-construction human imposed flux conditions. This information was available for
limited number of sites.
The second set of data consists of soil testing performed on 16 profiles obtained from
beneath slab-on-grade foundations constructed at least 10 years prior to sampling. The soil
samples were typically obtained 5 away from the edge of the slab and to a depth of about 8.5.
The soil testing included the measurement of index properties, gravimetric water content, dry
density and insitu matric suction. The matric suction and degree of saturation profiles were
divided based on and landscape type surrounding the location of the boring. Three major
landscapes were identified, turf, desert and mixed. The mixed landscape is defined as the
desert landscape with large irrigated desert trees or shrubs, location of potential ponding such as

335
sidewalks or combination of turf and desert landscape. The soil profiles were further subdivided
based on dominating soil classification. It is important to note that the majority of the profiles
encountered were not homogeneous, with CL and SC layers within the same profiles. Therefore
the profile classification identifies the dominating soil type. The results are presented in Figure
9.22.
Three profiles are available for turf landscape. Turf landscape conditions result in moist
soil profile. Near the soil surface the degree of saturation varies between 20-95% for all soil
types. Below the depth of 60-inches the degree of saturation decreases to an approximate
range between 40 to 80% as illustrated in Figure 9.22a. In terms of matric suction, at the soil
surface, below the slab, the values vary between 10 kPa to 2000 kPa. At depth, the matric
suction range decreases to between 50 kPa and 350 kPa. Conclusions based on soil type
cannot be drawn based on the available information.
Four profiles are available for desert landscape. Under desert conditions SC soils
remain relatively dry with depth. Filter paper testing and One-Point Method, scanning curve
methodology produced 1200 kPa to 15 000 kPa suction range at the soil surface and about 8000
kPa suction at depth. For SC soil, the degree of saturation was found to vary between 27 % to
70 %. For the CL material, suctions at the soil surface, below the slab, were found to vary
between 250 kPa and 1600 kPa and converge to about 700 kPa at depth; in terms of degree of
saturation the values vary between 40 and 90% without any particular pattern.
A large data scatter was observed under mixed landscape scenario. For this type of
surface flux condition 6 CL and 2 SC profiles are available. The degree of saturation in CL
material varies between 30 to 90% without any particular pattern, in terms of matric suction, the
variation is between 120 kPa to 15 000 kPa at the soil surface. The variability decreases with
depth to a range between 200 kPa and 1600 kPa with an average of about 600 kPa. Matric
suction in SC soil varied between 1900 kPa and 4000 kPa at the soil surface and between 200
kPa and 600 kPa at depth which corresponds to 16 to 70% degree of saturation range at the soil
surface and about 30% at depth.

336
a)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 20 40 60 80 100
S [%]
D
e
p
t
h

[
i
n
]
wPI soil classif.
6.5 SC
8.8 SC
14.0 CL
10 100 1000 10000 100000

b)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 20 40 60 80 100
S [%]
D
e
p
t
h

[
i
n
]
wPI soil classif.
6.4 SC
8.4 SC
11.0 CL
13.5 CL
10 100 1000 10000 100000

c)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 20 40 60 80 100
S [%]
D
e
p
t
h

[
i
n
]
wPI soil classif.
3.2 SC
5.8 SC
5.3 CL
6.4 CL
7.2 CL
11.3 CL
12.6 CL
17.6 CL
10 100 1000 10000 100000

Figure 9.22. Measured saturation and suction variation below slab-on-grade for a) turf
landscape, b) desert landscape, c) mixed landscape or desert landscape
with areas of potential ponding.

The measured suction data were further used in the identification of relationship
between equilibrium suction to soil type and landscape scheme. The suction data measured
below 3 were plotted against wPI and an exponential relationship was identified as illustrated in
Turf Landscape
Desert Landscape
Mixed Landscape

337
Figure 9.23. In general, under desert landscape scenario, the matric suction decreases from
above 10 000 kPa to about 800 kPa as the wPI increases. Under turf landscape the matric
suction increases from about 60 kPa for NP soil to about 800 kPa as the wPI increases. The
majority of the analysed soils were collected from below foundations surrounded by mixed
landscape. The equilibrium suctions obtained from those sites plot mostly between the two
identified curves.
Desert Landscape: Suction = 288wPI
-1.15
R
2
= 0.4061
Turf Landscape: Suction = 83.82wPI
0.598
R
2
= 0.569
10
100
1000
10000
100000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
wPI
S
u
c
t
i
o
n

[
k
P
a
]
Desert Landscape Turf Mixed

Figure 9.23. Equilibrium Suction below foundation.

9.2.4 Comparison of Landscape Type to Distress Magnitude
The frequency of occurrence and the magnitude of distress were compared to
landscape type on 134 properties under forensic investigation. Six of those residences were
surrounded by turf landscaping, including the side yards. Only 19 properties had desert
landscape with no irrigation system installed. The remainder was qualified under mixed
landscaping. It was identified that about 95% of the properties under forensic investigation did
exhibit poor drainage in the vicinity of the slab. It was further determined that there is no
correlation between landscape type and residential construction distress under poor drainage

338
conditions. The results are presented in Table 9.3. Based on the numerical modeling presented
in this dissertation, the influence of the roof runoff and poor drainage are much more
consequential on the depth of moisture migration and the magnitude of degree of saturation than
an excessively irrigated turf landscape. Therefore, it is concluded that the residential
construction distress is mostly caused by improper, typically homeowner modified drainage. The
most commonly observed distress is excessive hairline drywall and stucco cracking, up to 1/32
wall/wall and wall/ceiling separations, and within tolerance (as per AROC) flatwork cracking and
control joint separations. Note that the age of the properties under forensic investigations varied
between 0.5 to 20 years. The AROC criteria identifying unacceptable distress tolerances apply
to residential properties that are two years old or newer. In the analysis presented, the AROC
guidelines are simply used as a benchmark.
It was identified that about 50% of the residences under investigation exhibited distress
within AROC tolerance for homes two years old or newer. The remaining 50% mostly did
experience excessive cosmetic distress. More than 2 excessive cracks or separations where
identified in about 18% of the properties.

Table 9.3. Residential Construction Distress Count vs. Landscape Type (distress
beyond home owner responsibility defined by AROC).
All Data Desert Landscape Turf Landscape
All
Exceeds AROC
tolerance for
homes 2 years old
or newer. All
Exceeds AROC
tolerance for homes
2 years old or
newer. All
Exceeds AROC
tolerance for
homes 2 years old
or newer.
Average 16 2 20 2 17 1
Max 55 12 46 12 51 3
Min 0 0 1 0 2 1
Count 134 19 6

9.2.5 Relative Slab Differential Data
In general, the post-construction slab movement is very difficult to identify mainly due to
limited knowledge about the initial and pre-construction conditions. Based on the post-
construction manometer results, location and magnitude of structure distress and visual

339
observation of landscape, drainage and grading, number of possible soil/slab interaction
scenarios might be identified. Additional soil testing of stress state, however, must be performed
to postulate on the most likely distress mechanism or the combination of distress mechanisms.
It is most likely that a combination of swell, shrinkage, and compression occur simultaneously at
each site with one mechanism dominating over the others in time.
In forensic engineering practice, manometer testing is a commonly used tool in the
identification of potential magnitude of slab movement and distress mechanism. The limitations
of the results are well understood by practitioners. The reported results are frequently discussed
in the context of Walsh (2001) research about relative slab differential of newly constructed
slabs, which is on average about 0.5.
Three major slab shapes were identified, tilt, center lift and edge lift. The compiled
forensic engineering data were used in the identification of the frequency with which each post-
construction slab deformation occurs under Arizona soil and climatic conditions along with the
distribution of relative slab differential per each identified shape. The data mostly consists of
conventional stem-and-footer design. Only ten (10) post tensioned slabs were available for
analysis. The cross-sections of the identified shapes are given in Figure 9.24, while the
frequency of occurrence and the corresponding relative slab deformation is tabulated in Table
9.4.

Tilt
Center Lift
Edge drop
Dome
Edge Lift
Figure 9.24. Potential Slab Shapes.

340
The tilt deformation is characterized by a smooth transition from one edge of the
property to the other. It might be caused by dominating swell or shrinkage on one side of the
property. It is also possible that the foundation was constructed out of level with negligible post-
construction movement. The tilt deformation is the most commonly encountered slab shape
(32%) with an average relative slab differential of 1.3, which is slightly above the average
relative slab differential of 1.2 calculated with all available data.

Table 9.4. Frequency of slab mode deformation occurrence and average relative slab
differential.
slab shape % of occurrence average rel. min. rel. max rel.
tilt 32% 1.3" 0.6' 3.7"
center lift 29% 1.2" 0.7" 1.7"
edge lift 17% 1.2" 0.5" 1.9"
no pattern 22% 0.9" 0.4" 1.3"

Center lift (edge drop) is the second most commonly encountered slab shape occurring
29% of the time with an average relative slab deformation of 1.2. This deformation can be
further subdivided into 1) classical center lift condition characterised by gradual slab transition at
low points at the edges to high points in the center. This deformation is potentially caused by
shrinkage, settlement below footings and/or expansion below the center of the slab. 2) The edge
drop condition typically exhibits sharp transition from low points at the slab perimeter high points
some distance away from the edges. This deformation can be caused by shrinkage or
settlement below the foundation perimeter. In this scenario the soil expansion is not a significant
factor; and 3) The dome may be caused by a leak from a pipe below the foundation. It is
characterized by a sharp transition from high point somewhere in the center of the slab to low
points nearby.
Edge lift slab deformation, most likely caused by swell around the slab perimeter, is
observed in 17% of forensic investigations, with an average relative slab differential of 1.2. A
large portion (22%) of the analysed slabs do not exhibit any pattern. The average relative slab
differential in this group is 0.9, which is not large when compared to as-constructed conditions.

341
Limited conclusions can be drawn about the post-construction distribution of post-
tensioned slab shapes and the associated average relative slab differentials. Only ten (10)
manometer results were available for this study. The small number of case studies is linked to
the limited use of this methodology up to approximately five year ago. Based on the available
data, the average relative PT slab differential is 1.6 with range from 0.9 to 3.7. Tilt was found
to be the most common deformation shape.

9.3 Comparison of forensic Investigation Incidence to Soil Properties
Quantitatively, the forensic investigation incidence was compared to the existence of
expansive soils in Arizona. The forensic data were plotted using GIS as another map layer in
the updated Expansion Potential map given in Figure 5.5. Visual assessment of the data
revealed that CH soils are quite rare in the Phoenix area of Arizona; hence forensic
investigations associated with the existence of moderately to high expansion material below
foundations is rare as well. In general, forensic investigations occur more commonly on SC
soils (51%), which are very prevalent in the Phoenix Valley. The second most common soil type,
CL, is responsible for 36% of forensic investigations. The remainder of the forensic work occurs
on SM soils, most likely associated with its collapsible properties, rather than expansion.

Table 9.5. Forensic investigation incidence vs. soil type.
Soil
Type
% of occurrence in
forensic investigations
Occurrence of soil type in
the Valley
CH 4.0 Rare
CL 36.4 Common
SC 50.5 Most Common
SM 9.1 Common

9.4 Key Findings
Based on the analysis of forensic engineering data of single family residences located in
the Phoenix Valley, it is concluded that:

342
1. Structure distress is correlated to improper drainage and grading, typically modified by
the homeowner. The modifications include and are not limited to sidewalks and other
flatwork, pools, boarders, and introduction of vegetation next to the foundation.
2. When areas of potential ponding exist, the frequency and extent of distress was found to
be independent of landscape around the foundation.
3. Only 50% of forensic cases exhibit distress requiring repairs beyond homeowner
responsibilities set forth by AROC (2004).
4. The most commonly observed post-construction slab shape is tilt with average relative
slab differential of 1.3.
5. Under turf landscape conditions the suctions below foundation (measured at about 5
from the edge) were found to vary between approximately 10 kPa to 1000 kPa with and
average of about 200 kPa at depth.
6. Under desert landscape conditions the suctions below foundation (measured at about 5
from the edge) were found to vary between approximately 250 kPa to 15 000 kPa with
an average of about 2000 kPa at depth.
7. The soil saturation and suction below residential foundations depend on soil clay
content. The higher the clay content, the higher the saturation and the lower the matric
suction.
8. The performance of the residential structures can be improved with the following
recommendations:
Use of gutters in areas of moisture sensitive soils.
Gutter discharge and AC condensation should outlet far away from the foundation.
Eliminate the empty spaces between the structure and a sidewalk.
Increase the minimum distance between landscape and foundation to 7 (based on
modeling).
Increase side yards to 10.
Do not install utilities in the side yards.

343
Place weep screed in many locations to promote moisture drainage away from the
property.
Increase the slope of the swale.

10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

10.1 Scope of Research Work
Performance of unsaturated soil as an engineering material is strongly related to the
changes in moisture content that occur over the life of the structure. Some of these soil moisture
content changes occur incidentally (e.g. watering of a nearby golf course) or through natural
processes such as the precipitation. Other changes in moisture content result from more direct
human interaction such as landscape irrigation. Development brings about changes in both
surface and groundwater flows, with the typical impact being an overall increase in soil moisture.
In general, precautions such as good site drainage and diversion of roof run-off reduce the
amount of moisture introduced into the soil over the life of the structure. It is critical that the
moisture conditions and moisture content changes of unsaturated soil are taken into
consideration in the geotechnical site investigation and foundation design.
Problems associated with geotechnical practice for unsaturated soils can usually be
placed into one of two categories: (1) unconservative designs and procedures that lead to
failures or construction difficulties, or (2) over-conservatism that leads to much higher than
necessary construction costs. A common example of the second category is the modeling of
initially unsaturated soils as saturated soils. This approach is often rationalized with the
assumption that the material may become saturated in the future. In a few cases this
assumption is justified, but in a great majority of cases it is not justified. The inattention to the
fundamental aspects of unsaturated soil behavior and the relatively limited investigations of
response-to-wetting of unsaturated moisture sensitive soils has typically resulted in great over-
conservatism, with a few cases of unconservative practice. The focus of this particular study is
on unsaturated soils that tend to swell upon wetting and shrink upon drying. These soils are
commonly referred to as Expansive Clays.
Volume change in response to wetting is most simply evaluated through one-
dimensional oedometer testing to assess expansion potential. Performance of such oedometer
response-to-wetting tests is common practice for investigation of volume change resulting from
increased moisture content. For example, in a test commonly called the overburden swell test

345
the undisturbed specimen, confined in a ring, is subjected to dry loading up to the vertical stress
level anticipated in the prototype and then given free access to water, thereby bringing the soil
suction to zero or near zero. The typical result from such a test is the percent swell resulting from
wetting from in-situ moisture conditions to full saturation at the stress level expected in the field
after construction. Although this simple test is very valuable for detecting the presence of
swelling soils, it provides information only on the full wetting response of the soil. Another
commonly performed oedometer test, used as an index or indicator of swelling soils, is the
Expansion Index test, EI, performed on a remolded specimen, and also taken from an initial
condition of about 50% saturation to a fully wetted state. In Arizona, the most commonly
performed response to wetting test, EI
AZ
, entails 1-D volume change measurement of a soil
specimen prepared at 0.95
d max
and w
opt
(1 to +4) obtained with standard proctor test and fully
saturated.
In the actual field situation the amount of expansion, or shrinkage, is a function of the
degree of differential wetting (or drying in the case of shrinkage). Many investigators have
reported field strains much lower than those obtained for the fully wetted lab specimen. The use
of response to wetting tests wherein the specimen is fully wetted is conservative for many
situations. Of course the real challenge is to understand the relationship between soil moisture,
stress level, and volume change, as well as the prediction of the actual degree of wetting that will
occur in the field.
Although it is common for geotechnical engineers to assess the change in moisture
content of the soil that may occur over the life of the structure, it is important to realize that it is
the more fundamental parameter, soil suction, which is critical in predicting soil response. In the
absence of gradients due to soil salts, and for the typical field situation where pore air pressure
is atmospheric, the soil suction is simply the negative pore water pressure.
Determining slab movements on expansive soils is a very challenging technical problem
involving coupled unsaturated flow and unsaturated soils stress-strain modeling, as well as soil
structure interaction. A literature review on the geotechnical practice for expansive soils is

346
attached as Chapter 1. Construction on expansive soils is challenging, and thus prone to some
problems and litigation. The engineering community makes extensive use of local experience
and empirical procedures to address these problems. As part of this study, a substantial
database of residential construction performance was developed for the Phoenix region.
The tasks performed in this study are as follows:
1. Conducted surveys with practitioners to assess Phoenix region practices used in the
design of residential foundation systems on expansive soils.
2. Determination of representative expansive soils properties for a range of expansive soils
across the Valley. These properties are derived from field sampling and laboratory
testing performed by ASU and include information needed for modeling moisture
movement in expansive soils and also information needed for application of the current
PTI method (geotechnical part). Included in the information are soil water characteristic
curves, insitu soil suction, expansion index, swell pressure, hydraulic conductivity,
gradation properties including hydrometer results, and Plasticity Index.
3. Study of the suction profiles beneath slabs for equilibrium conditions, using direct
suction determination and SWCC correlations.
4. Developed updated NRCS (Natural Resource Conservation Service) map of expansive
soils distribution in the Phoenix region, commonly used by practitioners to assess soil
properties in the preliminary analysis.
5. Based on the findings that the PTI procedure for slab-on-grade foundations was the
predominant methodology for current practice, evaluated PTI method for Arizona soils
and climatic conditions.
6. Survey of landscape professionals and government agencies concerned with water use
to determine typical homeowner landscape water use in the Phoenix Valley.
Assessment of the amount of typical homeowner landscape over-watering was made.
This information was used, together with regional climatic records, to determine typical
surface flux conditions for the Phoenix region.

347
7. Identification of challenges in numerical modeling of surface flux and associated
infiltration into unsaturated soils in arid regions.
8. Based on finding above, modeled the problem of infiltration into expansive soils for
various landscape and surface water control schemes.
9. Conducted survey of Phoenix area geotechnical firms to identify areas in Phoenix Valley
were forensic investigations of expansive soils have been conducted. This data was
reviewed for determination of trends with soil expansion potential, site landscape and
draining conditions.
10. Assessment of numerical modeling results through comparison for consistency with
forensic study findings and field data on depth and degree of saturation (suction).
11. Recommendations for future studies and future cooperative efforts.

10.2 Conclusions
Foundations placed on expansive soils are vulnerable to distress, especially in arid or
semi-arid regions. Based on geotechnical firm interviews, it appears that the Arizona local
practice is moving in the direction of use of the new, 3
rd
Edition, PTI method for computation of
differential heave and edge moisture variation distance. Local structural engineers are also
often recommending the use of PT slabs designed with slab thickness as determined by the 3
rd

Edition PTI method.
Based on the interviews on current practice, discussions with many local professional
groups on residential home performance, and the findings from the forensic studies, it appears
that generally good performance has been realized with current and past approaches, which
were, to a large extent, based on geotechnical design parameters obtained from the less
conservative 2
nd
Edition PTI method, and for conventionally designed concrete foundation
systems. However, there are still some problems, and cases of litigation, surrounding expansive
soil issues. When problems arise, the sources of problems include poor drainage, construction
problems, homeowner activity, landscape scheme, and expansive soil -- and most likely some

348
combination of two or more of these sources. The findings of this study imply that current
methods of dealing with expansive soils are good, but somewhat higher reliability may be
desirable. The solution is to develop a greater understanding of the factors affecting
performance, and to improve understanding of input parameters required for design.
One often-posed question is whether this new 3
rd
Edition PTI methodology is appropriate
for Arizona conditions. The 3
rd
edition procedure is more conservative compared to the former
2
nd
Edition PTI method, and also leads to more conservative foundation design compared to the
past conventional practice. One must consider that the design values of differential movement,
y
m
, and edge moisture variation, e
m
, which in turn lead to the slab thickness, vary depending
upon the model input parameters. Thus, a better understanding of the design inputs in terms of
soil properties such as suction compression index and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (or
diffusivity), as well as improved understanding of soil suction profiles for both pre- and post-
construction conditions, is essential for improved analysis and design of residential foundation
systems. The findings of this study should be useful to practicing geotechnical engineers in
selection of input parameters for the PTI model, and other models, for estimation of differential
movement and pre- and post-construction soils suction profiles.
Overall, the key findings of this research study are as follows:
Numerical Modeling:
1. Numerical analysis of moisture flow through unsaturated soil is typically carried out
through the solution of Richards equation. The Richards equation is a stiff parabolic
PDE whose solution requires the implementation of a stiff, implicit numerical solver.
Methods typically implemented in software exhibit instabilities suggesting an
implementation of pseudo-implicit solver. The numerical challenges arise under surface
runoff conditions. The instabilities are usually overcame by reducing mesh spacing, time
step or both.

349
2. The numerical solution variability due to the uncertainty of the unsaturated soil
properties is large and potentially larger than the variability associated with different
software selection.
3. Flux averaging can be successfully used in the numerical analysis of moisture flow
through soil due to atmospheric conditions (no ponding) when no runoff occurs. On the
other hand, if runoff takes place, the flux averaging overestimates the depth of influence
and degree of saturation.
4. Desert landscape results in increasing monotonic drying front and very shallow moisture
migration for all soil common to Arizona region; 5-cm due to precipitation; 0.5-m
seasonal suction variation.
5. Edge moisture variation distance is limited to 10 cm under desert landscape conditions.
6. Turf landscape results in increasing wetting front (9-m after 34 years for CH soil and 7-m
after 2 years for SM-ML soil) and very shallow depth of moisture loss (2 cm). Short term
seasonal suction variation of 0.5 m for SM-ML soil and 1-m from CH soil was observed.
7. Edge moisture variation distance of 35 cm was observed for CH soil under turf
landscape conditions. Monotonic moisture migration below the slab levels off during 5th
year at 2.2-m.
8. The critical scenarios are 1) poor drainage resulting in essentially 100% soil saturation
up to the depth of 1-m; 2) initial moist conditions with desert landscape.

PTI Slab Design:
1. In general, the failure mode when moving from 2nd Edition PTI procedure to 3rd edition
is from center lift to edge lift and increase in slab thickness.
2. In PTI procedure overestimates volume change in extremely wet and extremely dry soil
but may give reasonable results in the intermediate range.

350
Soil Characteristics for Central Arizona Geographic Region:
1. Low expansion potential soils are very common to the Central Arizona geographic
region. Based on visual analysis of the updated swell potential map, approximately 50%
of the Phoenix Valley region consists of medium to moderate soil material within the
upper 5-ft of the soil strata. High expansion potential soils are not common in the
Phoenix region.
2. Field evidence suggests that the degree of saturation for native desert profiles of clayey
soil averages about 30%, 40%, and 70% for SM, SC/CL, and CH whereas the average
degree of saturation for agricultural areas averages about 40%, 50% and 80% for SM,
SC/CL, and CH within the upper 20.
3. The estimated equilibrium matric suctions are approximately 470 kPa for SM soil and
5000 for SC and CL soils and undeveloped desert conditions typical to the Phoenix
region. Agricultural use of the land results in a decrease in matric suction to
approximately 200 kPa for SM soil and about 500 kPa for SC and CL soils.

Field Evidence:
1. Suctions below the foundations depend on landscape type. For turf landscape the
equilibrium suctions reach an average of about 500 kPa. Desert landscape leads to dry
suction below the foundations with an average of 1500 kPa.
2. Problems associated with foundation performance are typically caused by improper
drainage and grading commonly modified by the homeowner.
3. The incidence of forensic investigations correlates very well to the location of medium to
moderate expansively soils. Based on the site data collected during forensic
investigations, the litigation incidence correlates very well with SC and CL soils.
4. The findings from the unsaturated flow modeling are consistent with the findings from
the forensic investigations of this study in that the site drainage was found to be
extremely important to good foundation performance.

351
10.3 Future Research
Three topics for future research have been identified, 1) challenges arising from
numerical modeling of moisture flow through unsaturated soil, 2) identification of soil properties
for the state of Arizona through the development of map illustrations and 3) development of
slab-on-grade design methodology that implements unsaturated soil theory and local
experience.
The research work presented herein illustrated that numerical modeling of moisture flow
through unsaturated soil is very challenging, time consuming task. The nonlinearity of
unsaturated soil properties and the existence of boundary condition that switches between
Dirichlet and Neumann, introduces difficulties that are not easily handled by any of the
commonly implemented numerical methodologies for geotechnical and hydrology use.
Sophisticated methodologies developed by the mathematical community, such as exponential
integrators, spectral methods and alternating direction implicit, ADI, schemes show great
potential for the solution improvement.
During the preliminary soil analysis, the practicing engineers routinely use the NRCS
developed map illustration of soil swell potential distribution within the Central Arizona region.
As part of this study, the map was updated based on NRCS identified soil units and soil
properties supplied by Arizona region geotechnical practitioners. Similar map for the entire state
of Arizona could be developed.
Several commonly used methods for estimating heave employ the assumption that the
soils in the field will be fully wetted to considerable depth at some point after construction.
However, direct field observations show that the degree of wetting is almost always well short of
full saturation. It is extremely important to include partial wetting because assuming saturation
overpredicts the amount of swell (Walsh et al., 2006). Practitioners and researchers alike
routinely point this out, but because many existing methods are unable to deal with partial
wetting the practice is to assume total wetting and claim conservatism, even though it is
recognized that this is over-conservative. There are many case studies where the amount of

352
swell is less than predicted using full wetting. The PTI method does try to incorporate partial
wetting in a very approximate way, and it does provide more flexibility on partial wetting
assumptions through the use of the program VOLFLO. New research using unsaturated soils
theories has lead to models that allow for better characterization of soil properties and response
as well as methods that allow for better estimation and improved methods of application of
partial wetting concepts (Fredlund and Pham, 2006). What is needed, however, are models that
are consistent with these more advanced unsaturated soils theories, but which utilize routine
testing methods and are sufficiently simplified for routine adoption into practice. One could
argue that the PTI method uses partial wetting and is simple, but there remains a need for a
method that incorporates results of site-specific testing with a constitutive model that is
benchmarked/calibrated to performance at a regional scale.

REFERENCES
Advanced Foundation Repair. (2007). "Angular distortion criteria."
<http://www.aagdallas.com/sponsors/members/1768/documents/foundation_deflection_tips.p
df> (2007).

Aitchison, G. D., and Richards, B. G. (1965). A Broad Scale Study of Moisture Conditions in
Pavement Subgrades throughout Australia. Moisture Equilibria and Moisture Changes in
Soils Beneath Covered Areas, Aitchison, G. D., editor, Butterworths, Australia, 184-190.

Alonso, E.E., et al. (1990). A constitutive model for partially saturated soils. Gotechnique,
40(3), 405-430.

Altmeyer, W. T. (1955). Discussion of Engineering Properties of Expansive Clays. ASCE
Proceedings 81.

American Concrete Institute. (1990). Standard Specifications for Tolerances for Concrete
Construction and Materials, 117-90 Section 4.5.6, Farmington Hills, MI

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D 422-63. (2006). Standard Test Method
for Particle size Analysis of Soils. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, West Conshohocken,
PA, 4.08, 10-17.

ASTM D 698-00a. (2006). Standard Test Method for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of
soils Using Standard Effort, 600 kN-m/m
3
. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. West
Conshohocken, PA, 4.08, 81-91.

ASTM D 854-05. (2006). Standard Test Method for Specific Gravity of Soil Solids bt Water
Pecnometer. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. West Conshohocken, PA, 4.08, 96-102.

ASTM D 2487-00. (2006). Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes
(Unified Soil Classification System). Annual Book of ASTM Standards. West Conshohocken,
PA, 4.08, 236-247.

ASTM D 2488-93. (2006). Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Unified
Manual Procedure. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. West Conshohocken, PA, 4.08, 248-
258.

ASTM D 4318-05. (2006). Standard Test Method for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plasticity
Index of Soils. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. West Conshohocken, PA, 4.08, 534-549.

ASTM D 4546-03 (2006). Standard Test Methods for One-Dimensional Swell or Settlement
Potential of Cohesive Soils. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. West Conshohocken, PA,
4.08, 690-696.

ASTM D 4829-03. (2006). Standard Test Method for Expansion Index of Soils. Annual Book of
ASTM Standards. West Conshohocken PA, 4.08, 900-903.

ASTM D 5298-03. (2006). Standard Test Method for Measurement of Soil Potential (Suction)
using Filter Paper. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. West Conshohocken PA, 4.08, 1119-
1124.

ASTM E 1155-96. (2003). Standard Test Method for Determining FF Floor Flatness and FL
Floor Levelness Numbers. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. West Conshohocken, PA,
4.11, 444-451.

354
Arizona Department of Water Resources. (2006). "Weather Data." http://www.azwater.gov/dwr
(2006).

Arizona Meteorological Network. (2006). "Environmental Data" Arizona Cooperative Extension.
<
Australian Standard AS2870. (2006). Residential slabs and footings-construction. Australia.
http://ag.arizona.edu/azmet/15.htm, 2006> (2006).

Arizona Registrar of Contractors. (2004). Workmanship Standards for Licensed Contractors
http://www.azroc.gov/, 2007.

Arizona Registrar of Contractors. (2007). Workmanship Standards for Licensed Contractors
http://www.azroc.gov/, 2008.

Arraras, A., Portere, L., Jorge, J. C. (2007). "A combined mixed finite element ADI scheme for
solving Richards' equation with mixed derivatives on irregular grids."

Baguley, D., and Hose, D. R. (1994). How to-Understand Finite Element Jargon, Bell and Bain
LTd., Glaslow, 66.

Basile, A., Ciollaro, G., and Coppola, A. (2003). Hysteresis in soil water characteristics as a key
to interpreting comparisons of laboratory and field measured hydraulic properties Water
Resources Research 39(12), paper #13 (1-12), 1355.

Berland, H., and Skaflestad, B. (2005). Solving the nonlinear Schodinger equation using
exponential integrators. http://www.math.ntnu.no/preprint/numerics/2005/N5-2005.pdf, 2007.

Biddle, G. (2001), Tree Root Damage to Buildings, Expansive Clay Soils and Vegetative
Influence on Shallow Foundations, Proceedings of Geo-Institute Shallow Foundation and Soil
Properties Committee Sessions at the ASCE 2001 Civil Engineering Conference, Houston,
Texas, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 115, 1-23.

Blight, G. E. (1965). The Time -Rate- of Heave of Structures on Expansive Clays. Moisture
Equilibria and Moisture Changes in Soils Beneath Covered Areas, Aitchison, G. D., editor,
Butterworths, Australia, 78-88.

Blight, G.E., Schwartz, K., Weber, H. and Wiid, B.L. (1992). Preheaving of expansive
soils by flooding Failures and successes. In: Proceedings of the 7
th
International
Conference on Expansive Soils. Dallas, TX, 131-136.

Brooks, R. H., and Corey, A. T. (1964). Hydraulic properties of porous medium, Hydrology
Paper No. 3. Civ. Engrg. Dept., Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, Colorado.

Brown, P. (2000). Basics of Evaporation and Evapotranspiration Turf Irrigation Management
Series No. 1., The University of Arizona Coopertive Extension.

Bryant, J.T., Morris, D. V., Sweeney, S. P., Gehrig, M.D., and Mathis, J.D. (2001), Tree Root
Influence on Soil*Structure interaction in Expansive Clay Soils, Expansive Clay Soils and
Vegetative Influence on Shallow Foundations, Proceedings of Geo-Institute Shallow
Foundation and Soil Properties Committee Sessions at the ASCE 2001 Civil Engineering
Conference, Houston, Texas, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 115, 110-119.

355
Building Research Advisory Board (BRAB). (1968), Criteria for selection and design of
residential slabs-on-ground. Prepared by a special advisory committee of the Building
Research Advisory Board.
Darcy, H. (1856). Les Fontaines Publiques de la Ville de Dijon, Dalmont, Paris (1856).
Washington, National Academy of Sciences.

Butterfield, R. and Tomlin, G. R. (1972). Integral techniques for solving zoned anisotropic
continuum problems. Proceeding of the International Conference on Variational Methods in
Engineering Vol. 2, Southampton University, Highfield , 612-622.

Casagrande, A. (1948). Classification and Identification of Soils. Transactions, ASCE 113, 901-
930.

Celia, M.A., Bouloutas, E.T., Zarba, R. (1990). A General Mass-Conservative Numerical
Solution for the Unsaturated Soil Equation. Water Resour Res 26(7), 1483-1496.

Chao, K. C., Overton, D. D., and Nelson, J. D. (2006). The Effects of Site Conditions on the
Predicted Time Rate of Heave. ASCE Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference
on Unsaturated Soils, Carefree, AZ., 2086-2097.

Chen, F. H. (1988). Foundations on Expansive Soils. Development in Geotechnical
Engineering., 54, Elsevier Science Publishers B. V.

Chen, Z., Huan, G, and Ma, Y. (2006). Computational Methods for Multiphase Flows in Porous
Media. SIAM, Philadelphia.

Chen, F. H., "Swelling and Shrinkage Behavior of Expansive Clays", 6th International
Conference of Expansive Soils, Volume I, A.A. Balkema, 1988.

Cokca, E. (2001). Use of class c fly ashes for the stabilization of an expansive soil. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 127(7), 568.

Colorado Geological Survey. (1987). Home landscaping and maintenance on swelling soils, 1st
Revision, Special Publication 14, Department of Natural Resources, Denver, Colorado.

Corey, A. T., and Klute, A. (1985). Application of the Potential Concept to Soil Water Equilibrium
and Transport. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Jnl. 49, 3-11.

Covar, A. P., and Lytton, R. L. (2001). Estimating soil swelling behavior using soil classification
properties, Expansive Clay Soils and Vegetative Influence on Shallow Foundations,
Proceedings of Geo-Institute Shallow Foundation and Soil Properties Committee Sessions at
the ASCE 2001 Civil Engineering Conference, Houston, Texas, ASCE, Special Publication
115, 44-63.

Day, R. W. (1990). Differential Movement of Slab-on Grade Structures. Journal of Performance
of Constructed Facilities 4(4), 236-241.

Day, R. W. (1994). Performance of Slab-on-Grade Foundations on Expansive Soil. Journal of
Performance of Constructed Facilities 8(2), 129-138.

Dean, J. A. (1999). Langes Handbook of Chemistry. McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York.

356
Department of Sustainability Natural Resources. (2006). "Soil Survey Standard Test Method.
Cation Exchange Capacity and Exchangable Cations by Ammonium Chloride."
http://www.dnr.nsw.gov.au/care/soil/soil_pubs/soil_tests/pdfs/cecac.pdf
Edlefsen, N. E., and Anderson, B. C. (1943). Thermodynamics of soil moisture. Hilgardia 15(2).
(Nov., 2006).

Donaldson, G. W. (1965). "A study of level observations on buildings as indications of moisture
movement in underlying soil." Moisture Equilibria and Moisture Changes in Soil Beneath
Covered Areas, Buttersworth, Australia, 156-169.

Durkee, D. B. (2000). Active zone and edge moisture variation distance in expansive soils. PhD
dissertation, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.

ENV 1997-1. 2004. Eurocode 7 Geotechnical Design General Rules, ed. Gulvanessian, H.,
CEN, Brussels

Fredlund, D. G., and Rahardjo, H. (1993). Soil Mechanics for Unsaturated Soils, Wiley, New
York.

Fredlund, M. D., et al. (2006). Numerical Modeling of Slab-on-Grade Foundations. ASCE
Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Unsaturated Soils, Carefree, AZ.,
2121-2132.

Fredlund, D.G. and Pham, H.Q. (2006). "A Volume-Mass Constitutive Model for Unsaturated
Soils in Terms of Two Independent Stress State Variables". In Unsaturated Soils.
Geotechnical Special Publication No. 147. Proceedings of the Fourth International
Conference on Unsaturated Soils. ASCE. Carefree, Arizona, 1, 105-134.

Freeze, R.A. (1971). "Three-Dimensional, transient, saturated-unsaturated Flow in a
groundwater Basin." Water Resources Research, 7(2), 347-365.

Fuselier, T., Edgers, L and Nadim, F. (2006). Transient Flow in Unsaturated Soils: Numerical
Analysis and Case Study. ASCE Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on
Unsaturated Soils, Carefree, AZ. 2051-2062.

GeoSlope Int. (2004). Vadose Zone Modeling with Vadose/W: Engineering Methodology.
Calgary, Canada

Giao, P. H., Chung, S. G. and Kim, S. K. (2002). "The need of harmonization in investigation of
pusan clay. Foundation Design Codes and Soil Investigation in view of International
Harmonization and performance, Honjo, Kusakabe, Kouda and Pokharel (eds)
Swets&Zeitlinger, Lisse

Goode, J. C. (1982), Heave prediction and moisture migration beneath slabs on expansive
soils", Thesis, M. S. Degree at Colorado State University.

Gottlieb, D., and Gottlieb, S. (2003). Spectral Methods for Discontinuous Problems.
<http://www.maths.dundee.ac.uk/~naconf/proc03/gottlieb.pdf> (March, 2008).

Green, W. H., and Ampt, G. A. (1962). Studies on Soil physics, 1. The flow of air and water
through soils Journal of Agriculture Science 491, 1-24.

Greenfield, S. J., and Shen, C. K. (1992). Foundations in Problem Soils, Prentice Hall, New
Jersey.

357

Gribb, M. M. (2000). Augmentation Award for Science and Engineering Research Training:
Unsaturated Soil Hydraulic Parameter Studies, Grant Number 36895-EV-AAS

Hamberg, D. J. (1985), "A simplified method for predicting heave in expansive soils", Thesis, M.
S. Degree at Colorado State University.

Hamilton, J. J. (1969). Effects of environment on the performance of shallow foundations.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 6, 65-80.

Higham, and Trenfethen. (1993). Stiffness of ODEs BIT 33, 285-303.

Hillel, D. (1980). Fundamentals of Soil Physics, Academic, San Diego, Calif.

Holden, J. C. (1992). Reduction of pavement damage from expansive soils using moisture
barriers. Proceedings of the 6
th
Australia New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics,
Christchurch, New Zealand, 83-89.

Holtan, H. N. (1961). A concept for infiltration estimates in watershed engineering. US Dep. Of
Agriculture Bulletin, 41-51. Washington, DC, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture.

Holtz, R. D., and Kovacs, W. D. (1981). An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering, Prentice-
Hall, Englewood, New Jersey.

Homebuilders Association of Central Arizona (HBACA). (2006). A Study of the Performance of
Slab on Grade Residential Foundations on Expansive Soils in Arizona. Report by Arizona
State University, Dep. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Phoenix, AZ

Holtz, W. G., and Gibbs, H. J. (1956). Engineering properties of expansive clays" Transactions
ASCE 121, 641-677.

Horton, R. E., (1940). An Approach towards a physical interpretation of infiltration capacity. Soil
Science Society of America, Proceedings 5, 399-417.

Houston, S. L. (1996). Foundations and pavements on unsaturated soils Part one: Collapsible
soils Proceedings of the 1
st
International Conference on Unsaturated Soils, UNSAT 95,
Paris, France, 1421-1440.

Hout, K.J. int, and Welfert, B.D. (2007). Stability of ADI schemes applied to convection-diffusion
equations with mixed derivative terms. Applied Numerical Mathematics 57, 19-35.

International Code Council. (2003). International Building Code Falls Church, VA.

Jankiewicz, Z., Maset, S., Welfert, B., and Zennaro, M. (2006). Exponential Runge-Kutta
methods for ordinary differential equations. Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.

Jennings, J. E. (1953), The heaving of buildings on desiccated clay soils, Municipal Affairs 28,
215-216.

Jimenez-Salas, J. A. (1996). Foundations and pavements on unsaturated soils Part two:
Expansive Clays Proceedings of the 1
st
International Conference on Unsaturated Soils,
UNSAT 95, Paris, France, 1441-1464.

358
Johnson, L. D., and Stroman, W. R. (1976). Analysis of behavior of expansive soil foundations
Army Eng. Waterways Exp. Sta., Vicksburg, MS, Rept. No. WES-TR-S-76-8.

Johnson, P. (2006). "Mass Transfer" Presentation, ASU, Tempe, AZ.

Koenig, A. S. (1991). Relative elevation data analysis on newly constructed residential
foundations. Rep. presented to the ASCE Texas Section Spring Meeting, Expansive Clay
Research Institute, San Antonio, Tex.

Kool, J. B., and Parker J. C. (1987). Development and evaluation of closed-form expressions for
hysteretic soil hydraulic properties Water Resour. Res., 23, 105114.

Kostiakov, A. N. (1932). On the dynamics of the coefficient of water-percolation in soils and on
the necessity of studying it from dynamic point of view for purposes amelioration. Trans. Of
the Sixth Comm. Of the Int. Soc. Of Soil Sci., Part A, 17-31.

Kraynski (1967). A review paper on expansive clay soils Woodward-Clyde Associates, 1.

Lam, L., Fredlund, D.G., and Barbour, S.L. (1988), "Transient Seepage Model for Saturated-
Unsaturated Systems: A geotechnical Engineering Approach." Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 24(4), 565-580.

Livneh, M., and Shklarsky, G. (1965). Saturation criteria in pavement design for semi-arid
zones. Moisture equilibria and moisture changes, Butterworths, Australia.

Low, P.F. (1973). Fundamental Mechanisms Involved in Expansion of Clays as Particularly
Related to Clay Minerology. Proceedings of Workshop on Expansive Clays and Shales in
Highway Design and Construction, 1.

Loxton, H. T., McNicholl, M. D. and Williams, H. C. (1953). Soil moisture and density
measurements at Australian aerodromes Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Zurich, Vol. 1, 112-117.

Lytton, R. L. (1992). Use of Mechanics in Expansive Soils Engineering Proceedings of the 7
th

International Conference on Expansive Soils, Dallas, TX, 13-24.

Marsh, E. T., and Thoeny, S. A. (1999). Damage and distortion criteria for residential slab-on-
grade structures. J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 13(3), 121127.

McKeen, R.G. (1980), Field studies of airport pavements on expansive clays, Proceedings of
the 4
th
International Conference on Expansive Soils, Denver, Colorado, Vol. I, 242-261.

McKeen, R.G. (1981), "Design of airport pavement on expansive soils", Dept. of Transportation,
Federal Aviation Administration, Rep. No. DOT FAA/RD-81/25.

McKeen, R. G. (1985), Validation of Procedures for Pavement Design on Expansive Soils,
DOT/FAA/PM-85/15, Program Engineering and Maintenance Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, Washington DC.

McKeen. R. G. and Johnson, L. D. (1990). "Climate controlled soil design parameters for mat
foundations" Geotechnical Engineering Division Journal, ASCE 116, 1073-1093.

McKeen, R. G. (1992), A model for predicting expansive soil behavior, Proceedings of the 7
th

International Conference on Expansive Soils, Dallas, Texas, 1-6.

359

McKeen, R. G. (2001) Investigating Field Behavior of Expansive Clay Soils, Expansive Clay
Soils and Vegetative Influence on Shallow Foundations, Proceedings of Geo-Institute
Shallow Foundation and Soil Properties Committee Sessions at the ASCE 2001 Civil
Engineering Conference, Houston, Texas, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 115, 82-94.
McWhorter, D. B., and Nelson, J. D. (1979). "Unsaturated flow beneath tailings impoundments"
Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE 105, 1317-1334.

Meerschaert, M. M. (1999). Mathematical Modeling. 2
nd
edition, Academic Press, San Diego,
CA, 14-15.

Meyer, K. T., and Read, D. (2001). Support parameters for slabs on ground on expansive clay
with vegetation considerations Expansive Clay Soils and Vegetative Influence on Shallow
Foundations, Proceedings of Geo-Institute Shallow Foundation and Soil Properties
Committee Sessions at the ASCE 2001 Civil Engineering Conference, Geotechnical Special
Publication No. 115, 64-81 Houston, Texas.

Miyazaki, T. (1993). Water Flow in Soils. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York.

Mualem, Y. (1986). Hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils: Prediction and formulas,
Methods of Soil Analysis, part I, Physical and Mineralogical Methods, Agron. Monogr., vol. 9,
2nd ed., ed. A. Klute, 799823, Soil Sci. Soc. Am., Madison, Wis. (USA)

Nalbantoglu, Z., and Gucbilmez, E. (2001). Improvement of calcareous expansive soils in semi-
arid environments Journal of Arid Environments 47(4), 453-436.

National Climatic Center Data (NCDC). (2004). http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html.

Natural Resources Conservation Service, (NRCS). (2005).
http://www.az.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/soils/shrinkswell.html

Nelson. J. D., Durkee, D. B. and Bonner, J. P. (1998), Prediction of free field heave using
oedometer test data, Proceedings of the 46
th
Annual Geotechnical Engineering Conference,
University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Nelson, J. D., and Miller, D. J. (1992). Expansive Soils, Problems and Practice in Foundation
and Pavement Engineering, John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Nelson, J.D., Overton, D.D. and Durkee, D.B. (2001), Depth of wetting and the active zone,
Expansive Clay Soils and Vegetative Influence on Shallow Foundations, Proceedings of Geo-
Institute Shallow Foundation and Soil Properties Committee Sessions at the ASCE 2001 Civil
Engineering Conference, Houston, Texas, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 115, 95-109.

Nevels, J. B. (2001). Longitudinal Cracking of a Bicycle Trail Due to /drying Shrinkage,
Engineering Conference, Houston, Texas, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 115, 132-
157.

Ng., C. W. W., and Shi, Q. (1998). "A numerical investigation of the stability of unsaturated soil
slopes subjected to transient seepage." Computers and Geotechnics 22(1), 1-28.

360
Noorany, I, M, Colbaugh, E. D, Lejman, R. J. and Miller, M. J. (2005). Levelness of Newly
Constructed Posttensioned Slabs for Residential Structures. Journal of Performance of
Constructed Facilities,19(1).

O'Neill, M. W. and Poormoayed, N. (1980), Methodology for foundations on expansive clays,
ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, 1345-1364.

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (2005). STOMP: Subsurface Transport Over Multiple
Phases. Version 1.0. Addendum: Sparse Vegetation Evapotranspiration Model for the Water-
Air-Energy Operational Mode. Prepared for U.S. Dep. Of Energy.

Pearring, J. R. (1963). "A study of basic mineralogical, physico-chemical and engineering index
properties of laterite soils." PhD Dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station.

Pengelly, A. D., Boehm, D. W., Rector, E. and Welsh, J. P. (1997). Engineering experience with
in-situ modification of collapsible and expansive soils Unsaturated Soil Engineering Practice,
Proceedings at Geo-Logan 97, Logan, Utah, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 68, 277-
298.

Penman, H.L. (1948). Natural Evapotranspiration from Open Water, Bare Soil and Grass. Proc.
R. Soc. London,Ser. A.,193:120-145.

Pereira, J. H., Fredlund, D. G., Cardao Neto, M. P. and Gitirana, G. F. N. (2005). "Hydraulic
behavior of collapsible compacted gneiss soil." Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Enigneering, 131, 1264-1273.

Perera, Y. Y. (2003). Moisture Equilibria Beneath Paved Areas. PhD Dissertation, Arizona
State University, Tempe, Arizona.

Perez., N. (2006). "Development of a protocol for the assessment of unsaturated soil
properties." PhD Dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona.

Perko, H.A., Thompson, R.W., and Nelson, J.D. (2000). Suction Compression Index Based on
Results from CLOD Tests, Advances in Unsaturated Geotechnics, C.D. Shackelford, et al.
Eds., ASCE Press, Reston, VA, 393-408.

Personal Communication. 2005. McCaleb, Kevin, Orovalley owner, Discussion about landscape
schemes, irrigation systems and common issues.

Personal Communication. 2005. City of Mesa, Arizona, Department of Water Use, Water
Conservation Program, Jeff, Discussion about landscape schemes, irrigation systems and
common issues.

Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI) (1980). Design and Construction of Post-Tensioned Slabs-On-
Ground, 1
st
Edition, PTI, Phoenix, Arizona.

PTI. (1996). Design and Construction of Post-Tensioned Slabs-On-Ground, 2
nd
Edition, PTI,
Phoenix, AZ.

PTI. (2003). "Alternate Procedures for Determining Soil Support Parameters for Shallow
Foundations on Expansive Clay Soil Sites (Relating to the Post-Tensioning Institute manual
Design and Construction of Post-Tensioned Slabs-on-Ground 2
nd
Edition)". PTI Technical
Note 12, Post Tensioning Institute Slab-on-Ground Committee, PTI, Phoenix, AZ.

361
PTI. (2004). Design and Construction of Post-Tensioned Slabs-On-Ground, 3
rd
Edition, PTI
Phoenix, AZ.

Prusinski, J. R., and Bhattacharja, S. (1999). Effectiveness of Portland cement and lime in
stabilizing clay soils Transportation Research Record 1652, Transportation Research Board,
Vol. 1, 215-227.

Puppala, A. J. and Musenda, C. (2001). Fiber and fly ash stabilization methods to treat soft
expansive soils Soft Ground Technology, Proceedings of the Soft Ground Technology
Conference, Noordwijkerhout, the Netherlands, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 112,
136-145.
Reddy, N. J. (1993). An introduction to the Finite Element Method. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 495.

Radevsky, R. (2001). Expansive clay problems-How are they dealt with outside the US?,
Engineering Conference, Houston, Texas, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 115, 172-
191.

Richards, L. A. (1931). Capilary Conduction of Liquids through Porous Medium Physics Vol. 1,
318-33.

Romano, N., and Santini A. (1999). Determining soil hydraulic functions from evaporation
experiments by a parameter estimation approach: Experimental verifications and numerical
studies Water Resour. Res. 35, 33433359.

Russam, K., and Coleman, J. D. (1961). The effect of climatic factors on subgrade moisture
conditions Geotechnique 11(1), 22-28.

Sarewitz, D., et al. (2000). Prediction, Science, Decision Making, and the Future of Nature.
Island Press, Wasington, DC.

Sattler, P. (1990). "Modeling the Relationship between Soil Suction and Vertical Ground
Movement in Expansive Soils" dissertation, University of Saskatchewan.

Scanlon, B. R., et al. (2002). Intercode comparisons for simulating water balance of surficial
sediments in semiarid regions. Water Resour. Res. 38(2), 1323.

Schaake J., Koren, V, and Duan .(1996). Simple water balance model for estimating runoff at
different spatial and temporal scales. Journal of Geophysical Research 101(D3), 7461-7475.

Scott, P. S., Farquhar G. J. and Kouwen N. (1983). Hysteretic effects on net infiltration
Advances in Infiltration 11(83), 163170., Am. Soc. Agric. Eng., St. Josephs, Mich.

Seed, H.B., et al. (1962). Prediction of Swelling Potential for Compacted Clays Journal of the
Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 88.

SlabWorks (2008). 1.04beta User Manual Design of Stiffened Slab-on-Grade Foundations on
Expansive Clay Soil Copyright Eric Green 2005-2008 <http://www.slabongrade.net/>,
(February, 2008)

Skempton, A. W., and MacDonald, D. H. (1956). The allowable settlements of buildings. Proc.,
Inst. Civ. Eng.5 (3), 727768.

362
Snethen, D. R., Johnson, L. D. and Patrick, I. M. (1977). "An evaluation of expedient
methodology for identification of potentially expansive soils", Soils and Pavements Lab., U.S.
Army Eng. Experiment Sta., Vicksburg, MS, Rep. No. FHWA-RE-77-94.

Snethen, D. R. (2001). Influence of Local Tree Species on Shrink/Swell Behavior of Permian
Clay in Central Oklahoma Expansive Clay Soils and Vegetative Influence on Shallow
Foundations, Proceedings of Geo-Institute Shallow Foundation and Soil Properties
Committee Sessions at the ASCE 2001 Civil Engineering Conference, Houston, Texas,
Geotechnical Special Publication No. 115, 158-171.

Soil Vision Systems Ltd. (2005). SVFlux Users and Theory Guide, Version 5. Saskatchewan,
SK, Canada

Soraganvi, V. S., et al. (2003). Modeling of seepage flow through layered soils. Unsaturated
Soils: Numerical and Theoretical Approaches. Proceedings of the International Conference
From Experimental Evidence towards Numerical Modeling of Unsaturated Soils Vol. 2.
Weimar, Germany, September 18-19, 2003, 313-325.

Steinberg, M. (2000). Expansive soils and the geomembrane remedy Advances in Unsaturated
Geotechnics, Proceedings of sessions of Geo-Denver 2000, Denver, Colorado, Geotechnical
Special Publication No. 99, 456-466.

Stryron, J., King, P, Strieben, G. (2001). Data Base on Under-Slab Moisture Contents in San
Antonio and Houston Areas, Texas, Expansive Clay Soils and Vegetative Influence on
Shallow Foundations, Proceedings of Geo-Institute Shallow Foundation and Soil Properties
Committee Sessions at the ASCE 2001 Civil Engineering Conference, Houston, Texas,
Geotechnical Special Publication No. 115, 223-242.

Taigbenu, A. E. (2001). "Unsaturated flow simulation with green element model." Journal of
Hydraulic Engineering 127(4), 307-312.

Tamari, S., L. Bruckler, Halbertsma J. and Chadoeuf J. (1993). A simple method for determining
soil hydraulic properties in the laboratory Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 57, 642 651.

Tan, T. S, Phoon, K. K. and Chong, P. C. (2004). (2004). "Numerical study of finite element
method based solutions for propagation of wetting fronts in unsaturated soil." Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 130(3), 254-263.
Taylor, R. L., and Brown, C. B. (1967). Darcy Flow Solutions with Free Surface J. Hydraulic
Div., HY2, 25-33.

Ten Berge, H. F. M. (1990). Heat and water transfer in bare topsoil and the lower atmosphere,
Wageningen, Pudoc.

Thomas, H. R. (1999). "Introduction of Expansive Clay Behavior in coupled Thermo Hydraulic
Mechanical Models" Engineering Geology 54, 93-108.

Thompson, R. W. (1992), Swell test as a predictor of structural performance, Proceedings of
the 7
th
International Conference on Expansive Soils, Dallas, Texas, 84-88.

Thompson, R. W. and McKeen, R. G. (1995). Heave prediction using soil suction a case
history. Soil Suction Applications in Geotechnical Engineering Practice, ASCE Geotechnical
Special Publication No. 48, 1-13.

363
Thornthwaite, C. W. (1948). An approach toward a rational classification of climate.
Geographical Review 38, 55-94.

Tindall, J. A., and Kunkel, J. R. (1999). Unsaturated Zone Hydrology for Scientists and
Engineers. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey

Tucker, R. L., and Poor, A. R. (1978). "Field study of moisture effects on slab movements"
Geotechnical Engineering Division Journal, ASCE 104, 403-414.

University of California Riverside (2005). The Hydrus-1D Software Package for Simulating the
One-Dimensional Movement of Water, Heat, and Multiple Solutes in Variably-Saturated
Media. Version 3, Department of Environmental Sciences, Riverside, California

Van Dam J. C. (2000). "Simulation of Field-Scale Water Flow Bromide Transport in a Cracked
Clay Soil." Hydrological Process 14, 1101-1117.

van Genuchten M. T., and Nielsen D. R. (1985). On describing and predicting the hydraulic
properties of unsaturated soils Ann. Geophys. 3(6), 15-28.

Vogel, T., and Cislerova, M. (1988). On the reliability of unsaturated hydraulic conductivity
calculated from the moisture retention curve Transport Porous Media. 3, 1-15.

Vogel T., M., van Genuchten M. T., and Cislerova M. (2001). Effect of the shape of the soil
hydraulic functions near saturation on variably-saturated flow predictions. Advances in Water
Resources 24, 133-144.

Walsh, K. D., Bashford, H. H., and Mason, B. C. A. (2001). State of practice of residential floor
slab flatness. J. Perform. Constr. Facil.,15 (4), 127134.

Walsh, K.D., Colby, C.A., Houston, W.N., and Houston, S.L. (2006). Evaluation of Changes to
Soil Suction Resulting from Residential Development, Proceedings, Fourth International
Conference on Unsaturated Soils, April 2-6, 2006, Carefree, AZ, Geo-Institute of ASCE, 203-
212.

Warketine, B.P, et al. (1957). Swelling Pressure of Montmorillonite Soil Science of America,
Proceeding 21.

Watson, K. K. (1966). An instantaneous profile method for determining the hydraulic
conductivity of unsaturated porous materials. Water Resour. Res. 2, 709715.

Western Regional Climate Center, NOAA. (2006). "Weather data".
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/htmlfiles/ westevap.final.html#ARIZONA ( 2006).

Wheeler, S.J. and Sivakumar, V. (1995). An elasto-plastic critical state framework for
unsaturated soil. Gotechnique 45(1), 35-53.

Williams, A. A. B. (1980) Severe heaving of a block of flats near Kimberley Proceedings of the
7
th
Regional Conference for Africa on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering Vol. 1,
301-310.

Wilson, G. W., Fredlund, D. L., Barbour, S. L. (1994). Coupled soil-atmosphere modeling for
soil evaporation. Can. Geotech. J., 31, 151-161.

364
Wilson, G. W., Barbour, S. L, Fredlund, D. L. (1995). The prediction of Evaporative Fluxes from
Unsaturated Soil Surfaces, Unsaturated Soils by Alonso, E. E, Delage, P., p. 423-429.

Wind, G. P. (1968). Capillary conductivity data estimated by a simple method. Water in the
Unsaturated Zone, vol. 1, ed. P. E. Rijtema and H. Wassink, Int. Assoc. Sci. Hydrol. Publ.,
82 83, 181 191.

Woodward-Clyde and Associates. (1967). A review paper on expansive clay soils: Prepared for
Portland Cement Association, Los Angeles, California Vol. 1, 134.

Wooltorton, F. L. D. (1950), Movements in the desiccated alkaline soils in Burma, Proc. ASCE,
January.

Wray, W. K. (1978). "Development of a Design Procedure for Residential and Light Commercial
Slab-on-Ground Constructed Over Expansive Soils." PhD. Dissertation, Texas A&M
University College Station, Texas.

Wray, W. K. (1989). Field measurements of edge moisture variation distance. Proceedings of
the 12
th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Rio de
Janeiro, Vol. 1, 663-668.

Wray, W. K. (1997). Using soil suction to estimate differential soil shrink or heave. Unsaturated
Soil Engineering Practice, Proceedings at Geo-Logan 97, Logan, Utah, Geotechnical Special
Publication No. 68, 66-87.

Wray, W. K. (1992). Comparison of Predicted Heave to Field Measurements Proceedings of
the 7
th
Intl. Conf. Exp. Soils, 331-336.

Wray, W. K. (1995). Development of principal distortion modes of slabs-on-ground on expansive
soils solely as a function of climate. Proceedings of the 1
st
International Conference on
Unsaturated Soils, UNSAT 95, Paris, France, 1023-1032.

Wray, W. K. and Meyer, K. T. (2004). Expansive Clay Soil A widespread and Costly
GeoHazard GeoStrata, ASCE Geo-Institute, 5(4), 24-28.

Wray, W. K., Garhy, M. E., Youssef, A. A. (2005). "Three-Dimensional model for moisture and
volume changes prediction in expansive soils." Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 131(3), 311-324.

Zapata, C.E. (1999). Uncertainty in Soil-Water Characteristic Curve and Impact on Unsaturated
Shear Strength Predictions. PhD dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.

Zapata, C.E., Houston, S.L., Houston, W.N., and Dye, H.B. (2006). Expansion Index and Its
Relationship with Other Index Properties. ASCE Proceedings of the Fourth International
Conference on Unsaturated Soils, Carefree, AZ., 2133-2137.

Zienkiewicz, O. C., and Taylor, R. L. (1989). The finite element Method., Vol 2, fourth edition,
McGraw-Hill Inc., 807.
APPENDIX A
HISTORY OF PTI GEOTECHNICAL PROCEDURE DEVELOPMENT
Research leading up to 2
nd
Edition PTI
1. Research done by Thornthwaite (1948) lead to the development of climate index, TMI.

=
= =
=
12
1
12
1
12
1
60 100
n
n
n n
n n
PE
d s
TMI (1)
(1a)
PE P
PE P
for
for PE P
s
>
=
0
(1b)
P PE
P PE
for
for P PE
d
>
=
0

The water surplus, s, and the water deficiency, d, are calculated on month-to-month
basis in centimeters or inches. The calculation is based on potential evaporation, PE,
and precipitation, P, data. The obtained values of TMI for the US were plotted on a
map, see Figure 1.

Figure 1. Thornthwaite moisture Index for US (after PTI, 2004).

367
2. Holtz and Gibbs (1956) used Atterberg limits as predictors of soil behavior. In general, it
was observed that soil with a high plasticity index, PI, experience greater volume change
than soils with a low PI.

Figure 2. Expansive soil classification based on index soil properties (Holtz and
Gibbs, 1956)

3. Russam and Coleman (1961) correlated soil suction beyond active zone depth to TMI,
see Figure 3.

Figure 3. Relationship between soil suction at depth and TMI (PTI, 1996).

368
4. Seed (1962) developed a chart correlating Ac and %clay to swell potential. The percent
clay is defined as the percent of soil faction smaller then 0.002 mm.

Figure 4. Soil swell potential in terms of activity and percent clay (Seed et al., 1962).

5. Pearring (1963) developed a correlation between mineralogical classification and index
properties. He introduced two new parameters: cation exchange activity ratio
%
CEC
CEAc
fc

=
and activity ratio

%
PI
Ac
fc

=
, where CEC is expressed in terms of

milliequivalents per 100 grams of dry soil and clay fraction, %fc, is defined as the ratio of
percent clay to percent of soil passing US sieve number 200 expressed.

369

ACTIVITY RATIO
MONTMORILLONITE
INTERSTRATIFIED
HALLOSITE
ILLITE
CHLORITE
KAOLINITE
ATTAPULGITE
C
A
T
I
O
N

E
X
C
H
A
N
G
E

A
C
T
I
V
I
T
Y

(
C
E
A
c
)
0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
1.0 1.5 3.0
1.5
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.1
2.0

Figure 5. Mineralogical classification (after Pearring, 1963).

6. Edge moisture variation distance, e
m
, is a distance measured inward from the edge of
the slab over which the moisture content of the soil varies due to wetting or drying. In the
procedure, the magnitude of e
m
is determined based correlation developed with TMI
based on successful performance of 10 year old slabs in Texas (Wray, 1978). The
correlation is presented in Figure 6. Differential swell, also referred to as differential soil
movement, y
m
, is the change in soil elevation between the two points separated by e
m
.
The amount of expansion or contraction that a soil stratum will undergo was correlated
to mineralogical classification, permeability of clays and total potential of soil water
(Wray, 1978). In the procedure y
m
is determined based on %clay, mineralogical
classification, depth to constant suction, e
m
and moisture flow velocity, V = 0.5*TMI,
where the magnitude of TMI is used. Though TMI is a dimensionless parameter, this is
an empirical correlation that yields velocity in units of in/year. The moisture flow velocity
is limited to values not smaller than 0.5 in/month [1.3 cm/month] or larger than 0.7
in/month [1.8 cm/month].

370
7. 1980 publication of 1
st
edition PTI procedure for ribbed PT foundation design.
8. 1996 publication of 2
nd
edition PTI procedure which expands its application to uniform
thickness PT slab with provisions given to stable and compressible sites. The authors
provide larger commentary on the development and implementation of the method.

E
D
G
E

M
O
I
S
T
U
R
E

V
A
R
I
A
T
I
O
N

D
I
S
T
A
N
C
E

[
F
T
]

THORNTHWAITE MOISTURE INDEX

Figure 6. Edge Moisture Variation Distance as a Function of Thornthwaite Moisture
Index (after Wray, 1978).

371
Research Leading up to 3
rd
edition PTI
1. Lytton (1977) presented an equation to estimate the potential volume change

i
f
i
f
h
h
h
V
V

10 10
log log (2)

where:
h
is the suction compression index, where the suction compression index is defined as
the change of soil moisture with change in logarithm of total suction;
is the mean principal stress compression index;

h
f
and h
i
are initial and final water suctions respectively;
f
and
i
are final and initial stress terms.
2. McKeen and Hamberg (1981) developed a chart where suction compression index is
correlated to CEAc and Ac. The suction compression index was obtained from
Coefficient of Linear Extensibility, COLE, test.

Figure 7. Classification of COLE values with Ac and CEAc (McKeen and Hamberg,
1981).

372
The COLE test gives is a ratio of the difference between the moist and dry
lengths of a clod to its dry length, (Lm-Ld)/Ld when Lm is the moist length at 33kPa and
Ld is the air-dry length. This is a drying test developed by Brasher et. al. (1966). The
established relationship between volume and water content (or suction) from the COLE
test is a constitutive function of a particular expansive soil. Such a relationship can be
used to quantify volume change characteristics of soil upon wetting and drying (McKeen
1985).
The values in the chart correspond to suction compression coefficient values for
soil consisting of 100% clay. The actual suction compression index can be obtained
with equation (3).

200
100
%
P
clay
h
= (3)
3. Cassagrande used Atterberg Limits for the mineralogical classification of clay. His work,
updated by Holtz and Kovacs (1981) is presented in Figure 8. The updated chart was
further used by Covar and Lytton (2001) to develop a method of soil swell prediction for
slab-on-grade design purposes.

Figure 8. Mineralogical classification based on Atterberg Limits (Holtz and Kovacs,
1981).

373
4. The updated mineralogical classification chart is presented below.

Figure 9. Soil classification based on Atterberg Limits (PTI, 2004).

5. McKeen et al. (1990) indicate that the magnitude of the edge moisture variation distance
depends on the vertical depth of moisture variation. As such, the edge moisture
variation distance can approach a distance equal to the depth of the active zone.
6. An attempt was made by McKeen (2001) to develop a methodology of predicting
expansive potential of soil based on suction compression index. The magnitude of the
suction compression index indicates if the soil is expansive or not. Small slope
characterizes a swelling soil while a large slope indicates a non-expansive soil. The
classification system introduced by McKeen for total suction is presented in Figure 6
where the chart is divided into five sections. Each section represents soil with different
swell potential. In general, the closer the soil is to the left bottom corner, the less
expansive it is.

374

Figure 10. Soil characterization in terms of suction compression index (after McKeen,
2001).

7. Suction compression index can be correlated to mineralogical soil classification and soil
index properties. Covar and Lytton (2001). obtained 130 000 soil samples compiled by
the Soil Survey Laboratory (SSL) of the National Soil Survey Center. The data were
filtered for data sets containing the following information:
LL,
PI,
CEC
CLOD
%clay
P
200
.

375

Zone I

Zone II

Zone III

Zone IV

Zone V

Zone VI

Figure 11. Suction compression index based on mineralogical classification of soil
into six types and soil index properties (after Covar and Lytton, 2001).

376
The 6400 records were used in the development of the presented correlation between
index properties and suction compression index, where suction compression index was
obtained from COLE test as follows:
+ = 1 1
100
3
COLE
swelling
;
+ =
3
1
100
1
COLE
swelling
(4)
They developed a correlation between suction compression index and mineralogical
classification. Here the suction compression index is defined as the slope of volume
change to logarithm of total suction change for 100% fine clay. Preliminary work was
published in 2000 by TBPE. The suction compression index is used in the estimation of
both e
m
and y
m
in the updated version of PTI procedure.
8. Em depends on TMI and unsaturated diffusion coefficient, . Diffusivity is correlated with
soil index properties and suction compression index. The relationship was established
by running Jayatilaka et al. program (1992) for 9 selected climatic zones and one year of
input.

Figure 12. Edge Moisture Variation Selection Chart (PTI, 2004).

377
9. Alternate Procedure for Determining Soil Support Parameters for Shallow Foundations
on Expansive Clay Soil Sites under PTI Technical Note 12 (PTI, 2003) was printed.
10. The 3
rd
Edition procedure was printed (PTI, 2004). It is very similar to the previous
version. The differences lie in the estimation of suction compression index equations
and updated suction compression index charts.

References:
Brasher, B. R., D. P. Franzmeier, V. Valassis and S. E. Davidson. (1966). Use of Saran Resin to
Coat Natural Soil Clods for Bulk-Density and Water-Retention Measurements. Soil
Science, 101, 108.

Cover, A.P. and Lytton, R.L. (2001). Estimating Soil Swelling Behavior Using Soil Classification
Properties. ASCE Geotechnical Publication 115, ASCE, 44-63.

Holtz, W. G. and Gibbs, H. J. (1956). Engineering properties of expansive clays. Transactions
ASCE, 121, 641-677.

Holtz, R. D. and Kovacs, W. D. (1981). An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering, Prentice-
Hall, Englewood, NJ.

Jayatilaka, R. Gay, D. A., Lytton, R. L. and Wray W. K. (1992). Effectiveness of controlling
pavement roughness due to expansive clays with vertical moisture barriers. Research
Report 1165-2F, Texas Transportation Institute, College Station.

Lytton, R.L. (1977). Engineering properties of expansive soils. Presentation to the American
Geophysics Union, Conference, San Francisco.

McKeen, R.G. (1981), Design of airport pavement on expansive soils. Dept. of Transportation,
Federal Aviation Administration, Rep. No. DOT FAA/RD-81/25.

McKeen, R.G. and Hamberg, D. J. (1981), Characterization of expansive soils. Transportation
Research Record 790, Transportation Research Board, 73-78.

McKeen, R. G. (1985), Validation of Procedures for Pavement Design on Expansive Soils,
DOT/FAA/PM-85/15, Program Engineering and Maintenance Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, Washington DC.

McKeen. R. G. and Johnson, L. D. (1990). Climate controlled soil design parameters for mat
foundations. Geotechnical Engineering Division Journal, ASCE, Vol. 116, 1073-1093.

Pearring, J.R. (1963). A study of basic mineralogical, physico-chemical and engineering index
properties of laterite soils. PhD Dissertation Texas A&M University, College Station.

Russam, K. and Coleman, J.D. (1961). The effect of climatic factors on subgrade moisture
conditions. Geotechnique, 11(1). 22-28.

378
Seed, H.B., Mitchell, J.K. and Chan, C.K. (1962). "Studies of swell and swell pressure
characteristics of compacted clays", Highway Res. Board Bulletin 331, 12-39.

TBPE. (2000). Residential Foundation Design Subcommittee. Advisory Report, Texas Board of
Professional Engineers, Austin, TX.

Wray, W. K. (1978). Development Procedures for Residential and Light Commercial Slab-on-
Ground Constructed Over Expansive Soils. PhD Dissertation, Texas A&M University at
College Station, Tx.
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY DATA
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Site # 1......................................................................................................................................... 382
Site # 2......................................................................................................................................... 387
Site # 3......................................................................................................................................... 392
Site # 4......................................................................................................................................... 397
Site # 5......................................................................................................................................... 402
Site # 6......................................................................................................................................... 408
Site # 7......................................................................................................................................... 413
Site # 8......................................................................................................................................... 414
Site # 9......................................................................................................................................... 419
Site # 10....................................................................................................................................... 424
Site # 11....................................................................................................................................... 430
Site # 12....................................................................................................................................... 435
Site # 13....................................................................................................................................... 440
Site # 14....................................................................................................................................... 446
Site # 15....................................................................................................................................... 451
Site # 16....................................................................................................................................... 456
Site # 17....................................................................................................................................... 461
Site # 18....................................................................................................................................... 467

Site # 1
Table 1. General Site Information
Soil # 1
City Tempe
Cross Roads Mill Ave./Broadway Rd.
Year of Construction 1977
Date of Sampling 2/2003
Lot Size [ft
2
] 11100
House Size [ft
2
] 2272
Construction Type wood frame
Foundation Type stem and footer
Slab Thickness [in] 3
Thickness of Gravel Layer [in] 4
Landscape near sampling area Paved, large trees
Distance from slab edge to core location [ft] 10
Pool no
History of Leaks no

Figure 1. Birds-Eye View.

383
Table 2. Index Properties.
Soil
Sample #
Classification
LL PL PI P
200 clay
k
sat
[cm/s]
Gs CEC
Sulfate
[ppm]
1-1-7-18 CL 28.4 14.2 14 62.5 2.8E-07 2.738
1-2-18-27.5 CL 31.5 20.1 11 72.1 12.3
1-3-27.5-38 CL 31.5 20.1 11 69
1-4-38-47 ML-CL 27.1 20.3 7 60.2
1-5-47-56.8 CL 30.1 22.3 8 59.5 4.4E-06 2.731
1-6-56.8-66.5 ML 35.2 25.5 10 55.6
1-7-66.5-77 ML 36.2 24.9 11 52.4
1-8-77-85.5 ML 36.2 24.9 11 54.3
Footnotes: Shaded used for estimated values

Table 3. Moisture Conditions.
Depth
Water
Content
dry
Saturation Suction Sample #
[in] [%] [pcf] [%] [kPa]
1-1-7-18 10 11.8 102.4 48.6 845
1-1-7-18 14 11.9 102.7 49.3 792
1-1-7-18 15 14.7
1-1-7-18 16 14.2
1-2-18-27.5 20 13.9
1-2-18-27.5 23 13.1 97.4 47.9 399
1-2-18-27.5 27 14.4
1-3-27.5-38 29 13.3
1-3-27.5-38 33 12.8 96.5 45.9 508
1-3-27.5-38 37 11.3
1-4-38-47 42 11.5 92.0 36.9 156
1-4-38-47 46 12.1
1-5-47-56.8 49 12.1
1-5-47-56.8 50 11.6 88.3 34.1 292
1-5-47-56.8 54 12.1 87.9 35.4 261
1-5-47-56.8 56 11.8
1-6-56.8-66.5 58 13.1
1-6-56.8-66.5 62 12.6 93.7 42.3 146
1-6-56.8-66.5 65 17.6
1-7-66.5-77 70 17.5
1-7-66.5-77 72 13.3 98.5 49.9 187
1-7-66.5-77 75 10.7
1-8-77-85.5 78 12.7
1-8-77-85.5 80 12.7 98.5 48.0 222
1-8-77-85.5 85 12.8
Footnotes:
Shaded background used for estimated values
Suction test description Section 4.2.9.1.3 and Appendix D.

384

Table 4. Consolidation Tests.
Test 1 Test 2
Sample Ps
Cor.
Ps w
dry
Sample Ps
Cor.
Ps w
dry
Swell
Sample #
Type [kPa] [kPa] [%] [pcf] Type [kPa] [kPa] [%] [pcf] Index
1-1-7-18 R 77.2 77.2 11.8 102.4 0.0185
1-2-18-27.5
1-3-27.5-38
1-4-38-47
1-5-47-56.8 R 12.9 15.3 11.6 88.3 0.0154
1-6-56.8-66.5
1-7-66.5-77
1-8-77-85.5
Footnotes
R - reconstructed test
I - insitu test
See section 4.2.7 for test description, submerged test

0
20
40
60
80
100
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Grain Diameter [mm]
%

P
a
s
s
i
n
g
1-2-18-25 1-4-36-45
1-6-55-64 1-8-74-84

Figure 2. Gradation and Hydrometer Test.

385
0
5
0
0
1
0
0
0
S
u
c
t
i
o
n

[
k
P
a
]
0
5
0
1
0
0
S

[
%
]
0
.
0
0
.
5
1
.
0
w
/
P
L
F
i
g
u
r
e

3
.

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
.

1
0
1
5
2
0
w

[
%
]
8
5
9
5
1
0
5
1
1
5
d

[
p
c
f
]
8

M
L
7

M
L
6

M
L
5

C
L
4

M
L
-
C
L
3

C
L
2

C
L
1

C
L
G
r
a
v
e
l
C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
C
o
r
e

#

S
o
i
l

C
l
a
s
s
i
f
.
0
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
0
7
0
8
0
9
0
D e p t h [ i n c h ]

386
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
1 10 100 1000 10000
Pressure [kPa]
V
o
i
d

R
a
t
i
o
1-1-7-18 Reconstructed
1-5-47-56.8 Reconstructed

Figure 4. Consolidation Test

0
20
40
60
80
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
D
e
g
r
e
e

o
f

S
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
%
]
1-1-14 (dry spec. weight = 103)
1-2-23 (97)
1-3-33 (97)
1-4-42 (92)
1-5-54 (88)
1-6-62 (94)
1-7-72 (98)

Figure 5. SWCC. S vs. matric suction

387
Site # 2

Table 5. General Site Information.
Soil # 2
City Tempe
Cross Roads Kyrene Rd./Guadalupe Rd.
Year of Construction unknown
Lot Size [ft
2
] unknown
House Size [ft
2
] 29 795
Construction Type wood frame, commercial
Thickness of Gravel Layer [in] 4.5
Landscape near sampling area paved, few trees near foundation
Pool no
History of Leaks no


388
Soil
Sample #
Classification
LL PL PI P
200
clay
k
sat

[cm/s]
Gs CEC
Sulfate
[ppm]
2-1-8.5-19 CL 30.9 19.2 12 71.2 2.5E-08 2.764
2-2-19-27 CL 31.6 19.6 12 80.8
2-3-27-36 CL 31.6 19.6 12 74.8 9.8
2-4-36-46 CL 26.2 18.5 8 72.7
2-5-46-55 CL 26.2 18.5 8 72.7 1.1E-06 2.750
2-6-55-66 CL 26.2 18.5 8 66.7
2-7-66-75 CL 29.9 19.3 11 68.8
2-8-75-85 CL 31.5 20.7 11 51
Footnotes: shaded used for estimated values

Sample #
Depth
Water
Content
dry
Saturation Suction

[in] [%] [pcf] [%] [kPa]
2-1-8.5-19 11 11.6 121.0 75.8 1410
2-1-8.5-19 14.5 11.8 120.3 75.6 1425
2-1-8.5-19 17.5 12.1 112.7 63.7 1595
2-2-19-27 25 11.5 97.6 41.7
2-3-27-36 33 10.2 95.9 35.5 1550
2-3-27-36 35 10.0 96.5 35.6
2-4-36-46 45 11.5 91.9 36.7
2-5-46-55 48 10.0 91.8 31.9
2-5-46-55 52 9.6 93.1 31.5 1151
2-5-46-55 54 10.1 93.6 33.6
2-6-55-66 65 10.6 94.3 35.8
2-7-66-75 70 10.2 95.8 35.6 846
2-7-66-75 71 11.3 99.1 42.8
2-8-75-85 82 13.3 88.0 38.6 470
2-8-75-85 84 13.6 91.5 42.9 354
Footnotes:

Test 1 Test 2
Sample Ps
Cor.
Ps w
dry
Sample Ps
Cor.
Ps w
dry
Swell
Sample #
2-1-8.5-19 R 75.9 119.5 11.6 121.0 0.0150
2-5-46-55 R 20.7 26.5 10.0 91.8 0.0111
Footnotes

389
8

C
L
7

C
L
6

C
L
5

C
L
4

C
L
3

C
L
2

C
L
1

C
L
G
r
a
v
e
l
C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
C
o
r
e

#

S
o
i
l

C
l
a
s
s
i
f
.
8
5
9
5
1
0
5
1
1
5
1
2
5
d

[
p
c
f
]
0
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
0
7
0
8
0
9
0
5
1
0
1
5
w

[
%
]
0
.
0
0
.
5
1
.
0
w
/
P
L
0
5
0
1
0
0
S

[
%
]
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
S
u
c
t
i
o
n

[
k
P
a
]
F
i
g
u
r
e

7
.

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
.

390
0
20
40
60
80
100
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Grain Diameter [mm]
%

P
a
s
s
i
n
g
2-2-18-25 2-3-27-36
2-6-55-64 2-8-74-84

Figure 8. Gradation and Hydrometer Tests.

0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
1 10 100 1000 10000
Pressure [kPa]
V
o
i
d

R
a
t
i
o
2-1-8.5-19 Reconstructed

Figure 9. Consolidation Test.

391
0
20
40
60
80
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
D
e
g
r
e
e

o
f

S
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
%
]
2-1-14.5 (dry spec. weight = 120 pcf)
2-1-17.5 (112.7)
2-3-33 (95.9)
2-5-52 (93.0)
2-7-70 (95.7)
2-8-82/84 (88/91.5)

Figure 10. SWCC: S vs. matric suction.

392
Site # 3
Soil # 3
City Chandler
Cross Roads Kyrene Rd./Ray Rd.
Year of Construction unknown
Lot Size [ft
2
] unknown
House Size [ft
2
] unknown
Landscape near sampling area paved, gravel area near foundation
Pool no
History of Leaks no

Table 10. Visual soil description.
Core # Soil Description
0-4.0 Concrete
4-9.5 Granular base
3-1-9.5-17.5 Brown sandy clay, traces of organic matter (dry leaves)
3-2-17.5-25 Brown sandy clay.
3-3-25-36 Brown sandy clay, lens of silty sand on the top of sample, root holes
3-4-36-45.5 Brown sandy clay, root holes
3-5-45.5-54.5 Dark brown and light brown sandy clay
3-6-54.5-64.5 Dark brown and light brown sandy clay, some gravel on top of sample
3-7-64.5-73.5 Clayey sand
3-8-73.5-84 Sandy clay

393
Soil
Sample #
Classification
LL PL PI P
200
clay
k
sat

[cm/s]
Gs CEC
Sulfate
[ppm]
3-1-9.5-17.5
CL
28.8 17.5 11 73.6 2.7E-07 2.71 47
3-2-17.5-25
CL
28.6 17.6 11 76.0 10
3-3-25-36
CL
28.6 17.6 11 76
3-4-36-45.5
CL
39.5 24.4 15 61.5
3-5-45.5-54.5
CL
47.7 24.5 23 52.7 6.6E-08 2.739
3-6-54.5-64.5
CL
47.7 24.5 23 58.3
3-7-64.5-73.5
CL
47.7 24.5 23 52.7
3-8-73.5-84 SC 51.3 26.2 25 46.4
Footnotes: Shaded used for estimated values

Sample #
Depth
Water
Content
dry
Saturation Suction

[in] [%] [pcf] [%] [kPa]
3-1-9.5-17.5 16.6 10.8 108.1 52.0 1527
3-2-17.5-25
3-3-25-36 35 10.5 95.3 36.9 1551
3-4-36-45.5
3-5-45.5-54.5 50 13.6 100.3 53.2 1278
3-6-54.5-64.5
3-7-64.5-73.5 72.5 7.1 106.9 32.9 571
3-8-73.5-84 83 14.9 105.1 65.7 726
Footnotes:

Test 1 Test 2
Sample Ps
Cor.
Ps w
dry
Sample Ps
Cor.
Ps w
dry
Swell
Sample #
3-1-9.5-17.5 R 48.5 100.0 10.6 108.1 R 70 124 11 108 0.0155
3-2-17.5-25
3-3-25-36
3-4-36-45.5
3-5-45.5-54.5 R 68.5 114.0 13.3 100.6 R 90 177 14 100 0.0202
3-6-54.5-64.5
3-7-64.5-73.5
3-8-73.5-84
Footnotes
R - reconstructed test I - insitu test

394

8

S
C
7

C
L
6

C
L
5

C
L
4

C
L
3

C
L
2

C
L
1

C
L
G
r
a
v
e
l
C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
C
o
r
e

#

S
o
i
l

C
l
a
s
s
i
f
.
8
5
9
5
1
0
5
1
1
5
d
r
y

[
p
c
f
]
0
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
0
7
0
8
0
9
0
5
1
0
1
5
w

[
%
]
0
.
0
0
.
5
1
.
0
w
/
P
L
0
5
0
1
0
0
S

[
%
]
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
S
u
c
t
i
o
n

[
k
P
a
]
F
i
g
u
r
e

1
1
.

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
.

395
0
20
40
60
80
100
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Grain Diameter [mm]
%

P
a
s
s
i
n
g
3-2-17.5-25
3-4-36-45.5
3-6-54.5-64.5
3-8-73.5-84


0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
10 100 1000 10000
Pressure [kPa]
V
o
i
d

R
a
t
i
o
3-1 9.5-17.5
Reconstructed
3-5-45.5-54.5
Reconstructed


396
0
20
40
60
80
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
D
e
g
r
e
e

o
f

S
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
%
]
3-1-16.6 (dry spec. weight = 108)
3-3-35 (80)
3-5-50 (100)
3-7-72.5 (106)
3-8-83 (105)


397
Site # 4

Soil # 4
City Chandler
Cross Roads Cooper Rd./ Chandler Blvd.
2
Lot Size [ft ] 4 813
2
House Size [ft ] 1 208
Landscape near sampling area desert, desert trees
Pool no
History of Leaks no


398
Soil
Sample #
Classification
LL PL PI
P
200
[%]
%
clay
k
sat

[cm/s]
Gs CEC
Sulfate
[ppm]
4-1-5.5-16 CL 34.5 20.5 14 67.4 1.6E-07
4-2-16-25 CL 37.9 20.4 17 64.9 17 2.823
4-3-25-35.5 CL 40.6 21.7 19 57.5
4-4-35.5-45.75 SM-SC 24.3 18.0 6 36.8
4-5-45.75-55 SM-SC 24.3 18.0 6 36.8 4.8E-07 2.764
4-6-55-65 SC 32.5 21.3 11 44
4-7-65-75 SC 32.5 21.3 11 29.5

Sample #
Depth
Water
Content
dry
Saturation Suction

[in] [%] [pcf] [%] [kPa]
4-1-5.5-16 8 12.51 119.1 74.4 1880
4-1-5.5-16 10 12.62 105.0 53.0 1648
4-2-16-25 24 14.00
4-3-25-35.5 30 12.88 115.7 70.1 1640
4-3-25-35.6 34 12.70 116.3 70.2 1615
4-4-35.5-45.75 40 9.20
4-4-35.5-45.75 44 10.77 109.9 50.8 521
4-5-45.75-55 50 10.81 101.3 42.8 254
4-5-45.75-55 53 14.35 93.1 46.8 135
4-6-55-65 64 13.29
4-7-65-75 72 8.39 99.0 31.5 262
4-7-65-75 74 8.34 99.0 31.2 215
Footnotes:

Test 1 Test 2
Sample Ps
Cor.
Ps w
dry
Sample Ps
Cor.
Ps w
dry
Swell Sample #
Type [kPa] [kPa] [%] [pcf] Type [kPa]

[kPa] [%] [pcf] Index
4-1-5.5-16 R 217 291.6 12.9 108.9 0.0358
4-5-45.75-55 R 12.5 20.0 12.4 97.2 R 10 10.4 13.2 96.7 0.0088
Footnotes
I - insitu test

399
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
S
u
c
t
i
o
n

[
k
P
a
]
0
5
0
1
0
0
S

[
%
]
7

S
C
6

S
C
5

S
M
-
S
C
4

S
M
-
S
C
3

C
L
2

C
L
1

C
L
G
r
a
v
e
l
C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
C
o
r
e

#

S
o
i
l

C
l
a
s
s
i
f
.
8
5
9
5
1
0
5
1
1
5
d
r
y

[
p
c
f
]
0
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
0
7
0
8
0
5
1
0
1
5
w

[
%
]
0
.
0
0
.
5
1
.
0
w
/
P
L
F
i
g
u
r
e

1
6
.

P
r
o
f
i
l
e

400
0
20
40
60
80
100
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Grain Diameter [mm]
%

P
a
s
s
i
n
g
4-1-5.5-16
4-2-16-25
4-3-25-35.5
4-5-45.75-55
4-7-65-75


0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
1 10 100 1000 10000
Pressure [kPa]
V
o
i
d

R
a
t
i
o


401
0
20
40
60
80
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
D
e
g
r
e
e

o
f

S
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
%
]
4-1-10 (105)
4-3-30 (116)
4-4-44 (110)
4-5-50 (101)
4-5-54(93)
4-7-72 (99)


402
Site # 5

Soil # 5
City Chandler
Cross Roads Chandler Heights Rd./Arizona Ave.
2
2
Landscape near sampling area desert, sidewalk potentially impedes drainage
Pool yes
History of Leaks no
Previous Land Use Undeveloped desert


Soil
Sample #
Classification
LL PL PI
P
200
[%]
%
clay
k
sat

[cm/s]
Sulfate
[ppm]
Gs CEC
5-1-8.5-16.5 SM NP NP 42.9 3.4E-07 2.784 24
5-2-16.5-27 SC 44.5 17.6 27 41.2 18 3.5E-07 25
5-3-27-36 32.8
5-4-36.5-47
5-5-47-56 SC 39.8 22.0 18 37.2 2.8E-07 2.751
5-6-56-66
5-7-66-75.75
5-8-75.75-83.5 SC 26.7 18.7 8 28.2

403
Sample #
Depth Water Content
dry
Saturation Suction

[in] [%] [pcf] [%] [kPa]
5-1-8.5-16.5 12 6.60 103.8 27.4
5-1-8.5-16.5 15.5 7.28 96.7 25.6 7300
5-2-16.5-27 18.5 9.55 125.1 69.1 1564
5-3-27-36 35 5.97 107.8 27.4 9900
5-4-36.5-47 38.5 7.05 108.3 33.4 1225
5-5-47-56 50 9.27 98.3 34.4 5400
5-5-47-56 54 9.35 96.9 33.5 5915
5-6-56-66 58 7.65 105.3 33.7 3250
5-7-66-75.75 60
5-8-75.75-83.5 78 6.33 109.0 30.5 9216
F
Footnotes:
Gray background - values estimated with w and
d
only,
Black background - values estimated with scanning curve based on measured suction
F
Filter Paper Test

Test 1 Test 2
Sample Ps
Cor.
Ps w
dry
Sample Ps
Cor.
Ps w
dry
Swell
Sample #
5-1-8.5-16.5 I 10 10.4 6.6 103.8 R 3.5 3.46 7.8 96.2 0.0048
5-2-16.5-27 R 0.0067
5-5-47-56 I 14.2 15.8 9.3 98.3 R 17 20 9 96.9 0.0122
Footnotes
I - insitu test
See section 4.2.7 for test description, submerged test.

Table 22. Compaction and EI Tests.
Test Type Parameter Name Value
Expansion Index 9.0
AZ Modified Expansion
d
[pcf] 110.6
Initial Water Content [%] 11.5 Index Test
Saturation [%] 56.7
EI
50
6.3
Expansion Index Test
Expansion Index 4.0
as per ASTM D 4829-3
d
[pcf] 109.0
Standard Initial Water Content [%] 11.7
Saturation [%] 55.4
w
opt
[%] 13.24
Compaction Test
max
[pcf] 116.90

404
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
S
u
c
t
i
o
n

[
k
P
a
]
0
5
0
1
0
0
S

[
%
]
8

S
C
7

S
C
6

S
C
5

S
C
4
3
2

S
C
1

S
M
G
r
a
v
e
l
C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
C
o
r
e

#

S
o
i
l

C
l
a
s
s
i
f
.
9
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
2
0
1
3
0
d
r
y

[
p
c
f
]
0
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
0
7
0
8
0
9
0
5
1
0
1
5
w

[
%
]
0
.
0
0
.
5
1
.
0
w
/
P
L
F
i
g
u
r
e

2
1
.

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
.

405
0
20
40
60
80
100
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Grain Diameter [mm]
%

P
a
s
s
i
n
g
5-1-8.5-16.5
5-2-16-27
5-3-27-36
5-5-47-56
5-8-75.75-83.5


0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
1 10 100 1000
Pressure [kPa]
V
o
i
d

R
a
t
i
o
5-1-8.5-16.5 Reconstructed
5-1-8.5-16.5 Insitu
5-2:4-16.5-47 EI test


406
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0
Pressure [kPa]
V
o
i
d

R
a
t
i
o
5-5-47-56 Insitu


5-2:4-16.5-47
w
opt
= 13.24%
d max
= 116.9 pcf
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Gravimetric Water Content [%]
D
r
y

S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

W
e
i
g
h
t

[
p
c
f
]

Figure 25. Compaction Test.

407
0
20
40
60
80
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
D
e
g
r
e
e

o
f

S
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
%
]
5-1-15.5 (dry spec. weight = 97)
5-2-18.5 (125)
5-3-35 (108)
5-4-38.5 (108)
5-5-54 (97)
5-6-58(105)
5-8-78 (108)

Figure 26. SWCC: S vs. Matric Suction.

408
Site # 6

Soil # 6
City Mesa
Cross Roads Southern Ave./Stapley Dr.
2
2
Landscape near sampling area paved, sidewalk, large desert trees
Pool Yes
History of Leaks No
Previous Land Use Unknown


409
Soil
Sample #
Classification
LL PL PI
P
200
[%]
%
clay
k
sat

[cm/s]
Gs CEC
Sulfate
[ppm]
6-1-7.5-17 SC 32.9 18.2 15 36.2 2.5E-07 2.742

75
6-2-17-29.5 21.5
6-3-29.5-39 CL 46.0 24.7 21 71.1
6-4-39.5-44.5 46.0 23.2 23 76
6-5-44.5-48 46.0 23 23 81
6-6-48-52.5 CL 46.2 21.8 24 85.7 30 2.668 32
6-7-52.5-62 CL 43.6 22.4 21 85 1.4E-08
6-8-62-65.5 50.4 23.8 27 85
6-9-65.5-72 CH 57.22 25.21 32 85.1 41

Sample #
Depth Water Content
dry
Saturation Suction

[in] [%] [pcf] [%] [kPa]
6-1-7.5-17 8.5 7.50 104.5 32.5 15100
6-1-7.5-17 10 10.94 96.5 39.1 7900
6-1-7.5-17 12 10.26 96.8 36.9 9700
F
6-1-7.5-17 14.5 10.62 96.6 38.0 8800
6-2-17-29.5 16 10.94 96.5 39.1 7900
6-3-29.5-39 33 11.63 107.27 55.3 9100
F
6-3-29.5-39 38 11.63 107.3 55.3 9100
6-4-39.5-44.5
6-5-44.5-48 46 11.90 109.0 60.7 3700
F
6-6-48-52.5 49 12.04 116 74.5
6-6-48-52.5 51.5 12.16 116.2 75.7 2188
6-7-52.5-62 54 12.27 119.1 83.1
6-7-52.5-62 60 13.79 116.4 86.3 3400
6-8-62-65.5
6-9-65.5-72 71 14.65 116.5 91.8 1590
Footnotes:
d
,
Black background - values estimated with scanning curve
F
Filter Paper Test

410
Test 1 Test 2
Cor.
Ps
Cor.
Ps Sample Ps w
dry
Sample Ps w
dry
Swell
Sample #
6-1-7.5-17 I 20 42.9 10.6 97.0 I 76 93.3 7.5 105 0.0173
6-7-52.5-62 I 130 179.4 12.3 119.1 I 627 7.7 120 0.0304
Footnotes
I - insitu test

0
20
40
60
80
100
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Grain Diameter [mm]
%

P
a
s
s
i
n
g
6-1-7.5-17
6-3-29.5-39
6-6-48-52.5
6-9-65.5-72


411

9

C
H
8

C
L
7

C
L
6

C
L
5

C
L
4

C
L
3

C
L
2

S
C
1

S
C
G
r
a
v
e
l
C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
C
o
r
e

#

S
o
i
l

C
l
a
s
s
i
f
.
9
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
2
0
d
r
y

[
p
c
f
]
0
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
0
7
0
8
0
5
1
0
1
5
w

[
%
]
0
.
0
0
.
5
1
.
0
w
/
P
L
0
5
0
1
0
0
S

[
%
]
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
S
u
c
t
i
o
n

[
k
P
a
]
F
i
g
u
r
e

2
9
.

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
.

412
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
1 10 100 1000 10000
Pressure [kPa]
V
o
i
d

R
a
t
i
o
6-1-7.5-17 in situ
6-1-7.5-17 in situ
6-7-52.5-62 in-situ


0
20
40
60
80
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
D
e
g
r
e
e

o
f

S
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
%
]
6-3-33 (107)
6-5-45 (109)
6-6-51.5 (116)
6-9-71 (116) & 6-7-54 (116)


413
Site # 7

The property is located next to site #6. Both sites have similar site conditions in terms of
human imposed surface conditions, soil type, construction type and structure age. Soil testing
was not performed. Initially the extruded cores were kept as a duplicate of site #6, and then
additional soil testing was deemed unnecessary.

Soil # 7
City Mesa
Cross Roads Southern Ave./Stapley Dr.
Lot Size [ft
2
] 12 650
House Size [ft
2
] 1 672
Slab Thickness [in] 3.5
Landscape near sampling area desert, paved
Pool no
History of Leaks no

Table 28. Visual Soil Description.
Core # Soil Description
0-3.5 Concrete
3.5-6.0 Granular base
7-1-6-17 Dry, light brown sandy clay
7-4-37-47 Dry, hard, brown clay
7-5-47-50.5 Dry, hard, brown clay
7-6-50.5-55 Dry, hard, brown clay
7-7-55-60.5 Dry, hard, brown clay
7-8-60.5-64.5 Dry, hard, brown clay

414
Site # 8

Soil # 8
City Gilbert
Cross Roads Gilbert Rd. /Baseline Rd.
2
2
Landscape near sampling area turf irrigated every 30 min., large trees
Distance from slab edge to core location [ft] 9.8
Pool no
History of Leaks no


415
Soil
Sample #
Classification
LL PL PI
P
200
[%]
%
clay
k
sat

[cm/s]
Gs CEC
Sulfate
[ppm]
8-1-7-17 SM 40.2 19.3 21 49.9 5.8E-08 2.719
8-2-17-27 CL 44.7 22.5 21.9 56.8
8-3-27-37.5 CL 49.1 25.7 23 63.6
8-4-37.5-47.5 CL 42.7 23.5 19.0 57.5
8-5-47.5-57.5 CL 36.3 21.2 15 51.3 8 5.3E-08 2.743
8-6-57.5-67.5 SC 35.0 20.8 14.2 45.5
8-7-67.5-77.5 SC 33.7 20.4 13 39.6
8-8-77.5-88 36.4
8-9-88-96.5 SM NP NP 33.2
Footnotes: shaded used for estimated values.

Sample #
Depth
Water
Content
dry
Saturation Suction

[in] [%] [pcf] [%] [kPa]
8-1-7-17 9 6.24 100.8 25.0
8-1-7-17 11 10.63 107.0 49.8 1600
8-1-7-17 13 11.18 108.12 53.8
8-1-7-17 15 13.18 116.9 80.0 1004
8-2-17-27
8-3-27-37.5 34 18.50
8-3-27-37.5 35.5 17.56 102.5 72.9 495.5
8-4-37.5-47.5
8-5-47.5-57.5 50 13.74 112.6 73.0
8-5-47.5-57.5 53.5 14.54 112.91 77.9
8-5-47.5-57.5 55.5 13.67 114.4 76.2 251.6
8-6-57.5-67.5
8-7-67.5-77.5 73 12.57
8-7-67.5-77.5 75 11.80 106.0 53.0 253.0
8-8-77.5-88
8-9-88-96.5 94.5 6.04
8-9-88-96.5 95.5 9.88 98.2 36.7 44.0
Footnotes:

416
Test 1 Test 2
Cor.
Ps
Cor.
Ps Sample Ps w
dry
Sample Ps w
dry
Swell Sample #
Type [kPa]

[kPa] [%] [pcf] Type [kPa] [kPa] [%] [pcf] Index
8-1-7-17 I 22 25.8 11.2 108.1 I 19 18.8 6.2 101 0.0105
8-2-17-27
8-3-27-37.5
8-4-37.5-47.5
8-5-47.5-57.5 I 24.2 53.0 14.5 112.9 I 86 143 13.7 113 0.0201
8-6-57.5-67.5
8-7-67.5-77.5
8-8-77.5-88
8-9-88-96.5
Footnotes
I - insitu test

0
20
40
60
80
100
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Grain Diameter [mm]
%

P
a
s
s
i
n
g
8-1-7-17
8-3-27-37.5
8-5-47.5-57.5
8-7-67.5-77-5
8-9-88-96.5


417
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
S
u
c
t
i
o
n

[
k
P
a
]
0
5
0
1
0
0
S

[
%
]

9

S
M
8
7

S
C
6

S
C
5

C
L
4

C
L
3

C
L
2

C
L
1

S
M
G
r
a
v
e
l
C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
C
o
r
e

#

S
o
i
l

C
l
a
s
s
i
f
.
9
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
2
0
1
3
0
d
r
y

[
p
c
f
]
0
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
0
7
0
8
0
9
0
1
0
0
5
1
0
1
5
2
0
w

[
%
]
0
.
0
0
.
5
1
.
0
w
/
P
L
F
i
g
u
r
e

3
4
.

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
.

418

0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
1 10 100 1000 10000
Pressure [kPa]
V
o
i
d

R
a
t
i
o
8-1-7-17 Insitu
8-1-7-17 Insitu
8-5-47.5-57.5 in situ
8-5-47.5-57.5 in situ


0
20
40
60
80
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
D
e
g
r
e
e

o
f

S
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
%
]
8-1-11 (107)
8-3-35.5 (102)
8-5-55.5 (114)
8-7-75 (106)
8-9-95.5 (98)


419
Site # 9

Soil # 9
City Chandler
Cross Roads Warner/ Alma School Dr.
2
2
areas of desert and very green turf near boring
location Landscape near sampling area
Pool no
History of Leaks no


420
Soil
Sample #
Classification
LL PL PI
P
200
[%]
%
clay
k
sat

[cm/s]
Gs CEC
Sulfate
[ppm]
9-1-9-19 CL 28.0 16.9 11 54.3 7.1E-07 2.751 19
9-2-19-29 SC 36.5 20.6 15.9 44.3
9-3-29-39 SC 44.9 24.3 21 34.4 6.9
9-4-39-49 SC 41.7 22.8 18.9 37.3
9-5-49-56.5 SC 38.5 21.3 17 40.3 7.0E-08 2.739
9-6-56.5-65.5 CL 43.2 22.7 20.6 50.1
9-7-65.5-72 CL 47.8 24.1 24 59.9
Footnotes: shaded used for estimated values.

Sample #
Depth Water Content
dry
Saturation Suction

[in] [%] [pcf] [%] [kPa]
9-1-9-19 11 7.18 105.0 31.3 14400
9-1-9-19 16 8.03 98.4 29.9
9-1-9-19 18 8.85 103.8 37.5 7750
F
9-2-19-29
9-3-29-39 32 12.00 111.0 61.1 6000
F
9-3-29-39 38 13.02 109.4 63.6 2500
9-4-39-49
9-5-49-56.5 51 9.35 112.0 49.1
9-5-49-56.5 53 10.30 114.6 57.9 8900
F
9-5-49-56.5 55 10.70 111.4 55.3 2900
9-6-56.5-65.5
9-7-65.5-72 68 13.55 110.0 67.5 10500
F
9-7-65.5-72 71 14.66 109.4 71.9 7400
Footnotes:
d
,
Black background - values estimated with scanning curve based on measured suction
F
Filter Paper Test

Test 1 Test 2
Sample Ps
Cor.
Ps w
dry
Sample Ps
Cor.
Ps w
dry
Swell
Sample #
9-1-9-19 I 6 8.3 8.0 98.4 0.0126
9-5-49-56.5 I 210 285.7 10.3 114.6 0.0241
Footnotes:
I - insitu test

421
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
S
u
c
t
i
o
n

[
k
P
a
]
0
5
0
1
0
0
S

[
%
]
7

C
L
6

C
L
5

S
C
4

S
C
3

S
C
2

S
C
1

C
L
G
r
a
v
e
l
C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
C
o
r
e

#

S
o
i
l

C
l
a
s
s
i
f
.
9
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
2
0
1
3
0
d
r
y

[
p
c
f
]
0
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
0
7
0
8
0
5
1
0
1
5
w

[
%
]
0
.
0
0
.
5
1
.
0
w
/
P
L
F
i
g
u
r
e

3
8
.

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
.

422
0
20
40
60
80
100
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Grain Diameter [mm]
%

P
a
s
s
i
n
g
9-1-9-19
9-3-29-39
9-5-49-56.5
9-7-65.5-72


0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
1 10 100 1000 10000
Pressure [kPa]
V
o
i
d

R
a
t
i
o
9-1-9-19 Insitu
9-5-49-56.5 Insitu


423
0
20
40
60
80
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
D
e
g
r
e
e

o
f

S
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
%
]
9-3-32 (111)
9-3-38 (109)
9-5-55 (111)
9-5-52 (112)
9-7-68&71 (110&109)


424
Site # 10

Soil # 10
City Gilbert
Cross Roads Cooper Rd./ Ray Rd.
2
2
gravel and turf areas, sidewalks and few small
trees Landscape near sampling area
Pool no
History of Leaks no


425
Soil
Sample #
Classification
LL PL PI
P
200
[%]
%
clay
k
sat

[cm/s]
Gs CEC
Sulfate
[ppm]
10-1-7-17 SC 31.1 16.8 14 48.2 6.1E-08 2.714
10-2-17-27.5 CL 29.7 18.9 10.7 53.4 3.7E-07
10-3-27.5-37.5 CL 28.3 21.1 7 58.6
10-4-37.5-47.5 CL 31.2 21.8 9.5 60.8
10-5-47.5-57.5 CL 34.0 22.4 12 63 21 3.3E-08 23
10-6-57.5-68 SC 31.0 20.8 10.5 45.0
10-7-68-78 SC 28.0 19.2 9 27.1 2.736
10-8-78-84
Footnotes: shaded used for estimated values,

Sample #
Depth Water Content
dry
Saturation Suction

[in] [%] [pcf] [%] [kPa]
10-1-7-17 9 10.03
10-1-7-17 11 10.85
10-1-7-17 12 11.21 124.3 84.9 2450
10-1-7-17 15 11.44 127.0 94.2 665
10-2-17-27.5
10-3-27.5-37.5 33 14.80 100 58.0
10-3-27.5-37.5 35 15.11 100.0 59.2 231
10-4-37.5-47.5
10-5-47.5-57.5 53 14.52 110.6 73.6 268
10-5-47.5-57.5 55 12.61 109.0 61.4
10-5-47.5-57.5 56 11.91 107.9 56.4
10-6-57.5-68
10-7-68-78 72 8.87 104.83 38.9 443
10-7-68-78 76 10.28 100.44 40.5 453.5
10-8-78-84 80 10.56 100 41.1
10-8-78-84 83 13.97
Footnotes:
Gray background - values estimated,

426
Test 1 Test 2
Sample Ps Cor. Ps w
dry Sample Ps Cor. Ps w
dry
Swell Sample #
10-1-7-17 I 31 154.3 11.2 124.3 0.0153
10-5-47.5-
57.5 I 80.9 118.8 11.9 107.9 0.0219
Footnotes:
I - insitu test,

Expansion Index 22.5
d
[pcf] 110.3
Saturation [%] 64.9
EI 12.5
50
d
[pcf] 98.8
Saturation [%] 44.8
w
opt
[%] 15.0
Compaction Test
max
[pcf] 117.0

0
20
40
60
80
100
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Grain Diameter [mm]
%

P
a
s
s
i
n
g
10-1-7-17
10-3-27.5-37.5
10-5-47.5-57.5
10-7-68-78


427
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
S
u
c
t
i
o
n

[
k
P
a
]
0
5
0
1
0
0
S

[
%
]

8
7

S
C
6

S
C
5

C
L
4

C
L
3

C
L
2

C
L
1

S
C
G
r
a
v
e
l
C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
C
o
r
e

#

S
o
i
l

C
l
a
s
s
i
f
.
9
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
2
0
1
3
0
d
r
y

[
p
c
f
]
0
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
0
7
0
8
0
9
0
5
1
0
1
5
w

[
%
]
0
.
0
0
.
5
1
.
0
w
/
P
L
F
i
g
u
r
e

4
4
.

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
.

428
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
1 10 100 1000 10000
Pressure [kPa]
V
o
i
d

R
a
t
i
o
10-1-7-17 Insitu
10-5-47.5-57.5 Insitu


0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 10000.0
Pressure [kPa]
V
o
i
d

R
a
t
i
o
10-2-17-27.5 EI
10-2-17-27.5 EI(AZ)

Figure 46. Consolidation Test EI Data.

429
10-2-17-27.5
w
opt
= 15.0%
d max
= 117 pcf
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
D
r
y

S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

W
e
i
g
h
t

[
p
c
f
]


0
20
40
60
80
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
D
e
g
r
e
e

o
f

S
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
%
]
10-3-32 (100)
10-5-53 (111)
10-7-76 (100)
10-7-72 (105)


430
Site # 11

Soil # 11
City Gilbert
Cross Roads Warner Rd./ Lindsay Rd.
2
2
Landscape near sampling area gravel, few trees
Pool no
History of Leaks no


431
Soil
Sample #
Classification
LL PL PI
P
200
[%]
%
clay
k
sat

[cm/s]
Gs CEC
Sulfate
[ppm]
11-1-14.5-24 CL 34.8 19.6 15 1.8E-07 2.684 40
11-2-24-34 CL 40.8 21.2 20 55.9
11-3-34-46.5 CL 39.1 20.6 18
11-4-46.5-59.5 CL 49.1 24.3 25 55.8 13
11-5-59.5-70 CL 49.1 24.3 25 1.7E-07 2.663
11-6-70-80 CL 49.1 24.3 25
11-7-80-90 CL 38.6 21.7 17 52.4
Footnotes: Shaded used for estimated values,

Sample #
Depth Water Content
dry
Saturation Suction

[in] [%] [pcf] [%] [kPa]
11-1-14.5-24 18 15.19 111.24 81.3 169.0
11-1-14.5-24 22 15.45 111.36 83.0 139.0
11-2-24-34 32 16.91
11-3-34-46.5 43 13.75 105.77 64.2 263.0
11-4-46.5-59.5 58 15.47
11-5-59.5-70 63.5 14.06 110.89 75.7 124.0
11-5-59.5-70 65 11.46 110.88 61.7 411.5
11-6-70-80 79 11.92
11-7-80-90 83 9.53 106.56 45.7 237.3
Footnotes:
d
,

Test 1 Test 2
Sample Ps
Cor.
Ps w
dry
Sample Ps Cor. Ps w
dry
Swell
Sample #
11-1-14.5-24 I 19 35.2 15.2 111.2
11-2-24-34 R 26 50.1 16.6 109 0.2288
11-3-34-46.5
11-4-46.5-59.5
11-5-59.5-70 I 45.0 73.0 14.1 110.9 R 109 209 12.4 110 0.0207
11-6-70-80
11-7-80-90
Footnotes:
I - insitu test,

432
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
S
u
c
t
i
o
n

[
k
P
a
]
0
5
0
1
0
0
S

[
%
]
7

C
L
6

C
L
5

C
L
4

C
L
3

C
L
2

C
L
1

C
L
G
r
a
v
e
l
C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
C
o
r
e

#

S
o
i
l

C
l
a
s
s
i
f
.
9
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
2
0
1
3
0
d
r
y

[
p
c
f
]
0
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
0
7
0
8
0
9
0
5
1
0
1
5
2
0
w

[
%
]
0
.
0
0
.
5
1
.
0
w
/
P
L
F
i
g
u
r
e

5
0
.

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
.

433
0
20
40
60
80
100
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Grain Diameter [mm]
%

P
a
s
s
i
n
g
11-2-24-34
11-4-46.5-59.5
11-6-70-80


0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
1 10 100 1000 10000
Pressure [kPa]
V
o
i
d

R
a
t
i
o
11-1-14.5-24 In situ
11-5-59.5-70 in situ


434

0
20
40
60
80
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
D
e
g
r
e
e

o
f

S
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
%
]
11-3-43 (106)
11-5-65 (111)
11-7-83 (107)


435
Site # 12

Soil # 12
City Chandler
Cross Roads Cooper Rd. /Chandler Blvd.
2
2
Landscape near sampling area turf, sidewalk, few small trees and paved area
Pool no
History of Leaks no


436
Soil
Sample #
Classification
LL PL PI
P
200
[%]
%
clay
k
sat

[cm/s]
Gs CEC
Sulfate
[ppm]
12-1-6-12 CL 35.1 21.2 14 1.1E-07 2.77 52
12-2-12-24.5 CL 38.0 20.1 18 61.5
12-3-24.5-37.5 CL 38.0 20.1 18
12-4-37.5-48 SC 32.8 18.7 14 46.8
12-5-48-62 SC 36.8 23.3 13 7.1E-08 2.717
12-6-62-75 SC 37.7 21.7 16 29
12-7-75-85 SC 34.5 21.1 13.5 39.8 12
12-8-85-96 SC 31.3 20.4 11

Sample #
Depth Water Content
dry
Saturation Suction

[in] [%] [pcf] [%] [kPa]
12-1-6-12 9 19.11 107.4 87.6
12-1-6-12 11 15.30 112.0 78.6 89
12-2-12-24.5 23 19.48
12-3-24.5-37.5 35.5 16.81 111.8 87.4 29.5
12-4-37.5-48 47 15.58
12-5-48-62 57 14.65 116.7 88.7
12-5-48-62 60 18.19 97.2 66.8 52.8
12-6-62-75 74 19.00
12-7-75-85
12-8-85-96 93 16.44 106.8 76.6 85.6
Footnotes: Suction test description Section 4.2.9.1.3 and Appendix D.

Test 1 Test 2
Sample Ps
Cor.
Ps w
dry
Sample Ps
Cor.
Ps w
dry
Swell
Sample #
12-1-6-12 I 17 60. 19.1 107.4 R 28 74.4 18.8 108 0.024
12-2-12-24.5
12-3-24.5-37.5
12-4-37.5-48
12-5-48-62 I 40.9 80. 14.7 116.7 R 33 66.3 18.3 97.2 0.020
12-6-62-75
12-7-75-85
12-8-85-96
Footnotes:
I - insitu test,

437

0
5
0
1
0
0
S
u
c
t
i
o
n

[
k
P
a
]
0
5
0
1
0
0
S

[
%
]
0
.
0
0
.
5
1
.
0
w
/
P
L
F
i
g
u
r
e

5
5
.

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
.

1
0
1
5
2
0
w

[
%
]
9
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
2
0
1
3
0
d
r
y

[
p
c
f
]
8

S
C
7

S
C
6

S
C
5

S
C
4

S
C
3

C
L
2

C
L
1

C
L
G
r
a
v
e
l
C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
C
o
r
e

#

S
o
i
l

C
l
a
s
s
i
f
.
0
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
0
7
0
8
0
9
0
1
0
0


438
0
20
40
60
80
100
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Grain Diameter [mm]
%

P
a
s
s
i
n
g
12-2-12-24.5
12-4-37.5-48
12-6-62-75
12-7-75-85


0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
1 10 100 1000 10000
Pressure [kPa]
V
o
i
d

R
a
t
i
o
12-1-5-12 Insitu
12-5-48-62 Insitu


439
0
20
40
60
80
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
D
e
g
r
e
e

o
f

S
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
%
]
12-3-35.5 (112)
12-5-50 (97)
12-8-93 (107)


440
Site # 13

Soil # 13
City Mesa
Cross Roads Baseline Rd. / Linday Rd.
2
2
Landscape near sampling area desert, few desert trees
Pool no
History of Leaks no


441
Soil
Sample #
Classification
LL PL PI
P
200
[%]
%
clay
k
sat

[cm/s]
Gs CEC
Sulfate
[ppm]
13-1-7-13 CL 40.9 20.0 21 65.5 24 1.1E-07 2.727 12
13-2-13-23.5 CL 37.8 19.4 18.4 62.1 26.5 4.0E-07
13-3-23.5-33 CL 34.8 18.9 16 58.7 29
13-4-33-42.5 CL 42.0 20.6 21.4 65.6 34.0
13-5-42.5-51.5 CL 49.1 22.3 27 72.4 39 5.5E-08 2.716 34
13-6-51.5-59.5 CL 44.5 21.3 23.2 68.8
13-7-59-5-66.5 CL 39.8 20.3 19.5 65.2
13-8-66.5-71 CL 35 19.32 16 61.4
Footnotes: Shaded used for estimated values.

Test 1 Test 2
Sample Ps
Cor.
Ps w
dry
Sample Ps Cor. Ps w
dry
Swell
Sample #
13-1-7-13 I 143 263.7 11.5 11.3 0.0298
13-2-13-23.5 R 0.0177
13-5-42.5-51.5 I 174 212.0 16.0 115.2 0.0262
Footnotes
I - insitu test,

d
[pcf] 104.6
Saturation [%] 64.1
EI
50
41.7
d
[pcf] 95.9
Saturation [%] 48.9
w
opt
[%] 16.65
Compaction Test
max
[pcf] 110.31

442
Sample #
Saturation Suction Depth Water Content
dry

[in] [%] [pcf] [%] [kPa]
13-1-7-13 8 11.45
13-1-7-13 9 11.00 116.5 65.7 4500
13-1-7-13 11 11.27 111.5 58.8 1045
13-2-13-23.5 22.5 12.58
13-3-23.5-33 30 10.62
13-3-23.5-33 31 10.94 110.2 55.5 1564
13-4-33-42.5
13-5-42.5-51.5 46 15.95
13-5-42.5-51.5 47 15.09 115.6 88.7 1150
13-5-42.5-51.5 49.5 15.99 115.2 92.9 600
13-6-51.5-59.5
13-7-59-5-66.5
13-8-66.5-71 67 10.34
13-8-66.5-71 69 9.99 106.2 45.9 675
Footnotes:
, Gray background - values estimated with w and
d
Black background - values estimated with scanning curve,

0
20
40
60
80
100
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Grain Diameter [mm]
%

P
a
s
s
i
n
g
13-1-7-13
13-3-23.5-33
13-5-42.5-51.5
13-8-66.5-71


443

1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
S
u
c
t
i
o
n

[
k
P
a
]
0
5
0
1
0
0
S

[
%
]
8

C
L
7

C
L
6

C
L
5

C
L
4

C
L
3

C
L
2

C
L
1

C
L
G
r
a
v
e
l
C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
C
o
r
e

#

S
o
i
l

C
l
a
s
s
i
f
.
9
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
2
0
1
3
0
d
r
y

[
p
c
f
]
0
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
0
7
0
8
0
5
1
0
1
5
2
0
w

[
%
]
0
.
0
0
.
5
1
.
0
w
/
P
L
F
i
g
u
r
e

6
1
.

P
r
o
f
i
l
e

444
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
1 10 100 1000 10000
Pressure [kPa]
V
o
i
d

R
a
t
i
o
13-1-7-13 Insitu
13-2-13-23.5 EI(AZ)
13-5-42.5-51.5 Insitu


13-2-13-23.5
w
opt
= 16.65%
d max
= 110.3 pcf
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
D
r
y

S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

W
e
i
g
h
t

[
p
c
f
]


445
0
20
40
60
80
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
D
e
g
r
e
e

o
f

S
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
%
]
13-3-31 (110)
13-5-47 (116)
13-8-69 (106)


446
Site # 14

Soil # 14
City Mesa
Cross Roads Lindsay Rd./US 60.
2
2
Landscape near sampling area grass
Pool no
History of Leaks no


447
Soil
Sample #
Classif.
LL PL PI P
200
[%] % clay k
sat
[cm/s] Gs CEC
Sulfate
[ppm]
14-1-8-17.5 CL 37.8 20.4 17 64.9 28.5 9.8E-08 2.726
14-2-18.5-34.5 CL 43.4 20.5 22.8 69.4
14-3-34.5-47.75 CL 48.9 20.7 28 73.8 44 2.755 33
14-4-47.75-60 CL 41.4 18.8 22.6 63.0
14-5-60-68 CL 33.8 16.9 17 52.2 2.4E-07 2.754
14-6-68-77 CL
Footnotes: shaded used for estimated values,

Sample #
Depth Water Content
dry
Saturation Suction

[in] [%] [pcf] [%] [kPa]
14-1-8-17.5 11 18.06 111.2 93.7 10
14-1-8-17.5 13 17.26
14-1-8-17.5 14 15.13 112.3 80.8 310
14-1-8-17.5 16 17.45 110.0 87.6
14-2-18.5-34.5
14-3-34.5-47.75 42 18.41 110.1 91.1 575
14-3-34.5-47.75 44 18.36
14-3-34.5-47.75 45.5 17.75 111.2 90.3 649
14-4-47.75-60
14-5-60-68 64 10.90
14-5-60-68 66 10.33 105.6 45.6 1090
14-6-68-77 73 12.61
14-6-68-77 75 12.99 106.32 58.5 350
Footnotes:
d
,

Test 1 Test 2
Sample Ps Cor. Ps w
dry
Swell Sample #
14-1-8-17.5 I 16 62.3 17.5 110.0 0.0197
14-2-18.5-34.5
14-3-34.5-47.75
14-4-47.75-60
14-5-60-68 I 18.4 18.4 10.3 105.6 0.0172
14-6-68-77
Footnotes:
I - insitu test,

448
6

C
L
5

C
L
4

C
L
3

C
L
2

C
L
1

C
L
G
r
a
v
e
l
C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
C
o
r
e

#

S
o
i
l

C
l
a
s
s
i
f
.
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
2
0
d
r
y

[
p
c
f
]
0
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
0
7
0
8
0
1
0
1
5
2
0
w

[
%
]
0
.
0
0
.
5
1
.
0
w
/
P
L
0
5
0
1
0
0
S

[
%
]
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
S
u
c
t
i
o
n

[
k
P
a
]
F
i
g
u
r
e

6
6
.

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
.

449
0
20
40
60
80
100
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Grain Diameter [mm]
%

P
a
s
s
i
n
g
14-1-8-17.5
14-3-34.5-47.75
14-5-60-68


0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
1 10 100 1000
Pressure [kPa]
V
o
i
d

R
a
t
i
o
14-1-8-17.5 Insitu
14-5-60-68 Insitu


450
0
20
40
60
80
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
D
e
g
r
e
e

o
f

S
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
%
]
14-3-45.5 (111)
14-6-75 (106)
14-1-11 wetting and drying
14-3-42 drying curve


451
Site # 15

Soil # 15
City Gilbert
Cross Roads Elliot Rd./ McQueen Rd.
2
2
Landscape near sampling area desert, small tree
Pool no
History of Leaks no


452
Soil
Sample #
Classification
LL PL PI
P
200
[%]
%
clay
k
sat

[cm/s]
Gs CEC
Sulfate
[ppm]
15-1-9-15 SM NP NP 31.5 2.726
15-2-15-21 SM 21.4 18.5 3 37.7 7.1
15-3-21-32 SC 29.1 19.0 10 48.9
15-4-32-42 SC 26.6 17.8 9.0 37.6
15-5-42-55 SC 24.1 16.5 8 26.3 4.7E-06 2.723
15-6-55-64 SC 28.1 18.5 9.8 34.0
15-7-64-73 SC 32.0 20.4 12 41.6

Sample #
Depth Water Content
dry
Saturation Suction

[in] [%] [pcf] [%] [kPa]
15-1-9-15 10 4.65
15-1-9-15 11 5.17 91.8 16.6 3950
15-2-15-21 17 4.61 104.4 20.1 2700
15-2-15-21 19 6.89
15-2-15-21 20 6.90 103.8 29.6 393
15-3-21-32 28 10.90
15-3-21-32 29 9.26
15-3-21-32 30 10.90 94.3 37.2 289.2
15-4-32-42
15-5-42-55 46 12.56 110.9 64.8
15-5-42-55 51.5 7.58 97.4 27.9 431
15-5-42-55 53 7.69 99.1 29.5 363
15-6-55-64
15-7-64-73 70 8.42
15-7-64-73 71 8.46
15-7-64-73 72 8.42 97.8 31.3 606
Footnotes:
d
,
Black background - values estimated with scanning curve,

Test 1 Test 2
Sample Ps Cor. Ps w
dry
Sample Ps
Cor.
Ps w
dry
Swell
Sample #
15-5-42-55 I 1.9 5.5 12.6 110.9 0.008
Footnotes:
I - insitu test,

453

7

S
C
6

S
C
5

S
C
4

S
C
3

S
C
2

S
M
1

S
M
G
r
a
v
e
l
C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
C
o
r
e

#

S
o
i
l

C
l
a
s
s
i
f
.
9
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
2
0
d
r
y

[
p
c
f
]
0
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
0
7
0
8
0
0
5
1
0
1
5
w

[
%
]
0
.
0
0
.
5
1
.
0
w
/
P
L
0
5
0
1
0
0
S

[
%
]
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
S
u
c
t
i
o
n

[
k
P
a
]
F
i
g
u
r
e

7
1
.

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
.

454
0
20
40
60
80
100
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Grain Diameter [mm]
%

P
a
s
s
i
n
g
15-1-8-18.5
15-2-15-21
15-3-21-32
15-5-42-55
15-7-64-73


0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
1 10 100 1000
Pressure [kPa]
V
o
i
d

R
a
t
i
o
15-5-42-55 Insitu


455
0
20
40
60
80
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
D
e
g
r
e
e

o
f

S
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
%
]
15-2-17 (104)
15-3-30 (94)
15-5-51.5 (97)
15-7-72 (98)

Figure 74. SWCC: S vs. Matric Suction

456
Site # 16

Soil # 16
City Phoenix
Cross Roads Van Buren St. / 59th Ave.
2
2
Construction Type block
Landscape near sampling area desert
Pool no
History of Leaks no


457
Soil
Sample #
Classifi.
LL PL PI
P
200
[%]
%
clay
k
sat

[cm/s]
Gs CEC
Sulfate
[ppm]
16-1-10.5-21 CL 29.2 17.9 11 53.7 1.5E-07 2.802 76
16-2-21-34 CL 32.0 19.2 12.8 72.6
16-3-34-46 CL 34.7 20.4 14 91.5 20
16-4-46-58 CL 40.0 21.5 18.5 82.7
16-5-58-68 CL 45.3 22.6 23 73.8 30.5 4.5E-08 2.793 45
16-6-68-77.25 CL 44.9 23.4 21.5 81.5
16-7-77.25-85 CL 44.4 24.1 20 89.1 25.4

Sample #
Depth Water Content
dry
Saturation Suction

[in] [%] [pcf] [%] [kPa]
16-1-10.5-21 12 14.51 113.5 75.8 250
16-1-10.5-21 16 10.66 118.6 63.6 232
16-1-10.5-21 19.5 14.91 113.3 77.5 190
16-2-21-34
16-3-34-46 40 19.85
16-3-34-46 43 18.14 95.0 61.0 580
16-4-46-58
16-5-58-68 60 16.43
16-5-58-68 62 17.52 109.4 83.1 1167
16-5-58-68 65.5 16.94 112.7 87.2
16-6-68-77.25
16-7-77.25-85 83 20.39 100.0 77.2 569
Footnotes:
d
,

Test 1 Test 2
Sample Ps Cor. Ps w
dry
Swell Sample #
16-1-10.5-21 I 17 50.0 14.9 113.3 0.0161
16-5-58-68 I 152 235.2 16.9 112.7 0.0316
Footnotes:
I - insitu test,

458
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
S
u
c
t
i
o
n

[
k
P
a
]
0
2
0
0
4
0
0
S

[
%
]
0
.
0
0
.
5
1
.
0
w
/
P
L
F
i
g
u
r
e

7
6
.

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
.

1
0
1
5
2
0
2
5
w

[
%
]
9
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
2
0
1
3
0
d
r
y

[
p
c
f
]
7

C
L
6

C
L
5

C
L
4

C
L
3

C
L
2

C
L
1

C
L
G
r
a
v
e
l
C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
C
o
r
e

#

S
o
i
l

C
l
a
s
s
i
f
.
0
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
0
7
0
8
0
9
0

459
0
20
40
60
80
100
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Grain Diameter [mm]
%

P
a
s
s
i
n
g
16-1-10.5-21
16-3-34-46
16-5-58-68
16-7-77.25-85


0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
10 100 1000 10000
Pressure [kPa]
V
o
i
d

R
a
t
i
o
16-1-10.5-21 Insitu
16-5-58-68 Insitu


460
0
20
40
60
80
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
D
e
g
r
e
e

o
f

S
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
%
]
16-1 (114)
16-3-43 (95)
16-5-62 (109)
16-7-83 (100)


461
Site # 17

Soil # 17
City Litchfield
Cross Roads Dysart Rd./ Bethany Home Rd.
Landscape near sampling area
Sample obtained from area of recently removed turf
landscape 5' away from foundation.
Pool no
History of Leaks no
Previous Land Use Agricultural Land

Table 68. Visual soil description.
Core # Depth [in] Soil Description
8.0-15
Gravel size decomposing granite very well mixed with light brown,
hard clay. 17-1-8-16
15-16 Light brown, hard clay
17-2-16-25.5 16-25.5
Very loose sand mixed with gravel. Vertical layers of dark brown
clay.
25.5-26" Light brown clay mixed with gravel.
26-28" Light brown clay; small amount of decomposed rock on one side.
28-28.5"
Sandy silt; there is a small amount of decomposed rock on one side.
17-3-25.5-30
28.5-30" Light brown, easy to break clay with white spots
30-31.5" Six layers of clayey sand and silty sand
17-4-30-38
31.5-38"
There is decomposing rock on one side of the profile. On the other
side there is dark brown, hard clay with white spots that look like
completely decomposed rock; currently it is a very soft material. On
the furthest edge, there is a vertical layer of loose sand.
38-41"
Decomposed light brown rock with horizontal and vertical seams of
clay.
17-5-38-44
41-44"
Very hard dark brown clay. There is a vertical layer of white clay on
the side of the tube.
17-6-44-50 44-50
A half of the sample is decomposing granite and the other half is
medium dark brown, very hard clay. The soil varies vertically.

462

Figure 80. Profile Visual Soil Description.

463
Soil
Sample #
Classification
LL PL PI
P
200
[%]
%
clay
k
sat

[cm/s]
Gs CEC
Sulfate
[ppm]
17-1-8-16 GC 99.1 35.0 64.1 28.7 2.75 220
17-1-8-16 GC 37.4 13.2
17-2-16.25.5 GC 48.0
17-3-25.5-30 CH 85.1 32.5 52.6 62.1 19.9 2.4E-07 2.797
17-4-30-38 SC 61.6
17-4-30-38 CH 61.6 30.1 32 83.8
17-4-30-38 CH 86.3 34.6
17-5-38-44 SC 29.1 4E-07
17-5-38-44 2.829
17-5-38-44 CH 80.0 30.2
17-6-44-50 SC 47.2
17-6-44-50 CH 67.8 30 37.8 81.4 23.7 3E-07

Sample #
Depth Water Content
dry
Saturation Suction

[in] [%] [pcf] [%] [kPa]
17-1-8-16 9 11.51
17-1-8-16 14 30.28 83.8 79.9 408
17-1-8-16 15 22.37 99.7 85.8
17-2-16.25.5 20 18.96 83.2 49.3
17-3-25.5-30 26.5 29.57 85.0 78.9 94.5
17-3-25.5-30 28.5 27.39 88.3 78.8 95.5
17-4-30-38 32 26.11
17-4-30-38 35 24.77 98.7 90.6
17-4-30-38 37 23.42
17-5-38-44 39 18.92
17-5-38-44 41 28.17 90.4 84.1 1370
17-5-38-44 42 30.38
17-5-38-44 43 32.39 89.7 95.2 285
17-6-44-50 47 20.78 103.3 83.5
Footnotes:
d
,

464
Test 1 Test 2
Cor.
Ps Sample Ps w
dry
Sample Ps Cor. Ps w
dry
Swell
Sample #
17-3-25.5-30 I 37.4 91.6 29.6 85.0 0.0264
17-5-38-44 I 29 90 19 90.5 0.0277
17-6-44-50 R 231 361 21 90.5 0.0825
Footnotes
I - insitu test,

0
20
40
60
80
100
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Grain Diameter [mm]
%

P
a
s
s
i
n
g
17-1-8-16 17-1-8-14
17-2-16-25.5 17-3-25.5-30
17-4-30-38 clay, rocks, sand layer 17-4-30-38 clay, rocks
17-5-38-44 bottom 17-5-38-44 top
17-6-55-62 clay 17-6-44-50 granit


465
6

S
C

&

C
H
5

S
C

&

C
H
4

S
C

&

C
H
3

C
H
2

S
C
1

S
C
C
o
r
e

#

S
o
i
l

C
l
a
s
s
i
f
.
8
0
9
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
d
r
y

[
p
c
f
]
0 5
1
0
1
5
2
0
2
5
3
0
3
5
4
0
4
5
5
0
1
0
1
5
2
0
2
5
3
0
3
5
w

[
%
]
0
5
0
1
0
0
S

[
%
]
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
S
u
c
t
i
o
n

[
k
P
a
]
F
i
g
u
r
e

8
2
.

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
.

466
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
1.05
1.10
1 10 100 1000 10000
Pressure [kPa]
V
o
i
d

R
a
t
i
o
17-3-24-38 Insitu
17-5-38-44 Insitu
17-6-44-50 Reconstituted


0
20
40
60
80
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
D
e
g
r
e
e

o
f

S
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
%
]
17-3-28.5 (88)
17-5-43 (90)


467
Site # 18

Soil # 18 is a light brown very hard clayey material obtained with 4 separate borings
located next to each other. The sampling location is a region of undeveloped desert near a
roadway covered with scattered native vegetation. The soil was found to be uniform with depth in
texture and color. To simplify the presentation of the data, only soil number followed by range of
depths in inches from which the soil was extruded are provided; for example 18-12-18.

Soil # 18
City Anthem
Cross Roads Meridian Dr./ 23rd Ave.
Landscape near sampling area Undeveloped desert
Previous Land Use Undeveloped Desert

Figure 85. Birds-Eye View ( location of sampling).

Soil
Sample #
Classification
LL PL PI
P k
200
[%]
% clay
sat

[cm/s]
Sulfate
[ppm]
Gs CEC
18-12-18 CH 55.0 26.0 26
18-14-20 CH 93.8 40.1
18-26-31 CH 2.811
18-27-32 CH 94 39.4
18-36-41 CH 56.6 21.4 35 6.3E-08 2.829
Footnotes: Italics and shaded used for estimated values.

468
Sample #
Depth Water Content
dry
Saturation Suction

[in] [%] [pcf] [%] [kPa]
18-12-18 15 14.99 112.8 76.5 1400
18-14-20 16 13.31 110.3 63.9 1740
18-14-20 18 13.40 109.3 62.8 2000
18-26-31 27.5 12.15 117.7 70.3 2500
18-27-32 29 11.50 106.6 50.5 7700
18-26-31 30 12.60 105.2 53.4 5800
18-27-31 31 11.65 108.7 53.7 5500
18-29-36 34 12.20 123.7 81.5 550
Footnotes:
d
,

Test 1 Test 2
Sample Ps Cor. Ps w
dry
Swell Sample #
18-27-32 I 318 479.9 11.7 108.7 0.057
Footnotes:
I - insitu test,

Table 76. Compaction and EI Tests for 18-20-23.
Expansion Index 33
d
[pcf] 108.5
Saturation [%] 83.5
EI
50
77.3
d
[pcf] 92.6
Saturation [%] 48.7
w
opt
[%] 20.0
Compaction Test
max
[pcf] 114.2

469
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
S
u
c
t
i
o
n

[
k
P
a
]
0
5
0
1
0
0
S

[
%
]
0
.
0
0
.
5
1
.
0
w
/
P
L
F
i
g
u
r
e

8
6
.

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
.

1
0
1
2
1
4
1
6
w

[
%
]
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
2
0
1
3
0
d
r
y

[
p
c
f
]
0 5
1
0
1
5
2
0
2
5
3
0
3
5
4
0

470
0
20
40
60
80
100
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Grain Diameter [mm]
%

P
a
s
s
i
n
g
18-2-27-32
18-3-14-20


0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
1 10 100 1000 10000
Pressure [kPa]
V
o
i
d

R
a
t
i
o
18-27-32 Insitu


471
18-20-23
w
opt
= 20.00%
d max
= 114.2 pcf
90
92
94
96
98
100
102
104
106
108
10 15 20 25 30
D
r
y

S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

W
e
i
g
h
t

[
p
c
f
]


0
20
40
60
80
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
D
e
g
r
e
e

o
f

S
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
%
]
18-18 (dry spec. weight = 109)
18-27.5 (118)
18-34 (124)
18-34 drying and wetting curves
18-18 drying curve
Filter Paper Test


APPENDIX C
DETERMINATION OF SWCC USING ONE POINT SUCTION MEASUREMENT AND
STANDARD CURVES

(PAPER PRESENTED IN GEOTECHNICAL SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 147, ASCE,
PROCEEDINGS OF THE FOURTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON UNSATURATED
SOILS, APRIL 2-6, 2006, CAREFREE, ARIZONA, 1482-1493 ; AUTHORS: W. N. HOUSTON,
H.B. DYE, C. E. ZAPATA, Y. Y. PERERA, A. HARRAZ)

Abstract
During the last decade several researchers and practitioners have stressed the
importance and the need of adopting unsaturated soil mechanics in the analysis of problems
associated with swelling clays and other problematic unsaturated soils. To accomplish this goal,
the determination of the soil-water characteristic curve (SWCC) becomes essential. However,
practitioners perceive the SWCC determination as a time consuming and expensive laboratory
process. This fact has lead to a slow implementation of unsaturated soil mechanics into
geotechnical engineering practice. In an effort to encourage practitioners to employ unsaturated
soil mechanics, a study was performed to determine the SWCC based on soil index properties
and one measurement of matric suction. In this study, the matric suction of approximately 82
field soil samples was determined using either suction plate or suction membrane devices. It
was determined that the proposed procedure provides acceptably reliable approximation of the
SWCC.

Introduction
Although a complete theory for the analysis of geotechnical problems involving
unsaturated soils has been developed in the last three decades and despite the well-recognized
importance of suction, unsaturated soil mechanics has not yet been widely implemented by
practicing engineers. An investigation of practice throughout the Unites States showed that less
than 20% of commercial geotechnical laboratories performed suction measurements on a
regular basis (Zapata, 1999).
The most important constitutive relations for unsaturated soils (i.e., shear strength,
compressibility, and fluid flow) are directly related to the soil matric suction and hence to the soil-
water characteristic curve (SWCC). For this reason, research was conducted to determine the
complete SWCC based on one measurement of matric suction and soil index properties within
an acceptable uncertainty range. This work is a continuation of the research work done by
Perera (Perera et al. 2005), who defined the SWCC in terms of the soil index properties and the
work done by Zapata (1999) and Zapata et al. (2000) who described the potential variability of

473
the SWCC. The current research effort was aimed at developing a reliable method of predicting
the SWCC, based on one point matric suction measurement and soil index properties.

Background
Fredlund et al. (1993) defined the soil water characteristic curve as the variation of
water storage capacity within the macro and micro pores of a soil with respect to suction. This
relationship is generally plotted as the variation of volumetric water content or degree of
saturation against the soil matric suction and is described by Equations (1) and (2).
( )
( )
f
f
s
v h
c
b
f
C
h
ln e 1
a
=

+

(1)
( )
r
h
6
r
h
ln 1
h
C 1
10
ln 1
h

+

=

+

(2)
where
v
is the volumetric water content;
s
is the saturated volumetric water content or porosity
of the soil; e is the exponent; h is the matric suction [kPa]; C
(h)
is an adjustment factor which
forces the SWCC through zero water content at a suction of 10
6
kPa; h
r
, a
f
, b
f
and c
f
are fitting
parameters. Note that
v
s
is degree of saturation, S, expressed a decimal.

Family of Soil Water Characteristic Curves (SWCCs)
Figure 1 shows a family of curves developed by Zapata (1999) and Zapata et al. (2000)
who contributed to the quantification of the dependence of SWCC on gradation and plasticity
index. Her findings were followed by research done by Perera et al. (2005) who correlated the
family of curves to equations (1) and (2) by further refining the fitting parameters: h
r
, a
f
, b
f
and c
f
,
based on more data. These fitting parameters are given below for both plastic and non-plastic

474
soils. Equations (3) through (16) are considered to represent a modest improvement over the
family of curves given by Figure 1. The equations are recommended for use when only index
properties are available for estimating a SWCC. Figure 2 shows the updated family of curves for
plastic soils obtained from Equations (3) through (7). For non-plastic soils (wPI = 0) it is no
longer possible to generate a family of curves as was done in Figure 1. The new model, Perera
at al. (2005), utilizes more of the gradation data and thus it is necessary to employ Equations (8)
through (16) to generate a specific SWCC.
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Matric Suction (kPa)
D
e
g
r
e
e

o
f

S
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
D60=1 mm
wPI= 0.1
wPI = 50
3
5
10
1
20
30
40
D60=0.1 mm
wPI = % Passing #200 x PI

Figure 1. Family of Drying Curves (Zapata, 1999, Zapata et al. 2000)

For plastic soils (wPI >0):
( )
f
a 32.835ln wPI 32.438 = + (3)
( )
0.3185
f
b 1.421 wPI

= (4)
( )
f
c 0.2154ln wPI 0.7145 = + (5)
h
r
= 500 (6)

475
200
PI *P
wPI
100
= (7)
where PI is the plasticity index [%], and P
200
is the percent of soil passing US standard sieve #
200 [%].
wPI = 0.4
0.5
1
2
5
10
20
50
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Suction [kPa]
D
e
g
r
e
e

o
f

S
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

Figure 2. Family of Drying Curves for Plastic Soils (Perera et al. 2005)

For non-plastic soils (wPI =0):
f
a 1.14a 0.5 = (8)
( ) ( )
6 4.34
20 200 30 100
a 2.79 14.1log D 1.9*10 P 7log D 0.055D
= + + (9)
( )
90 60
60
4 log(D ) log(D )
log(D )
3
100
D 10
+
= (10)
f
b 0.936b 3.8 = (11)
0.1
0.57 1.19 90
200 0 200
10 90 60
D 30
b 5.39 0.29ln P 3D 0.021P
D log(D ) log(D )

= + +

(12)

476
( )
30 10
30
3 log(D ) log(D )
log(D )
2
0
D 10

+
= (13)

0.758c
f 1
c 0.26e 1.4D = +
0
(14)
1.15
30 10 f
20 1
c log 1
log(D ) log(D ) b

=

+ (15)
r
h 100 = (16)
where D
%
is the soil particle diameter in mm related to the percent of passing.

Testing Procedures for the Current Study
Undisturbed soil samples were obtained from under slabs-on-grade of residential
construction located in the Phoenix metropolitan area, Arizona. The edge moisture variation
distance was roughly estimated and the samples were taken at greater distances from the edge
of the slab. Based on well documented observations made by many researchers, the water
content and therefore the matric suction reaches stability at the edge moisture distance; hence
the collected soil samples were considered to be at an equilibrium condition, given that all slabs
visited had been in places for several years. The suction of the undisturbed samples was
determined with the pressure plate apparatus, by a procedure to be presented subsequently. A
complete SWCC was also determined with the pressure plate (Fredlund SWCC device) and
pressure membrane device. The results of these three sets of measurements were plotted and
compared. An example is given in Figure 3 and 4, which are discussed later.

SWCC - Pressure Plate Method
An undisturbed, moist soil sample was extruded from the Shelby tube into a brass ring of
dimensions 2.54-cm in height and 6.1-cm in diameter. After the initial readings of volume and
mass were collected, the specimen was rested on a porous stone and filter paper. The soil was

477
topped with another layer of filter paper and porous stone. In an effort to maintain in-situ soil
volume, a number of weights sufficient to overcome the soil's swell pressure was placed on top
of the soil specimen. The test specimen was submerged in a distilled water bath for at least 24
hours. After the soil suction in the specimen had been reduced to essentially zero, it was
removed from the water bath, weighed and placed in the pressure cell on a saturated ceramic
stone. After an initial air pressure was applied, weights were placed on top of the pressure cell
to recreate the overburden pressure, and compensate for the applied internal air pressure and
the friction between the bearing and the axial load rod. When the soil volume and water content
of specimen stopped changing, it was removed from the apparatus and weighed. The recorded
mass value was used to obtain the water content of the soil corresponding to the applied
pressure. The specimen was returned to the pressure cell and the test was repeated for higher
value of suction. The degree of saturation was determined for at least three different suction
values. After the test was completed, the soil specimen was oven dried and the results were
plotted as shown in Figure 3. With the Fredlund SWCC device the water content change can be
tracked by reading the volume tubes at each equilibrium suction value without removing the test
specimen. Thus the procedure followed here was not the conventional test procedure. The
samples were removed in part for research purposes, aimed at providing redundant moisture
content change measurements. Very recent modifications to the Fredlund SWCC device, made
after the currently-reported test series was completed, included addition of a small heater on top
of the cell which maintains constant temperature within the cell at slightly above ambient and
thus prevents condensation within the cell.

Pressure Membrane Method
Standard ASTM D 3152-72 was used in the determination of the matric suction with the
pressure membrane method. An undisturbed sample was prepared as for the pressure plate
test. The saturated test specimen was removed from the water bath, weighed and placed in the
pressure membrane apparatus on top of a saturated cellulose membrane. The first desired

478
pressure was applied to the specimen and allowed to equilibrate for one week. After that period
of time the soil specimens were removed from the apparatus, weighed, and the soil volume was
measured. The same specimens were returned to the pressure membrane apparatus and the
test was repeated for a higher value of suction. When the testing was completed, the soil
specimens were oven dried. The collected values of specimen volume, and moist and dry soil
mass were used to determine the specimen degree of saturation corresponding to the applied
pressure. The values were plotted on a semi-log scale and are presented in Figure 4 as an
example. Figure 4 is presented later. Again, even through ASTM D3152-72 was followed
generally, a deviation was employed in that all specimens were removed, volume and mass
determined, and then all specimens returned to the cell. These deviations from the standard
procedure were considered necessary to maximize the accuracy of the degree of saturation
determination.

One Point Method - Pressure Plate Test
Several researchers, including the authors (Zapata et al., 2000, Perera et al. 2005),
have provided models for predicting SWCCs from index properties. These models can be
configured to give unbiased estimates of the SWCC, but some uncertainty is associated with
each estimate. As discussed in above, a band of uncertainty exists even when direct
measurements are made, and somewhat more uncertainty exists when index properties alone
are used to get the SWCC. The uncertainty is reduced somewhat when one direct
measurement of suction and saturation is coupled with index properties to get the SWCC. Thus
the one-point method entails measuring the existing suction and S on either on undisturbed
sample from an in-situ location in the field or on a sample compacted in the laboratory. This pair
of values is than interpreted to represent one point on the SWCC and can be plotted on Figure 2,
for example, if the soil has plasticity. Then an SWCC is sketched through the point as if one
were interpolating within the family of curves. The analytical counterpart of the graphical
procedure just descried is as follows, continuing with the example of a plastic soil. The

479
graphically interpolated curve can be used to estimate an interpolated apparent value of wPI.
This apparent value of wPI, which is different from the actual wPI, is then used with Equations
(3) through (7) to get the fitting parameters. The fitting parameters are then used with Equations
(1) and (2) to compute the suction corresponding to the measured degree of saturation, S. If the
computed suction agrees with the measured suction then the fitting parameters are appropriate.
If not, then the interpolated wPI should be adjusted up or down slightly until a match is obtained.

When the soil is non-plastic, the procedure is only slightly less straightforward. In this case the
measured matric suction and S value are plotted as a point on a standard SWCC graph format.
The gradation parameters are than used to estimate the fitting parameters for a SWCC using
Equations (8) through (16). This SWCC is then plotted on the same graph, together with the
measured point. The graphical procedure then amounts to sketching a SWCC through the
plotted point. The sketched SWCC should be more or less parallel and similar in shape to the
SWCC derived from gradation parameters. The analytical counterpart for this graphical
procedure is a bit more complicated. It is probably best accomplished by sketching in a small
family of gradation curves, similar in shape and more or less parallel to the actual gradation
curve, but either coarser or finer than the actual gradation curve as appropriate. The fitting
parameters for these trial gradation curves are then evaluated one by one, and the
corresponding SWCC is plotted to see if it passes through the measured point. When it does,
the best-estimate set of fitting parameters has been found. When the SWCC through the
measured point has been established, it can be compared with the SWCC derived from index
properties alone. If the user makes numerous such comparisons, it will be possible to develop a
database which could serve as a basis for future modification (improvement) of the SWCC
predictions from index properties alone. A complicating factor, however, is the fact that all the
SWCCs in Figure 1 and 2 are drying curves and the measured point from the field sample, does
not necessarily lie on the drying curve. This issue is discussed in the paragraphs that follow.

480
The SWCCs determined as described above can be interpreted as either drying curves
or wetting curves, depending on the perceived recent wetting/drying history of the corresponding
element of soil in the field. Or, the measured One-point could lie between the wetting curve and
drying curve, in which case the SWCC constructed by the preceding procedure would simply be
a SWCC similar in shape to the drying curve, but intermediate between the drying and wetting
curves. Obviously some knowledge of the wetting/drying history would be quite helpful. In the
absence of any knowledge of the wetting/drying history, however, the following procedure can be
adopted. Although it begs the question somewhat as to the accuracy of the index- property
estimated SWCC, it can be assumed that when the measured point plots near or above the
SWCC based on index properties then the measured point probably lies on a drying curve. If,
however, the measured point falls far below the SWCC based on index properties then it can be
assumed that the point lies on a wetting curve. Note that if it is believed that the point lies on a
scanning curve intermediate between the drying and wetting curve, then the task of accurately
predicting the change in suction, which accompanies a small change in degree of saturation is
much more difficult. If, in this last case wherein the plotted point is believed to lie on a scanning
curve, the user elects to simply construct and use a SWCC though the plotted point that is more
or less parallel to and similar in shape to the index property drying curve, than it must be
recognized that predictions of changes in suction due to small changes in S will have more than
normal uncertainty. If, however, the projected change in S is very large, then the added error
due to starting from a scanning curve is lessened. In section presented subsequently an
approximation which involves adoption of the one-point SWCC as an average curve for both
wetting and drying, thus neglecting hysteresis is proposed for some practical applications.
The Fredlund SWCC device and the procedure for using it to measure the suction of a
sample extracted from an in-situ field location are described elsewhere (Perera et al., 2005).
However, for completeness this procedure is outlined herein in a series of steps as follows: (1)
Transfer the undisturbed sample from the field to the Fredlund SWCC device ring without loss or
gain of water content. (2) Determine the mass of the test ring plus moist soil with a precision

481
adequate to detect a water content change in the test specimen at least as small as 0.05%. (3)
Assembly the specimen and test ring in the device, noting the initial height of the specimen and
the initial volume readings, and apply the first trial value of u
a
. This trial value can be selected by
using the best available data to estimate the initial S value and the best available index
properties to estimate the position of the SWCC. Then the S value is used to enter the SWCC to
get the first trial value of suction (u
a
), which is applied in step (3). Alternatively, the first trial
value of u
a
can be selected from experience and intuition. (4) Open the cell drainage valves to
expose the ceramic stone on which the specimen rests to the water in the volume change tubes,
thus driving u
w
to essentially zero. (5) Monitor the volume tubes immediately to detect any
tendency for water to be expelled or absorbed and adjust u
a
so as to prevent volume change.
(6) Repeat observations and adjustments to u
a
on a more or less logarithmic time scale; i.e., the
elapsed time, at which reading are taken and u
a
adjusted, from the test beginning, can be
doubled or tripled. When no further tendency for water to be expelled or absorbed is exhibited,
the value of u
a
is the first approximation of the matric suction, because u
w
0. If u
a
is very small,
then it might be necessary to use the height of the water columns in the volume change tubes to
evaluate u
w
, which is typically slightly above zero. In special cases where the suction is
exceptionally low it may be desirable to maintain u
a
= 0 and lower the water columns so that u
w

is modestly negative (Padilla et al., 2005). (7) Close the cell drainage valves and remove the
specimen as quickly as possible, taking care to remove all of the specimen and to prevent
moisture loss or gain and specimen mass loss or gain. (8) Determine the mass of the ring plus
moist specimen. If this value is the same as the pre-test value, no change in moisture content
occurred. If not, compute the change in moisture content and the corresponding change in
degree of saturation, S. (9) Use the oven-dry mass of the specimen, a measured specific
gravity, and the final moisture content to compute the end-of-test S value. (10) Plot the
measured matric suction with the final S value on a SWCC plot, such as Figure 2 for plastic
soils. (11) Using the family of SWCC curves, eg. Figure 2, sketch a SWCC through the point,
and apply S to obtain a corresponding (matric suction), by following along the SWCC curve in

482
the appropriate direction. The new matric suction is the corrected suction, which has been
corrected for the unintended moisture content change that occurred during the test.
The preceding procedure has been used successfully by the authors to complete
numerous measurement of suction. When the measured suction is below the air-entry value of
the ceramic stone the unintended moisture content change is typically 0.2% or less and is rarely
more than 0.3%. However, if the actual suction for the field sample exceeds the air entry value
of the ceramic stone, then substantial water absorption is inevitable. In this case the procedure
used to estimate the in-situ suction is more or less the same, except that a maximum practical
value of u
a
is simply applied and held constant and this value of u
a
is treated as the first
approximation of the measured suction. The final S value is plotted with the last applied suction
and a SWCC is constructed through the point as described above. In this case the moisture
content change and S will probably not be small and it will thus be necessary to move down
the SWCC a substantial distance to find the corrected suction. To the extent that the family of
curves used portrays essentially correct slopes, this represents a fairly reliable technique for
estimating in-situ suctions in excess of the air-entry value of the stone.

Results
After all testing was completed, there were sets of curves where four SWCCs had been
obtained: 1) The pressure membrane SWCC, 2) The pressure plate SWCC, 3) The one-point
SWCC, wherein one of a family of SWCCs is fitted through the one-point measurement of matric
suction and S, and 4) The index properties-based (IPB) SWCC, wherein only index properties
are used to estimate the SWCC as per Equations (3) through (16). Thus numerous comparisons
were possible.
Figures 3 and 4 show some typical results for Phoenix clay. In Figure 3 the
experimental values are plotted with differing symbols as labeled. The form of the equations for
the SWCCs are given by Equations (1) and (2) and trial and error was used to find the fitting
parameters a
f
, b
f
, c
f
, and h
r
which produced a curve that best matched the experimental data. In

483
addition to the experimental points the pressure membrane curve was assumed to pass through
S = 100% at very low suction and suction equal to 10
6
kPa at S = 0%.
LL = 38
PL = 20
P
200
= 64.9 %
%-2mm = 28.8 %
G
s
= 2.726
k
sat
= 9.8e-8 cm/s
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
S
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
%
]
Pressure Membrane
Pressure Plate
One Point

Figure 3. Suction measurement; Phoenix clay
IPB SWCC
wPI = 11.3
a
f
= 112
b
f
= 0.66
c
f
= 0.19
h
r
= 500
One Point SWCC
wPI = 7.24
a
f
= 97.4
b
f
= 0.76
c
f
= 0.29
h
r
= 500
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
S
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

[
%
]
Pressure Membrane
Pressure Plate
One Point
IPB SWCC
One-point SWCC

Figure 4: Suction measurement and SWCC prediction; Phoenix clay

Figure 3 shows both the drying curve and the wetting curve for the pressure plate
results. In this case the one-point measurement fell between the wetting and the drying curves.

484
Figure 4 represents the same experimental data points as Figure 3, but with no curves shown for
the experimental (pressure plate and pressure membrane) points. The two curves which are
shown are the one-point method and the index-property based (IPB) SWCC. Figure 4 shows
that in this case the drying curves for pressure plate, pressure membrane, and the IPB are
practically coincident and the one-point measurement falls slightly below these three drying
curves. Further comparisons between SWCCs are made in the paragraphs which follow by
summarizing some relevant statistics. Because all SWCCs essentially match up at very low
suctions (1 kPa or less) and at very high suctions (10
6
kPa), the comparisons drawn herein are
simplified by quantifying the vertical distance (S) between curves when the pressure plate
curve is at 50 % saturation.

Comparison of pressure plate and pressure membrane SWCCs
Four sets of pressure plate and pressure membrane SWCCs were compared. It was
found that for all the curves the pressure membrane SWCCs plotted above the pressure plate
SWCCs at low suction values. The curves were found to cross at the suction range from 100 to
1000 kPa. The arithmetic average S is equal to the absolute average S, and it is 4.9 %, with
positive S corresponding to the membrane curve falling below the pressure plate curve. A
small arithmetic S thus corresponds to very little bias in the comparison, meaning that on
average the two sets of curves were about the same. The standard deviation was found to be
5.4 %. A relatively large absolute mean S corresponds to considerable scatter in the
comparisons.

Comparison of pressure plate, pressure membrane and one-point method
For this comparison an additional 4 sets of pressure membrane SWCC and one-point
tests were available. The one-point method plotted below both drying curves in 2 cases,
between the curves in 1 case and above both curves in 1 case. The one point method plotted
below pressure membrane in 4 cases and above it in the remaining 4.

485
Comparison of pressure plate and One-Point SWCCs
For this comparison 6 sets of curves were available, where S is the change in suction
between the curves when the one-point pressure place curve is at 50 % saturation. The one
point SWCC typically falls above pressure plate SWCC for small values of suction. In 4 cases
the pressure plate SWCC crossed the one-point SWCC between 200 and 1000 kPa, plotting
above one-point SWCC for the larger values of suction. For the remaining 2 cases, the entire
one-point SWCCs plotted above the pressure plate SWCCs. The arithmetic mean S was equal
to absolute mean and was 4.9 %, with positive corresponding to the one-point SWCC being
lower, with standard deviation of 4.0 %.

Comparison of pressure plate SWCC to Index-Property-Based SWCCs
For this comparison 6 sets of curves were available, where S is the change in suction between
the curves when the one-point pressure place curve is at 50 % saturation. For low values of
suction IPB SWCCs typically plot above pressure plate SWCCs. The inverse is true for high
suction values. The arithmetic mean S was 3.5 %, with positive corresponding to the IPB
SWCC being higher. The absolute mean S was 7.1 %, with a standard deviation of 4.8 %.

Comparison of One-Point SWCCs with IPB SWCCs
For this comparison the database was considerably larger, with 68 pairs of values
available. In 60 cases the one-point SWCC ( when compared at 50 % saturation) fell below the
IPB SWCC and in 8 cases above; the arithmetic mean S was 18.4 %, with positive
corresponding to the one-point being lower. The absolute mean S was 20.1 %, with a standard
deviation of 11.4 %.

Discussion
Modest differences between the pressure plate and pressure membrane SWCCs are
perhaps to be expected because of moderate differences in apparatus and test procedures. The

486
effect of overburden pressure is reflected in the pressure plate test when the Fredlund SWCC
device is used, but not so in the pressure membrane device. The degree of saturation can be
determined throughout the test with the pressure plate, but is much more difficult to ascertain
with the pressure membrane. Although it is difficult to see how the use of a saturated cellulose
membrane as a barrier to air passage is significantly different from the use of a saturated
ceramic stone, there may nevertheless be a difference that thus for escapes the authors. Due at
least in part to those noted differences, on average, pressure membrane SWCCs tended to fall
above pressure plate SWCCs at low undisturbed suction measurement values. At higher values
of suction the opposite is true. These two curves intersect at suction range from 100 to 1000
kPa. The arithmetic average of the vertical distance (S) between these two curves, when the
pressure plate curve is at 50 % saturation, is 4.9 % where a positive value corresponds to
membrane curve falling below the pressure plate curve.
The one-point method tended to fall around 3 % below the pressure membrane average
and about 5 % below the pressure plate average (drying curves). It also fell about 18 % below
the IPB SWCCs, on average. These results support the conclusion that the elements of soil
represented by these sub-slab samples tend usually to fall between the wetting and drying
curves, though not necessarily midway between. In general, a field specimen may exist on the
wetting curve, or the drying curve, or somewhere in between on the scanning curve. For this
reason, SWCCs obtained using the one point method would generally be expected to provide
suction values at or below the drying curve due to hysteretic behavior of the soil. None the less,
the use of the one point measurement is likely to result in less error than approximations
obtained using index properties alone.

Applications to Soil Engineering Practice
The practice of unsaturated soil mechanics necessarily involves the evaluation of the
soil suction (u
a
u
w
) and the net normal stress ( u
a
). These stress state variables must be
related to shear strength, compressibility, moduli and fluid flow parameters for the soils at hand.

487
Thus values of the soil suction at various in-situ points in the field are of the utmost interest.
These values of soil suction can be measured directly with sensors installed in-situ or by the
one-point method on undisturbed samples as described by Perera (Perera et al. 2005).
As seen from Figure 4 the corrected SWCC curve produces average saturation values
per given suctions. It can be concluded that the corrected SWCC produces the expected SWCC
curve once the influence of the hysteresis has ceased. The correction of the SWCC to the one-
point undisturbed suction value obtained by pressure plate accounts for variation of SWCC with
dry density. It produces a curve that is correct for the particular soil conditions encountered at
the site in question. Therefore, the adoption of the corrected SWCC curve will be helpful in the
implementation of unsaturated soil mechanics into geotechnical analysis by the practitioners.

References
Chen, F.H. (1988). Foundations on Expansive Soils, Development in Geotechnical Engineering,
vol. 54.

Fredlund, D. G., Rahardjo, H. (1993). Soil Mechanics for Unsaturated Soils, New York: John
Wiley and Sons Inc.

Perera, Y.Y., Zapata, C.E., Houston, S.L., Houston W.N. (2005). Prediction of the Soil-Water
Characteristic Curve Based on Grain-Size Distribution and Index Properties. Proceedings of
Geo-Frontiers 2005, Austin, Texas, Jan. 24-26. ASCE.

Perera, Y. Y., Zapata, C. E., Houston, S.L., Houston W.N. (2004). Moisture Equilibria Beneath
Highway Pavements. Transportation Research Board 83
rd
Annual Meeting - Session 410,
Washington D.C., January 11-15. Presented.

Perera, Y.Y., Zapata, C.E., Houston, S.L., Houston W.N. (2004). Long-Term Moisture
Conditions under Highway Pavements. Proceedings of Geo-Trans 2004, Los Angeles, CA,
1132-1143.

Zapata, C.E. (1999). Uncertainty in Soil-Water Characteristic Curve and Impact on Unsaturated
Shear Strength Predictions, Ph.D. Dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

Zapata, C.E., Houston, W.N., Houston, S.L., Walsh, K.D. (2000). Soil-Water Characteristic
Curve Variability. Proceedings of Sessions of Geo-Denver 2000, Denver: ASCE Geo-
Institute, 84-124.
APPENDIX D
PRESENTATION OF MODELING RESULTS

Table of Contents

SM-ML Soil: Desert Landscape.............................................................................................. 492
1-D SM-ML Soil: Desert Landscape, year 1, hourly flux....................................................... 493
1-D SM-ML Soil: Desert Landscape, year 1-6, hourly flux ................................................... 496
1-D SM-ML Soil: Desert Landscape, year 1, average flux ................................................... 499
1-D SM-ML Soil: Roof Runoff Ponding, year 1, hourly flux .................................................. 502

SM-ML Soil: Turf Landscape.................................................................................................. 507
1-D SM-ML Soil: Turf Landscape, year 1, average flux, Flux = 2.2PE................................. 512
1-D SM-ML Soil: Turf Landscape, year 1, hourly flux, Flux = PE, IC=5
th
year desert .......... 515

CH Soil: Desert Landscape .................................................................................................. 519
1-D CH Soil: Desert Landscape, year 1, hourly flux ............................................................... 520
1-D CH Soil: Desert Landscape, years 1-6, hourly flux .......................................................... 523
1-D CH Soil: Desert Landscape, year 1, average flux............................................................ 527
1-D CH Soil: Roof Runoff Ponding, year 1, hourly flux ........................................................... 530

CH Soil: Turf Landscape ...................................................................................................... 534
1-D CH Soil: Turf Landscape, 1
st
year, hourly flux, Flux = 2.2PE........................................... 535
1-D CH Soil: Turf Landscape, years 1-34, hourly flux, Flux = 2.2PE...................................... 539
st
year, average flux, Flux = 2.2PE........................................ 543
st
year, hourly flux, Flux = PE, IC=-153 m. ............................ 546
st
year, hourly flux, Flux = 1.3PE, IC=34the year of turf........ 550

List of Figures

SM-ML Soil: Turf Landscape; 1
st
Year ; Hourly Flux
Figure 1: 2-D view of suction variation with depth and time; ................................................. 493
Figure 2: 2-D view of suction variation with depth and time, zoomed in on surface; ............ 493
Figure 3: 3-D front view of suction variation with depth and time;......................................... 494
Figure 4: Profile before and after rain in October; ................................................................. 494
Figure 5: Instantaneous Fluxes ............................................................................................. 495
Figure 6: Cumulative Fluxes.................................................................................................. 496
Figure 8: 2-D view of suction variation with depth and time zoomed in on the surface; ....... 497
Figure 9: Driest (Jun) and Wettest (Dec.) Profiles;................................................................ 497
Figure 13: Profile at selected times, Jun and December;........................................................ 500
Figure 14: Cumulative Fluxes, ................................................................................................. 500
Figure 18: 2-D view of suction variation with depth and time, zoomed in on surface; ............ 503
Figure 19: Profile at selected times, March after rain, end of July, end of Dec....................... 504
Figure 20: Cumulative Flux...................................................................................................... 504
Figure 21: Instantaneous Flux................................................................................................. 505
Figure 24: Profiles of the driest surface conditions (April) and the wettest (Dec.); ................. 509
Figure 25: Profile before and after 0.5-h irrigation in April;...................................................... 509
Figure 34: Profiles of the driest surface conditions (April) and the wettest (Dec.); ................. 516
Figure 36: Instantaneous Flux Data ........................................................................................ 517
Figure 42: 3-D back view of suction variation with depth and time; ........................................ 523

Figure 54: Profile at selected times: July before and after rain, end of Dec............................ 531
Figure 61: Profile at selected times: driest (end of April), and wettest (after all prec. in March);.
................................................................................................................................ 537
Figure 70: Domain Accumulation ............................................................................................ 542

List of Tables

Table 1: Flux Data (SM-ML; desert landscape, years 1-6, hourly flux)................................ 499
Table 2: Flux Data (SM-ML; desert landscape, 1
st
year, average flux)................................ 502
Table 3: Flux Data (SM-ML; 1
st
year, hourly flux)................................................................. 506
Table 4: Flux Data (SM-ML; turf landscape, years 1-2, hourly flux, Flux = 2.2PE).............. 511
Table 5: Flux Data (SM-ML; turf landscape,1
st
year, average flux, Flux = 2.2PE)............... 514
Table 6: Flux Data (SM-ML; turf landscape, 1
st
year, hourly flux, Flux=PE, IC=5
th
year desert)
................................................................................................................................ 518
Table 7: Cumulative Flux Data (CH; desert landscape, years 1-6, hourly flux) ................... 526
Table 8: Cumulative Flux Data (CH; desert landscape, 1
st
year, average flux) ................... 529
Table 9: Cumulative Flux Data (CH; roof runoff ponding, 1
st
year, hourly flux).................... 533
Table 10: Cumulative Flux Data (CH; turf landscape, 1
st
year, average flux, Flux = 2.2PE) . 546
Table 11: Cumulative Flux Data (SM-ML; 1
st
year, hourly flux) ............................................. 549
Table 12: Cumulative Flux Data (SM-ML; 1
st
year, hourly flux) ............................................. 553

SM-ML Soil: Desert Landscape

Analysis results of 1-D 10-m deep SM-ML soil profile are presented. Three desert
landscape analyses were performed.
1. In the first analysis, 6-years of hourly discretized flux was considered. It consists of
precipitation (0.27m/year, value modified by 0.07 m/year due to PE) and potential
evaporation, PE, (2.34 m/year). The precipitation is applied everyday from the beginning
of each month for the average number of rainy days in each month as determined from
statistical analysis of 24 years of historical data. The duration and magnitude of each rain
event is also based on the analysis of the same historical data. The PE is averaged over
each month. The constant head of -153m constitutes the initial and bottom boundary
conditions.
2. In the second analysis the precipitation flux was averaged over each month and applied in
terms of m/h. Similarly, PE was also averaged over each month (2.34 m/year). The
constant head of -153 m constitutes the initial and bottom boundary conditions.
3. In the 3
rd
analysis, the effects of poor drainage near foundation and roof runoff were
considered. The soil profile obtained with 5
th
year desert landscape analysis was used as
the input profile where the matric suction varies nonlinearly from 84000kPa at the soil
surface to 1500kPa at the profile bottom. The precipitation flux, described above, was
increased by a factor of 6. In this scenario, all the water was allowed to infiltrate the
profile. This was accomplished be removing the runoff function.
The results are presented in terms of matric suction and degree of saturation.
Instantaneous and cumulative fluxes are presented visually and tabularly, where the tables are
provided on the end final year final year analysis.

493

1-D SM-ML Soil: Desert Landscape, year 1, hourly flux

Figure 1: 2-D view of suction variation with depth and time;
SM-ML; desert flux, 1
st
year, hourly flux.

Figure 2: 2-D view of suction variation with depth and time, zoomed in on surface;
st
year, hourly flux.

494

Figure 3: 3-D front view of suction variation with depth and time;
st
year, hourly flux.

10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

[
m
]

Initial Profile
Before Prec. (Oct.)
After First Rain
After all Rain in Oct.

Figure 4: Profile before and after rain in October;
st
year, hourly flux

495

-5
0
5
10
15
20
x 10
-4
Precipitation [m/h]
Applied Prec. = 0.27 [m/year]

-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
x 10
-4
PE [m/h]
PE = 2.34 [m/year]

-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
x 10
-4
Instant. AE [m/h]
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
-1
0
1
2
x 10
-3
Instant. Flux [m/h]
Time [day]

Figure 5: Instantaneous Fluxes
SM-ML; desert landscape, 1
st
year, hourly flux

496

-0.04
-0.02
0
0.02
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

[
m
]

Domain Accumulation
Cum. Runoff
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

[
m
]
Time [day]

Cum. Prec.
Cum. AE
Cum. PE

Figure 6: Cumulative Fluxes
st
year, hourly flux

1-D SM-ML Soil: Desert Landscape, year 1-6, hourly flux

SM-ML; desert landscape, years 1-6, hourly flux.
497

SM-ML; desert landscape, year 6, hourly flux.

10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5

0 20 40 60 80
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

[
m
]

Initial Profile
Year1-Jun
Year2-Jun.
Year3-Jun.
Year4-Jun.
Year5-Jun.
Year6-Jun.
Year6-Wettest Cond. (Jan.)

Figure 9: Driest (Jun) and Wettest (Dec.) Profiles;
498

-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
x 10
-4
I
n
s
t
a
n
t
.

A
E

[
m
/
h
]
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
x 10
-3
I
n
s
t
a
n
t
.

F
l
u
x

[
m
/
h
]
Time [year]


-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

[
m
]

Cum. Runoff
Domain Accum.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
-15
-10
-5
0
5
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

[
m
]
Time [year]

Cum. Prec.
Cum. PE
Cum. AE


499

Table 1: Flux Data (SM-ML; desert landscape, years 1-6, hourly flux)
Cumulative Applied
Flux Cumulative Actual Flux
Time
Prec. PE AE Flux Runoff
Profile
Water
Volume
[Year] [Month] [Day] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m]
0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.0 1.278
1 31 0.029639 -0.086 -0.0351 -0.005 0.0 1.272
2 59 0.059399 -0.184 -0.0682 -0.009 0.0 1.268
3 90 0.099719 -0.352 -0.1125 -0.014 0.0 1.264
4 120 0.114 -0.573 -0.1344 -0.022 0.0 1.256
5 151 0.11901 -0.871 -0.1476 -0.029 0.0 1.248
6 181 0.12141 -1.173 -0.1568 -0.036 0.0 1.242
7 212 0.16461 -1.497 -0.2036 -0.039 0.0 1.238
8 243 0.19197 -1.766 -0.2326 -0.042 0.0 1.236
9 273 0.21432 -1.987 -0.2573 -0.045 0.0 1.233
10 304 0.23272 -2.159 -0.2763 -0.046 0.0 1.232
11 334 0.25384 -2.267 -0.2971 -0.046 0.0 1.232
1
12 365 0.27208 -2.340 -0.3149 -0.046 0.0 1.232
2 12 365 0.544 -4.680 -0.6040 -0.066 0.0 1.212
3 12 365 0.816 -7.021 -0.8884 -0.081 0.0 1.196
4 12 365 1.088 -9.361 -1.1703 -0.094 0.0 1.183
5 12 365 1.360 -11.701 -1.4506 -0.106 0.0 1.172
6 12 365 1.632 -14.041 -1.7297 -0.116 0.0 1.162

1-D SM-ML Soil: Desert Landscape, year 1, average flux

st
year, average flux.
500

10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5

0 10 20 30 40
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
1.25
1.5
1.75
2
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

[
m
]

Initial Profile
End of Jun
End of Dec.

Figure 13: Profile at selected times, Jun and December;
st
year, average flux.

-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
0.02
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

[
m
]

Domain Accum.
Cum. Runoff
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
-3
-2
-1
0
1
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

[
m
]
Time [day]

PE = 2.34 [m/year]
Cum. Prec.
Cum. AE
Cum. PE

Figure 14: Cumulative Fluxes,
st
year, average flux.

501

0
2
4
6
x 10
-5
Precipitation [m/h]

-4
-2
0
x 10
-4
PE [m/h]
PE = 2.34 [m/year]

-9
-6
-3
0
x 10
-5
Instant. AE [m/h]
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
-4
-2
0
2
4
x 10
-5
Instant. Flux [m/h]
Time [day]

st
year, average flux.

502

Table 2: Flux Data (SM-ML; desert landscape, 1
st
year, average flux).
Cumulative Applied Flux Cumulative Actual Flux
Time
Irrig.+Prec. PE Flux AE
Flux
from
water
volume
Cum.
Runoff
Profile
Water
Volume
[Year] [Month] [Day] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m]
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.2778
1 31 0.03 -0.0861 -0.056 -0.0392 -0.0094 0.00 1.2682
2 59 0.06 -0.184 -0.124 -0.0739 -0.0141 0.00 1.2636
3 90 0.1 -0.352 -0.252 -0.1193 -0.0190 0.00 1.2586
4 120 0.114 -0.5734 -0.459 -0.1404 -0.0258 0.00 1.2518
5 151 0.119 -0.8711 -0.752 -0.1526 -0.0330 0.00 1.2447
6 181 0.121 -1.1736 -1.053 -0.1603 -0.0391 0.00 1.2385
7 212 0.164 -1.4969 -1.333 -0.2066 -0.0422 0.00 1.2355
8 243 0.192 -1.766 -1.574 -0.2364 -0.0447 0.00 1.2330
9 273 0.214 -1.9859 -1.772 -0.2618 -0.0476 0.00 1.2301
10 304 0.233 -2.1585 -1.926 -0.2811 -0.0485 0.00 1.2291
11 334 0.254 -2.2664 -2.013 -0.3030 -0.0492 0.00 1.2284
1
12 365 0.276 -2.3396 -2.063 -0.3256 -0.0493 0.00 1.2283

1-D SM-ML Soil: Roof Runoff Ponding, year 1, hourly flux

SM-ML; roof runoff ponding, 1
st
year, hourly flux.
503

st
year, hourly flux.

st
year, hourly flux.

504

10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5

0 20 40 60 80 100
0
1
2
3
4
5
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

[
m
]

Driest Cond. - Jun

Figure 19: Profile at selected times, March after rain, end of Jun, end of Dec.
st
year, hourly flux.
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

[
m
]
Time [day]

Cum. Prec.
Cum. AE
Cum. PE
Domain Accum.

Figure 20: Cumulative Flux
st
year, hourly flux.

505

-5
0
5
10
15
x 10
-3
Precipitation [m/h]

-4
-2
0
x 10
-4
PE [m/h]

-4
-2
0
x 10
-4
Instant. AE [m/h]
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
-5
0
5
10
15
x 10
-3
Instant. Flux [m/h]
Time [day]

Figure 21: Instantaneous Flux
st
year, hourly flux.

506

Table 3: Flux Data (SM-ML; 1
st
year, hourly flux)
Input Output
Time
Prec. PE Flux AE
Domain
Accum.
Profile
Water
Volume
0 0 0 0 0 -9E-05 0 1.172
1 31 0.178 -0.0861 0.092 -0.0492 0.084 1.256
2 59 0.356 -0.1842 0.172 -0.1054 0.177 1.349
3 90 0.598 -0.3524 0.246 -0.1827 0.306 1.478
4 120 0.684 -0.5734 0.111 -0.2513 0.315 1.487
5 151 0.714 -0.871 -0.157 -0.2804 0.294 1.466
6 181 0.728 -1.1734 -0.445 -0.3073 0.279 1.451
7 212 0.988 -1.4971 -0.509 -0.4286 0.391 1.563
8 243 1.152 -1.7664 -0.615 -0.5379 0.428 1.600
9 273 1.286 -1.9867 -0.701 -0.6152 0.470 1.642
10 304 1.396 -2.1593 -0.763 -0.6778 0.509 1.681
11 334 1.523 -2.2672 -0.744 -0.7305 0.573 1.744
1
12 365 1.632 -2.3402 -0.708 -0.7759 0.630 1.801

507

SM-ML Soil: Turf Landscape

Analysis results of 1-D 10-m deep SM-ML soil profile are presented. Three turf
irrigation (2.36m/year), precipitation (0.27m/year) and potential evaporation (1.18m/year).
The precipitation is applied as in the desert landscape. The irrigation is applied daily and
lasts up to 1 hour. The PE is averaged over each month. Constant head of -153m
constitutes the initial and bottom boundary conditions.
2. In the second analysis the applied flux consists of precipitation and irrigation averaged
over each month (2.58 m/year) and PE also averaged over each month (1.18 m/year).
Constant head of -153m constitutes the initial and bottom boundary conditions.
3. In the 3
rd
analysis, irrigation equal to PE was analyzed. The flux was applied on hourly
bases with irrigation and precipitation schedule of scenario 1. The PE is averaged over
each month. Two initial conditions were considered. The first one consisted of constant -
153m head with depth, while the second one varied from 84000 kPa matric suction at the
soil surface to 1500kPa at the base of the soil profile.
provided on the end of analysis for the final year.

508

1-D SM-ML Soil: Turf Landscape, 1
st
year, hourly flux, Flux = 2.2PE

SM-ML; turf landscape, 1
st
year, hourly flux, Flux = 2.2PE.

st
509

10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5

0 20 40 60 80 100
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

[
m
]

Initial Profile

Figure 24: Profiles of the driest surface conditions (April) and the wettest (Dec.);
st

10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5

0 20 40 60 80 100
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

[
m
]

Initial Profile
Before Irrig. (April)
After Irrig. (April)

Figure 25: Profile before and after 0.5-h irrigation in April;
st

510

0
0.005
0.01
0.015
Precipitation and
Irrigation [m/h]

-2
-1
0
x 10
-4
PE [m/h]

-2
-1
0
x 10
-4
Instant. AE [m/h]
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
-5
0
5
10
15
x 10
-3
Instant. Flux [m/h]
Time [day]

st
511

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

[
m
]
Time [day]

Cum. Prec.
Cum. AE
Cum. PE
Domain Accum.

st

Table 4: Flux Data (SM-ML; turf landscape, years 1-2, hourly flux, Flux = 2.2PE)
Input Output
Time
Irrig.+Prec
.
PE Flux AE
Domain
Accum.
Profile
Water
Volume
[Year]
[Month
] [Day] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m] [m]
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.278
1 31 0.098 -0.0331 0.065 -0.0330 0.065 1.343
2 59 0.189 -0.0758 0.113 -0.0758 0.113 1.391
3 90 0.299 -0.1471 0.152 -0.1471 0.152 1.429
4 120 0.383 -0.2475 0.136 -0.2330 0.139 1.416
5 151 0.716 -0.3824 0.334 -0.3675 0.259 1.537
6 181 1.037 -0.5342 0.503 -0.5190 0.349 1.627
7 212 1.409 -0.6945 0.715 -0.6795 0.473 1.751
8 243 1.765 -0.8415 0.924 -0.8265 0.596 1.874
9 273 2.105 -0.9656 1.140 -0.9504 0.726 2.004
10 304 2.451 -1.0686 1.382 -1.0534 0.878 2.156
11 334 2.543 -1.1387 1.404 -1.1235 0.889 2.167
1
12 365 2.633 -1.1815 1.451 -1.1658 0.926 2.204
512

1-D SM-ML Soil: Turf Landscape, year 1, average flux, Flux = 2.2PE

st
year, average flux, Flux = 2.2PE.

st

513

0
2
4
6
x 10
-4
Precipitation and
Irrigation [m/h]

-2
-1
0
x 10
-4
PE [m/h]
PE = 1.18 [m/year]

-2
-1
0
x 10
-4
Instant. AE [m/h]
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
0
2
4
x 10
-4
Instant. Flux [m/h]
Time [day]

st
514

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

[
m
]
Time [day]

Cum. Prec.
Cum. AE
Cum. PE
Domain Accum.

st

Table 5: Flux Data (SM-ML; turf landscape,1
st
year, average flux, Flux = 2.2PE)
Input Output
Time
Domain
Accum.
Profile
Water
Volume
0 0 0 0 0 -7E-05 0 1.278
1 31 0.098 -0.0331 0.065 -0.0332 0.065 1.343
2 59 0.189 -0.0758 0.113 -0.0759 0.113 1.391
3 90 0.295 -0.1471 0.148 -0.1473 0.148 1.425
4 120 0.376 -0.2475 0.129 -0.2474 0.129 1.407
5 151 0.704 -0.3824 0.322 -0.3819 0.321 1.599
6 181 1.019 -0.5342 0.485 -0.5336 0.480 1.758
7 212 1.378 -0.6945 0.683 -0.6940 0.671 1.949
8 243 1.726 -0.8415 0.885 -0.8409 0.864 2.141
9 273 2.06 -0.9656 1.094 -0.9651 1.063 2.341
10 304 2.399 -1.0686 1.331 -1.0681 1.285 2.563
11 334 2.489 -1.1387 1.350 -1.1384 1.293 2.570
1
12 365 2.583 -1.1815 1.401 -1.1807 1.341 2.619

515

1-D SM-ML Soil: Turf Landscape, year 1, hourly flux, Flux = PE, IC=5
th
year desert

st
th
year desert.

st
th
year desert.

516

10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5

0 20 40 60 80 100
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

[
m
]

Initial Profile

Figure 34: Profiles of the driest surface conditions (April) and the wettest (Dec.);
st
th
year desert.

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

[
m
]
Time [day]

Cum. Prec.+Irrig.
Cum. AE
Cum. PE
Domain Accum.

st
th
year desert.

517

0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
Precipitation and
Irrigation [m/h]

-2
-1
0
x 10
-4
PE [m/h]

-2
-1
0
x 10
-4
Instant. AE [m/h]
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
Instant. Flux [m/h]
Time [day]

Figure 36: Instantaneous Flux Data
st
year, hourly flux, Fl=PE, IC=5
th
year desert

518

Table 6: Flux Data (SM-ML; turf landscape, 1
st
th
year
desert)
Input Output
Time
Domain
Accum.
Profile
Water
Volume
0 0 0 0 0 -0.0001 0 1.278
1 31 0.075 -0.0331 0.042 -0.0330 0.041 1.213
2 59 0.145 -0.0758 0.069 -0.0758 0.066 1.238
3 90 0.232 -0.1471 0.084 -0.1440 0.083 1.254
4 120 0.293 -0.2475 0.045 -0.2139 0.070 1.242
5 151 0.465 -0.3824 0.083 -0.3347 0.084 1.255
6 181 0.63 -0.5342 0.096 -0.4657 0.085 1.257
7 212 0.842 -0.6945 0.148 -0.6161 0.121 1.293
8 243 1.038 -0.8415 0.197 -0.7734 0.169 1.341
9 273 1.223 -0.9656 0.257 -0.8972 0.230 1.402
10 304 1.408 -1.0686 0.339 -1.0099 0.312 1.483
11 334 1.477 -1.1387 0.338 -1.0779 0.309 1.481
1
12 365 1.544 -1.1815 0.362 -1.1201 0.334 1.506

519

CH Soil: Desert Landscape

Analysis results of 1-D 10-m deep CH soil profile are presented. Three desert landscape
analyses were performed.
precipitation (0.27m/year) and potential evaporation, PE, (2.34 m/year). The precipitation is
applied everyday from the beginning of each month for the average number of rainy days in
each month as determined from statistical analysis of 24 years of historical data. The
duration and magnitude of each rain event is also based on the analysis of the same
historical data. The PE is averaged over each month. The constant head of -153m
constitutes the initial and bottom boundary conditions. The same scenario was repeated
for a 2-D 10m by 5m domain.
2. In the second analysis the precipitation flux was averaged over each month and applied in
terms of m/h. Similarly, PE was also averaged over each month (2.34 m/year). The
constant head of -153 m constitutes the initial and bottom boundary conditions.
3. In the 3
rd
analysis, the effects of poor drainage near foundation and roof runoff were
considered. The soil profile obtained with 5
th
year desert landscape analysis was used as
the input profile where the matric suction varies nonlinearly from 84000kPa at the soil
surface to 1500kPa at the profile bottom. The precipitation flux, described above, was
increased by a factor of 6. In this scenario, all the water was allowed to infiltrate the profile.
This was accomplished be removing the runoff function.
provided on the end final year final year analysis.

520

1-D CH Soil: Desert Landscape, year 1, hourly flux

CH; desert landscape, 1
st
year, hourly flux.

st
year, hourly flux.
521

10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

[
m
]

Initial Profile
Before Prec. in Nov.
After first rain in Nov.
After all Rain in Nov.

st
year, hourly flux.

-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

[
m
]

Domain Accum.
Cum. Runoff
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

[
m
]
Time [day]

PE = 2.34 [m/year]
Cum. PE
Cum. Prec.
Cum. AE

st
year, hourly flux.

522

0
0.5
1
1.5
2
x 10
-3
Precipitation [m/h]

-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
x 10
-4
PE [m/h]
PE = 2.34 [m/year]

-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
x 10
-4
Instant. AE [m/h]
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
-5
0
5
10
15
x 10
-4
Instant. Flux [m/h]
Time [day]

st
year, hourly flux.

523

1-D CH Soil: Desert Landscape, years 1-6, hourly flux

Figure 42: 3-D back view of suction variation with depth and time;
CH; desert landscape, years 1-6, hourly flux.

524


10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5

0 20 40 60 80
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

[
m
]

Initial Profile
Year1-Jun
Year2-Jun.
Year3-Jun.
Year4-Jun.
Year5-Jun.
Year6-Jun.
Year6-March


525

-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
x 10
-4
I
n
s
t
a
n
t
.

A
E

[
m
/
h
]
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
-5
0
5
10
15
x 10
-4
I
n
s
t
a
n
t
.

F
l
u
x

[
m
/
h
]
Time [year]


-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

[
m
]

Net Runoff
Domain Accum.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
-15
-10
-5
0
5
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

[
m
]
Time [year]

Cum. Prec.
Cum. PE
Cum. AE


526

Table 7: Cumulative Flux Data (CH; desert landscape, years 1-6, hourly flux)
Input Output
Time
Irrig. PE
Net
Flux
AE
Domain
Accum.
Profile
Water
Volume
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.560
1 31 0.03 -0.086 -0.056 -0.0370 -0.007 2.553
2 59 0.059 -0.184 -0.125 -0.0698 -0.010 2.549
3 90 0.1 -0.352 -0.253 -0.1146 -0.015 2.545
4 120 0.114 -0.573 -0.459 -0.1380 -0.024 2.536
5 151 0.119 -0.871 -0.752 -0.1533 -0.035 2.525
6 181 0.121 -1.173 -1.052 -0.1671 -0.044 2.516
7 212 0.165 -1.497 -1.332 -0.2153 -0.049 2.511
8 243 0.192 -1.766 -1.574 -0.2434 -0.052 2.507
9 273 0.214 -1.987 -1.772 -0.2684 -0.057 2.503
10 304 0.233 -2.159 -1.927 -0.2870 -0.058 2.502
11 334 0.254 -2.267 -2.013 -0.3068 -0.057 2.502
1
12 365 0.272 -2.340 -2.068 -0.3234 -0.056 2.504
2 12 365 0.544 -4.680 -4.136 -0.5979 -0.081 2.479
3 12 365 0.816 -7.021 -6.204 -0.8822 -0.100 2.460
4 12 365 1.088 -9.361 -8.272 -1.1636 -0.116 2.444
5 12 365 1.36 -11.701 -10.341 -1.4274 -0.130 2.430
6 12 365 1.633 -14.041 -12.409 -1.7053 -0.143 2.417

527

1-D CH Soil: Desert Landscape, year 1, average flux

st
year, average flux.
10
3
10
4
10
5

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

[
m
]

Initial Profile
End of Jun
End of Dec.

st
year, average flux.
528

0
1
2
3
x 10
-5
Precipitation [m/h]

-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
x 10
-4
PE [m/h]
PE = 2.34 [m/year]

-1
-0.5
0
x 10
-4
Instant. AE [m/h]
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
-15
-10
-5
0
x 10
-6
Instant. Flux [m/h]
Time [day]

st
year, average flux.
529

-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

[
m
]

Cum. AE
Cum. Prec.
Domain Accum.
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

[
m
]
Time [day]

PE = 2.34 [m/year]
Cum. PE

st
year, average flux.

Table 8: Cumulative Flux Data (CH; desert landscape, 1
st
year, average flux)
Input Output
Time
Domain
Accum.
Profile
Water
Volume
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5597
1 31 0.025 -0.0861 -0.061 -0.0366 -0.0116 2.5495
2 59 0.048 -0.184 -0.136 -0.0647 -0.0169 2.5442
3 90 0.076 -0.352 -0.276 -0.0984 -0.0226 2.5385
4 120 0.084 -0.5734 -0.490 -0.1134 -0.0295 2.5316
5 151 0.088 -0.8711 -0.783 -0.1251 -0.0373 2.5238
6 181 0.088 -1.1736 -1.085 -0.1331 -0.0445 2.5165
7 212 0.114 -1.4969 -1.383 -0.1639 -0.0495 2.5116
8 243 0.135 -1.766 -1.631 -0.1880 -0.0527 2.5084
9 273 0.153 -1.9859 -1.833 -0.2090 -0.0560 2.5051
10 304 0.168 -2.1585 -1.991 -0.2248 -0.0571 2.5040
11 334 0.185 -2.2664 -2.081 -0.2430 -0.0577 2.5034
1
12 365 0.205 -2.3396 -2.135 -0.2627 -0.0578 2.5032

530

1-D CH Soil: Roof Runoff Ponding, year 1, hourly flux

CH; roof runoff ponding, 1
st
year, hourly flux.

st
year, hourly flux.

531

10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5

0 50 40 60 80 100
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

[
m
]

Initial Profile
Before Prec. in July
After All Rain in July
End of Dec.

Figure 54: Profile at selected times: July before and after rain, end of Dec.
st
year, hourly flux.

0
0.2
0.4
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

[
m
]

Cum. Prec.
Domain Accum.
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

[
m
]
Time [day]

Cum. AE
Cum. PE

st
year, hourly flux.

532

0
10
20
x 10
-3
Precipitation [m/h]

-4
-2
0
x 10
-4
PE [m/h]
PE = 2.3 [m/year]

-4
-2
0
x 10
-4
Instant. AE [m/h]
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
0
10
20
x 10
-3
Instant. Flux [m/h]
Time [day]

st
year, hourly flux.

533

Table 9: Cumulative Flux Data (CH; roof runoff ponding, 1
st
year, hourly flux)
Input Output
Time
Prec. PE Flux AE Flux
Domain
Accum.
Profile
Water
Volume
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.560
1 31 0.181 -0.0945 -0.064 -0.0541 0.149 0.087 2.647
2 59 0.366 -0.2020 -0.141 -0.1238 0.281 0.171 2.730
3 90 0.611 -0.3731 -0.271 -0.2245 0.461 0.291 2.851
4 120 0.695 -0.5891 -0.473 -0.3131 0.502 0.284 2.844
5 151 0.725 -0.8718 -0.751 -0.3659 0.523 0.261 2.821
6 181 0.739 -1.1598 -1.037 -0.3998 0.530 0.238 2.798
7 212 0.994 -1.4723 -1.307 -0.5453 0.702 0.333 2.892
8 243 1.15 -1.6955 -1.504 -0.6689 0.784 0.348 2.908
9 273 1.284 -1.9187 -1.705 -0.7733 0.869 0.369 2.929
10 304 1.397 -2.1047 -1.872 -0.8636 0.936 0.384 2.944
11 334 1.526 -2.2271 -1.973 -0.9457 1.016 0.426 2.985
1
12 365 1.637 -2.3063 -2.034 -1.0177 1.066 0.457 3.017
534

CH Soil: Turf Landscape

Analysis results of 1-D 10-m deep SM-ML soil profile are presented. Three turf
irrigation (2.43m/year), precipitation (0.20m/year) and potential evaporation (1.18m/year).
The precipitation is applied as in the desert landscape. The irrigation is applied daily and
lasts up to 1 hour. The PE is averaged over each month. Constant head of -153m
constitutes the initial and bottom boundary conditions.
2. In the second analysis the applied flux consists of precipitation and irrigation averaged over
each month (2.58 m/year) and PE also averaged over each month (1.18 m/year). Constant
head of -153m constitutes the initial and bottom boundary conditions.
3. In the 3
rd
analysis, irrigation equal to PE was analyzed. The flux was applied on hourly
bases with irrigation and precipitation schedule of scenario 1. The PE is averaged over
each month. Two initial conditions were considered. The first one consisted of constant -
153m head with depth, while the second one varied from 84000 kPa matric suction at the
soil surface to 1500kPa at the base of the soil profile.
provided on the end of analysis for the final year.

535

st
year, hourly flux, Flux = 2.2PE

CH; turf landscape, 1
st

st
536

st

st

537

10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5

0 50 40 60 80 100
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

[
m
]

Initial Profile
Driest Profile (April)
Wettest (March. after Prec.)

Figure 61: Profile at selected times: driest (end of April), and wettest (after all prec. in
March); CH; turf landscape, 1
st

0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
C
u
m
.

C
h
a
n
g
e

i
n

P
r
o
f
i
l
e

W
a
t
e
r

V
o
l
.

[
m
]
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
-1
0
1
2
3
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

[
m
]
Time [day]

Cum. Applied Prec.
Cum. AE
Cum. PE

st

538

-3
0
3
6
9
12
x 10
-3
Precipitation
and Irrigation [m/h]
Applied Prec. and Irrg. = 2.63 [m/year]

-2
-1
0
x 10
-4
PE [m/h]
PE = 1.18 [m/year]

-2
-1
0
x 10
-4
Instant. AE [m/h]
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
-3
0
3
6
9
12
x 10
-3
Instant. Flux [m/h]
Time [day]

st

539

1-D CH Soil: Turf Landscape, years 1-34, hourly flux, Flux = 2.2PE

CH; turf landscape, Years 1-11, hourly flux, Flux = 2.2PE.


540

10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4

20 40 60 80 100
0
1
4
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

[
m
]

Initial Profile
End of Year1
End of Year3
Year6-March(Wettest)
Year6-April(Driest)
End of Year 10
End of Year 20
End of Year 34

Figure 67: Profile at selected times;

541

-2
-1
0
x 10
-4
I
n
s
t
a
n
t
.

A
E

[
m
/
h
]
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0
5
10
15
x 10
-3
I
n
s
t
a
n
t
.

F
l
u
x

[
m
/
h
]
Time [year]

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

[
m
]
Time [year]

Cum. Prec.+ Irrig
Cum. PE
Cum. AE

542

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
D
o
m
a
i
n

A
c
c
u
m
.

[
m
]
Time [year]

Figure 70: Domain Accumulation

-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
D
o
m
a
i
n

A
c
c
u
m
.
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
-1
0
1
2
3
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

[
m
]
Time [day]

Cum. Applied Prec.
Cum. AE
Cum. PE

CH; turf landscape, Year 11, hourly flux, Flux = 2.2PE

543

st
year, average flux, Flux = 2.2PE

st

st
544

10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4

40 60 60 70 80 90 100
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

[
m
]

Initial Profile
End of April
End of Dec.

st

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

[
m
]

Cum Flux
Cum. Change in Profile Water Volume
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
-2
-1
0
1
2
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

[
m
]
Time [day]

PE = 1.18 [m/year]
Cum. AE
Cum. PE
Cum. Applied Flux

st
545

0
2
4
6
x 10
-4
Precipitation [m/h]

-3
-2
-1
0
x 10
-4
PE [m/h]
PE = 1.18 [m/year]

-3
-2
-1
0
x 10
-4
Instant. AE [m/h]
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
-1
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-4
Instant. Flux [m/h]
Time [day]

st

546

st
year, average flux, Flux =
2.2PE)
Cumulative Applied Flux Cumulative Actual Flux
Time
Irrig.+Prec. PE Flux AE Flux
Flux
from
water
volume
Profile
Water
Volume
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5612
1 31 0.098 -0.0331 0.065 -0.0330 0.0656 0.0653 2.6265
2 59 0.189 -0.0758 0.113 -0.0756 0.1121 0.1119 2.6731
3 90 0.295 -0.1471 0.148 -0.1469 0.1490 0.1487 2.7099
4 120 0.376 -0.2475 0.129 -0.2471 0.1306 0.1303 2.6915
5 151 0.704 -0.3824 0.322 -0.3825 0.1871 0.1864 2.7475
6 181 1.019 -0.5342 0.485 -0.5343 0.2146 0.2138 2.7750
7 212 1.378 -0.6945 0.683 -0.6947 0.2392 0.2384 2.7996
8 243 1.726 -0.8415 0.885 -0.8416 0.2613 0.2606 2.8218
9 273 2.06 -0.9656 1.094 -0.9657 0.2813 0.2805 2.8417
10 304 2.399 -1.0686 1.331 -1.0686 0.3007 0.3000 2.8611
11 334 2.489 -1.1387 1.350 -1.1386 0.3157 0.3149 2.8761
1
12 365 2.583 -1.1815 1.401 -1.1809 0.3326 0.3319 2.8930

st
year, hourly flux, Flux = 1.3PE, IC=-153 m.

st
year, hourly flux, Flux =1.3PE
547

Figure 78: 2-D view of suction variation with depth and time zoomed in on surface;
st

10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5

0 20 40 60 80 100
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

[
m
]

Initial Profile

Figure 79: Driest and wettest profile;
st

548

-3
0
3
6
9
12
x 10
-3
Precipitation

-2
-1
0
x 10
-4
PE [m/h]
PE = 1.18 [m/year]

-2
-1
0
x 10
-4
Instant. AE [m/h]
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
-3
0
3
6
9
12
x 10
-3
Instant. Flux [m/h]
Time [day]

st
549

0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
D
o
m
a
i
n

A
c
c
u
m
.
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
-1
0
1
2
3
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

[
m
]
Time [day]

Cum. Applied Prec.
Cum. AE
Cum. PE

st

st
year, hourly flux, Flux =1.3PE)
Input Output
Time
Domain
Accum.
Profile
Water
Volume
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5597
1 31 0.075 -0.0331 0.042 -0.0329 0.0354 2.5966
2 59 0.145 -0.0758 0.069 -0.0755 0.0517 2.6128
3 90 0.232 -0.1471 0.084 -0.1463 0.0527 2.6139
4 120 0.293 -0.2475 0.045 -0.2199 0.0379 2.5991
5 151 0.465 -0.3824 0.082 -0.3433 0.0455 2.6067
6 181 0.63 -0.5342 0.096 -0.4733 0.0436 2.6048
7 212 0.842 -0.6945 0.148 -0.6203 0.0517 2.6129
8 243 1.038 -0.8415 0.197 -0.7580 0.0554 2.6166
9 273 1.223 -0.9656 0.257 -0.8787 0.0611 2.6223
10 304 1.408 -1.0686 0.339 -0.9809 0.0721 2.6332
11 334 1.477 -1.1387 0.338 -1.0493 0.0667 2.6279
1
12 365 1.544 -1.1815 0.362 -1.0919 0.0864 2.6476

550

st
year, hourly flux, Flux = 1.3PE, IC=34the year of turf

st
year, hourly flux, Flux =1.3PE, IC=turf

Figure 83: 2-D view of suction variation with depth and time zoomed in on surface;
st
551

10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5

0 20 40 60 80 100
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

[
m
]

Initial Profile

Figure 84: Driest and wettest profile;
st

-0.25
-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
D
o
m
a
i
n

A
c
c
u
m
.
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
-1
0
1
2
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

[
m
]
Time [day]

Cum. Applied Prec.
Cum. AE
Cum. PE

st
552

-3
0
3
6
x 10
-3
Precipitation

-2
-1
0
x 10
-4
PE [m/h]
PE = 1.18 [m/year]

-2
-1
0
x 10
-4
Instant. AE [m/h]
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
-3
0
3
6
x 10
-3
Instant. Flux [m/h]
Time [day]

st

553

st
year, hourly flux, Flux =1.3PE,
IC=turf)
Input Output
Time
Domain
Accum.
Profile
Water
Volume
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.8821
1 31 0.075 -0.0331 0.042 -0.0330 -0.0536 3.8291
2 59 0.145 -0.0758 0.069 -0.0758 -0.0759 3.8071
3 90 0.232 -0.1471 0.084 -0.1471 -0.1054 3.7771
4 120 0.293 -0.2475 0.045 -0.2334 -0.1487 3.7341
5 151 0.465 -0.3824 0.082 -0.3624 -0.1661 3.7161
6 181 0.63 -0.5342 0.096 -0.4978 -0.1883 3.6941
7 212 0.842 -0.6945 0.148 -0.6484 -0.2005 3.6821
8 243 1.038 -0.8415 0.197 -0.7883 -0.2140 3.6691
9 273 1.223 -0.9656 0.257 -0.9103 -0.2240 3.6591
10 304 1.408 -1.0686 0.339 -1.0127 -0.2283 3.6541
11 334 1.477 -1.1387 0.338 -1.0822 -0.2443 3.6381
1
12 365 1.544 -1.1815 0.362 -1.1248 -0.2364 3.6461

PHD All

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PHD All

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MOISTURE MOVEMENT THROUGH EXPANSIVE SOIL AND IMPACT ON PERFORMANCE

= )y Unsaturated soil permeability [m/h],

ln Leong and Rahardjo, 1997

- )y unsaturated soil permeability [m/h]

)y are functions of h via the matric suction, [kPa],

prescribed pressure head (Dirichlet) (2.10a)

for 0 < u , (2.10c)

and activity ratio

, where CEC is expressed in terms of

is the mean principal stress compression index;

is degree of saturation, S, expressed a decimal.

You might also like