Environmental Geotechnics

Characteristics of Unsaturated Shrink-Swell soils

--Manuscript Draft--

Manuscript Number: ENVGEO-D-17-00052R1

Article Type: Themed Issue: GeoMEast 2017

Section/Category:

Keywords:

Manuscript Region of Origin: EGYPT

Abstract: Expansive soils show high volumetric changes with changes in water content.Due to
the lack of experience pertinent tocharacterization and dealing with problematic shrink-
swell soilsin Egypt,many defectsappear in some structures established in development
projects.Density and severity of problems associated with the presence of shrink-swell
soils differ from region to another.Many factors contribute to the problem such as: soil
type, soil engineering properties, foundation type, nature of development project, and
the extension of development zone...etc. In this research, extensive experimental work
has been performed on sixty two (62) soil samples obtained from various sites all over
Egypt.The investigation targeted to assessvolumetric change and moisture
diffusioncharacteristics as well asindex properties of unsaturated clayey soils.In this
paper, the effect of some factors influencing of the swelling potential,soil coefficient of
unsaturated diffusivity, and suction compressibility index on behavior of expansive soils
were discussed.Test results confirm that volumetric change and moisture
diffusioncharacteristics for unsaturated soils can be reasonably related to conventional
soil index properties. Based on the obtained comprehensive database of
results,ten(10)equations expressing relationshipsamong different engineering
properties of unsaturated shrink-swell soils in Egypt are proposed and discussed.

Powered by Editorial Manager and ProduXion Manager from Aries Systems Corporation
Main Text Click here to download Main Text Unsaturated Shrink-Swell
soils in Egypt-Rev.3.docx

1
2 Characteristics of Unsaturated Shrink-Swell soils
3
4
5 Fayek Hassona1, PhD, Remon I.Abdelmalak2, PhD and
6 Beshoy M. Hakeem3, MSc.
7
8 1
Profosser,Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, El-Minia University, El-Minia,
9 Egypt. Email: Fhassona@excite.com.
10 2
Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, El-Minia University, El-
11 Minia, Egypt. Email: remonisaac@gmail.com.
12 3
Assistant Lecturer, Civil Engineering Department, Higher Institute of Engineering and Technology,
13 El-Minia, Egypt. Email: civileng_beshoy@yahoo.com.
14
15
16 ABSTRACT: Expansive soils show high volumetric changes with changes in water
17 content. Due to the lack of experience pertinent to characterization and dealing with
18 problematic shrink-swell soils in Egypt, many defects appear in some structures
19 established in development projects. Density and severity of problems associated
20
with the presence of shrink-swell soils differ from region to another. Many factors
21
22 contribute to the problem such as: soil type, soil engineering properties, foundation
23 type, nature of development project, and the extension of development zone...etc. In
24 this research, extensive experimental work has been performed on sixty two (62) soil
25 samples obtained from various sites all over Egypt. The investigation targeted to
26
27
assess volumetric change and moisture diffusion characteristics as well as index
28 properties of unsaturated clayey soils. In this paper, the effect of some factors
29 influencing of the swelling potential, soil coefficient of unsaturated diffusivity, and
30 suction compressibility index on behavior of expansive soils were discussed. Test
31 results confirm that volumetric change and moisture diffusion characteristics for
32
33 unsaturated soils can be reasonably related to conventional soil index properties.
34 Based on the obtained comprehensive database of results, ten (10) equations
35 expressing relationships among different engineering properties of unsaturated
36 shrink-swell soils in Egypt are proposed and discussed.
37
38
39 KEYWORDS
40
41 Expansive soil, Shrink-Swell Soil, Soil water characteristic curve, Swell potential,
42 Bentonite, Soil water characteristic curve (SWCC), and Unsaturated soils.
43
44
45 INTRODUCTION
46
47 Expansive soils in many areas of the world impose a substantial threat to foundations
48
49
especially for light buildings. Jahangir, E. et al. (2011) reported that shrinkage-
50 swelling of clayey soils is a natural hazard, which may significantly affect buildings
51 by differential settlements. Dafalla, M. A. et al. (2010) concluded that the distortion
52 is normally observed in the light structures due to relative flexibility of the frames
53 and substructure foundations. This is not tolerated by the brick walls normally used
54
55 to fill up the panels in concrete frame structures. Severe cracks can be shown when
56 twist or movement takes place. Therefore the use of rigid design methodology
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65 1
 1
2 approach is expected to give less flexible support and reduce the chances of cracks
3
4 and damage.
5
6 Expansive soils attribute their characteristics to the presence of swelling clay
7 minerals. As they get wet, the clay minerals absorb water molecules and expand.
8
9
Conversely as they dry, they shrink and leave large voids or cracks in the soil. Soils
10 with active clay minerals, such as montmorillonite, exhibit the most dangerous
11 swelling and shrinking properties. According to Lajurkar, S. P. et al. (2013),
12 expansive soil exhibits very complex and undesirable characteristics when used as
13 engineering material. According to Mokhtari, M., and Dehghani, M. (2012) the
14
15 swelling potential of the expansive soil mainly depends upon the properties of soil
16 and environmental factors. These are a worldwide problem that poses several
17 challenges for civil engineers.
18
19
Briaud et al.(2003) proposed a new method to estimate the vertical movement of the
20
21 ground surface for soil that swells and shrinks due to variations in water content.
22 They estimated the change in water content and the depth of seasonal moisture
23 changes from local databases or from existing techniques. The method was evaluated
24 by comparing the predicted movement and the measured movement of four full-scale
25
26
spread footings over a period of 2 years.
27
28 According to Sood, E. (2005), footings of a structure founded on an unsaturated soil
29 are subjected to stresses developed due to swelling or shrinking of the soil. This is
30 due to the change in suction (negative pore water pressure) of the soil due to the
31
32 variation in the water content. These movements can be predicted by using the
33 diffusion equation which defines the movement of moisture through unsaturated
34 soils. The equation for moisture diffusion in unsaturated soils is similar to the
35 consolidation equation for saturated soils when suction is expressed in logarithmic
36
37
scale unit (pF).
38
39 Suction is mainly measured in units of water pressure such as kPa. Typical suction
40 range is from 1 kPa, for a very wet soil close to 100% degree of saturation, to a
41 106kPa, for an oven dried soil sample. As the value of suction can be very high, it is
42
43 usually expressed on a logarithmic scale. The commonly used pF scale,
44 [U (pF) = log10 |uw|] provides another alternative unit to measure of suction where u w
45 is the total suction expressed in units of cm of water head.
46
47
Expansion of soils can directly be measured in the laboratory, by immersing a
48
49 remolded soil sample and measuring its volume change through 24-hour free swell
50 test, (Hammam, A. H. and Abdel-Salam, A. E.2013). Israr, J. et al. (2014) found that
51 there exist unique relationships between the index properties and the swelling
52 characteristics of swelling soils. The results showed that, the increasing Atterbergs
53
54 limits such as plasticity index (P.I.) from 18% to 150% impart significant increases
55 in the values of swell potential (SP) and swell pressure (Psw) from 2.62% to 13.36%
56 and 94.2 kPa to 928.6 kPa, respectively. Erzin, Y. and Erol, O.(2007) Concluded that
57 an increase in the bentonite content in the clay mixtures yielded an increase in the
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65 2
 1
2 specific surface area (SSA) value, the cation exchange capacity (CEC) value, the
3
4 liquid limit (L.L.) and the plasticity index (P.I.) values. Meanwhile, plastic limit
5 (P.L.) value was nearly unaffected by increases in the bentonite content. These
6 results indicate that the SSA, the CEC, the L.L. and the P.I. values of the clay
7 mixtures are more sensitive to changes in clay mineralogy than the P.L. is. It was
8
9
also observed that the L.L. values were controlled by the SSA and CEC values.
10
11 Zapata, C. et al. (2000) defined the soil water characteristic curve (SWCC) as the
12 relationship between soil suction and some measure of the water content, which can
13 be measured or predicted based on soil index properties such as the grain size
14
15 distribution (GSD) function. Estimation based on index properties is highly desirable
16 due to its simplicity and low cost and would be the path of choice to the SWCC,
17 provided the accuracy of the estimate were adequate. According to
18 AL-Shihabi, O. (2010), suction compressibility indices (h) can be obtained by
19
determination of the slope of Soil Water Characteristic Curve (SWCC).
20
21
22 Jian-lin, Y. and Jian, Z. (2005) discussed the main influencing factors on the SWCC.
23 Among these factors stress state and initial water content have the greatest influence.
24 However, at high suction values the effect of these factors tends to diminish.
25
26
27 The main objective of this paper is to assess soil engineering properties (mainly
28 volumetric change and moisture diffusion characteristics) for expansive soils samples
29 obtained from various sites in Egypt, and study the main factors influencing swelling
30 behavior of expansive soils. The soil water characteristic curve (SWCC) was
31
32 determined to investigate the water retention capacity of the soil. Geotechnical index
33 properties were determined for preliminary soil assessment as well as find reliable
34 correlations with key unsaturated soil parameters. Finally, a new proposed set of
35 relationships were developed that maybe treated as are liable tool to estimate the
36
37
swelling and shrinking characteristics with carefully evaluated index properties in
38 hand.
39
40 To verify the proposed predictive model, three undisturbed soil samples were
41 obtained from executed boreholes at Assuit transformers electric substation, which
42
43 suffered from severe cracks. Values of main shrink-swell characteristics (Isw,Iss,
44 sh,sw, h, and SP) as well as values of soil index properties (LL, PL, PI, dry)
45 were determined as discussed in this paper. Furthermore, the same main shrink-swell
46 parameters were estimated using the developed correlation equations based on
47
48
measured index properties of the obtained soil samples. Hence, comparisons between
49 measured and corresponding estimated parameter were carried out, to check the
50 validity of the developed predictive model. Comparisons show the presence of
51 reasonably good agreement between predictions and measurements.
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65 3
 1
2 LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS
3
4
5 In this study, a comprehensive experimental scheme has been undertaken at
6 Geotechnical Engineering Laboratory, Faculty of Engineering, and EL-Minia
7 University, to investigate various factors controlling the swelling and shrinking
8
9
characteristics of expansive soils. Extensive experimental work was carried out on
10 sixty two (62) soil samples. The shrink-swell behavior of the soil was studied by
11 obtaining the volumetric increase and decrease of soil samples during swelling and
12 shrinking. The analyses of test results and observations made during the experiments
13 have been reported herein. The interpretations facilitated the development of a set of
14
15 simple empirical correlations between soil index properties and key swelling and
16 shrinking parameters of expansive soils.
17
18
19
Natural Soil Samples
20
21 Natural soil samples were obtained from 12 sites located at different regions in Egypt
22 such as: Fayoum (two sites), BeniSuif(three sites), El- maxElkebly(El-Wadi El-
23 Gedid), Abo-Tartor (El-Kharga, El-Wadi EL- Gedid), El-Mokatam area, Zahra El-
24 Maadi area, the 6th of October, and Qena (two sites), as illustrated in FIG. 1.
25
26
Only two samples were undisturbed (obtained from EL-Mokatam and Zahra EL-
27 Maadi areas). The rest of the soil samples (taken from 10 sites) were dry and cracked
28 and had to be remolded. Hence, four remolded samples from each site were prepared
29 in oedometer cells using remolding pressures of 400, 800, 1200, and 1600 kPa. This
30 ended up with forty two natural soil samples (40 remolded samples and two
31
32 undisturbed).FIG. 1 shows the scattering of the selected 12 sites for the collected soil
33 samples.
34
35 Bentonite-Silty Clay Soil Mixtures
36
37
To widen the range of shrink-swell potentials of the tested samples, additional five
38 bentonite-silty clay soil mixtures were used in the experimental program. In the same
39 way, Lajurkar, S. P. et al. (2013) considered five soil mixes with different Bentonite
40 contents to develop characterizing parameters for soils with different shrink-swell
41 capacity characteristics. Generally, increasing the number of tested samples enriches
42
43 the obtained database of results and improves the reliability of the developed
44 correlation equations expressing relationships among different shrink-swell
45 parameters.
46 Bentonite is a family of clay minerals, produced by the weathering of volcanic ash,
47
and is highly hygroscopic in nature. (OCMA DFCP.4) is a commercial bentonite,
48
49 produced by Egyptian Gulf Chemical Company EGCC, located at Sadat city
50 Industrial Zone 6 Cairo, which has been used in the current research work. The
51 laboratory investigation classified it as high plastic clay (CH), exhibiting liquid limit
52 of 149.77%, plastic limit of 40.49%, and plasticity index of 109.28%. The bentonite
53
54 was mixed with different proportions of non-swell ingnatural silty clay soil obtained
55 from a site located at Damaris, EL-Minya city. The obtained five bentonite-silty clay
56 soil mixtures will be denoted according to their bentonite contents for easy reference
57 (i.e. 100 Bent., 80 Bent.,60 Bent.,40 Bent. and 20 Bent.). The five bentonite- silty
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65 4
 1
2 clay soil mixtures were reconstituted using four different remolding pressures,
3
4 similar to the remolded natural soil samples, resulting in a total of twenty soil
5 mixture samples.
6
7 TESTING PROGRAM
8
9
10 Soil Index Properties
11 Identification tests were performed in order to have a background data base for the
12 soil properties. The conducted tests were:
13 Atterberge limits: Liquid Limit (L.L.: The minimum water content at which the
14
15 soil is still in liquid state), Plastic Limit (P.L.: The moist content, in percent, at
16 which the soil crumbles when rolled into threads of 3.0 mm diameter), and
17
18 Plasticity Index. Plasticity Index (P.I.= L.L. P.L) represents the range of
19 consistency within which a soil exhibits plastic properties) , according to (ECP
20
202-2001).
21
22 Dry unit weight (dry: The ratio of the weight of soil solids to the total volume),
23 and specific gravity of soil solids (Gs: The ratio between unit weight of soil solids
24
25 to that of water), according to (ECP 202-2001).
26 Free swell (F.S. %), and swelling potential (SP %), according to (ECP 201-2001).
27
28 Free swell (F.S. %): The ratio of the increase in volume of the soil from a loose
29 dry powder form to the equilibrium sediment when it is poured into water,
30 expressed as the percentage of the original volume.
31
32 Swelling potential (SP %) : Is defined as the percentage of vertical strain of
33 laterally confined sample soaked under 0.07 kg/cm2 surcharge when flooded with
34
35 water after being compacted to maximum density at optimum water content.
36 Swell limit (Isw: The maximum water content at which soil sample doesnt
37
38
increase its volume), shrink limit (Ish: The minimum content at which soil sample
39 doesnt decrease its volume), and shrink-swell index (Iss) following Abdelmalak,
40 R. I. (2007) procedure. Shrink-swell index (Iss) is defined as the difference
41
42 between swell and shrink limit. Iss = Isw - Ish .
43
44
45 Moisture Diffusion and Volume Change Properties.
46
47
48 For the sixty two soil samples, coefficients of soil unsaturated diffusivity in shrink
49 and swell cases as well as the suction compressibility indices were determined.
50
51 Coefficients of soil unsaturated diffusivity in shrink condition (sh), were determined
52
53
using -shrink test procedure developed by Abdelmalak, R. I. (2007). Coefficients
54 of soil unsaturated diffusivity is used to determine the diffusivity of moisture through
55 unsaturated soil mass that causes shrink-swell soils to increase in its volume.
56 However, coefficients of soil unsaturated diffusivity in swell condition (sw) were
57 determined using 1-D time factors similar to commonly used in consolidation test,
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65 5
 1
2 Das, B. M. (2008). This is referred to the similarity between 1-D unsaturated
3
4 diffusion equation when suction expressed in logarithmic units and 1-D
5 consolidation equation, Abdelmalak, R. I. (2007).In -shrink test, a cylindrical soil
6 specimen shrinks in both the vertical and horizontal directions (i.e. 2-D axisymmetric
7 problem), which obliged Abdelmalak, R. I. (2007) to develop time factors for 2-D
8
9
axisymmetric diffusion problem. Meanwhile, in -swell test, a cylindrical soil
10 specimen is allowed to swell in the vertical direction only as the swelling in the
11 horizontal direction is constrained by the oedometer ring (i.e. 1-D problem).
12
13 The Soil Water Characteristic curves (SWCC), expressed as gravimetric water
14
15 content versus suction in pF unit, were determined following Sood, E., (2005) and
16 Bulut, R., (2001). Slope of the straight line in the desaturation zone were determined,
17 which equals to the suction compressibility index (h).
18
19
Vapor equilibrium technique was implemented to determine SWCC by controlling
20
21 the relative humidity in an air space above saturated salt solutions in a closed system.
22 The tests were carried out in closed-lid desiccator for inducing suctions of 2.5, 3.5,
23 4.5 and 5.5 pF using saturated salt solutions of NaCL.
24
25
26 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
27
28 The liquid limit, plasticity index, as well as free swell of the soil samples increased
29 with the increase of bentonite percentage for the bentonite-soil mixtures as indicated
30 in FIG. 2.
31
32
33 Ten different regression equations were established among swelling characteristics
34 and soil index properties, as illustrated in Table 1. For example, to develop reliable
35 predictive equation for the soil suction compressibility index (h), relationships
36
37
between (h) and many parameters and combinations of parameters (such as: sh, sw,
38 SP, P.I./dry, P.I., L.L./dry, P.L./dry) have been investigated. Various mathematical
39 functions were employed to find the best curve fitting for each relationship such as:
40 exponential, linear, 2nd degree polynomial, hyperbolic, and logarithmic.
41 Table 2.presents resulting (R2) values from curve fittings. Logarithmic curve fitting
42
43 equation between (h) and (P.I./dry) was found to have the highest value (R2 =0.83),
44 and hence chosen as the predictive model equation. In the same manner, the rest of
45 equations, illustrated in Table 1. , were developed.
46
47
The established relationships that estimate swelling characteristics based on carefully
48
49 determined index properties will be presented and discussed in the following section.
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65 6
 1
2
3
4 Soil shrink- swell index
5 Relationship between soil shrink-swell index and corresponding plasticity index for
6 the 62 samples is presented in FIG. 3. The regression analysis revealed that
7 hyperbolic curve fitting for the measurements has high coefficient of determination
8
9
(R2= 0.96, refer to Eq.1 in Table 1.), which confirms the existence of strong
10 correlation between shrink- swell index and plasticity index of soil.
11
12 Similarly, soil shrink- swell indices were plotted against free swell values, as shown
13 in FIG. 4. The data indicate the existence of a linear relationship between soil
14
15 shrink-swell index and free swell. The determined coefficient of determination value
16 (R2 = 0.93, refer to Eq.2 in Table 1.) was high indicating the strong correlation.
17
18 Soil swell limit
19
Exponential regression equation (Eq.3 in Table1.) was found to be perfectly
20
21 representing the relationship between soil swell limit and plasticity index. This
22 regression analysis resulted in a high coefficient of determination (R2=0.93, as shown
23 in FIG. 5.), which suggests the high degree of correlation between swell limit and
24 plasticity index of soil.
25
26
27 The same level of correlation was found between the soil swell limit and free swell
28 value, as illustrated in FIG.6.A2nd degree polynomial well represented the
29 relationship between soil swell limit and free swell with a high coefficient of
30 determination (R2= 0.93, Eq. 4 in Table 1.).
31
32
33 Suction compressibility index
34 FIG.7.demonstratesthe relationship between measured soil suction compressibility
35 indices and their corresponding determined ratios between plasticity index and dry
36
37
unit weight. Logarithmic regression (Eq. 5 in Table 1.) reflected the good correlation
38 between suction compressibility of soil and the ratio of plasticity index to dry unit
39 weight (R2=0.83).
40
41 Soil coefficients of unsaturated diffusivity
42
43 The soil coefficients of unsaturated diffusivity in shrink condition (sh) were plotted
44 against suction compressibility index (h), as shown in FIG. 8., and against the ratio
45 of suction compressibility index to dry unit weight (h/dry), as shown in FIG. 9. The
46 data indicated the existence of an exponential relationship between soil coefficients
47
48 of unsaturated diffusivity (sh) and suction compressibility index (h). The regression
49 analysis revealed reasonable correlation (R2=0.74, Eq. 6 in Table 1.). Almost the
50 same level of correlation (R2=0.73, Eq. 7 in Table 1.) was found between
51 coefficients of unsaturated diffusivity in shrink condition (sh) and the ratio of
52
53 suction compressibility index to dry unit weight (h/dry)
54
55 To investigate the correlation between soil coefficients of unsaturated diffusivities in
56 shrink condition (sh) and in swell conditions (sw), FIG. 10. was presented. The
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65 7
 1
2 linear regression analysis revealed very high degree of correlation between them with
3
4 coefficient of determination of R2=0.98, Eq. 8 in Table 1.
5
6 Soil swell potential
7 It is commonly recognized that soil swell potential correlates well with plasticity
8
9
index for soils. However, better correlation was found to be soil swell potential and
10 shrink- swell index, as shown in FIGs. 11. &12. The regression analysis indicated
11 that R2= 0.77 (Eq. 9 in Table 1.) for relationship between swell potential and
12 plasticity index. Meanwhile, R2= 0.87 (Eq. 10 in Table 1.) for relationship between
13 swell potential and shrink- swell index.
14
15
16 FACTORS AFFECTING SHRINK- SWELL BEHAVIOR
17
18 Melek, R. I. (2000) and El-Sibaie, (1992) discussed the main influencing factors on
19
the swelling behavior of clays. Among these factors are:
20
21 1) Factors affecting the nature and physical properties of the soil particles such as
22 clay mineralogy, clay content, soil structure, initial water content, initial dry
23 density, pore fluid.
24 2) Soil placement and environmental condition in the field or in laboratory such as
25
26
effect of surcharge pressure, effect of stress history, effect of temperature...etc.
27 In light of the above, the effects of plasticity index, free swell, and dry unit weights
28 on the swelling behavior of sixty two (62) expansive soils obtained from various sites
29 all over Egypt are discussed.
30
31
32 Based on tests results, the samples were categorized according to their potential
33 expansiveness as per the Egyptian Code (ECP 202-2001)as follows:
34 Very high potential expansiveness for samples have SP greater than 30%, and
35
36
plasticity index greater than 35%; such as: 100 Bent., 80 Bent, 60 Bent., 40
37 Bent., 20 Bent., (4) Fayoum South, (1) 6th Oct., (11) Qena West., (8) El Max.
38 High potential expansiveness for samples have SP from (20 30 % ), and
39
40 plasticity index from (25 41 % ); such as: (5) BeniSwif West, (3) Fayoum
41 North, (9) Abo Tartor.
42
43 Medium expansiveness for samples have SP from (10 20 % ), and plasticity
44 index from (15 28 % );such as: (2) El Mokatam, (10) Zahra EL Maadi, (7)
45
46
BeniSwif South East, (12) Qena East, (6) BeniSwif North East.
47
48
49
50 Soil dry unit weight
51
High initial dry density results in closer particle spacing's, smaller void ratios, larger
52
53 volumetric changes, and hence more shrink-swell response to change in water
54 contents.
55 For very high potential expansiveness samples, the increase in dry unit weight of soil
56 (from 10.32% to 25.56%) increases the percentage of swelling potential (from
57
58
32.18% to 52.23%). Similarly for high potential expansiveness samples, the increase
59
60
61
62
63
64
65 8
 1
2 in dry unit weight of soil (from 9.27% to 16.67%) increases the percentage of
3
4 swelling potential (from 88.69% to 109.18%).Meanwhile, for medium potential
5 expansiveness samples, the increase in dry unit weight of soil (from 10.85% to
6 15.56%) increases the percentage of swelling potential (from 65.39% to 116.82%).
7 FIG. 13. illustrates the effect of dry unit weight on the swelling potential of soil.
8
9
This implies that the effect of dry unit weight on the swelling potential becomes
10 more manifested with soils of low potential expansiveness.
11
12 The effect of dry unit weight on the coefficient of unsaturated diffusivity of soil is
13 shown in FIG. 14. For very high potential expansiveness samples, the increase in dry
14
15 unit weight of soil (from 10.32% to 25.56%) increases the percentage of the
16 coefficient of unsaturated diffusivity of soil (from 8.4% to 28.87%).
17 It was noticed that the percentage of coefficient of unsaturated diffusivity of soil
18 increases (from 11.82% to 23.02%) due to increasing the dry unit weight of soil
19
(from 9.27% to 16.67%) for high potential expansiveness samples.
20
21 For medium potential expansiveness samples, the increase in dry unit weight of soil
22 (from 10.85% to 15.56%) increases the percentage of the coefficient of unsaturated
23 diffusivity of soil (from 8.31% to 18.08%).This suggests that the effect of dry unit
24 weight on the coefficient of unsaturated diffusivity becomes more manifested with
25
26
soils of high potential expansiveness and then decreases with soils with medium and
27 very high potential expansiveness. However, the effect of dry unit weight on soil
28 unsaturated diffusivity is to some extent much less than that on the swelling
29 potential.
30
31
32 Similarly, suction compressibility index of soil is plotted against dry unit weight
33 values as shown in FIG. 15. The data indicates that the increase in dry unit weight of
34 soil (from 10.32% to 25.56%) decreases the percentage of suction compressibility
35 index of soil (from 25.96 % to 3.27 % for samples with F.S. greater than 135%, for
36
37
samples with F.S. less than 135% suction compressibility index decreases till
38 42.18%) for very high potential expansiveness samples. For high potential
39 expansiveness samples when dry unit weight of soil increases (from 9.27% to
40 16.67%) the percentage of suction compressibility index of soil decreases (from
41 55.90% to 11.72%).
42
43 It was noticed that the percentage coefficient of unsaturated diffusivity of soil
44 decreases (from 47.50% to 36.20%) due to increasing dry unit weight of soil (from
45 10.85% to 15.56%) for medium potential expansiveness samples. Generally, increase
46 in dry unit weight slightly decreases the suction compressibility index.
47
48
49
50 Soil plasticity
51 Soil plasticity could be envisioned as a reflection to clay content and clay
52 mineralogy, which have direct impact on soils shrink-swell behavior.
53
54 For very high potential expansiveness samples, the increase in plasticity index of soil
55 (from 41.17% to 109.28%) increases the percentage of swelling potential (from
56 32.18% to 52.23%). For high potential expansiveness samples, the increase in
57 plasticity index of soil (from 35.50% to 40.96%) increases the percentage of swelling
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65 9
 1
2 potential (from 88.69% to 109.18%). For medium potential expansiveness samples,
3
4 the increase in plasticity index of soil (from 32.31% to 36.40%) increases the
5 percentage of swelling potential (from 65.39% to 116.82%). FIG. 16. illustrates the
6 effect of plasticity index on the swelling potential of soil. This indicates that the
7 effect of plasticity index on the swelling potential becomes more demonstrated with
8
9
soils of low potential expansiveness.
10
11 FIG. 17. presents the effect of plasticity index on the coefficient of unsaturated
12 diffusivity of soil. For very high potential expansiveness samples, the increase in
13 plasticity index of soil (from 41.17% to 109.28%) decreases the percentage of the
14
15 coefficient of unsaturated diffusivity of soil (from 28.87% to 8.40%).
16 It was noticed that the percentage of coefficient of unsaturated diffusivity of soil
17 decreases (from 23.02% to 11.82%) due to increasing the plasticity index of soil
18 (from 35.50% to 40.96%) for high potential expansiveness samples.
19
For medium potential expansiveness samples, the increase in plasticity index of soil
20
21 (from 32.31% to 36.40%) decreases the percentage of the coefficient of unsaturated
22 diffusivity of soil (from 18.08% to 8.31%). That means, increase in soil plasticity
23 index generally decreases the soil coefficient of unsaturated diffusivity especially for
24 medium potential expansiveness soils.
25
26
27 Suction compressibility index of soil were plotted against plasticity index values as
28 shown in FIG. 18. The data indicated that the increase plasticity index of soil
29 (from 41.17% to 109.28%) increases the percentage of suction compressibility index
30 of soil (from 3.27 % to 25.96 % for samples with F.S. greater than 135%, for samples
31
32 with F.S. less than 135% suction compressibility index increases till 42.18%) for
33 very high potential expansiveness samples. For high potential expansiveness samples
34 when plasticity index of soil increases (from 35.5% to 40.96%) the percentage of
35 suction compressibility index of soil increases (from 11.72% to 55.90%).
36
37
It was noticed that the percentage coefficient of unsaturated diffusivity of soil
38 increases (from 36.20% to 47.50%) due to increasing plasticity index of soil (from
39 32.31% to 36.40%) for medium potential expansiveness samples. Therefore, increase
40 in soil plasticity index generally increases the soil suction compressibility index; this
41 effect becomes larger with the decrease in potential expansiveness of the soil.
42
43
44 Soil physical properties
45 Dominant clay mineral is considered the most significant soil physical property that
46 contributes to the shrink-swell behavior. Free Swell Index (the increase in volume of
47
a soil, without any external constraints, on submergence in water) is simple indicator
48
49 to clay content and clay mineralogy, which have direct impact on soils shrink-swell
50 behavior. Prakash, K. and Sridharan (2004) concluded that free well test has emerged
51 as a simple methodology to predict the clay mineral(s) satisfactorily. They have
52 validated this method via exhaustive experimental data.
53
54
55 For very high potential expansiveness samples, the increase in free swell of soil
56 (from 120% to 283.33%) increases the percentage of swelling potential
57 (from 32.18% to 52.23%). For high potential expansiveness samples, the increase in
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65 10
 1
2 free swell of soil (from 83.33% to 115%) increases the percentage of swelling
3
4 potential (from 88.69% to 109.18%). For medium potential expansiveness samples,
5 the increase in free swell of soil (from 43.33% to 70%) increases the percentage of
6 swelling potential (from 65.39% to116.82%).FIG. 19. illustrates the effect of free
7 swell on the swelling potential of soil.
8
9
10 FIG. 20. illustratesthe effect of free swell on the coefficient of unsaturated
11 diffusivity of soil. For very high potential expansiveness samples, the increase in free
12 swell of soil (from 120% to 283.33%) decreases the percentage of the coefficient of
13 unsaturated diffusivity of soil (from 28.87% to 8.40%).It was noticed that the
14
15 percentage of coefficient of unsaturated diffusivity of soil decreases (from 23.02% to
16 11.82%) due to increasing the free swell of soil (from 83.33% to 115%) for high
17 potential expansiveness samples. For medium potential expansiveness samples, the
18 increase in free swell of soil (from 43.33% to 70%) decreases the percentage of the
19
coefficient of unsaturated diffusivity of soil (from 8.31% to 18.08%).
20
21
22 Similarly, suction compressibility index of soil were plotted against free swell values
23 as shown in FIG. 21. The data indicated that the increase in free swell of soil
24 (from 120% to 283.33%) increases the percentage of suction compressibility index of
25
26
soil (from 3.27 % to 25.96 % for samples with F.S. greater than 135%, for samples
27 with F.S. less than 135% suction compressibility index increases till 42.18%) for
28 very high potential expansiveness samples. For high potential expansiveness samples
29 when free swell of soil increases (from 83.33% to 115%) the percentage of suction
30 compressibility index of soil increases (from 11.72% to 55.90%).It was noticed that
31
32 the percentage coefficient of unsaturated diffusivity of soil increases (from 36.20%to
33 47.50%) due to increasing free swell of soil (from 43.33% to 70%) for medium
34 potential expansiveness samples.
35
36
37
MODEL VERIFICATION
38
39 The Assuit Transformers electric substation is located about 370 km south of Cairo
40 on the eastern plateau, within premises on New Assuit city. The electric substation is
41 founded on a dry clay formation with high shrink-swell characteristics. Three
42
43 undisturbed soil samples were obtained from executed boreholes located around the
44 main building (a two-story reinforced concrete structure), which suffered from severe
45 cracks. Values of main shrink-swell characteristics (Isw,Iss, sh,sw, h, and SP)as well
46 as values of soil index properties (LL, PL, PI, dry) were determined via laboratory
47
48
testing program as explained above. Table 3 presents soil samples index properties.
49
50 Furthermore, the same main shrink-swell parameters were estimated using the
51 developed correlation equations based on measured index properties of the obtained
52 soil samples. Hence, comparisons between measured and corresponding estimated
53
54 parameter were carried out, as shown in Table 4, to check the validity of the
55 developed predictive model. Comparisons show the presence of reasonably good
56 agreement between predictions and measurements.
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65 11
 1
2 CONCLUSIONS
3
4
5 Extensive experimental work has been conducted on sixty two (62) soil samples
6 obtained from twelve (12) sites scattered all over Egypt as well as carefully prepared
7 bentonite- silty clay soil mixtures. Most of the soil samples were remolded using
8
9
different remolding pressures, yet few natural soil samples were undisturbed. The
10 experimental laboratory testing program revealed the following main findings:
11
12 The liquid limit, plasticity index, as well as free swell of the soil samples increased
13 with the increase of bentonite percentage for the bentonite-soil mixtures. There exist
14
15 unique relationships between the index properties and the swelling characteristics of
16 the tested swelling soils.
17
18 Vapor equilibrium technique was used to determine the Soil Water Characteristic
19
curves (SWCC) by controlling the relative humidity in an air space above saturated
20
21 salt solutions in a closed system. The tests were carried out in closed-lid desiccator
22 for inducing suctions of 2.5, 3.5, 4.5 and 5.5 pF using saturated salt solutions of
23 NaCL. Hence, suction compressibility indices were determined after measuring the
24 slope of the straight line segment in the desaturation zone of the SWCC.
25
26
27 A new set of correlation equations was proposed to estimate the swelling
28 characteristics with carefully evaluated index properties in hand. Despite the obvious
29 scattering and variability of the collected and prepared swelling soil samples, high
30 degrees of correlations were proven in the developed equations, which may entitle
31
32 them to be treated as a reliable tool. The developed equations were rationally verified
33 using available laboratory measurements from another site located south east of
34 Cairo.
35 The main intent for developing these relationships is to provide geotechnical
36
37
practitioners with first order estimations of main shrink-swell parameters using
38 available conventional soil index properties.
39
40 There exist clear effects of soil index properties on the behavior of shrink-swell soils.
41 The increase in soil plasticity increases the values of swelling potential, increases the
42
43 values of suction compressibility, and decreases the coefficient of unsaturated
44 diffusivity of soil.
45 Again, a similar observation was made to study the effect of free swell on the shrink-
46 swell behavior of soil. The increasing of free swell increases the values of swelling
47
potential, increases the values of suction compressibility, and decreases the
48
49 coefficient of unsaturated diffusivity of soil.
50
51 The percentage of swelling potential, and percentage of coefficient of unsaturated
52 diffusivity of soil increasing due to the increasing dry unit weight of soil. But suction
53
54 compressibility index of soiled creases due to the increasing dry unit weight of soil.
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65 12
 1
2 REFERENCES
3
4
5 Abdelmalak, R. I. (2007). "Soil Structure Interaction for Shrink-Swell Soils: A New
6 Design Procedure for Foundation Slabs on Shrink-Swell Soils. Ph.D.
7 Dissertation, Texas A&M University.
8
9
10 AL-Shihabi, O. (2010). "Estimation of Soil Suction Using Salt Solutions Method and
11 Filter Paper". Damascus Journal of Agricultural Science (DJAS), Vol. 26, No. 2,
12 May, pp.59-76.
13
14
15 Briaud, J.-L., Zhang, X., and Moon, S. (2003)."Shrink TestWater Content Method
16 for Shrink and Swell Predictions". Journal of Geotechnical and
17 Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, July, DOI: 10.1061/ (ASCE) 1090-
18 0241(2003)129:7(590).
19
20
21 Bulut, R., (2001). "Total and Matric Suction Measurements with the Filter Paper
22 Method". Ph.D. Thesis, Texas A&M University.
23
24 Center of Housing and Building Research (2001). "Egyptian Code for Soil
25
26
Mechanics and Foundations Design-ECP. 202-2001". The Arab Republic of
27 Egypt, Ministry of Housing, Utilities and Urban Communities, Part two:
28 Laboratory Tests, 2007 Edition.
29
30 Center of Housing and Building Research (2001). "Egyptian Code for Soil
31
32 Mechanics and Foundations Design-ECP. 202-2001". The Arab Republic of
33 Egypt, Ministry of Housing, Utilities and Urban Communities, Part Five:
34 Foundations on the Difficult Soil, 2007 Edition.
35
36
37
Dafalla, M. A., Shamrani, M.A., Puppala, A.J., and Ali, H.E. (2010)."Use of Rigid
38 Foundation System on Expansive Soils". Geo-Florida 2010: Advances in
39 Analysis, Modeling & Design (GSP 199) 2010, ASCE, BRCES, Civil
40 Engineering Department, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi.
41
42
43 Das, B. M. (2008). "Advanced Soil Mechanics". Third Edition, ISBN 0-203-93584-5
44 Master e-book ISBN, http://www.taylorandfrancis.com, P.288-289
45
46 El-Sibaie, R. A. M. (1992). "Behavior of Footings Resting on Expansive Soils Using
47
Model Tests ". M.Sc. Thesis, Ain Shams University.
48
49
50 Erzin, Y., and Erol, O. (2007)."Swell pressure prediction by suction methods".
51 Engineering Geology, Received August4, 2005, ENGEO-02678, DOI:
52 10.1061/j,engeo.2007.04.002.
53
54
55 Hammam, A. H. and Abdel-Salam, A. E. (2013)."Comparisons between Behaviors
56 of Undisturbed and Remolded Swelling Soil". Pan-Am CGS Geotechnical
57 conference, Montreal, Canada.
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65 13
 1
2
3
4 Israr, J., Farooq, K., and Mujtaba, H. (2014)."Modelling of Swelling Parameters and
5 Associated Characteristics Based on Index Properties of Expansive Soils". Pak.,
6 J., Engg. & Appl., Sci., Vol.15, July, pp.1-9.
7
8
9
Jahangir, E., Deck,O., and Masrouri, F. (2011). "Influence of foundation embedding
10 on clays shrinkage-swelling hazard consequences". ISGSR 2011 - Vogt,
11 Schuppener, Straub &Bru (eds) - BundesanstaltfrWasserbau ISBN 978-3-
12 939230-01-4.
13
14
15 Jian-lin, Y. and Jian , Z. (2005)."Influences affecting the soil-water characteristic
16 curve". Journal of Zhejiang University Science, 6A (8), ISSN: 1009-3095, pp.
17 797-804. http://www.zju.edu.cn/jzus.
18
19
Lajurkar, S. P., Khandeshwar, S.R., Dhoble, R.S., and Bade, R.G.
20
21 (2013)."Experimental Study on Shrink- Swell Behavior of Expansive Soil".
22 International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and
23 Technology. Vol. 2, Issue 6, June, ISSN: 2319-8753.
24
25
26
Melek, R. I. (2000). "A Practical Approach to Assess Lateral Swelling Behaviour of
27 Expansive Soil". M.Sc.Thesis, Minia University.
28
29 Mokhtari, M., and Dehghani, M. (2012). "Swell-Shrink Behavior of Expansive Soils,
30 Damage and Control". EJGE, Bund. R., Vol. 17, pp 2673-2682.
31
32
33 Prakash, K. and Sridharan, A. (2004), "Free Swell Ratio and Clay Mineralogy of
34 Fine-Grained Soils," Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 27, No. 2, 2004, pp.
35 220-225, https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ10860. ISSN 0149-6115
36
37
38 Sood, E. (2005)."Determination of the Diffusion Coefficient for Unsaturated Soils".
39 M. Sc. Thesis, Texas A&M University.
40 Zapata, C. E., Houston, W. N., Houston, S. L., and Walsh, K. D. (2000)."Soil
41 Water Characteristic Curve Variability". Advances in Unsaturated Geotechnics,
42
43 DOI: 10.1061/40510 (287)7, pp. 84-124.
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65 14
 1
2 TABLES
3
4
5 Table 1. Swelling characteristics correlation equations based on soil index
6 properties.
7
8 Regression
9 Equation
Equation Statistics
10 No.
( R2 )
11
12 (1) Iss = PI / ( 1.07 + 0.0011 PI ) 0.96
13
14 (2) Iss = 0.30 ( F.S.) + 8.60 0.93
15
16 (3) Isw = 3.13 ( PI )0.7415 0.93
17 (4) Isw = 0.0004 (F.S. )2 + 0.1909 (F.S. ) + 27.30 0.93
18
19 (5) h = 55.83 Ln ( PI/dry ) 158.63 0.83
20
21 (6) sh = 0.026 (h ) -0.4973 0.74
22
23 (7) sh = 0.0023 Ln ( h /dry) + 0.012 0.73
24
25 (8) sw = 1.20sh 0.98
26 (9) SP = 32.40 Ln ( PI ) 97.47 0.77
27
28 ( 10 ) SP = 36.91 Ln (Iss) 110.54 0.87
29
30
31 Table 2. R2 values for different correlations between suction compressibility
32 index and several combinations of soil index parameters.
33
34
Curve
35 sh sw SP P.I./dry P.I. L.L./dry P.L./dry
36 Fitting
37 Hyperbolic 0.57 0.51 0.04 0.51 0.50 0.53 0.51
38
39 Linear 0.65 0.65 0.49 0.79 0.79 0.80 0.74
40
2nddegree
41 0.71 0.68 0.51 0.80 0.80 0.81 0.76
42 polynomial
43 logarithmic 0.72 0.70 0.35 0.83 0.79 0.78 0.75
44
45 exponential 0.73 0.69 0.27 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.67
46
47
48 Table 3. Soil samples index properties for Assuit Transformers Station.
49
50
51 Soil L.L. P.L. P.I. dry
52 Sample (%) (%) (%) (KN/m3 )
53 (1) 61.53 20.66 40.87 15
54
55 (2) 71.54 22.84 48.7 14.15
56 (3) 61.64 22.84 38.8 14.5
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65 15
 1
2 Table 4.Comparison of experimental scheme and predicted equations for Assuit
3
4 Transformers Electric Substation Samples.
5
6 Soil Measured Predicted %
7 Soil Sample Difference
8 Properties Values Values Difference
9 Isw( % ) 52.18 49.02 3.16 6.05
10 Iss( % ) 38.94 36.66 2.28 5.85
11
Sample ( 1 )

12 sh
0.000074 0.0001037 -0.000030 40.54
13 ( cm2/min )
14 sw
15 0.0000589 0.0000888 -0.000003 5.09
16 ( cm2/min )
17 h( % ) 23.13 25.88 -2.75 11.88
18 SP ( % ) 37.91 24.63 13.28 35.03
19
20 Isw( % ) 60.21 55.83 4.38 7.27
21 Iss( % ) 45.67 43.34 2.33 5.10
22
sh
Sample( 2 )

23 0.000083 0.0001032 -0.000020 24.09

24 ( cm2/min )
25 sw
26 0.0001103 0.0000996 0.000011 9.97
( cm2/min )
27
28 h( % ) 23.26 38.93 -15.57 66.93
29 SP ( % ) 46.96 30.51 16.45 32.93
30
31
Isw( % ) 48.08 47.17 0.91 1.89
32 Iss( % ) 35.28 34.87 0.41 1.16
sh
Sample( 3 )

33
34 0.00008 0.0001163 -0.00036 45
35
( cm2/min )
36 sw
0.0001112 0.000096 0.000015 1.34
37 ( cm2/min )
38
39 h( % ) 18.39 24.88 -6.49 35.29
40 SP ( % ) 35.11 20.98 14.13 40.24
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65 16
 1
2 FIGURES
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
FIG.1. Map of Egypt with locations of the samples sites.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53 FIG.2. Effect of Bentonite content in Bentonite-soil mixtures
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65 17
 1 120
2
3 105 Iss = PI/(1.0734+0.0011*PI)
4 R = 0.96
5 90
6
7 75
Iss ( % )

8
9 60
10
11
45
12
13
30
14
15
15
16
17
0
18
19 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
20 PI ( % )
21 Assuit ( 1 ) Assuit ( 2 ) Assuit ( 3 )
22 80 Bent. 100 Bent. 60 Bent.
23 40 Bent. 20 Bent. (4) Fayoum South
(2) El Mokatam (10) Zahra EL Maadi (11) Qena West
24
(5) Beni Swif West (8) El Max (3) Fayoum North
25 (9) Abo Tartor (7) Beni Swif South East (12) Qena East
26 (6) Beni Swif North East (1) 6th Oct.
27
28 FIG. 3. Relationship between soil shrink-swell index and plasticity index.
29
30 120
31
32 105
33
34 90 Iss = 0.30*( F.S. ) + 8.60
35
36 R2 = 0.93
75
Iss ( % )

37
38 60
39
40 45
41
42 30
43
44 15
45
46 0
47 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
48 F.S. ( % )
49 100 Bent. 80 Bent. 60 Bent.
50 40 Bent. 20 Bent. (4) Fayoum South
51 (1) 6th Oct. (2) El Mokatam (10) Zahra EL Maadi
52 (11) Qena West (5) Beni Swif West (8) El Max
53 (3) Fayoum North (9) Abo Tartor (7) Beni Swif South East
54 (12) Qena East (6) Beni Swif North East Assuit ( 1 )
55 Assuit ( 2 ) Assuit ( 3 )
56
57 FIG. 4. Relationship between soil shrink-swell index and free swell.
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65 18
 1
135
2
3 120 Isw = 3.13 * ( PI )0.7415
4
5 105 R2 = 0.93
6 90
7
Isw ( % )

8 75
9
10 60
11 45
12
13 30
14
15
15
16 0
17 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95 105 115
18 PI ( % )
19
20 100 Bent. 80 Bent. 60 Bent.
21 40 Bent. 20 Bent. (4) Fayoum South
(1) 6th Oct. (2) El Mokatam (10) Zahra EL Maadi
22
(11) Qena West (5) Beni Swif West (8) El Max
23 (3) Fayoum North (9) Abo Tartor (7) Beni Swif South East
24 (12) Qena East (6) Beni Swif North East Assuit ( 1 )
25 Assuit ( 2 ) Assuit ( 3 )
26
27 FIG. 5. Relationship between swell limit and plasticity index.
28 135
29
30 120 Isw = 0.0004(F.s.)2 + 0.1909(F.S.) + 27.302
31
32 105 R2 = 0.93
33
34 90
35
Isw ( % )

36 75
37
38 60
39
40 45
41
30
42
43
15
44
45 0
46
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
47
48 F.S. ( % )
49 100 Bent. 80 Bent. 60 Bent.
50 40 Bent. 20 Bent. (4) Fayoum South
51 (1) 6th Oct. (2) El Mokatam (10) Zahra EL Maadi
52 (11) Qena West (5) Beni Swif West (8) El Max
53 (3) Fayoum North (9) Abo Tartor (7) Beni Swif South East
54 (12) Qena East Assuit ( 1 ) Assuit ( 2 )
55 Assuit ( 3 ) (6) Beni Swif North East
56
57 FIG. 6. Relationship between swell limit and free swell.
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65 19
 1 100
2
3
4 80
5
6
7 60
h ( % )

8
9
10 40
11 h = 55.83Ln(PI / dry) - 158.63
12
13 20
R2 = 0.83
14
15
16 0
17 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
PI / dry (cm /g )
18 3

19 100 Bent. 80 Bent. 60 Bent.

20 40 Bent. 20 Bent. (4) Fayoum South
21 (1) 6th Oct. (2) El Mokatam (10) Zahra EL Maadi
22 (11) Qena West (5) Beni Swif West (8) El Max
23 (3) Fayoum North (9) Abo Tartor (7) Beni Swif South East
24 (12) Qena East (6) Beni Swif North East Assuit ( 1 )
25 Assuit ( 2 ) Assuit ( 3 )
26
27 FIG. 7. Relationship between suction compressibility index and the ratio
28 between plasticity index and dry unit weight.
29
30 0.01
31
32 sh = 0.0264*( h)-0.4973
33 0.008
34 R2 = 0.74
35
sh ( m / year )

36 0.006
37
2

38
39 0.004
40
41
42 0.002
43
44
0
45
46 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
h (%)
47
48 100 Bent. 80 Bent. 60 Bent.
49 40 Bent. 20 Bent. (4) Fayoum South
50 (1) 6th Oct. (2) El Mokatam (10) Zahra EL Maadi
51 (11) Qena West (5) Beni Swif West (8) El Max
52 (3) Fayoum North (9) Abo Tartor (7) Beni Swif South East
53 (12) Qena East (6) Beni Swif North East Assuit ( 1 )
54 Assuit ( 2 ) Assuit ( 3 )
55
56 FIG. 8. Relationship between soil coefficient of unsaturated diffusivity in shrink
57 condition and suction compressibility index.
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65 20
 1
2
3
0.010
4
5
6
7
0.008 sh= -0.0023 Ln ( h/ dry) + 0.012
8 R2 = 0.73
sh (m / year)

9
0.006
10
2

11
12 0.004
13
14
15 0.002
16
17
18 0.000
19 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
20
h / dry (cm3 /gm)
21 100 Bent. 80 Bent. 60 Bent.
22 40 Bent. 20 Bent. (4) Fayoum South
23 (1) 6th Oct. (2) El Mokatam (10) Zahra EL Maadi
24 (11) Qena West (5) Beni Swif West (8) El Max
25 (3) Fayoum North (9) Abo Tartor (7) Beni Swif South East
26 (12) Qena East (6) Beni Swif North East Assuit ( 1 )
27 Assuit ( 2 ) Assuit ( 3 )
28
29 FIG. 9. Relationship between soil coefficient of unsaturated diffusivity in shrink
30 condition and ratio of suction compressibility index to dry unit weight.
31
32
0.016
33
34 0.014
35
36 0.012
37 sw = 1.20* ( sh )
38
sw ( m / year )

0.01
R2 = 0.98
39
2

0.008
40
41 0.006
42
43 0.004
44
45 0.002

46
0
47
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.009 0.01
48 sh ( m2 / year )
49
100 Bent. 80 Bent. 60 Bent.
50 40 Bent. 20 Bent. (4) Fayoum South
51 (1) 6th Oct. (2) El Mokatam (10) Zahra EL Maadi
52 (11) Qena West (5) Beni Swif West (8) El Max
53 (3) Fayoum North (9) Abo Tartor (7) Beni Swif South East
(12) Qena East (6) Beni Swif North East Assuit ( 1 )
54 Assuit ( 2 ) Assuit ( 3 )
55
56 FIG. 10. Relationship between soil coefficients of unsaturated diffusivities in
57 shrink and swell conditions
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65 21
 1
2
100
3
4
5 80 SP = 32.40 Ln(PI) - 97.47
6
7 R2 = 0.77
8 60
SP ( % )

9
10
11 40
12
13
20
14
15
16 0
17
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
18
PI (% )
19
20 100 Bent. 80 Bent. 60 Bent.
21 40 Bent. 20 Bent. (4) Fayoum South
22 (1) 6th Oct. (2) El Mokatam (10) Zahra EL Maadi
23 (11) Qena West (5) Beni Swif West (8) El Max
24 (3) Fayoum North (9) Abo Tartor (7) Beni Swif South East
25
(12) Qena East (6) Beni Swif North East Assuit ( 1 )
26
27 Assuit ( 2 ) . (3)
Assuit
28
29 FIG. 11. Relationship between soil swell potential and plasticity index.
30
31 100
32
33
34 80 SP = 36.91 Ln (Iss) - 110.54
35 R2 = 0.87
36
SP ( % )

37 60
38
39
40 40
41
42
20
43
44
45 0
46 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
47
Iss ( % )
48
49 100 Bent. 80 Bent. 60 Bent.
50 40 Bent. 20 Bent. (4) Fayoum South
51 (1) 6th Oct. (2) El Mokatam (10) Zahra EL Maadi
52 (11) Qena West (5) Beni Swif West (8) El Max
53 (3) Fayoum North (9) Abo Tartor (7) Beni Swif South East
54 (12) Qena East (6) Beni Swif North East Assuit ( 1 )
55 Assuit ( 2 ) Assuit ( 3 )
56
57 FIG. 12. Relationship between soil swell potential and shrink-swell index.
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65 22
 1
2 80
3
70
4
5 60
6
7 50
SP ( % )

8 Very high potential expansiveness , SP >30

9 40
10
30 High potential expansiveness ,
11 SP ( 20- 30 ) %
12
20
13
14 10 Medium potential expansiveness ,
15 SP ( 10- 20 ) %
16 0
17 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2
18
dry ( g/cm3 )
19
20 100 Bent. 80 Bent. 60 Bent.
21 40 Bent. 20 Bent. ( 4 ) Fayoum South
22 ( 1 ) 6th Oct. ( 11 ) Qena West ( 8 ) El Max
23 ( 5 ) Beni Swif West ( 3 ) Fayoum North ( 9 ) Abo Tartor
24 ( 2 ) El Mokatam ( 10 ) Zahra EL Maadi ( 7 ) Beni Swif South East
25 (12) Qena East ( 6 ) Beni Swif North East
26
27 FIG. 13. Effect of dry unit weight on the swelling potential for the soil samples.
28 0.01
29
30 0.009 Very high potential expansiveness , SP >30
31
0.008
32
33 0.007
sh ( m2/ Year )

34
35 0.006
36 0.005
37
38 0.004 High potential expansiveness,
39 SP ( 20- 30 ) %
0.003
40
41 0.002
42 Medium potential expansiveness ,
43 0.001 SP ( 10- 20 ) %
44 0
45
1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2
46
47 dry ( g/cm3 )
48 100 Bent. 80 Bent. 60 Bent.
49 40 Bent. 20 Bent. ( 4 ) Fayoum South
50
( 1 ) 6th Oct. ( 11 ) Qena West ( 8 ) El Max
51
52 ( 5 ) Beni Swif West ( 3 ) Fayoum North ( 9 ) Abo Tartor
53 ( 2 ) El Mokatam ( 10 ) Zahra EL Maadi ( 7 ) Beni Swif South East
54 (12) Qena East ( 6 ) Beni Swif North East
55
56 FIG. 14. Effect of dry unit weight on the coefficient of unsaturated diffusivity of
57 soil ( sh ) for the soil samples.
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65 23
 1
100
2
3 90
4
80
5
6 70 Very high potential expansiveness , SP>30
7
60
h ( % )

8 Medium potential expansiveness , High potential expansiveness ,

9 50 SP ( 10- 20 ) % SP ( 20- 30 ) %
10
40
11
12 30
13
20
14
15 10
16
0
17
18 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2
19 dry ( g/cm3 )
20 100 Bent. 80 Bent. 60 Bent.
21 40 Bent. 20 Bent. ( 4 ) Fayoum South
22 ( 1 ) 6th Oct. ( 11 ) Qena West ( 8 ) El Max
23
( 5 ) Beni Swif West ( 3 ) Fayoum North ( 9 ) Abo Tartor
24
( 2 ) El Mokatam ( 10 ) Zahra EL Maadi ( 7 ) Beni Swif South East
25
(12) Qena East ( 6 ) Beni Swif North East
26
27
28 FIG. 15. Effect of dry unit weight on the suction compressibility index of soil.
29 ( h )for the soil samples.
30
31 80
32
33 70
34
35 60 Very high potential expansiveness , SP >30
36
37 50
SP ( % )

38
39 40
40 High potential expansiveness ,
30
41 SP ( 20- 30 ) %
42 20
43 Medium potential expansiveness ,
44 10 SP ( 10- 20 ) %
45
46 0
47 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
48
PI ( % )
49
50 100 Bent. 80 Bent. 60 Bent.
51 40 Bent. 20 Bent. ( 4 ) Fayoum South
52 ( 1 ) 6th Oct. ( 11 ) Qena West ( 8 ) El Max
53 ( 5 ) Beni Swif West ( 3 ) Fayoum North ( 9 ) Abo Tartor
54 ( 2 ) El Mokatam ( 10 ) Zahra EL Maadi ( 7 ) Beni Swif South East
55 (12) Qena East ( 6 ) Beni Swif North East
56
57 FIG. 16. Effect of plasticity index on the swelling potential for the soil samples.
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65 24
 1
2 0.01
3 0.009
4 Very high potential expansiveness , SP >30
0.008
5
6 0.007
sh ( m2/ Year )

High potential expansiveness ,

7 SP ( 20- 30 ) %
0.006
8
9 0.005
Medium potential expansiveness ,
10 0.004 SP ( 10- 20 ) %
11
12 0.003
13 0.002
14
15 0.001
16 0
17 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
18
PI(%)
19
20 100 Bent. 80 Bent. 60 Bent.
21 40 Bent. 20 Bent. ( 4 ) Fayoum South
22 ( 1 ) 6th Oct. ( 11 ) Qena West ( 8 ) El Max
23 ( 5 ) Beni Swif West ( 3 ) Fayoum North ( 9 ) Abo Tartor
24 ( 2 ) El Mokatam ( 10 ) Zahra EL Maadi ( 7 ) Beni Swif South East
25 (12) Qena East ( 6 ) Beni Swif North East
26
27 FIG. 17. Effect of plasticity index on the coefficient of unsaturated diffusivity of
28 soil ( sh )for the soil samples.
29
30 100
31 90
32 Very high potential expansiveness , SP>30
33 80
34 70
35
High potential expansiveness ,
h ( % )

36 60
SP ( 20- 30 ) %
37 50
38
39 40
40 30 Medium potential expansiveness ,
41 SP ( 10- 20 ) %
42 20
43 10
44
45 0
46 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
47 PI ( % )
48
100 Bent. 80 Bent. 60 Bent.
49
50 40 Bent. 20 Bent. ( 4 ) Fayoum South
51 ( 1 ) 6th Oct. ( 11 ) Qena West ( 8 ) El Max
52 ( 5 ) Beni Swif West ( 3 ) Fayoum North ( 9 ) Abo Tartor
53 ( 2 ) El Mokatam ( 10 ) Zahra EL Maadi ( 7 ) Beni Swif South East
54 (12) Qena East ( 6 ) Beni Swif North East
55
56 FIG. 18. Effect of plasticity index on the suction compressibility index of soil.
57 ( h )for the soil samples.
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65 25
 1
2 80
3
70
4 Very high potential expansiveness , SP >30
5 60
6
7 50
SP ( % )

8
9 40
10
11 30 High potential expansiveness ,
SP ( 20- 30 ) %
12
20
13
Medium potential expansiveness ,
14 10 SP ( 10- 20 ) %
15
16 0
17 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
18
F. S. ( % )
19
20 100 Bent. 80 Bent. 60 Bent.
21 40 Bent. 20 Bent. ( 4 ) Fayoum South
22 ( 1 ) 6th Oct. ( 11 ) Qena West ( 8 ) El Max
23 ( 5 ) Beni Swif West ( 3 ) Fayoum North ( 9 ) Abo Tartor
24 ( 2 ) El Mokatam ( 10 ) Zahra EL Maadi ( 7 ) Beni Swif South East
25 (12) Qena East ( 6 ) Beni Swif North East
26
27 FIG. 19. Effect of free swell on the swelling potential for the soil samples.
28 0.01
29
30 0.009
31 Very high potential expansiveness , SP >30
32 0.008
33 0.007 High potential expansiveness ,
sh ( m2/ Year )

34 SP ( 20- 30 ) %
35 0.006
36 Medium potential expansiveness ,
0.005
37 SP ( 10- 20 ) %
38 0.004
39
0.003
40
41 0.002
42
43 0.001
44 0
45
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
46
47 F. S.(%)
48 100 Bent. 80 Bent. 60 Bent.
49
40 Bent. 20 Bent. ( 4 ) Fayoum South
50
( 1 ) 6th Oct. ( 11 ) Qena West ( 8 ) El Max
51
52 ( 5 ) Beni Swif West ( 3 ) Fayoum North ( 9 ) Abo Tartor
53 ( 2 ) El Mokatam ( 10 ) Zahra EL Maadi ( 7 ) Beni Swif South East
54 (12) Qena East ( 6 ) Beni Swif North East
55
56 FIG. 20. Effect of free swell on the coefficient of unsaturated diffusivity of soil
57 ( sh )for the soil samples.
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65 26
 1
2 100
3 90
4 Very high potential expansiveness , SP>30
5 80
6
70
7
8 60 High potential expansiveness ,
h ( % )

9 SP ( 20- 30 ) %
10 50
11
40
12 Medium potential expansiveness ,
13 30 SP ( 10- 20 ) %
14
15 20
16 10
17
18 0
19 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
20
F. S. ( % )
21
22 100 Bent. 80 Bent. 60 Bent.
23 40 Bent. 20 Bent. ( 4 ) Fayoum South
24 ( 1 ) 6th Oct. ( 11 ) Qena West ( 8 ) El Max
25 ( 5 ) Beni Swif West ( 3 ) Fayoum North ( 9 ) Abo Tartor
26
( 2 ) El Mokatam ( 10 ) Zahra EL Maadi ( 7 ) Beni Swif South East
27
(12) Qena East ( 6 ) Beni Swif North East
28
29
30 FIG. 21. Effect of free swell on the suction compressibility index of soil.
31
32 ( h )for the soil samples.
33
34 NOTATIONS
35
36
37 L.L. =Liquid Limit.
38 P.I. = Plasticity Index.
39 P.L. =Plastic Limit.
40 SWCC =Soil Water Characteristic Curve.
41
h =Suction Compressibility.
42
43 U =Total Suction expressed as logarithmic unit(pF).
44 uw = Total Suction expressed in units of cm of water head.
45 dry = Dry Unit Weight.
46 Gs =Specific Gravity of Soil Solids.
47
48
Isw =Swell Limit.
49 Ish =Shrink Limit.
50 Iss = Shrink-Swell Index.
51 F.S. =Free Swell.
52 SP =Swelling Potential.
53
54 sh = Coefficient of Unsaturated Diffusivity in shrink condition.
55 sw = Coefficient of Unsaturated Diffusivity in swell condition.
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65 27
Response to Reviewer and Editor Comments

Comment Response Sheet

Reviewer# 1 Comment (1):
See the attached file.

Response:

The attached file is missed.

Reviewer# 2 Comment (1):
The Reviewer considers the article a worthwhile contribution to the science of
complex soils. The experimental investigations provide a physical insight into the
behavior of such soils. The Reviewer considers this work to be original and tot h
extent he knows has not been published elsewhere. However, the English language
used in the paper can be improved a bit for better seamless flow by careful
spellchecks and attention to proper grammar. Overall, a good paper worthy of
publication.

Response:

The English language, spellchecks, and proper grammar was noticed and
implemented in this paper.

Reviewer# 2 Comment (2):

The contents of the Abstract seem to be different on the ICE Summary Page and on
Page 1 of the draft. The latter seems larger. Can we make them the same for
consistency?

Response:

It was noticed and implemented in this paper.

Reviewer# 2 Comment (3):

In "Conclusions", there is no mention of the use of SWCC (Soil-Water Characteristic
Curve) while a good portion of the lab testing and analytical parameters are based on
it (page 5).

Response:

It was noticed and implemented in this paper. ( Paragraph 3 in page 12 )

Reviewer# 2 Comment (4):

It is unclear whether the draft format is preliminary or not, but there were dozens of
instances where words appear jumbled and mixed up. In the interest of a readable
manuscript, the Reviewer lists the instances where it happened

Response:

All these problems and words appear jumbled and mixed were noticed and
implemented in all pages of this paper.

1
Reviewer# 3 Comment (1):
There is a problem with many words sticked together, separate words all along the
paper. It should not have reached the review a paper like this. There is also a problem
with the style of citation of references, it should not be with the name initials

Response:

The problem of many words which sticked together was noticed and implemented in
all pages of this paper.

Reviewer# 3 Comment (2):

The paper is not very well structured. The introduction does not prepare the reader
about the final comparison in Table 4 which came as a surprise. This last real case is
very important and could be actually the most important contribution or motivation
of the work. The introduction tells isolated things about srink-swell with comments
not really related with the work.

Response:
The introduction was improved ( Pages 1 to 3 ) , and according to Table 4 was
noticed and implemented ( Page 3 ).

Reviewer# 3 Comment (3):

In general the paper is hard to read, because there is not a clear line to follow.

Response:
It was illustrated in the abstract, and the introduction ( Paragraph 4 in Page 3 ).

Reviewer# 3 Comment (4):

Each of the parameters used in the paper should be clearly explained (parameters in
tables) right after they appear in the paper. For example, Free Swell Index is
explained later on after it was first used (in Soil physical properties).

Response:
It was noticed and implemented ( Page 5 ).

Reviewer# 3 Comment (5):

There are two equations for one parameter, is it possible to use only one equation
with two variables?. Is there any physical relationship between parameters or is only
a matter of mathematical or statistical best fit procedure. The paper seems to be only
a statistical analysis without explanation of the physical phenomena behind.

Response:
Because the coefficient of determination (R2) values for both equations was closed,
hence we prefer to present each equation.

Reviewer# 3 Comment (6):

What is in Model Verification should be in the introduction.

Response:
It was noticed and implemented (Paragraph 5 in Page 3).

2
Reviewer# 3 Comment (7):
(In the conclusion it is mentioned that ..A new set of correlation equations.....with
carefully evaluated index properties in hand. How can this be proved, when there is
not explanation of how tests were carried, under what norm. There are some thesis
which the reader is supposed to read to understand the testing procedure. )

Response :

Indeed, all identification tests of soil properties were prepared according to (ECP
201-2001),which comes in general accordance with most highly acknowledge
international standards. Unfortunately, tests to determine unsaturated shrink-swell
soil properties (Isw, Iss, sh, sw, and h) have not been standardized yet as most of
these parameters and their determination procedures have been recently developed as
per both Briaud, J.-L., Zhang, X., and Moon, S. (2003) and Abdelmalak, R. I. (2007).

Reviewer# 3 Comment (8):

The results for the Assuit project should be shown highlighted in the figures.

Response :
It was noticed and implemented in all paper figures.

According to figures are provided in the desired format - as separate files, in the
format they were originally created in, and at a high resolution (600dpi+). Specific
guidelines can be found here:

Response :
It was noticed and implemented , and all figures as shown below.

6th October site.

( ( El-Mokatam site.
( (1
( Fayoum- north site.
( ( Fayoum- south site.
(
Beni Suif west site.
Beni Suif north east
site.
Beni Suif south east
( ( site.
(
(

FIG.1. Map of Egypt with locations of the samples sites.

3
 300

L.L. ( % )

250 P.I. ( % )

F.S. (%)

200
index property ( % )

150

100

50

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Bentonite %

FIG.2. Effect of Bentonite content in Bentonite-soil mixtures

4
 120

105

90 Iss = 0.30*( F.S. ) + 8.60

R2 = 0.93
75
Iss ( % )

60

45

30

15

0
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
F.S. ( % )
100 Bent. 80 Bent. 60 Bent.
40 Bent. 20 Bent. (4) Fayoum South
(1) 6th Oct. (2) El Mokatam (10) Zahra EL Maadi
(11) Qena West (5) Beni Swif West (8) El Max
(3) Fayoum North (9) Abo Tartor (7) Beni Swif South East
(12) Qena East (6) Beni Swif North East Assuit ( 1 )
Assuit ( 2 ) Assuit ( 3 )

FIG. 3. Relationship between soil shrink-swell index and plasticity index.

120

105 Iss = PI/(1.0734+0.0011*PI)

R = 0.96
90

75
Iss ( % )

60

45

30

15

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
PI ( % )
Assuit ( 1 ) Assuit ( 2 ) Assuit ( 3 )
80 Bent. 100 Bent. 60 Bent.
40 Bent. 20 Bent. (4) Fayoum South
(2) El Mokatam (10) Zahra EL Maadi (11) Qena West
(5) Beni Swif West (8) El Max (3) Fayoum North
(9) Abo Tartor (7) Beni Swif South East (12) Qena East
(6) Beni Swif North East (1) 6th Oct.

FIG. 4. Relationship between soil shrink-swell index and free swell.

5
 135

120 Isw = 3.13 * ( PI )0.7415

105 R2 = 0.93
90
Isw ( % )

75

60

45

30

15

0
25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95 105 115
PI ( % )
100 Bent. 80 Bent. 60 Bent.
40 Bent. 20 Bent. (4) Fayoum South
(1) 6th Oct. (2) El Mokatam (10) Zahra EL Maadi
(11) Qena West (5) Beni Swif West (8) El Max
(3) Fayoum North (9) Abo Tartor (7) Beni Swif South East
(12) Qena East (6) Beni Swif North East Assuit ( 1 )
Assuit ( 2 ) Assuit ( 3 )
FIG. 5. Relationship between swell limit and plasticity index.
135

120 Isw = 0.0004(F.s.)2 + 0.1909(F.S.) + 27.302

105 R2 = 0.93

90
Isw ( % )

75

60

45

30

15

0
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
F.S. ( % )
100 Bent. 80 Bent. 60 Bent.
40 Bent. 20 Bent. (4) Fayoum South
(1) 6th Oct. (2) El Mokatam (10) Zahra EL Maadi
(11) Qena West (5) Beni Swif West (8) El Max
(3) Fayoum North (9) Abo Tartor (7) Beni Swif South East
(12) Qena East Assuit ( 1 ) Assuit ( 2 )
Assuit ( 3 ) (6) Beni Swif North East

FIG. 6. Relationship between swell limit and free swell.

6
 100

80

60
h ( % )

40
h = 55.83Ln(PI / dry) - 158.63
20
R2 = 0.83

0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
PI / dry (cm /g )
3

100 Bent. 80 Bent. 60 Bent.

40 Bent. 20 Bent. (4) Fayoum South
(1) 6th Oct. (2) El Mokatam (10) Zahra EL Maadi
(11) Qena West (5) Beni Swif West (8) El Max
(3) Fayoum North (9) Abo Tartor (7) Beni Swif South East
(12) Qena East (6) Beni Swif North East Assuit ( 1 )
Assuit ( 2 ) Assuit ( 3 )

FIG. 7. Relationship between suction compressibility index and the ratio

between plasticity index and dry unit weight.
0.01

sh = 0.0264*( h)-0.4973
0.008
R2 = 0.74
sh ( m / year )

0.006
2

0.004

0.002

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
h ( % )
100 Bent. 80 Bent. 60 Bent.
40 Bent. 20 Bent. (4) Fayoum South
(1) 6th Oct. (2) El Mokatam (10) Zahra EL Maadi
(11) Qena West (5) Beni Swif West (8) El Max
(3) Fayoum North (9) Abo Tartor (7) Beni Swif South East
(12) Qena East (6) Beni Swif North East Assuit ( 1 )
Assuit ( 2 ) Assuit ( 3 )

FIG. 8. Relationship between soil coefficient of unsaturated diffusivity in shrink

condition and suction compressibility index.

7
 0.010

0.008 sh= -0.0023 Ln ( h/ dry) + 0.012

R2 = 0.73
sh (m / year)

0.006
2

0.004

0.002

0.000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
h / dry (cm /gm)
3

100 Bent. 80 Bent. 60 Bent.

40 Bent. 20 Bent. (4) Fayoum South
(1) 6th Oct. (2) El Mokatam (10) Zahra EL Maadi
(11) Qena West (5) Beni Swif West (8) El Max
(3) Fayoum North (9) Abo Tartor (7) Beni Swif South East
(12) Qena East (6) Beni Swif North East Assuit ( 1 )
Assuit ( 2 ) Assuit ( 3 )

FIG. 9. Relationship between soil coefficient of unsaturated diffusivity in shrink

condition and ratio of suction compressibility index to dry unit weight.
0.016

0.014

0.012

sw = 1.20* ( sh )
0.01
sw ( m / year )

R2 = 0.98
2

0.008

0.006

0.004

0.002

0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.009 0.01
sh ( m2 / year )
100 Bent. 80 Bent. 60 Bent.
40 Bent. 20 Bent. (4) Fayoum South
(1) 6th Oct. (2) El Mokatam (10) Zahra EL Maadi
(11) Qena West (5) Beni Swif West (8) El Max
(3) Fayoum North (9) Abo Tartor (7) Beni Swif South East
(12) Qena East (6) Beni Swif North East Assuit ( 1 )
Assuit ( 2 ) Assuit ( 3 )

FIG. 10. Relationship between soil coefficients of unsaturated diffusivities in

shrink and swell conditions.

8
 100

80 SP = 32.40 Ln(PI) - 97.47

R2 = 0.77
60
SP ( % )

40

20

0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
PI (% )

100 Bent. 80 Bent. 60 Bent.

40 Bent. 20 Bent. (4) Fayoum South
(1) 6th Oct. (2) El Mokatam (10) Zahra EL Maadi
(11) Qena West (5) Beni Swif West (8) El Max
(3) Fayoum North (9) Abo Tartor (7) Beni Swif South East
(12) Qena East (6) Beni Swif North East Assuit ( 1 )
Assuit ( 2 ) Assuit ( 3 )

FIG. 11. Relationship between soil swell potential and plasticity index.
100

80 SP = 36.91 Ln (Iss) - 110.54

R2 = 0.87
SP ( % )

60

40

20

0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Iss ( % )
100 Bent. 80 Bent. 60 Bent.
40 Bent. 20 Bent. (4) Fayoum South
(1) 6th Oct. (2) El Mokatam (10) Zahra EL Maadi
(11) Qena West (5) Beni Swif West (8) El Max
(3) Fayoum North (9) Abo Tartor (7) Beni Swif South East
(12) Qena East (6) Beni Swif North East Assuit ( 1 )
Assuit ( 2 ) Assuit ( 3 )

FIG. 12. Relationship between soil swell potential and shrink-swell index.

9
 80

70

60

50
SP ( % )

Very high potential expansiveness , SP >30

40

30 High potential expansiveness,

SP ( 20- 30 ) %
20

10 Medium potential expansiveness,

SP ( 10- 20 ) %

0
1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2
dry ( g/cm3 )
100 Bent. 80 Bent. 60 Bent.
40 Bent. 20 Bent. ( 4 ) Fayoum South
( 1 ) 6th Oct. ( 11 ) Qena West ( 8 ) El Max
( 5 ) Beni Swif West ( 3 ) Fayoum North ( 9 ) Abo Tartor
( 2 ) El Mokatam ( 10 ) Zahra EL Maadi ( 7 ) Beni Swif South East
(12) Qena East ( 6 ) Beni Swif North East

FIG. 13. Effect of dry unit weight on the swelling potential for the soil samples.
0.01
0.009 Very high potential expansiveness , SP >30
0.008
0.007
sh ( m2/ Year )

0.006
0.005
0.004 High potential expansiveness,
SP ( 20- 30 ) %
0.003
0.002
Medium potential expansiveness ,
0.001 SP ( 10- 20 ) %

0
1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2
dry ( g/cm3 )
100 Bent. 80 Bent. 60 Bent.
40 Bent. 20 Bent. ( 4 ) Fayoum South
( 1 ) 6th Oct. ( 11 ) Qena West ( 8 ) El Max
( 5 ) Beni Swif West ( 3 ) Fayoum North ( 9 ) Abo Tartor
( 2 ) El Mokatam ( 10 ) Zahra EL Maadi ( 7 ) Beni Swif South East
(12) Qena East ( 6 ) Beni Swif North East

FIG. 14. Effect of dry unit weight on the coefficient of unsaturated diffusivity of
soil ( sh ) for the soil samples.

10
 100
90
80
70 Very high potential expansiveness , SP>30
60
h ( % )

Medium potential expansiveness , High potential expansiveness,

50 SP ( 10- 20 ) % SP ( 20- 30 ) %

40
30
20
10
0
1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2
dry ( g/cm3 )
100 Bent. 80 Bent. 60 Bent.
40 Bent. 20 Bent. ( 4 ) Fayoum South
( 1 ) 6th Oct. ( 11 ) Qena West ( 8 ) El Max
( 5 ) Beni Swif West ( 3 ) Fayoum North ( 9 ) Abo Tartor
( 2 ) El Mokatam ( 10 ) Zahra EL Maadi ( 7 ) Beni Swif South East
(12) Qena East ( 6 ) Beni Swif North East
FIG. 15. Effect of dry unit weight on the suction compressibility index of soil.
( h )for the soil samples.
80

70

60 Very high potential expansiveness , SP >30

50
SP ( % )

40
High potential expansiveness,
30
SP ( 20- 30 ) %

20
Medium potential expansiveness ,
10 SP ( 10- 20 ) %

0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
PI ( % )
100 Bent. 80 Bent. 60 Bent.
40 Bent. 20 Bent. ( 4 ) Fayoum South
( 1 ) 6th Oct. ( 11 ) Qena West ( 8 ) El Max
( 5 ) Beni Swif West ( 3 ) Fayoum North ( 9 ) Abo Tartor
( 2 ) El Mokatam ( 10 ) Zahra EL Maadi ( 7 ) Beni Swif South East
(12) Qena East ( 6 ) Beni Swif North East
FIG. 16. Effect of plasticity index on the swelling potential for the soil samples.

11
 0.01
0.009
Very high potential expansiveness , SP >30
0.008
0.007
sh ( m2/ Year )

High potential expansiveness,

0.006 SP ( 20- 30 ) %

0.005
Medium potential expansiveness,
0.004 SP ( 10- 20 ) %

0.003
0.002
0.001
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
PI ( % )
100 Bent. 80 Bent. 60 Bent.
40 Bent. 20 Bent. ( 4 ) Fayoum South
( 1 ) 6th Oct. ( 11 ) Qena West ( 8 ) El Max
( 5 ) Beni Swif West ( 3 ) Fayoum North ( 9 ) Abo Tartor
( 2 ) El Mokatam ( 10 ) Zahra EL Maadi ( 7 ) Beni Swif South East
(12) Qena East ( 6 ) Beni Swif North East

FIG. 17. Effect of plasticity index on the coefficient of unsaturated diffusivity of

soil ( sh )for the soil samples.
100
90
Very high potential expansiveness , SP>30
80
70
High potential expansiveness ,
h ( % )

60
SP ( 20- 30 ) %
50
40
30 Medium potential expansiveness ,
SP ( 10- 20 ) %
20
10
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
PI ( % )
100 Bent. 80 Bent. 60 Bent.
40 Bent. 20 Bent. ( 4 ) Fayoum South
( 1 ) 6th Oct. ( 11 ) Qena West ( 8 ) El Max
( 5 ) Beni Swif West ( 3 ) Fayoum North ( 9 ) Abo Tartor
( 2 ) El Mokatam ( 10 ) Zahra EL Maadi ( 7 ) Beni Swif South East
(12) Qena East ( 6 ) Beni Swif North East

FIG. 18. Effect of plasticity index on the suction compressibility index of soil.
( h )for the soil samples.

12
 80

70
Very high potential expansiveness , SP >30
60

50
SP ( % )

40

30 High potential expansiveness,

SP ( 20- 30 ) %
20
Medium potential expansiveness ,
10 SP ( 10- 20 ) %

0
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
F. S. ( % )
100 Bent. 80 Bent. 60 Bent.
40 Bent. 20 Bent. ( 4 ) Fayoum South
( 1 ) 6th Oct. ( 11 ) Qena West ( 8 ) El Max
( 5 ) Beni Swif West ( 3 ) Fayoum North ( 9 ) Abo Tartor
( 2 ) El Mokatam ( 10 ) Zahra EL Maadi ( 7 ) Beni Swif South East
(12) Qena East ( 6 ) Beni Swif North East

FIG. 19. Effect of free swell on the swelling potential for the soil samples.
0.01
0.009
Very high potential expansiveness , SP >30
0.008
0.007 High potential expansiveness,
sh ( m2/ Year )

SP ( 20- 30 ) %
0.006
Medium potential expansiveness,
0.005
SP ( 10- 20 ) %
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
0
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
F. S. ( % )
100 Bent. 80 Bent. 60 Bent.
40 Bent. 20 Bent. ( 4 ) Fayoum South
( 1 ) 6th Oct. ( 11 ) Qena West ( 8 ) El Max
( 5 ) Beni Swif West ( 3 ) Fayoum North ( 9 ) Abo Tartor
( 2 ) El Mokatam ( 10 ) Zahra EL Maadi ( 7 ) Beni Swif South East
(12) Qena East ( 6 ) Beni Swif North East
FIG. 20. Effect of free swell on the coefficient of unsaturated diffusivity of soil
( sh )for the soil samples.

13
 100
90
Very high potential expansiveness , SP>30
80
70
60 High potential expansiveness ,
h ( % )

SP ( 20- 30 ) %
50
40
Medium potential expansiveness ,
30 SP ( 10- 20 ) %

20
10
0
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
F. S. ( % )
100 Bent. 80 Bent. 60 Bent.
40 Bent. 20 Bent. ( 4 ) Fayoum South
( 1 ) 6th Oct. ( 11 ) Qena West ( 8 ) El Max
( 5 ) Beni Swif West ( 3 ) Fayoum North ( 9 ) Abo Tartor
( 2 ) El Mokatam ( 10 ) Zahra EL Maadi ( 7 ) Beni Swif South East
(12) Qena East ( 6 ) Beni Swif North East

FIG. 21. Effect of free swell on the suction compressibility index of soil.
( h )for the soil samples.

14