Engineering Properties of Badlands in Semi-Arid...
121
Engineering Properties of Badlands in Semi-Arid Regions A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Applied Science in Environmental Systems Engineering University of Regina By Fawad Muhammad Khan Regina, Saskatchewan Nov, 2012 © Nov, 2012: Fawad Khan
Transcript of Engineering Properties of Badlands in Semi-Arid...
Engineering Properties of Badlands in Semi-Arid Regions
A Thesis
Submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Master of Applied Science
in Environmental Systems Engineering
University of Regina
By
Fawad Muhammad Khan
Regina, Saskatchewan
Nov, 2012
© Nov, 2012: Fawad Khan
UNIVERSITY OF REGINA
FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES AND RESEARCH
SUPERVISORY AND EXAMINING COMMITTEE
Fawad Muhammad Khan, candidate for the degree of Master of Applied Science in Environmental Systems Engineering, has presented a thesis titled, Engineering Properties of Badlands in Semi-Arid Regions, in an oral examination held on November 19, 2012. The following committee members have found the thesis acceptable in form and content, and that the candidate demonstrated satisfactory knowledge of the subject material. External Examiner: Mr. Harpreet S. Panesar, Government of Saskatchewan
Supervisor: Dr. Shahid Azam, Environmental Systems Engineering
Committee Member: Dr. Tsun Wai Kelvin Ng, Environmental Systems Engineering
Committee Member: Dr. Ian M. Coulson, Department of Geology
Chair of Defense: Dr. Mohamed El-Darieby, Software Systems Engineering
i
ABSTRACT
Geology and seasonal weather variations govern the engineering properties of Avonlea
badlands in Saskatchewan, Canada. Three surface sediments exhibiting distinct lithologic
variations were found: a steep and fissured sandstone; a mildly-sloped and popcorn-
textured mudrock; and a flat and eroded pediment. The variation in material composition
and the water availability conditions increase the saturation-desaturation cycle that
ultimately affect material behavior. The fines content increased from dry to wet state with
17% to 33% for sandstone, 4% to 98% for mudrock, and 21% to 42% for pediment. The
water adsorption capacity was found to be highest for mudrock (wl = 96% and wp = 47%)
followed by sandstone (wl = 39% and wp = 31%) and then by pediment (wl = 31% and
wp= 23%). The SWCC of sandstone and mudrock showed bimodal distributions with a
low AEV (6 kPa and 9 kPa) pertaining to drainage through cracks and a high AEV (160
kPa and 92 kPa) associated with flow through the soil matrix. The pediment followed a
unimodal SWCC with a single matrix AEV of 4 kPa. The saturated hydraulic
conductivity for sandstone, mudrock and pediment measured 8.5 x 10-6
m/sec, 4.0 x 10-8
m/sec, and 1.8 x 10-5
m/sec respectively. XRD analyses indicated that the major clay
minerals present were 14% illite (micaceous clay) in sandstone, 2.3% smectite, 7%
kaolinite and 3.1% illite in mudrock while 3.8% illite in pediment. Mudrock was
identified as the severe swelling potential badland sediment if desiccated. Overall, the
swelling potential observed for sandstone, mudrock and pediment was approximately
19%, 102%, and 2% respectively.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I express my sincere thanks to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research for
providing financial support in the course of this research.
I would like to express my deepest appreciation to my supervisor Dr. Shahid
Azam, who has made available his continuous support, technical expertise, enthusiasm
and without whose help and guidance; the thesis wouldn‟t have been successful.
I also thank Mr. Pete Gutiw, the Laboratory Instructor for his technical support in
the laboratory and field visits.
My friends namely Imran, Kashif, Kamran and colleagues from University of
Regina Geotechnical group supported me. I want to thank them for all their help, support
and valuable hints. Especially I am obliged to Dr. Ragunanadan for his support and
encouragement.
Special thanks to my uncle, Mr. Shamim-ullah for his endless support, guidance
and motivation. Finally I want to dedicate this thesis to my parents and my auntie Mrs.
Shaheen for their unconditional support and love.
iii
POST DEFFENCE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The time and inputs of Mr. Harpreet S. Panesar (external examiner) from the Ministry of
Highways and Infrastructure, Saskatchewan, Dr. Kelvin Ng (supervisory committee
member) and Dr. Mohamed El-Derieby (thesis defense chair) from the Faculty of
Engineering, University of Regina, and Dr. Ian M. Coulson (supervisory committee
member) from the Faculty of Geology are appreciated for serving on my thesis
committee.
iv
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .................................................................................................. ii
POST DEFFENCE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. vi
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES ........................................................................................ ix
LIST OF APPENDIX FIGURES....................................................................................... xi
CHAPTER 1 ....................................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Problem statement ................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Research Objectives ................................................................................................ 3
1.3 Thesis Outline ......................................................................................................... 3
CHAPTER 2 ....................................................................................................................... 4
LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................ 4
2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 4
2.2 Global Distribution ................................................................................................. 4
2.3 Badlands in Canadian Prairies ................................................................................ 8
2.4 Regional Geology and Climate ............................................................................... 8
2.5 Soil Composition .................................................................................................. 11
2.5.2 Cohesionless Soils ........................................................................................ 13
2.5.3 Cohesive Soils ............................................................................................... 15
2.6 Geohydrological Characteristics ........................................................................... 18
2.6.1 Soil Water Characteristics Curve .................................................................. 18
2.6.1.1 Factors Affecting SWCC ..................................................................... 21
2.6.1.2 Methods for Determining SWCC ........................................................ 22
2.6.2 Hydraulic Conductivity ................................................................................. 24
2.6.2.1 Factors Affecting Hydraulic Conductivity .......................................... 25
2.6.2.2 Methods for Determining Hydraulic Conductivity ............................. 25
2.7 Swelling and Shrinkage Characteristics ................................................................ 26
2.7.1 Factors Affecting Swelling and Shrinkage ................................................... 27
2.7.1.1 Methods for Determining Swelling ..................................................... 28
v
2.7.1.2 Method for Determining Shrinkage ..................................................... 29
2.8 Summary ............................................................................................................... 29
CHAPTER 3 ..................................................................................................................... 31
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY...................................................................................... 31
3.1 Field Investigation ................................................................................................ 31
3.2 Test Program ......................................................................................................... 31
3.3 Geotechnical Index Properties .............................................................................. 32
3.4 Mineralogical Analyses ........................................................................................ 34
3.5 Soil Water Characteristic Curve ........................................................................... 35
3.6 Hydraulic Conductivity Test ................................................................................. 38
3.7 Swelling Potential Test ......................................................................................... 38
3.7 Swell-shrink Test .................................................................................................. 39
CHAPTER 4 ..................................................................................................................... 42
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ....................................................................................... 42
4.1 Field Investigation ................................................................................................ 42
4.2 Geotechnical Index Properties .............................................................................. 45
4.3 Mineralogical Composition .................................................................................. 50
4.4 Soil Water Characteristics Curve .......................................................................... 52
4.5 Hydraulic Conductivity ......................................................................................... 57
4.6 Swelling Potential ................................................................................................. 58
4.7 Swell-Shrink Behavior .......................................................................................... 61
CHAPTER 5 ..................................................................................................................... 66
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................................... 66
5.1 Summary and Conclusions ...................................................................................... 66
5.2 Recommendations ................................................................................................... 67
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 69
APPENDIX ....................................................................................................................... 80
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Summary of badlands in humid, semi-arid and arid environment ............................. 7
Table 4.1: Summary of geotechnical index properties ............................................................. 48
Table 4.2: Summary of samples mineralogical composition .................................................... 53
Table 4.3: Summary of the soil water characteristics curves .................................................... 56
Table 4.4: Summary of free swelling test ................................................................................. 62
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Badlands in humid, semi-arid and arid environment ....................................... 6
Figure 2.2: Typical badland profile in the Canadian prairies ............................................. 9
Figure 2.3: Seasonal weather variations at Avonlea ......................................................... 12
Figure 2.4: Particle size ranges in soils (Mitchell and Soga, 2005). ................................. 14
Figure 2.5: (a) Silicon tetrahedron, (b) Silica tetrahedron arranged in a hexagonal network
and (c) Schematic representation of silica sheet (after Holtz and Kovacs, 1981) ............ 17
Figure 2.6: (a) Octahedral unit, (b) Sheet structure of octahedral units and (c) Schematic
representation of Aluminium sheet (after Holtz and Kovacs, 1981) ................................ 17
Figure 2.7: Schematic diagram of the clay mineral structure of (a) kaolinite, (b)
montmorillonite, and (c) illite (after Holz and Kovacs 1981) .......................................... 19
Figure 2.8: A conceptual model for soil water characteristics curve showing three
different zones (from Sillers et al., 2001) ......................................................................... 20
Figure 3.1: Field, laboratory and numerical modeling program ....................................... 33
Figure 3.2: Test setup for measuring soil suction: (a) Extractor (b) Potentiameter .......... 37
Figure 3.3: Guelph permeameter test setup for determining field-saturated hydraulic
conductivity....................................................................................................................... 40
Figure 4.1: Geomorphological layout of Avonlea badland site ........................................ 43
Figure 4. 2: Avonlea badland features such as sizes, slope angles, and shapes of the
landforms .......................................................................................................................... 43
Figure 4.3: Surface features of Avonlea badland materials such as color and texture ..... 46
Figure 4.4: Grain size distribution curve for the investigated sediments: (a) sandstone; (b)
mudrock; and (c) pediment ............................................................................................... 49
viii
Figure 4.5: Mineralogy of Avonlea badland sediments .................................................... 51
Figure 4.6: Soil water characteristics curve for the investigated sediments: (a) sandstone;
(b) mudrock; and (c) pediment ......................................................................................... 55
Figure 4.7: Swelling potential for Avonlea badland sediments ........................................ 60
Figure 4.8: Swell-shrink curve for Avonlea badland sediments ....................................... 65
ix
LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES
Table 1: Results from field water content and dry density for sandstone, mudrock and
pediment ............................................................................................................................ 81
Table 2: Results from specific gravity for sandstone ........................................................ 82
Table 3: Results from specific gravity for mudrock ......................................................... 83
Table 4: Results from specific gravity for pediment ........................................................ 84
Table 5: Results for field void ratio (e), porosity (n) and Field degree of saturation (S) for
sandstone, mudrock and pediment .................................................................................... 84
Table 6: Results from plastic limit for sandstone ............................................................. 85
Table 7: Results from liquid limit for sandstone .............................................................. 85
Table 8: Results from plastic limit for mudrock ............................................................... 86
Table 9: Results from liquid limit for sandstone .............................................................. 86
Table 10: Results from plastic limit for pediment ............................................................ 87
Table 11: Results from liquid limit for sandstone ............................................................ 87
Table 12: Results from sieve analysis for sandstone (dry) ............................................... 88
Table 13: Results from sieve analysis for mudrock (dry) ................................................. 88
Table 14: Results from sieve analysis for pediment (dry) ................................................ 89
Table 15: Results from sieve analysis for sandstone (wet) ............................................... 89
Table 16: Results from sieve analysis for mudrock (wet) ................................................ 90
Table 17: Results from sieve analysis for pediment (wet) ................................................ 90
Table 18: Results from hydrometer analysis for sandstone with calgon .......................... 91
Table 19: Results from hydrometer analysis for mudrock................................................ 92
Table 20: Results from hydrometer analysis for pediment with calgon ........................... 93
x
Table 21: Results from hydrometer analysis for sandstone without calgon ..................... 94
Table 22: Results from hydrometer analysis for mudrock without calgon ....................... 95
Table 23: Results from hydrometer analysis for pediment without calgon ...................... 96
Table 24: Results from soil-water characteristics curve determination for sandstone ..... 97
Table 25: Results from soil-water characteristics curve determination for mudrock ....... 98
Table 26: Results from soil-water characteristics curve determination for pediment ...... 99
Table 27: Results from Guelph permeameter test for sandstone .................................... 100
Table 28: Results from Guelph permeameter test for mudrock ...................................... 101
Table 29: Results from Guelph permeameter test for pediment ..................................... 102
Table 30: Results from free swelling test for sandstone in a cylinder ............................ 103
Table 31: Results from free swelling test for mudrock in a cylinder .............................. 104
Table 32: Results from free swelling test for pediment in a cylinder ............................. 104
Table 33: Results from free swelling test for sandstone in an odometer ........................ 105
Table 34: Results from free swelling test for mudrock in an odometer .......................... 105
Table 35: Results from free swelling test for pediment in an odometer ......................... 106
Table 36: Results from swell-shrink curve for sandstone ............................................... 107
Table 37: Results from swell-shrink curve for mudrock ................................................ 107
Table 38: Results from swell-shrink curve for pediment................................................ 108
xi
LIST OF APPENDIX FIGURES
Figure 1: Liquid limit graph for sandstone ....................................................................... 85
Figure 2: Liquid limit graph for mudrock ......................................................................... 86
Figure 3: Liquid limit graph for pediment ........................................................................ 87
CHAPTER 1
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Problem statement
Badlands are known for their rugged terrains and negligible vegetation. Such deposits are
commonly found in arid and semi-arid regions of the globe and possess materials from
sands through clays (Imumorin and Azam, 2011). The geohydrological properties,
derived from geologic history and climatic conditions, of the various badland sediments
govern landform evolution and engineering behavior. The Avonlea badland (latitude
50.12827 and longitude 104.59007) in southern Saskatchewan provides a typical example
of the interplay between geology and climate. The area started to develop around 15,000
years B.P. when the overlying glaciers began to melt. The preceding scouring action of
the advancing glaciers rendered the surface rocks easily erodible. The melting ice cut the
exposed materials and created steep-sided channels and deeply incised rills. With
increasing floods, huge volumes of less resistant Cretaceous rocks of the Eastend
formation were washed away and deposited on the plains (Byers, 1959).
The present-day seasonal weather variations dictate the geohydrological
properties of the deposited materials. Overall, the area falls at the borderline of a semi-
arid (BSk) and a humid continental (Dfb) climate according to the Köppen climate
classification system. The average monthly temperature varies between -15oC in January
to 19.6oC in July with an annual mean of 3.2
oC. Likewise, the average annual
precipitation is 366 mm with a minimum of 10 mm in February and a maximum of 64
mm in June. Precipitation occurs as winter snowfall (November to March) that freezes
the soil and as summer rainfall (April to October) that results in high surface runoff.
CHAPTER 1
2
Further, temperature variations between day and night or successive rainfall events
during the summer result in cyclic saturation-desaturation of the exposed materials. Of
particular interest are the swelling and shrinkage properties of the materials because of
the presence of expansive clay minerals in such deposits. A clear understanding of the
water movement through these surface sediments is required from an engineering
perspective.
The town of Avonlea is an important junction for the transportation of agricultural
goods and energy supplies through highways, railways, and pipelines in Canada and to
the United States of America. Part of the existing infrastructure and future expansion
around the town has to be constructed in the badland areas. Material erosion causes
serious damage to these vital facilities in both a vertical and horizontal direction. The
former causes such problems as potholes in roadways, subsidence in railway tracks and
sagging in pipelines between the supporting posts while partial washout around bridge
abutments and retaining walls and channeling on embankment shoulders leads to lateral
instability. These problems are multiplied when the supporting or the supported soils are
periodically and/or differentially wetted and dried. Given the rapid development of civil
infrastructure in the Canadian Prairies, there is a growing need to determine the
suitability of marginal lands for construction.
The main focus in this thesis is on the saturation-desaturation of the surface
sediments in response to seasonal weather changes. A comprehensive research program
was designed that includes field investigations and laboratory testing. This study did not
investigate the frost susceptibility during the winter time when the ground is
predominantly covered with snow.
CHAPTER 1
3
1.2 Research Objectives
The main objective of this research was to determine the engineering properties of
Avonlea badland sediments. The specific objectives of this research are as follows;
1. To conduct field visits for the understanding of site geology, geomorphology, and
surface sediments.
2. To characterize the badland sediments using geotechnical index properties
3. To determine soil composition of badland sediments using X-ray diffraction.
4. To determine the soil water characteristics curve of badland sediments at the field
dry unit weight using extractor and potentiameter.
5. To determine field saturated hydraulic conductivity using guelph permeameter.
6. To determine the swelling potential of badland sediments using conventional
odometer and graduated cylinder.
7. To determine the swell-shrink path for badland sediments at the field dry unit
weight using wax method.
1.3 Thesis Outline
Chapter 1 introduces badlands, the problem prevailing in the area and demonstrates the
research objectives. Chapter 2 presents a literature review related to different types of
badlands, development of minerals, soil water characteristics curve, hydraulic
conductivity and swelling and shrinkage. Chapter 3 explains and methodology of the
research program. Chapter 4 describes field investigation, laboratory, field and numerical
modeling results. Chapter 5 presents the summary and conclusions acquired from the
current research. A list of references and appendices are also provided at the end.
CHAPTER 2
4
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
Badlands are rugged terrains of poorly consolidated materials or poorly cemented
bedrock such as marls, mudstone or shale with sparse vegetation cover. The slopes are
generally dissected by a dense drainage network within v-shaped valleys (Bryan and
Yair, 1982). Such deposits are mainly found in arid and semi-arid regions and possess
materials from sands through clays. Different types of geomaterials are generally
encountered in such landscapes as evident from lithologic variations in composition and
texture (Azam 2008) and show different erosion resistance (Imumorin, 2009). The main
factor controlling the development of badlands is the character of bedrock, as when the
caprock is removed the less resistant soft rock erodes quickly upon wetting. The wetting
and drying of badland surfaces results in variation in strength and stability that markedly
affect their engineering properties and rate of geomorphic processes.
2.2 Global Distribution
Figure 2.1 shows various badlands in humid, semi-arid and arid areas of the world while
Table 2.1 further identifies their material type. The figure and the table point out their
different annual precipitation conditions ranging from 2000 mm to 90 mm and indicate
that the evolution of these badlands does not depend only on precipitation but its
interplay with the geological materials (Imumorin and Azam, 2011). Humid badland are
found in mountainous areas such as the Blaenavon (Wales, United Kingdom) and Tai
Lam Chung region (Hong Kong) where the annual mean precipitation is 700 mm or
higher which mostly occur at high intensity. Clotet et al. (1988) showed that such kinds
CHAPTER 2
5
of badlands are geologically younger than the others. Their formation is triggered by
mass movements and that may be caused by degradation of vegetation due to human
impact. Likewise, semi-arid badlands occur in areas with annual precipitation between
200 mm and 700 mm. Their vegetation cover is usually thick and examples of such
badlands are reported in Figure 2.1 denoted by 6 to 18. According to Campbell (1987),
the formation of semi-arid badlands is associated with fine-grained argillaceous
sediments under the generic name „shale‟. Shale may be bedded silt, mud-shale, clay
stone or mudstone that depends on its clay content, degree of lamination, undulation and
bedding (Potter at al. 1984). Arid badlands occur in areas with less than 200 mm of
annual precipitation. Because of the low annual precipitation the vegetation cover is thin
with less disintegration of the slopes which is exclusively controlled by the characteristics
of bedrock and regolith. Examples of badlands in arid regions are Northern Negev, Israel
and Borrego Springs, California, USA as reported in Figure 2.1. Both arid and semi-arid
climate favor the formation of expansive clay minerals as they are formed in areas where
the annual evapotranspiration exceeds the precipitation (Chen, 1988). These areas favor
extreme disintegration, strong hydration and restrained leaching and an abundance of
cations (Na+, Ca
2+, Mg
2+, SO4
2+, and Fe
3+) in pore water that help in the formation of
smectite and illite minerals which are the principal constituents of expansive soils
(Mitchell and Soga, 2005). The agents responsible for cementation such as the clay
minerals, iron oxide and calcite play a significant role in the behavior of these badland
materials, when exposed to alternate saturation-desaturation cycle and the resulting
mechanical disintegration (Cerda, 2002).
CHAPTER 2
6
Figure 2.1: Badlands in humid, semi-arid and arid environment
CHAPTER 2
7
Table 2.1: Summary of badlands in humid, semi-arid and arid environment
Location
References
Annual
rainfall
(mm)
Materials
Humid
1Paricutin, Michoacán,
Mexico
Segerstrom (1950)
2000
Recent (1943) basaltic andesite volcanic ash
deposits of gravels to dust size particles
2Tai Lam Chung region,
Hong Kong
Lam (1977)
1900
Deeply weathered (80m) Jurassic granite regolith
of sand, gravel, kaolinite and illite
3Blaenavon, Wales, United
Kingdom
Haigh (1978)
1100
Colliery spoil mound and open-pit fill. Fine coal
washing of gravel to clay size particles
4Lower Swansea Valley
Wales, United Kingdom
Bridges and Harding
(1971)
1100
Infertile acidic sandy-clay loam soils derived from
Solifluction redistributed glacial materials on
industrial wasteland 5Perth Amboy, New Jersey,
USA
Schumm (1956b)
1090
Back fill clay pit, homogenous mix of sand, silt &
clay Semi-arid
6Central Huange (Yellow
river) valley, China
Liu et al. (1985)
500
Pleistocene loess mainly comprising of silts &
clays (Smectite, illite and kaolinite)
7Agri-basin, Basilicata, Italy
Alexander (1982)
450 Pleistocene marine clays(smectite) and silts with
interbedded sand, soft shale and mudstone
8Little Missouri Badlands,
North Dakota, USA
Clayton and Tinker
(1971)
450
Palaeocene clays (smectite, chlorite and kaolinite)
and mica rich materials
9Kraft Badlands, Wyoming,
USA
Bergstrom and
Schumm (1981)
450
Tertiary sandstone
10Badlands National
Monument, South Dakota,
USA
Smith (1958)
450
Oligocene poorly consolidated clays (smectite and
illite) and silts with channel sandstone
11Western Colorado, USA
Schumm (1964)
450 Cretaceous marine shale with thin coal/sandstone
lenses rich in smectite, illite, chlorite, and mica 12Avonlea Badlands,
Saskatchewan, Canada
366
Eastend Formation containing sandstone and
mudrock in layers 13Cheyenne river basin,
Nebraska, USA
Hadley and
Schumm (1961)
355
Oligocene clay (smectite), sandstone interbedded
with mudstone, siltstone and shale 14Kasserine area, central
Tunisia
De Ploey (1974)
350
Cretaceous marls illite, Kaolinite and smectite with
overlying clay loam and sandy soils 15Red Deer valley, Alberta,
Canada
Campbell (1970)
350
Upper cretaceous highly smectite shale interbedded
with clay-iron stone and sandstone 16Almeria-Alicante region,
Spain
Harvey (1982)
350
Cenozoic and Triassic marls, silt, shale and
sandstone
17Riff mountains, Morocco
Imeson et al. (1982)
300 Pliocene marine sediments of alluvial and colluvial
deposits clay mainly illite and kaolinite
18Chaco river basin, New
Mexico, USA
Wells and Guitierrez
(1982)
220
Cretaceous friable sandstone thin coal beds and
thick mudstone of Kirtland and Fruitland
Formations
Arid
19Borrego Springs,
California, USA
Brown (1983)
135
Pleistocene poorly consolidated gravelly sand and
intercalated lacustrine clay and silt 20Northern Negev, Israel Yair et al. (1980) 90 Palaeocene and soft clay
Superscripts denotes dots on figure 2.1
CHAPTER 2
8
2.3 Badlands in Canadian Prairies
Figure 2.2 gives a typical badland profile in the Canadian prairies modified after
Campbell (1989). The profile shows three different materials with different slopes which
are steep sandstone, mildly-sloped mudrock and a relatively flat pediment that exist at the
lowest elevation. Sandstone slope is intercepted by an ironstone layer dividing the slope
into upper and lower slope. The upper slope is characterized by shallow rills while the
lower slope is identified by deeply incised rills and gullies developed due to the
concentrated flow of rainfall. Drainage in sandstone slope is often directed through a
deep pipe network that triggers the sediment movement through these rills and fissures
(Hardenbicker and Crozier, 2002). The mid-slope is occupied by a popcorn layer called
the mudrock. Upon precipitation the mudrock layer seals and protect the un-weathered
mudrock. The engineering properties such as the swelling and shrinkage on saturation-
desaturation are primarily controlled by the soil texture, clay mineralogy and water
chemistry (Azam, 2007). Such volume change soils can affect the functional drainage
network between different storm events; for example, the hydrated expansive clays can
cutoff many desiccation cracks thereby affecting the bypass flow (Faulkner et al. 2003).
Pediment occurs at the lowest elevation of the area. The absence of shrinkage cracks on
the surface of pediments favors nearly uniform sheet flow for most of the rainfalls
(Howard, 1994). Overall, the three different materials respond differently to the same
rainfall events that eventually affect their engineering behavior.
2.4 Regional Geology and Climate
According to Trimble (1980), the interior regions of the Canadian prairies are divided
into three major rock layers; Oldman Formation (developed during the Cretaceous and up
CHAPTER 2
9
Figure 2.2: Typical badland profile in the Canadian prairies
CHAPTER 2
10
to 100 m thick), Dinosaur park Formation (mainly deposited by meandering rivers and up
to 80 m thick) and the Bearpaw Formation. The geological history of Avonlea badland
begins during the Cretaceous period about 70 x 106 B.P when most of southern
Saskatchewan and Alberta was covered by the shallow Bearpaw Sea. Large rivers from
the west carried clay and silt which settled out upon the sea floor. These sediments were
compressed to form dark grey, friable shale, now called the Bearpaw Formation, which
forms the base of the Avonlea badlands. Braman et al. (1999) reported that soil formation
of southern Saskatchewan includes Bearpaw Formation which was deposited during late
Cretaceous in a marine environment, Eastend Formation which is partially a marine
deposit, Whitemud Formation (lacustrine deposit), Frenchman formation and Ravenscrag
Formation (representing a non-marine deposit of Tertiary age). By about 68 x 106 B.P the
Bearpaw Sea had retreated to the east leading to the development of the area as a forested
and semi-tropical coastal region. During this environment mud and sand were deposited
within deltas, rivers and swamps on top of the Bearpaw shale. The brown and grey
sandstones and the interbedded grey shale originated in brackish fresh water, whereas the
thin coal layers developed from the decayed vegetation in swamps. These rocks make up
the thick Eastend Formation which evolved to the present day Avonlea badlands over
time.
The development of badlands began around 15,000 years B.P. when the overlying
glaciers started to melt. The preceding scouring action of the advancing glaciers rendered
the surface rocks easily erodible. Later, the water formed by the melting ice cut the
exposed materials, creating steep-sided channels and deeply incised rills. The fluvial
activity intensified as the runoff increased to form floods, such that huge volumes of less
CHAPTER 2
11
resistant Cretaceous rocks of the Eastend Formation were washed away and deposited on
the plains (Byers 1959).
The harsh climate prevailing in the Canadian prairies and the favorable geological
settings provide a natural environment for the development of badlands (Imumorin and
Azam, 2011). The Avonlea badlands are located at latitude 50°00´ N and longitude
105°00´ W. Based on the Koppen climate classification system, the area falls at the
borderline of the semi-arid climate (BSk) and the humid continental climate (Dfb). Figure
2.3 shows the average monthly temperature and the average monthly precipitation from
1971 to 2000 respectively. The average annual temperature in the area is 3.2oC with the
lowest value of -15oC in January and the highest value of 19.6
oC in July. Likewise, the
average annual precipitation is 366 mm with a minimum value of 10 mm in Feb and a
maximum value of 64 mm in June.
The precipitation and temperature variation at Avonlea govern the development of
badlands. Precipitation occurs both as winter snowfall (November to March) that freezes
the soil and as summer rainfall (April to October) that results in high surface runoffs.
During the summer months, temperature difference between two successive rainfall
events results in cyclic saturation-desaturation that enhances the mechanical
disintegration of the surface materials. Azam et al. (2007) identified several interrelated
processes (abrasion, particle crushing and growth of mineral and ice crystals) that affect
the geohydrological properties of soils. Overall, the different rainfall events and
saturation-desaturation governed the engineering behavior of the investigated site.
2.5 Soil Composition
Soil texture is a qualitative classification tool used in both field and laboratory to assess
CHAPTER 2
12
Figure 2.3: Seasonal weather variations at Avonlea
Month
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Pre
cip
itati
on (
mm
)
Wilcox station (25 km NE of Avonlea)
Ormiston station (30 km SW of Avonlea)
Jan MayApr NovJun AugFeb DecMar Jul Sep Oct
1971 - 2000 data measured at
weather stations
-20
-10
0
10
20
Tem
pera
ture
(oC
)
Wilcox station
(25 km NE of Avonlea)
Ormiston station (30 km SW of Avonlea)
1971 - 2000 data measured at
weather stations
Mean Annual
Temperature = 3.2 oC
35.5 oC
54 mm
Mean Annual
Precipitation = 366 mm
CHAPTER 2
13
soil physical properties. The classes are distinguished into gravel, sand, silt and clay
using sieve analysis, as shown in Figure 2.4. Particles greater than 4.75 mm are termed as
gravel, particles between 4.75 mm and 0.075 mm are sands, particles between 0.075 and
0.002 mm are termed as silt and particles below 0.002 mm are termed as clay. Clay can
refer to both size and classes of minerals. As a size it refers to all constituents of soil
smaller than 0.002 mm. As a clay mineral it refers to a specific group of minerals which
are identified by high plasticity when mixed with water, a net negative charge and high
resistance to weathering. Each size of soil has significantly different engineering
properties.
2.5.2 Cohesionless Soils
Cohesionless soil (sands and silts) are composed of bulky non-clay particles as they are
the weathering products of the pre-existing soils and rocks. Igneous rocks are the original
source materials for the presence of most soils. By composition igneous rocks consists
60% of feldspar, 12% of quartz, 4% of micas and 8% are the other minerals (Mitchell and
Soga, 2005). The other minerals are carbonate minerals which occur mainly as calcite or
dolomite and can be found as bulky particles, shells, or formed from solution. Carbonates
mainly occur in shallow sea sediments whereas sulfate minerals mainly occur in the form
of gypsum (CaSO4.2H2O) which is abundant in semi-arid and arid regions. Aluminum
and iron are also present in some soils and are found mainly in tropical regions.
Quartz is the most abundant soil mineral in most of the soils with small amount of
feldspar and mica. Quartz is an oxide or silicate mineral and there is no weak bond which
gives it the ability to be present in every soil mass. Feldspars are silicate minerals in
which part of the silicon is replaced by aluminum. This replacement produces excess neg-
CHAPTER 2
14
Figure 2.4: Particle size ranges in soils (Mitchell and Soga, 2005).
Gravel Sand Silt Clay
No. 4 Sieve No. 200 Sieve
Mostly platy particles
Mostly clay mineral
Mostly non-clay mineral
Mostly bulky particles
CHAPTER 2
15
-ative charge and is balanced by cations such as potassium, calcium, sodium and barium.
These cations are large enough to make an open structure with low bond strengths
between units. As a result of this weak bond, feldspar percentage is less in soils as
compared to their abundance in igneous rocks. Micas have sheet structures that are
stacked onto one another and are held together by a bond of moderate strength. These
sheets are composed of tetrahedral and octahedral units. Because of the weak bond they
exhibit high compressibility when loaded and large swelling when unloaded.
Sand and silt particles are found in different shapes and can be defined by
angularity and roundness which are angular, subangular, subrounded, rounded and well
rounded. These shapes in a soil mass arrange themselves in a way that gives it anisotropic
properties. The surface texture of these grains influences their strength properties and
stress-deformation.
2.5.3 Cohesive Soils
Cohesive soils (clay) belong to the family of soil minerals termed as phyllosilicates
(Mitchell and Soga, 2005). Their unit cell has a residual net negative charge which is
balanced by cation adsorption from the solution. They are formed as a result of the
weathering process from a parent material and are called secondary minerals. The
weathering process may be physical or chemical which is the decomposition process of
parent material into various sizes, composition and shapes. Physical processes include
unloading, thermal expansion and contraction, crystal growth, colloidal plucking, and
organic activity followed by chemical weathering that may include hydration, oxidation
and carbonation. According to Mitchell and Soga (2005), chemical weathering process
can change the soil particles at the sub-particle level and may evolve new clay mineral.
CHAPTER 2
16
Clay mineral structures are made up of combination of two simple structural
units, the silicon-oxygen tetrahedron and the aluminum or magnesium octahedron (Das,
2008). These structural units arrange themselves in a manner showing different sheet
layers and characterize different clay mineral groups such as silica tetrahedron and
octahedron. The silica tetrahedron consists of four oxygen atoms surrounding the silica
atom. Many clay minerals are made up of the silica tetrahedrons which are interconnected
in a sheet structure. In the sheet structure, three of the four oxygen of the silica
tetrahedron are shared to form a hexagonal net, as shown in Figure 2.5. The octahedral
sheet structure is composed of magnesium or aluminum in octahedral coordination with
oxygen or hydroxyls. When many magnesium octahedral sheet structures combined they
form brucite and when aluminum octahedral sheet combine they form gibbsite sheet as
shown in Figure 2.6.
Figure 2.7 shows the schematic representation of common clay minerals. Figure
2.7 (a) gives the alternating silica and octahedral sheets representing kaolinite which is a
1:1 clay mineral. The bonding between the alternating silica and octahedral sheets are
both van der wall‟s forces and hydrogen bonds. Kaolinite clay mineral does not show any
interlayer expansion in the presence of water due to hydrogen bond. Figure 2.7 (b) gives
a silica-alumina structure which is a 2:1 clay mineral called montmorillonite. The
interlayer bonding is only due to van der wall‟s forces and can easily swell in the
presence of water and exchangeable ions. Similar to montmorillonite, and as shown in
Figure 2.7 (c), illite also has a 2:1 clay mineral structure where the inter-layer bonding is
due to potassium ions (Holtz and kovacs, 1981). Overall, these clay minerals have
variable specific surface area (m2/g) such as, for kaolinite it ranges from 10 - 20, for mon-
CHAPTER 2
17
Figure 2.5: (a) Silicon tetrahedron, (b) Silica tetrahedron arranged in a hexagonal network
and (c) Schematic representation of silica sheet (after Holtz and Kovacs, 1981)
Figure 2.6: (a) Octahedral unit, (b) Sheet structure of octahedral units and (c) Schematic
representation of Aluminum sheet (after Holtz and Kovacs, 1981)
CHAPTER 2
18
-tmorillonite it ranges from 700 - 840 and for illite it ranges from 65 - 100. The basal
spacing for kaolinite, montmorillonite and illite is 7.2 Å, 9.6 Å and 10 Å respectively.
2.6 Geohydrological Characteristics
Geohydrology defines the relation between geological materials and water, which flow
through it, that enhance changes in different features of the landform.
2.6.1 Soil Water Characteristics Curve
Soil water characteristics curve (SWCC) is a conceptual tool that helps in describing the
behavior of unsaturated soils (Vanapalli et al., 1999). It defines the corresponding
constitutive relationship between either water content (i.e., gravimetric or volumetric) or
degree of saturation (S) with suction.
Sillers et al., 2001 developed an instructive model of SWCC showing three
different zones of desaturation as shown in Figure 2.8. The entire SWCC curve can be
approximated as a composite of three straight lines plotted on a semi-log plot of water
content versus suction. The three straight lines are: (i) a horizontal line from 100%
saturation to the air entry value (AEV) designated as capillary saturation, (ii) a steep
downward slope from the air entry value to the residual state designated as desaturation
zone, and (iii) a flat downward slope from the residual state to complete dry state
designated as residual saturation. Each straight line is categorized by a change in slope at
the transition points. AEV is defined as the suction value at which the intrusion of air
into bigger pore spaces occurs under the action of capillarity and water content remains
constant from 0 kPa to AEV. The water content drastically decreases to the residual water
content as suction exceeds AEV. The residual water content is the water content at which
the adsorbed water is discontinuous and its corresponding suction is called the residual s-
CHAPTER 2
19
Figure 2.7: Schematic diagram of the clay mineral structure of (a) kaolinite, (b)
montmorillonite, and (c) illite (after Holtz and Kovacs 1981)
CHAPTER 2
20
Figure 2.8: A conceptual model for soil water characteristics curve showing three
different zones (from Sillers et al., 2001)
10-1
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
Soil suction (kPa)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Deg
ree
of
satu
rati
on (
%)
Capillary saturation
Zone of desaturation Residual saturation
AEV
Residual suction
Residual water content
CHAPTER 2
21
-oil suction. The water content beyond the residual state is difficult to remove by the
application of suction. For complete desaturation of soils the suction required is 106 kPa.
2.6.1.1 Factors Affecting SWCC
The SWCC for a soil is typically inverted S-shaped (Sillers, 1997). The shape of the
curve is primarily affected by the following soil properties: (a) grain size distribution that
influences pore connectivity and tortuosity; (b) dry unit weight that is related to the total
pore space in a soil; and (c) clay mineral types and amounts that dictate the amount of
adsorbed water.
Grain size distribution affects the entire SWCC: at low suction and sandy soils,
water movement is controlled by capillarity whereas at high suction and clayey soil,
water is adsorbed in the form of thin film. This is because the sand particles which have a
very small specific surface area and negligible surface charge and vice versa for clay. The
AEV and residual suction is lowest for sand followed by silt and then clay.
Pham et al. (2008) reported that magnitude of the initial slope (suction between 0
kPa and AEV) depends on the compaction magnitude and the geological stress history,
both of which govern the dry unit weight. When the initial dry unit weight is small, the
pore spaces are relatively large and hence absorb more water. Upon an increase of
suction at the saturated state the water is drained quickly up to the AEV and results in a
steep slope. Conversely, the soil absorbs a very little amount of water as the initial dry
unit weight increases, this is because of the soil grains that are packed very closely to
each other such that the pore spaces are small and allow very little amount of water.
The saturated water content and the air entry value generally increases with the
clay mineral type and amount. In general the AEV and residual suction will increase with
CHAPTER 2
22
the clay content and the amount of electrochemically active clay minerals.
2.6.1.2 Methods for Determining SWCC
Several techniques have been suggested and studied for the assessment of SWCC. These
techniques include direct laboratory measurement, indirect estimation from grain size
curves and from knowledge-based database systems. Techniques used for direct
measuring of SWCC in the laboratory are best explained in the ASTM Standard Test
Methods for Determination of the Soil Water Characteristics Curve for Desorption Using
a Hanging Column, Pressure Extractor, Chilled Mirror Hygrometer, and/or Centrifuge (D
6836-02). This standard describes the following five test methods for determining
SWCC.
Methods A-C – These methods determine SWCC in terms of matric suction
where various predetermined suctions are applied to the soil and the resultant water
contents are measured. Saturated soil samples are placed in contact with a saturated
porous plate and the desired matric suction is applied. In method A, during applied
suction the pore water pressure reduces and the pore gas pressure is maintained at
atmospheric condition whereas in method B and C the pore water pressure is maintained
at atmospheric condition and the pore gas pressure is raised. The applied suction causes
water to flow from soil sample into a graduated burette until equilibrium conditions
(water flow cease) are established. Water content for method A and B is then measured
from the volume of water expelled while in method C it is measured gravimetrically.
Method A is best for measuring suction of coarser soils between 0 – 80 kPa whereas B
and C are best for measuring suction of fine grained soils between 0 – 1500 kPa.
Method D – Method D defines SWCC in terms of total suction. In this method
CHAPTER 2
23
water content is controlled and the corresponding total suction is measured. Samples are
prepared using two approaches. In one approach, identical samples are prepared with
different water contents to cover the entire range that will be used to explain SWCC. In
second approach only one sample is used, which is tested and dried to lower water
content and then tested again. The procedure is repeated to obtain the desired water
contents and their corresponding total suction. This method is suitable for measuring
suction of soils at the dry end of SWCC between 500 kPa – 100 MPa. Suction is
measured using Kelvin‟s equation, which can be written as:
(ᴪ = RT/X ln(p/po)) [1]
Where: R = universal gas constant (8.31 j/mol*ok), T = temperature of the sample
(ok), X = molecular mass of water (18.01 kg/kmol) and p/po= Relative humidity.
Method E – Method E develops SWCC in terms of matric suction. In this method
a soil sample is placed in a support chamber of a centrifuge and is subjected to a
centrifugal force. Different angular velocities are then applied using the centrifuge that
displaces water from soil and is collected at the base of the support chamber, called a
calibrated cylinder. SWCC is then developed by plotting matric suction (angular velocity)
with the measured volume of displaced water collected at each angular velocity. This
method is suitable for suction measurement of coarse grained soils between 0 – 120 kPa.
The above mentioned laboratory tests are used for the determination of the soil
water characteristics curve based on either matric or total suction. Matric suction is
defined as ua - uw (ua is the pore air pressure and uw is the pore water pressure) where total
suction is the combination of matric and osmotic suction. Osmotic suction depends on
salt concentration present in the soil pores (Fredlund and Rahardjo 1993) and is equal to
CHAPTER 2
24
the total suction measured in the absence of salts and organic matter (such as roots,
leaves, etc.). For measuring suction, numerous suction measurement devices were used
for developing SWCC. Recently, tensiometers and pressure plate apparatus/pressure
membrane extractors have been used for measuring matric suction by Shah et al. (2006);
Puppala et al. (2006); Thakur et al. (2007); and Sreedeep and Singh (2011), whereas
transistors psychrometers and a dew-point potentimeter (WP4) have been used for
measuring total suction by Leong et al. (2003); Shah et al. (2006); Thakur et al. (2006,
2007) and Sreedeep and Singh (2011).
In summary, the above laboratory tests mentioned have their own limitations in
terms of suction measurement range and type of soil. Instruments employed for suction
measurement of soils without investigating soil type and its range of suction can result in
a SWCC that may not be representative. To take care of the soil type and instrument‟s
suction range, the pressure plate extractor (for fine grained soils) and Dew point
potentiameter (WP4-T) were used in the current research to measure suction at high
water content and low water content (dry end) respectively. The two mentioned
instruments when used in tandem obtain a descriptive SWCC that cover the entire curve
from low to high water contents (Shah et al. 2006).
2.6.2 Hydraulic Conductivity
Hydraulic conductivity is a soil property that expresses the flow of water through the soil
pores (Holtz and Kovacs, 1981). It is important for the design of many engineering works
when seepage of water is involved. It depends on grain size, void ratio or porosity of
soils, tortuosity and degree of saturation.
CHAPTER 2
25
2.6.2.1 Factors Affecting Hydraulic Conductivity
The grain size distribution influence hydraulic conductivity as it effects the pore
connectivity and tortuosity that describe the flow pattern through the soil. Void ratio
greatly affects the flow of water through the soil pores and is higher for fine grained
material. Degree of saturation (water content) significantly alters hydraulic conductivity
as all the void spaces are occupied by water. Clayey soils hydraulic conductivity changes
by eleven orders of magnitude with a change in saturation (Ito, 2009). Soils also show 2
to 3 orders of magnitude variation in hydraulic conductivity as a result of change in void
ratio or water content (Mitchell and Soga, 2005). Das (2008) reported that hydraulic
conductivity values vary widely for soils having different grain sizes and void ratio.
Some typical values of K (cm/sec) for saturated soils are; 100 - 1 for clean gravel, 1 –
0.01 for gravel, 0.01 – 0.001 for fine sand, 0.1 – 0.00001 for silty clay and < 0.000001 for
clays.
2.6.2.2 Methods for Determining Hydraulic Conductivity
Methods used for determining saturated hydraulic conductivity in the field are reported in
ASTM Standard Guide for Comparison of Field Methods for Determining Hydraulic
Conductivity in Vadose Zone (D5126/D5126M – 90). This guide gives an idea of the
overall standard test methods used for the determination of saturated hydraulic
conductivity in unsaturated soils. Test methods commonly used to determine field
saturated hydraulic conductivity are infiltrometer test method, single ring infiltrometer,
double ring infiltrometer, double tube test method, air entry permeameter, and borehole
permeameter.
The above stated methods determine saturated hydraulic conductivity that can be
CHAPTER 2
26
used to understand and estimate unsaturated soil properties. Each test method mentioned
has its own unique significance and use in the field. In summary, single and double-ring
infiltrometer measures surface field-saturated hydraulic conductivity in vertical direction
while the only shortcoming is that the wetting front diverges and leads to error in
measuring hydraulic conductivity. Sealed double ring infiltrometer are typically used for
clay liners (Dunn and Palmer, 1994) and because of the lack of portability and
complicated setup it is generally limited to measure field-saturated hydraulic conductivity
for a low permeability soils in the range between 10-11
m/sec to 10-7
m/sec (Havlena and
Stephens, 1992). The air-entry permeameter method avoids the divergence of wetting
front but it involves penetration of cylinder in a borehole that may disturb the soil fabrics.
It can measure vertical field-saturated hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10-9
or less; Guelph
permeameter measure as low as 1 x 10-9
(Sai and Anderson, 1990). Guelph permeameter
is a constant head borehole permeameter which is used in the present study that
determines a three-dimensional field-saturated hydraulic conductivity and gives the
ability of investigating subsurface layers within an advancing borehole (ASTM
D5126/D5126M - 90, Havlena and Stephens, 1992).
2.7 Swelling and Shrinkage Characteristics
Swelling and shrinkage of soils is important in determining heave and compression
(Mitchell and Soga, 2005). Soil heave mainly occur normal to the ground surface as
lateral swelling is usually inhibited by the adjacent soil (Jennings and Kerrich, 1962).
Shrinkage of soil occur because of the suction that introduce stress to the soil particles
and bring the soil particles closer to each other followed by a decrease in the overall
volume of soil. These processes in clayey soils occur because of seasonal fluctuation of
CHAPTER 2
27
climate conditions. Alternate saturation-desaturation can result in serious damage to
small buildings and highway pavements. According to Jones and Holtz (1973), shrinkage
and swelling soils cause $2.3 billion damages annually which are twice the annual cost of
the combined damage of all the natural hazards occurring in North America.
Several researchers have explained surface hydration theory correlating a water
molecule with the clay mineral (Azam and Ito, 2007; Low, 1992). The theory states that
water (a bipolar molecule) interact with negatively charged clay minerals and reduces a
chemical potential of the water molecule such that a gradient may develop that causes
more water flow into the system. Each clay mineral has its own specific surface area that
dictates their water adsorption capacity. Commonly found clay minerals like smectite
(specific surface area up to 800 m2/g), illite (specific surface area up to 100 m
2/g), and
kaolinite (specific surface of up to 15 m2/g) generates a swelling pressure of 100 kPa
having water contents of 400%, 50% and 7.5% respectively. This suggests that swelling
potential is highest for smectite followed by illite and kaolinite. Soils during the
shrinkage show different sets of deformation. Haines (1923) distinguished the
progressive drying path of soils into three different sets which are as follows: (a)
structural shrinkage (the stable bigger pores are emptied and the volume lost is greater
than the water lost), (b) normal shrinkage (the water lost from the matrix portion of soil
and the volume decrease is equal to the water lost) and (c) residual shrinkage (the water
lost is greater than the volume decrease as air enters into the voids and pulls the soil
particles closer due to suction).
2.7.1 Factors Affecting Swelling and Shrinkage
Factors affecting swelling and shrinkage of soils include the following: clay content,
CHAPTER 2
28
geological stress history and degree of saturation. Azam (2007) investigated swelling
potential of clay-sand mix to understand the effect of clay content. The mixtures (10%
clay to 40% clay) captured the transition from sand-like behavior to clay-like behavior.
Clay mineral type and amount fundamentally affect soil swelling and ultimately its
behavior. Variations in certain characteristics of expansive clay minerals can have major
effects on the swelling of soil (Mitchell and Soga, 2005). Geologically, soils can be
normally consolidated soils, when the present effective overburden pressure equals the
past effective overburden pressure, and over-consolidated soil, when the past effective
overburden pressures are greater than the present effective overburden pressure.
Generally over-consolidated clays tend to show more swelling behavior when in contact
with water (Mitchell and Soga, 2005). Degree of saturation (S) plays a vital role in the
swelling process as if „S‟ is high then little swelling is expected which means the entire
void spaces are filled with water and the opposite is true for a low degree of saturation.
Soils in arid and semi-arid regions are unsaturated most of the year and when
precipitation occurs on such soils these readily absorbs water and undergo swelling
followed by shrinkage upon subsequent drying (Yevnin and Zaslavsky, 1970).
2.7.1.1 Methods for Determining Swelling
Swelling of soils is customarily determined by following ASTM (D4546-06) test method.
This standard covers two alternative laboratory test methods for measuring free swell of
soils. These tests require the soil specimen to be restrained laterally and have access to
free water. (a) Method A – This method is primarily used to measure a one-dimensional
swelling in a laterally restrained and axially loaded consolidometer. The free swelling is
conducted only under the nominal seating pressure. The soil specimen is flooded with
CHAPTER 2
29
water followed by access to free water. During this time the magnitude of swelling is
denoted using digital dial gauge. (b) Method B – In this method soil specimen is loaded
to a specific vertical stress typically the in-situ vertical overburden pressure or a
particular design pressure. The magnitude of final swelling is calculated after movement
is negligible.
Ito and Azam (2010) mentioned that ASTM (D4546-06) test method using for
laboratory tests have several short comings using conventional apparatus that includes the
following; (a) the soil specimen is laterally restrained thus does not simulate the volume
change in the horizontal direction, (b) this test does not take care of the any
discontinuities present in the specimen and (c) does not simulate the actual availability of
the water available for the specimen.
2.7.1.2 Method for Determining Shrinkage
The shrinkage of soil is determined by using ASTM (D4943-08) test method which
involves the determination of void ratio at different water content. The test data obtained
are then plotted on a void-ratio versus water content plot. The plot consists of various
theoretical lines emanating from the origin with different slopes represent degree of
saturation. During the test volume of the soil specimen is obtained to determine the void
ratio by coating it with molten wax. A small error in volume measurement can lead to
under-estimation or over-estimation of the void ratio and will affect the shrinkage curve.
Therefore extreme care has to be exercised or rather measure it with mercury which is a
hazardous material.
2.8 Summary
The Avonlea badlands are situated in a semiarid climate where soil occurs in an
CHAPTER 2
30
unsaturated condition most of the year. The three distinct soils present at the location
exist in a different water content condition which means a different degree of saturation.
This research focuses on the engineering behavior of these soils that is captured through a
comprehensive field, laboratory and modeling program.
CHAPTER 3
31
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Field Investigation
Field investigations were carried out in the summer of 2010 through several one-day site
visits arranged during periods of no rainfall and after approximately one week of the
previous precipitation event. An area of approximately 3.0 km2
was surveyed to
understand site geology, geomorphology, and surface sediments. Field observations were
thoroughly recorded using extensive annotation and photography.
Representative soil samples were retrieved for detailed material characterization
using a shovel and a bucket. The samples were collected from the east side of the
Avonlea creek using sealed plastic bags, placed in 20 L buckets and transported to the
Geotechnical Testing Laboratory of the University of Regina where these stored at a
temperature of 25oC.
3.2 Test Program
Figure 3.1 gives the laboratory, field and numerical modeling program. In this section the
test procedure for each test is explained where the test data and their work sheets are
given in the Appendix. The tests performed on Avonlea badland sediments includes,
geotechnical index properties, soil composition (X-ray diffraction analysis), Soil water
characteristics curve (SWCC), field hydraulic conductivity, swelling and shrinkage tests
that includes free swelling and swell shrink testing. Later the laboratory determined grain
size distribution were fitted by the Pedo-Transfer Function, Pp, (Fredlund et al., 2002) to
obtain a smooth curve and soil water characteristics curve data were fitted using
computer software of SoilVision Systems Ltd., according to a unimodal formulation
CHAPTER 3
32
and/or a bimodal correlation as described by Fredlund and Xing (1994).
3.3 Geotechnical Index Properties
Dry unit weight (γd) can be defined as the mass of soil solids divided by the total
volume of soil. Dry unit weight was determined in accordance with the ASTM Standard
Test Methods for laboratory determination of density (unit weight) of soil specimens
(D7263–09).
Water content can be defined as the amount of water contained in a soil solid and
is expressed in a percentage. The water content (w) was determined in accordance with
the ASTM standard test methods for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture)
Content of Soil and Rock by Mass (D 2216-05).
Specific gravity (Gs) of soil is defined as the ratio of the weight of soil solid to the
mass of an equal volume of distilled water at 4 ºC. The specific gravity was determined
by the ASTM Standard Test Method for Specific Gravity of Soil Solids by Water
Pycnometer (D 854-06).
Liquid limit (wl) can be defined as water content above which soils flow like a
liquid whereas plastic limit (wp) is the water content above which soils exhibit plastic
behavior. The liquid limit and the plastic limit were determined using the ASTM standard
Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils (D 4318-10).
Shrinkage limit can be defined as the amount of water content at which soil has its
minimum volume and upon reduction does not further change the volume of soil.
The grain size distribution (GSD) was determined in three steps: (a) dry sieve
analyses pertaining to desiccated field conditions using the Standard Test Methods for
Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis (D6913-04(2009));
CHAPTER 3
33
Figure 3.1: Field, laboratory and numerical modeling program
Research Program
Geotechnical
Index
Properties
Soil water
Characterisitcs
Curve
Hydraulic
ConductivitySwelling and
Shrinkage TestsMineralogical
Analysis
Dry Unit
Weight
Water
Content
Specific Gravity
Consistancy Limits
Grain Size
Distribution
Dry Sieve
AnalysisWet Sieve
Analysis
Hydrometer
Analysis
Numerical
Modeling
WP4-T
Potentiameter
Extractor
Field
K-Sat
Swelling
Potential Test
Swelling-shrink
Test
X-ray
Diffraction
Analysis
Field
Investigation
CHAPTER 3
34
(b) wet sieve analyses simulating saturated field conditions using distilled water in the
above method; and (c) hydrometer analyses on material finer than 0.075 mm using the
Standard Test Methods for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils (D422-63(2007)). The
hydrometer analyses were conducted with a dispersant (sodium hexametaphosphate
(NaPO3)6) or SHMP) to obtain the true sizes of the fines and without SHMP to determine
the actual sizes of the fines due to precipitation. To obtain a smooth curve, the laboratory
determined GSD data were fitted by the following Pedo-Transfer Function, Pp, (Fredlund
et al., 2002):
Pp(d ) 1
ln exp(1)agr
d
ngr
mbi
1
ln 1dr
d
ln 1dr
dm
7
(3.1)
In the above equation, the following fitting parameters (agr for the initial break point of
the curve; ngr for the steepest slope of the curve; mbi for the shape of the fines part of the
curve; and dr for the amount of fines in soil) and grain sizes (d that under consideration
and dm the minimum allowable) were used. Material coarser than 0.075 mm was defined
as sand and that finer than 0.075 mm as fines, including both silts (0.075 mm to 0.002
mm) and clays (finer than 0.002 mm).
3.4 Mineralogical Analyses
X-ray diffraction analyses were conducted to determine bulk mineralogy of the materials
using powdered samples. A Phillips 1710 X-ray generator having a tube voltage of 40 kV
and a 40 mA current was used. A monochromatic Cu kα radiation with λ = 0.154060 nm
was employed to scan the three sediments over a range of 2θ between 5° to 60°. The
equipment receiver identified a number of diffracted rays from the sample in the form of
CHAPTER 3
35
“counts”, representing mineral intensity. The spectrum was analyzed to identify and
quantify the percentage of distinct clay and non-clay minerals. The mineral species were
identified by matching the diffraction pattern with the standard pattern prepared by the
Joint Committee of Powder Diffraction Data Services (JCPDS). Semi-quantitative
analyses for the amount of different clay mineral were carried out by determining the area
under the peaks using the peak intensity method (Moore and Reynolds, 1989).
3.5 Soil Water Characteristic Curve
The SWCC was determined in accordance with the ASTM Standard Test Methods for
Determination of the Soil Water Characteristic Curve for Desorption Using a Hanging
Column, Pressure Extractor, Chilled Mirror Hygrometer, and/or Centrifuge (D6836-
02(2008) e2) at the field γd. To develop a clear understanding of the entire SWCC, data
over a wide range were generated using a pressure extractor for high water content
samples and a dew point potentiometer (WP4-T) for low water content samples. Figure
3.2 illustrates the test setups for determination of the soil water characteristic curve. For
the pressure extractor (Figure 3.2a), samples were placed on a pre-saturated porous plate
and allowed to saturate. Submersion in a de-aired water tub for at least 24 hours ensured
complete air removal. The porous plate along with the samples were placed in the
pressure chamber and duly sealed. A predetermined suction was applied using an air
compressor and maintained by the nullmatic regulator. The application of suction caused
water flow through the soil till equilibration, as shown by a constant water level in the
graduated burette for 24 hour. Thereafter, the test was terminated and the sample water
content was determined as described above. For the dew point potentiameter (Figure
3.2b), a sampling cup was half filled with soil to ensure accurate suction measurement
CHAPTER 3
36
(Leong et al., 2003) by using about 5 mg of material with a known water amount. The
unsaturated sample was forwarded to the head space of the sealed measurement chamber,
set at 25oC temperature, through a sample drawer and was allowed to equilibrate with the
surrounding air. Equilibration was usually achieved in 10 min to 20 min, as detected by
condensation on a mirror and measured by a photoelectric cell. From knowledge of the
universal gas constant, R (8.3145 J/moloK), sample temperature, T (
oK), water molecular
mass, X (18.01 kg/kmol), and the chamber relative humidity, p/po, soil suction was
calculated (ᴪ = RT/X ln(p/po)) and displayed on the potentiameter screen.
Using the computer software of SoilVision Systems Ltd., the entire data were
fitted according to a unimodal formulation (Eq. 2) and/or a bimodal correlation (Eq. 3) as
described by Fredlund and Xing (1994). Both of the empirical correlations are similar in
form and calculated the gravimetric water content (w) as a function of the saturated value
(ws). Eq. 2 used fitting parameters (af for air entry value; nf for soil desaturation rate; mf
for function curvature at residual suction) and a constant (hr) representing soil suction (ψ)
at the residual water content. Related to the initial fracture portion of the curve, Eq. 3
used similar fitting parameters for the fractured portion (jf, kf, and lf) along with the
normalized volume (V) of the intact portion to the total volume. The two equations are
given as follows:
f
f
mn
f
r
r
s
ah
hww
1expln
1
101ln
1ln
16
(3.2)
CHAPTER 3
37
Figure 3.2: Test setup for measuring soil suction: (a) Extractor (b) Potentiameter
(a) Pressure Extractor
(b) WP4-T Potentiameter
Hose fromcompressor
Soil sample
Burette
Sealed chamber
Soil sample
LCD panel
Porous plate
Operation switch
Drawer
Cleaning solution
KCl (solution)
Air filter
Hose tochamber
Nullmatic regulator
Dial guage
Knob
Pressurechamber
CHAPTER 3
38
f
ff
fl
k
f
mn
f
s
j
V
a
Vww
)1exp(ln
1
)1exp(ln3000
101ln
30001ln
16
(3.3)
3.6 Hydraulic Conductivity Test
Figure 3.3 shows the Guelph Permeameter (Model 2800k1) for measuring the field
saturated hydraulic conductivity (ksat). At a selected location (even ground and
representative soil), a 50 mm circular and 150 mm deep hole was excavated using soil
augers. The permeameter was aligned with the center of the hole through the tripod and
the reservoir was filled with water. The support tube was lowered into the hole to barely
touch the bottom soil and water was allowed to flow through the perforations in the lower
portion of the support tube. Thereafter, the water was allowed to flow into the hole from
the combined reservoir and the air tube was adjusted to maintain a constant water head of
50 mm in the hole. Steady state flow was achieved over time associated with the
development of a water bulb in the soil. This was confirmed through three consecutive
constant readings of outflow rate observed over equal time intervals. The same procedure
was repeated for a water head of 100 mm. The field ksat (cm/sec) was calculated as a
relative difference (0.1451 r1 – 0.1911 r2) from the steady state rate of fall readings,
namely: r1 for 50 mm and r2 for 100 mm head.
3.7 Swelling Potential Test
Swelling tests were conducted using two approaches: (a) a 100 mm diameter graduated
cylinder containing about 33 mm high soil sample under no loading was inundated with
water to simulate field precipitation; and (b) a 65 mm fixed ring consolidometer (Model
CHAPTER 3
39
S-445) containing about 5 mm high soil sample along under a 7 kPa loading (applied
through a dead weight consolidation load frame (Model S-449)) was flooded with water
to follow conventional practice. The latter approach was similar to Method C of the
ASTM Standard Test Methods for One-Dimensional Swell or Settlement Potential of
cohesive Soils (D4546-08). All of the soil samples were prepared at the field dry unit
weight. In both cases, the height of the swelling samples (h) was recorded at regular time
intervals and compared with the initial sample height (hi) to determine the swelling
potential (SP) according to the following equation,
SP (%) = 100 (h – hi) / hi (3.4)
3.7 Swell-shrink Test
The swell-shrink tests were performed in accordance with the ASTM Standard test
Method for Shrinkage Factors of Soils by the Wax Method (D4943-08). Samples were
prepared at the field dry unit weight, wetted over different time periods and their water
content determined as before. To obtain the void ratio, sample volume was determined
using the water displacement method. The sample was weighed, coated with molten
crystalline wax (Gs = 0.91) and allowed to cool at room temperature. After wax
solidification, the sample was then weighed to obtain the mass of wax by subtracting the
weight of wax-coated sample from the weight of soil sample before waxing. The wax-
coated sample was then submerged in a 250 mL graduated cylinder containing distilled
water. To know the volume of wax coated sample, the height of water in a graduated
cylinder before and after submergence of the wax-coated sample was noted. A graduated
syringe was used to remove the excess water thereby bringing the water back to its initial
CHAPTER 3
40
Figure 3.3: Guelph permeameter test setup for determining field-saturated hydraulic
conductivity
CHAPTER 3
41
level. The syringe was weighed before and after the removal of water, and the difference
of weight was readily converted to water volume representing the volume of the wax-
coated sample. The wax volume (mass of wax/0.91) was then subtracted from the total
volume to get the volume of soil sample. The measured weight and volume of soil sample
were then used to obtain the bulk unit weight. Using basic phase relationships, void ratio
was determined from knowledge of bulk unit weight and water content of the soil sample.
CHAPTER 4
42
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Field Investigation
Figure 4.1 gives a general overview of the investigated site at Avonlea. The area
generally appeared to be rugged having experienced eight glacial advances and retreats
during the Quaternary (Christiansen, 1979). The last glacier, the Laurentide ice sheet,
reached its maximum extent about 18000 years B.P. This 1000 m thick ice gradually
retreated in the north-eastward direction and eventually disappeared around 8000 years
B.P. The evidence of melt water is clearly indicated at the far ends in both of the photos
(Figure 4.1a and Figure 4.1b) as an eroded front highlighting rills and gullies of the
Eastend Formation. The Formation was found to be well exposed and comprised of two
parts: an upper sandstone (light yellow colored up to 7 m thick layer of inter-bedded
sandy and silty sediments) and a lower mudrock (dark brown colored about 5 m thick
terraced layer of clay). The sandstone generally formed concretionary caps over rock
pillars (of soluble calcareous materials and easy to scour cohesion-less particles) to
develop hoodoos. Conversely, the mudrock was observed to be composed of alternating
thin layers of clays and silts. Although not visible in Figure 4.1, typical ball-and-pillow
load structures were found at the site between the sandstone and the mudrock. Finally, the
pediment (white colored and about 1 m thick alluvial sand and silt) occupied the lowest
elevation and developed through material deposition during drainage.
Figure 4.2 shows the landform features such as the relative sizes, shapes, and
slopes of sediments at the investigated site. Three slope surfaces exhibiting clear
lithologic variations were found: a steep sandstone (60o to 70
o slope and 5 m to 7 m
CHAPTER 4
43
Figure 4.1: Geomorphological layout of Avonlea badland site
Figure 4.2: Avonlea badland features such as sizes, slope angles, and shapes of the
landforms
(a) Looking towards north N
N
Mudrock
Sandstone
Eroded front
Pediment
(b) Looking towards east
100 m
100 m
Eroded front
Top Soil
2o - 5o
0.2 m - 0.3 m
Pediment (2
o - 3o )
(< 2 m thick)
60o - 80o
Mudrock
2 m
- 3
m4 m
- 7
m
Sandstone
Iron layer (1 m)
CHAPTER 4
44
height); a mildly-sloped mudrock (30o slope and 1 m to 2 m height) and a flat pediment
(0o to 2o slope and up to 1 m thick). The sandstone was bisected by a 300 mm thick
ironstone layer at a 2 m to 3 m depth from the slope. The upper slope showed uniformly
distributed rain pitting whereas the lower slope exhibited rills (100 mm to 1000 mm apart
and up to 100 mm deep) due to concentrated water flow and the associated localized
particle detachment. Similarly, part of the sandstone was observed to be disintegrated
(top left in the photograph) whereas the mudrock was found to be mildly eroded along
the side walls of the gullies (middle to bottom in the photograph). This is similar to other
badlands in the Canadian Prairies such as the Dinosaur Valley in Alberta where erosion is
reported to occur after every rain fall in case of the sandstone and after several storms for
mudrock (Hodges and Bryan, 1982). The variable erosion resistance is associated with
the water migration patterns through the different material types (Faulkner et al., 2003).
Figure 4.3 shows the surface features of the various materials at the investigated
site. The sandstone surface (Figure 4.3a) was found to be dry and indicated the presence
of irregularly arranged fissures of about 1 mm to 2 mm width. The removal of almost
1000 m thick glacial ice resulted in soil rebound and the evolution of surface fissures in
sandstone. These hairline discontinuities allow infiltration during precipitation and
snowmelt, gradually enlarge in size due to particle erosion and material dissolution, and
create an internal network of weak zones due to which part of the steep slopes can
undergo failure (Azam, 2008). The absence of hairline cracks in the rills confirms that
surface runoff primarily occurs in these depressions.
In contrast to sandstone, Figure 4.3b illustrates that the exposed mudrock is a 300
mm thick desiccated layer (with 2o to 5
o slope) of aggregated particles developing a
CHAPTER 4
45
popcorn-like structure. These irregular shaped popcorns comprised of a few 10 mm hard
balls, which were loosely connected to form mutually conjoined colonies of 30 mm to 50
mm size and separated by up to 10 mm wide voids. Imumorin and Azam (2011)
attributed the popcorn-like motif to the presence of expansive clay minerals (smectite,
illite, and chlorite) in the mudrock. Such minerals swell to various extents when water is
available thereby gradually sealing the observed desiccation cracks (reduced bypass flow)
and encouraging water flow through the soil matrix (Faulkner et al. 2003). Given the low
hydraulic conductivity of the clay, infiltration becomes negligible and most of the
precipitation reports as surface runoff.
Finally, the pediment (Figure 4.3c) was found to have a smooth surface that was
devoid of shrinkage cracks and mainly indicated a granular alluvium with low cohesion.
In the event of precipitation and snowmelt, a high hydraulic conductivity results in a
rapid material saturation that precludes further infiltration and favors surface discharge.
The gentle slope of the pediment promotes sheet flow and may even allow water ponding
as evident from the small amount of surface erosion (Howard, 1994). Being at the lowest
elevation, the pediment also receives part of the eroded and dissolved materials from
sandstone that are not trapped in the mudrock (Azam, 2008).
4.2 Geotechnical Index Properties
Table 4.1 summarizes the geotechnical index properties of the investigated sediments.
The surface materials exhibited variable water storage capabilities under the unsaturated
field condition as indicated by their measured wf of 5%, 26%, and 4% for sandstone;
mudrock, and pediment, respectively. The measured dry unit weight (γd) of 1.6 for
sandstone suggested a dense material that can withstand seasonal weather changes at the
CHAPTER 4
46
Figure 4.3: Surface features of Avonlea badland materials such as color and texture
CHAPTER 4
47
surface thereby resulting in steep slopes. Conversely, γd for both mudrock and pediment
was found to be 1.1 g/cm3 indicating loose materials as observed in the field. The
measured Gs correlated well with the field water content, namely; 2.73 for sandstone
containing iron-based constituents, 2.85 for mudrock possessing clay minerals, and 2.71
for pediment receiving washed materials from the above.
Figure 4.4 gives the grain size distribution for the investigated sediments. The
fines content (material finer than 0.075 mm) increased from dry to wet states for all
materials: sandstone, from 17% to 33%; mudrock, from 4% to 98%; and pediment, from
21% to 42%. This is attributed to the removal of particle coating from the larger grains
due to physical detachment of ultrafines and/or chemical dissolution of soluble materials,
and breakdown of larger aggregates. Further, the corresponding clay size fraction
(material finer than 0.002 mm) due to wetting measured 13% (15% in dispersed sample)
for sandstone, 54% (67% in dispersed sample) for mudrock, and 14% (17% in dispersed
sample) for pediment, respectively. These latter data signify that the main reason for
grain size thinning in sandstone (classified as silty sand, SM) and pediment (classified as
clayey sand, SC) was coating removal from sand size grains whereas that in mudrock
(classified as a fat clay, CH) was breakdown of clay aggregates. The reduction in grain
sizes correlate well with the in situ landforms and the surface erosion features in all of the
materials, as presented earlier in this thesis. This phenomenon is also considered to cause
internal erosion in the steeply-sided sandstone thereby resulting in its collapse.
The clay size fraction correlated well with the field water content (presented
above) and the consistency limits of the investigated materials. The water adsorption
capacity was found to be highest for mudrock (wl = 96% and wp = 47%) attributed to the
CHAPTER 4
48
Table 4.1: Summary of geotechnical index properties Material type Sandstone Mudrock Pediment
Soil Parameters Dry Wet Dry Wet Dry Wet
Field Condition
Water content, w (%) 5 ----- 26 ----- 4 -----
Dry unit weight, γd (g/cm3) 1.6 ----- 1.1 ----- 1.1 -----
Void ratio, e1 0.7 ----- 1.7 ----- 1.5 -----
Degree of saturation, S (%)2 20 ----- 43 ----- 6 -----
Soil Classification
Specific gravity, GS 2.73 2.73 2.85 2.85 2.71 2.71
Material finer than 0.075 mm
(%)
16.8 33.4 3.8 98.1 21.2 42.3
Material finer than 0.002 mm
(%)3
----- 13.3 (14.5) ----- 53.5 (66.7) ----- 14 (17.3)
D10 (mm) ----- ----- 0.5 ----- ----- -----
D30 (mm) 0.13 0.05 2.5 ----- 0.09 0.03
D60 (mm) 0.17 0.14 ----- ----- 0.15 0.12
Liquid limit, wl (%) ----- 39 ----- 96 ----- 31
Plastic limit, wp (%) ----- 31 ----- 47 ----- 23
Plasticity index, IP (%) ----- 8 ----- 51 ----- 8
USCS symbol SM SM SW CH SC SC
1. e = (GS/γd) – 1
2. S = (wGS)/e
3. Numbers in brackets pertain to dispersed samples
CHAPTER 4
49
Figure 4.4: Grain size distribution curve for the investigated sediments: (a) sandstone; (b)
mudrock; and (c) pediment
0
20
40
60
80
100
Mate
rial
finer
than (
%)
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1Grain size (mm)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Mate
rial
finer
than (
%)
Clay Sand
(c) Pediment
Best fitMeasured data
Dry Sieve
Wet Sieve + HydrometerDispersed Hydrometer
(a) Sandstone
(b) Mudrock
4.75
0
20
40
60
80
100
Mate
rial
finer
than (
%)
Silt
CHAPTER 4
50
presence of active clay minerals followed by sandstone (wl = 39% and wp = 31%)
associated with cementitious materials and then by pediment (wl = 31% and wp = 23%)
containing part of the eroded and dissolved materials from the sandstone.
4.3 Mineralogical Composition
Figure 4.5 gives the XRD patterns of the investigated badlands sediments in the form of
peak intensity versus angle 2θ. All materials showed the presence of quartz at an angle 2θ
of 21o, 26.5
o, 39
o and 45
o; presenting feldspar at an angle 2θ of 27.5
o; and calcite at an
angle 2θ of 50o (Moore and Reynolds, 1989). Likewise, all of the sediments exhibited
illite peaks at an angle 2θ of 9° while sandstone and mudrock showed smectite peaks
around an angle 2θ of 5°: sandstone also showed kaolinite having a very sharp peak
around an angle 2θ of 12° (Al-Hassan et al., 2012).
Table 4.2 gives the semi-quantitative analysis of the minerals present in the
badland sediments. Sandstone contained 85% non-clay and 15% clay minerals. Mudrock
showed 94% non-clay and 6% clay minerals whereas pediment showed 95% non-clay
and 5% clay minerals. The major clay minerals estimated in these three materials were
14% illite (micaceous clay) in sandstone, 2.3% smectite and 3.1% illite in mudrock while
3.8% illite in pediment. Smectite and micaceous clay minerals developed as a result of
restrained leaching and the prevailing semi-arid climate of the area where evaporation
exceeded precipitation. Kaolinite mineral developed as a result of good drainage to ensure
leaching of cations and iron (Mitchell and Soga 2005) and this might evolve from
smectite and micaceous clay (illite) due to high leaching caused by the water table
depression. The presence of various clay minerals are related to the Eastend Formation
(68 x 106 years B.P.), which is a partially marine deposit and is primarily a smectite bear-
CHAPTER 4
51
Figure 4.5: Mineralogy of Avonlea badland sediments
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
Inte
nsi
tyS
I
KQ
Q
Q
F
Q Ca
(a) Sandstone
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
2(degrees)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
Inte
nsi
ty
IQ
Q
Q
F Q
Ca
(c) Pediment
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
Inte
nsi
ty
I
Q
Q
Q
F
Q Ca
(b) Mudrock
S
CHAPTER 4
52
-ing strata whereas the non-clay minerals present such as quartz and calcite were
developed in the Tertiary and Cretaceous sedimentary rocks, and during the intermittent
marine transgressions (Braman et al., 1999).
Sandstone contains kaolinite and micaceous clay minerals; the bonding between
successive layers of kaolinite is both by van der Waals forces and hydrogen bond, where
hydrogen bonding is sufficiently strong to prevent hydration (Holtz and Kovacs, 1981).
Micaceous clay minerals are the only clay mineral responsible for the swelling of
sandstone as it allows surface hydration. Smectite minerals are the dominant source of
swelling in expansive clay minerals (Mitchell and Soga 2005). Mudrock contained about
2.3% of smectite which has a very strong attraction for water such that it is very
susceptible to swelling and can easily damage light loaded structures and highway
pavements (Holtz and Kovacs 1981). The presence of smectite minerals in mudrock
correlated well with soil consistency (wl = 96% and wp = 47%) and with the field
observations that indicated sealed mudrock cracks following precipitation. Pediment was
found to have a genetic relationship with sandstone as the mineral peaks identified in
both sediments were similar. Providing the rainfall activity, pediment material developed
as a result of triggered gully formation through down slope drainage of the sandstone.
The clay content of kaolinite and micaceous clay present in pediment were 0.4% and
3.8% respectively that gave it a very low volume change capacity.
4.4 Soil Water Characteristics Curve
Figure 4.6 gives the soil water characteristic curves in the form of degree of saturation
versus matric suction for the investigated materials and the data is summarized in Table
4.3. The measured data for the sandstone fitted well to a bimodal distribution with two air
CHAPTER 4
53
Table 4.2: Summary of samples mineralogical composition
Mineral (%) Sandstone Mudrock Pediment
Quartz (Q) 60.6 72.2 71.5
Feldspar (F) 20.7 15.8 18.3
Calcite (Ca) 3.4 6.0 5.0
Total non-clays 84.7 94 94.8
Smectite (S) 0.3 2.3 0.5
Illite (I) 14.1 3.1 3.8
Kaolinite (K) 0.3 0 0.4
Chlorite (Ch) 0.6 0.6 0.2
Total clays 15.3 6 4.9
CHAPTER 4
54
entry values: a lower value (6 kPa) corresponding to drainage through cracks followed by
a higher value (160 kPa) associated with flow through the soil matrix. When the field
samples were progressively desaturated, air first entered into the discontinuities at low
suction. The fissures originate from geologic overburden removal and grow over time
due to material erosion and dissolution during water flow. Seasonal variations in water
availability (snow melt in spring and rainfall in summer) and water deficiency (low
rainfall and freezing in fall and winter) result in physical and chemical weathering of the
deposit at Avonlea (Imumorin and Azam, 2011). Because of the associated reduction in
grain sizes, the finer particles got trapped in the relatively bigger pore spaces around the
coarser particles. Water flow through the newly formed smaller pores resulted in the
observed matrix AEV that, in turn, correlated well the dense nature of the material (γd =
1.6 g/cm3). Finally, the residual suction was found to be 520 kPa and is attributed to the
low clay content of the sandstone.
The SWCC of the mudrock exhibited a similar bimodal trend with two air entry
values, namely: an initial lower AEV (9 kPa) corresponding to drainage through cracks
followed by a higher AEV (92 kPa) associated with flow through the soil matrix. Unlike
sandstone, the first value is attributed to the presence of desiccation cracks induced by
drying of the material from an initially saturated condition. Despite some healing due to
expansive clay minerals, numerous swell-shrink cycles over geologic time render these
discontinuities to have much lower tensile strengths than the soil aggregates thereby
leading to a quick drainage through these paths of least resistance. Subsequent
application of suction affected the aggregated soil structure and eventually forced air to
enter into the pore system of the popcorn-like motif. The lower matrix AEV in comparis-
CHAPTER 4
55
Figure 4.6: Soil water characteristics curve for the investigated sediments: (a) sandstone;
(b) mudrock; and (c) pediment
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Deg
ree
of
satu
rati
on (
%)
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
Soil suction (kPa)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Deg
ree o
f sa
tura
tio
n (
%)
(c) Pediment
Pressure Plate Extractor Data
Dewpoint Potentiameter DataBest Fit
(a) Sandstone
(b) Mudrock
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Deg
ree
of
satu
rati
on (
%)
CHAPTER 4
56
Table 4.3: Summary of the soil water characteristics curves Material Type Sandstone Mudrock Pediment
Crack AEV (kPa) 6 9 -----
Matrix AEV (kPa) 160 92 4
Residual Suction (kPa) 520 1400 80
CHAPTER 4
57
-on with sandstone is attributed to the porous nature of this distinct morphology.
Moreover, the larger vertical gap between the two air entry values in the SWCC of
mudrock as compared to sandstone is attributed to the wider desiccation cracks in the
current material (Fredlund et al. 2010). Further desaturation resulted in driving water
through the individual aggregates and eventually resulted in a residual suction of 1400
kPa. Overall, the SWCC correlated quite well with the high clay content and the high
water adsorption capacity of the mudrock.
A unimodal fit best described the SWCC of the pediment. The matrix AEV for
this material was found to be 4 kPa and the residual suction was 80 kPa. These values
corroborated well with the granular and loose nature of the pediment, as observed in the
field investigations and geotechnical index properties. The pressure plate extractor and
the dewpoint potentiameter measured matric suction and total suction, respectively. The
data plotted on the same x-axis (named “soil suction”) showed insignificant scatter
because the measurements were mostly less than 1500 kPa. This means that the amount
of water (in the investigated soils due to seasonal weather variations) was sufficient to
ensure that capillary effects, and not salt concentration, dominate the water flow through
these sediments. It is important to note that the two testing techniques require proper
calibration and meticulous observation, as explained by Nam et al. (2009).
4.5 Hydraulic Conductivity
The saturated hydraulic conductivity measured 8.5 x 10-6
m/sec for sandstone, 4.0 x 10-8
m/sec for mudrock and 1.8 x 10-5
m/sec for pediment. Whereas these values fall within
the typical ranges for sands and clays, the unsaturated values up to the matrix AEV were
found to decrease by one, four, and half orders of magnitude for sandstone, mudrock, and
CHAPTER 4
58
pediment, respectively. However, these preliminary numerical analyses were based on a
hydraulic conductivity equation (Fredlund et al., 1994) that could not capture the
presence of soil discontinuities; a more robust equation was not available.
Guelph permeameter measurements represent fully saturated soil state. Usually
field soils may or may not be saturated due to entrapped air. According to Reynolds and
Elrick (1986), the effect of entrapped air during infiltration in Guelph permeameter can
lead to the underestimation of saturated hydraulic conductivity by about half an order of
magnitude. Likewise, this test method is also time consuming and may take several hours
for a single soil test when their saturated hydraulic conductivity is close to the equipment
limit (1 x 10-7
to 1 x 10-9
).
4.6 Swelling Potential
Figure 4.7 represents the free swelling test results in the form of swelling potential versus
elapsed time for the investigated badland sediments. For all materials the swelling
potential curves followed an S-shaped pattern showing the three typical stages of
swelling. The initial swelling stage that recorded the low swelling rate was associated
with the low unsaturated hydraulic conductivity of the samples. In the primary stage the
movement of the water front was established thereby resulting in a higher rate of
swelling. The gradual reduction in the swelling rate and the ultimate cessation of swelling
potential during the secondary stage is attributed to a higher degree of saturation that
results in a low water adsorption (Azam and Wilson, 2006).
In the odometer, during the initial swelling stage; the SP observed for sandstone was 3%
in 30 minutes, for mudrock it was 15% in 90 minutes and for pediment it showed 0.38%
in 4 minutes. Yong (1999) attributed the low swelling in the initial stage to the low
CHAPTER 4
59
unsaturated hydraulic conductivity of the soil sample. During the primary stage,
sandstone showed 17.5% in 5 days, mudrock showed 91% in 4 days and pediment
showed 1.7% in 1 hour. The SP observed and the corresponding time taken to complete
the secondary stage for sandstone, mudrock and pediment was 1.25%, 10.72% and 0.25%
in 14 days, 17 days and 4 hours respectively, which showed very low swelling rate as
compare to the primary stage.
In the graduated cylinder, during the initial swelling stage; the SP observed for
sandstone was 3.30% in 8.8 hours, for mudrock it was 25% in 6 hours and for pediment it
showed 3.2% in 70 minutes. During the primary stage; sandstone, mudrock and pediment
showed a swelling potential of 19% in 3 days and 16 hours, 218% in 200 days and 6% in
20 hours, respectively. The secondary SP observed for sandstone was 6% in 29 days, for
mudrock was 32% and for pediment was 1.8% in 10 days showing a low swelling rate
than the primary stage.
Figure 4.7 also highlights the effect of the sample size in the odometer and the
cylinder. The SP curve developed in odometer and cylinder for sandstone and mudrock
were following the same trend for first few minutes, later the rate of swelling in odometer
was greater than that observed in a cylinder. According to ASTM (D2435-04), for
minimum friction between wall and soil specimen the diameter-to-height ratio greater
than 4 is desirable. This ratio in odometer and cylinder was 12.6 and 3 respectively. This
is also because of the thickness of sample in odometer (5 mm) and cylinder (33 mm) that
allows water to reach every part of the sample in odometer early while in cylinder the
water had to traverse much longer path (Azam and Wilson, 2006). Due to early saturation
of the sample in odometer the time required for the three swelling stages was less than the
CHAPTER 4
60
Figure 4.7: Swelling potential for Avonlea badland sediments
0
100
200
300
Sw
elli
ng P
ote
nti
al (
%)
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
Elapsed time (min)
0.0
4.0
8.0
12.0
Sw
elli
ng P
ote
nti
al (
%)
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
Sw
elli
ng P
ote
nti
al (
%)
(c) Pediment
(b) Mudrock
(a) Sandstone
Cylinder
Odometer
Cylinder
Odometer
Cylinder
Odometer
CHAPTER 4
61
time required for complete swelling in a cylinder. Unlike sandstone and mudrock,
pediment showed low swelling rate in odometer than in a beaker. This was attributed to
its granular unstable nature as the materials finer than 0.075 in dry state was 21.2 % and
increased up to 42.3 % in wet state as shown in table 4.1.
Overall, the SP observed in odometer for sandstone, mudrock and pediment was
approximately 19%, 102%, and 2% respectively, and the corresponding values in a
graduated cylinder was 25%, ≥ 250% and 11% which are displayed in Table 4.4. The
swelling potential observed in sandstone, mudrock and pediment confirms the finding of
XRD analysis which showed the presence of various expensive clay minerals in these
materials. Mudrock contains smectite clay minerals which has a very strong attraction for
water to swell the soil and can ultimately damage lightly loaded structures. SP observed
in pediment was very less which is primarily due to the presence of illite clay mineral.
Considering the low swelling potential and the clay mineral responsible for swelling in
sandstone and pediment suggests that pediment has a genetic relationship with sandstone.
Upon precipitation in the field, water flows from sandstone into the surface cracks of
mudrock followed by sealing such that it favors sheet flow and transport the eroded
sediments from sandstone and deposit as pediment.
4.7 Swell-Shrink Behavior
Figure 4.8 represents the swell-shrink curve for the investigated sediments in the form of
void ratio and water content. Theoretical lines of S = 25, 50, 75 and 100% were obtained
from basic phase relationship and the specific gravity (Gs). The swell-shrink curve shows
three different phases of shrinkage; (1) Structural shrinkage, (2) normal shrinkage and (3)
residual shrinkage that arise from the progressive drying of soils (Haines, 1923).
CHAPTER 4
62
Table 4. 4: Summary of free swelling test
Materials Sandstone Mudrock Pediment
Odometer Cylinder Odometer Cylinder Odometer Cylinder
Initial
Water content 5 5 26 26 4 4
Height, hi 5.0 33.3 5.0 33.3 5.0 33.3
Final
Water content 38 ----- 156 ----- 57 -----
Height, hf 5.9 41.5 10.1 117 5.1 36.8
Swelling potential, SP (%) 19 25 102 ≥ 250 2 11
CHAPTER 4
63
Figure 4.8 (a) shows an S-shaped curve describing the progressive drying path of
sandstone. The S-shaped curve was identified by Hanafy (1991) to describe the volume
change capacity of expansive clays resulting from the water absorption of soil and its
desiccation on water content versus void ratio plot. Sandstone showed three curvilinear
portions; structural shrinkage, normal shrinkage and residual shrinkage. The structural
shrinkage possibly occurred due to the presence of stable bigger voids (fissures) such that
the change in volume is less than the water lost. Drying during the normal shrinkage
indicates that the volume decrease was equal to the water lost as it is parallel to the 100%
saturation line and suggesting that the drainage is through the soil matrix and not the
voids. On further drying air enters the soil pores and pull the particles more closer due to
suction such that the decrease in void ratio is less than the volume of water lost.
Unlike sandstone, the swell shrink curve presented in figure 4.8 (b) for mudrock
was J-shaped. Volume change capacity of mudrock was higher than the other two
materials as the straight line portion parallel to 100% saturation line extended from a
point on a curve with a void ratio of 2 and the corresponding water content 30% to a
point with a void ratio of 7.5 and the corresponding water content 250%. Such soils with
a large void ratio range and a water content range can be identified as an expansive soil
with a severe swelling potential (Hanafy, 1991). The normal shrinkage portion of this
curve is parallel to the 100% saturation line which means that the water lost is equal to
the volume decrease of the soil sample. Thereafter the residual shrinkage portion inclines
and trying to become parallel to the water content axis where the volume decrease of soil
is less than the water lost.
The data presented in Figure 4.8 (c) showed a J-shaped curve for pediment. The
CHAPTER 4
64
curve only comprises of a normal and a residual shrinkage. Pediment did not showed the
structural shrinkage which indicates that it drains quickly such that the volume lost
during normal shrinkage was found greater than the water lost demonstrating its granular
nature with little or small amount of clay minerals.
CHAPTER 4
65
Figure 4.8: Swell-shrink curve for Avonlea badland sediments
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
1.0
3.0
5.0
7.0
Void
Rat
io
0 20 40 60 80 100
0.8
1.0
1.3
1.5
1.8
2.0
2.3
Void
Rat
io
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Water Content (%)
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
Void
Rat
io(a) Sandstone
(c) Pediment
(b) Mudrock
S =
25%
S =
50%
S = 7
5%
S =
100%
S =
25%
S =
25%
S =
50%
S =
50%
S = 7
5%
S =
75%
S = 1
00%
S =
100%
CHAPTER 5
66
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Summary and Conclusions
Knowledge of the engineering properties of surface soils is vital for the design of civil
infrastructure systems are directly affected by seasonal weather variations. This is
especially true for highways, railways, and pipelines when these facilities have to pass
through difficult terrain with marginal soils. Detailed field investigations and laboratory
testing were conducted to understand the landform, the engineering properties of badland
sediments at Avonlea, Saskatchewan, Canada. The main conclusions of this study can be
summarized as follows:
1. Three slope surfaces exhibiting clear lithologic variations were found: a steep
sandstone (60o to 70
o slope and 5 m to 7 m height); a mildly-sloped mudrock (30
o
slope and 1 m to 2 m height) and a flat pediment (0o to 2
o slope and up to 1 m thick).
The surface layer was fissured for sandstone, popcorn-like for mudrock, and eroded
for pediment.
2. The fines content increased from dry to wet state for all sediments: 17% to 33% for
sandstone, 4% to 98% for mudrock, and 21% to 42% for pediment. The water
adsorption capacity was found to be highest for mudrock (wl = 96% and wp = 47%)
followed by sandstone (wl = 39% and wp = 31%) and then by pediment (wl = 31%
and wp= 23%).
3. The total non-clay minerals found in sandstone (with 60% quartz, 3.4% calcite),
mudrock (with 72% quartz and 6% calcite) and pediment (with 71% quartz and 5%
calcite) were 84%, 94% and 95% respectively. The clay minerals present in
CHAPTER 5
67
sandstone, mudrock and pediment were respectively found to be 15% (with 14% illite
and 0.3% smectite), 6% (with 3% illite and 2.3% smectite) and 5% (with 3.8% illite
and 0.5% smectite).
4. The SWCC of sandstone and mudrock showed bimodal distributions with a low AEV
(6 kPa and 9 kPa) pertaining to drainage through cracks and a high AEV (160 kPa
and 92 kPa) associated with flow through the soil matrix. The pediment followed a
unimodal SWCC with a single matrix AEV of 4 kPa.
5. The saturated hydraulic conductivity for sandstone, mudrock and pediment measured
8.5 x 10-6
m/sec, 4.0 x 10-8
m/sec, and 1.8 x 10-5
m/sec, respectively. Whereas these
values fall within the typical ranges for sands and clays, the unsaturated values are
expected to decrease by orders of magnitude for the various materials.
6. The swelling potential under a token load of 7 kPa was found to be 19%, 102% and
2% for sandstone, mudrock and pediment. The corresponding values in a cylinder
were found to be 25%, ≥ 250% and 11%. The higher values in the cylinder than in an
odometer were because of the greater sample thickness used in cylinder.
7. Swell shrink curve observed for sandstone was an S-shaped because of the presence
of fissures while mudrock and pediment showed J-shaped curve. Mudrock behaved
like sand with agglomerated pop-corns separated by void spaces that were much
larger compared to the fissures in the sandstone while pediment showed a granular
behavior.
5.2 Constructions Recommendations
Sandstone and mudrock have the potential to undergo significant swelling and shrinkage
as a result of changes in water content. The magnitude of these volume changes affects
CHAPTER 5
68
the engineered structures such as the shallow foundations, pipelines, electrical poles, and
roadways. The basic recommendations for construction in such soils include the
following (Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual, 2006): (i) remove and replace the
soil; (ii) pre-soak the soil to eliminate swelling; (iii) control moisture movement to reduce
swelling; (iv) isolate structure from soil movement; (v) surcharge the soil to cancel the
swelling deformations; (vi) chemical stabilization to reduce swelling; and (vii) capillary
barriers to reduce saturation. The recommended foundation types include shallow and
spread footing, pile and grade-beam system sand stiffened slabs-on-grade.
REFERENCES
69
REFERENCES
Alexander, D. 1982. Difference between „calanchi‟ and „biancane‟ badlands in Italy. In
R. B. Bryan and A. Yair (eds), Badland geomorphology and piping. Geobooks,
Norwich: 71 – 88.
Alhassan, M., Mesaiyete, E. and Mustapha, A. M. 2012. Clay Mineralogy of Lateritic
Soils Derived from Granite Basement-A Case Study of Minna Lateritic Soils.
Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 17: 1897-1903.
ASTM Standard Test Methods for Determination of the Soil Water Characteristic Curve
for Desorption Using a Hanging Column, Pressure Extractor, Chilled Mirror
Hygrometer, and/or Centrifuge (D6836-02(2008) e2)
ASTM Standard Test Methods for laboratory determination of density (unit weight) of
soil specimens (D7263–09).
ASTM Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture)
Content of Soil and Rock by Mass (D 2216-05).
ASTM standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of
Soils (D 4318-10).
ASTM Standard Test Methods for One-Dimensional Swell or Settlement Potential of
Cohesive Soils (D4546-08)
ASTM Standard Test Methods for One-Dimensional Swell or Settlement Potential of
Cohesive Soils (D4546-03).
ASTM D6913-04(2009) Standard Test Methods for Particle-Size Distribution
(Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis
ASTM Standard Test Methods for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils (D422-63(2007)).
REFERENCES
70
ASTM Standard Test Methods for Shrinkage Factors of Soils by the Wax Method
(D4943-08).
ASTM Standard Test Method for Specific Gravity of Soil Solids by Water Pycnometer
(D 854-06).
ASTM Standard Guide for Comparison of Field Methods for Determining Hydraulic
Conductivity in Vadose Zone (D5126/D5126M – 90).
Azam, S., 2008. Effect of erosion on the hydrogeological behaviour of badland surfaces
in western Canada. Proceedings, 12th International Conference of International
Association for Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics, 1332-1339.
Azam, S., and Wilson, G. W. (2006). Volume change behavior of a fissured expansive
clay containing anhydrous calcium sulfate. In: Proceedings, 4th
International
conference on unsaturated soils, Carefree, Arizona, USA. 1: 906 – 905.
Azam, S., Wilson, G. W., Herasymuik., Nichole, N. and Barbour, L. S. 2007.
Hydrogeological behaviour of an unsaturated waste rock pile: a case study at the
Golden Sunlight Mine, Montana, USA. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and
Environment. 66: 259 – 268.
Azam, S. 2007. Study on the swelling behaviour of blended clay-sand soils. Geotechnical
and Geological Engineering, 25: 369-381.
Azam, S., and Ito, M., (2007). A Study on the Evalution of Swelling Potential of Regina
Clay Modified With Sand. Proceedings, 60th
Canadian Geotechnical
Conference, Ottawa, Canada. 1907-1912.
Bergstrom, F.W and Schumm, S.A, 1981.Episodic behaviour in badlands.In T.R.H.
Davies A.J Pearce (eds), erosion and sediment transport in Pacific Rim steep
REFERENCES
71
lands. Proceedings of the Christchurch Symposium, January, International
Association of Hydrological Sciences Publication, 132: 478-492.
Braman, D.R., Sweet, A. R., and Lerbekmo, J. F, (1999). Upper Cretaceous–lower
Tertiary lithostratigraphic relationships of three cores from Alberta, Saskatchewan
and Manitoba, Canada. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 36:669–683.
Bridges, E. M. and Harding, D. M. 1971. Micro-erosion processes and factors affecting
slope development in the lower Swansea Valley, In: slopes: Form and Process, ed,
Brinsden, D. I. B. G. Special publication No. 3, Alden and Nowbray, Oxford, 65 –
79.
Brown, A. J., 1983. Cannel change in Arid badlands, Borrego Springs, California.
Physical Geography, 4: 82-102.
Bryan, R., Yair, A. 1982. Perspectives on studies of badland geomorphology, Badland
Geomorphology and Piping, Bryan R. and Yair, A., Editors, Geobooks, Norwich,
1-12.
Byers, A.R., 1959. Deformation of the whitemud and Eastend Formations near Claybank,
Saskatchewan: Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada, 53: 1 – 11.
Campbell, I.A., 1970. Erosion rates in Steneveille badlands, Alberta. The Canadian
Geographer, 14: 202-216.
Campbell, I.A. 1987. Infiltration characteristics of badlands surfaces and storm runoff. In
Yu-si Fok (ed). Infiltration development and application, Proceedings of the
International Conference on Infiltration development and application. 1987,
Water Resources Center, University of Hawaii, Honolulu: 251-261.
Campbell, I.A. 1989. Badlands and badland gullies. Arid zone geomorphology, D.S.G.
REFERENCES
72
Thomas (ed.), New York: Halstead Press. 93-159.
Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual. 2006. Fourth Edition Canadian Geotechnical
Society, 488 p.
Cerda, A., 2002. The effect of season and parent material on water erosion on highly
eroded soils in eastern Spain. Journal of Arid Environments. 52(3): 319-337.
Chen, F.H. 1988. Foundations on Expansive Soils. Elsevier Scientific Publishing
Company. Amusterdam, The Netherland.
Christiansen, EA., 1979. The Wisconsinan deglaciation of Southern Saskatchewan and
adjacent areas. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 116: 913 – 938.
Clayton, L. and Tinker, J.R., 1971. Rate of hillslopes lowering in the badlands of north
Dakota. North Dakota Water Resources Research Institute, ND, Report WI-221-
012-71.
Clotet-Perarnau, N., Gallart, F. and Balasch, C. (1988): Medium –term erosion rates in a
small scarcely vegetated catchment in the Pyrenees. In: Catena Supplement 13, 37
– 47.
Croney, D. and Coleman, J.D., 1954. Soil structure in relation to soil suction pF. Journal
of Soil Science., 5: 75-84.
Das, B.M. 2008. Advanced Soil Mechanics. 3rd edition. Taylor & Francis, New York,
NY, USA.
De Ploey, J. 1974. Mechanical properties of hillslopes and their relation to gullying in
central semi-arid Tunisia. Zeitschrift Fur Geomorphologie, Supplement band, 21:
177-190.
REFERENCES
73
Dunn, R., and Palmer, B., 1994. Lessons learned from the application of standard test
methods for field and laboratory hydraulic conductivity measurement. Hydraulic
Conductivity and Waste Contaminant Transport in Soil, Daniel, D., and
Trautwein, S., Editors, ASTM, Philadelphia, 335-352.
Faulker, H., Alexender, R., and Wilson, B.R., 2003. Change to dispersive characteristics
of soils along an evolutionary slope sequence in the Vera badlands, Southeast
Spain: implication for site stabilization. Catena, 50: 243-254.
Fredlund, D.G., Xing, A., and Huang, S., 1994. Predicting the permeability function for
unsaturated soil using the soil-water characteristics curve. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 31:533-546.
Fredlund, M.D., Wilson, G.W., and Fredlund, D.G. 2002. Use of the grain-size
distribution for estimation of the soil-water characteristic curve. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 39:1103-1117.
Fredlund, D. G., and Rahardjo, H., 1993. Soil Mechanics of unsaturated soils, Wiley,
New York.
Fredlund, D.G., and Xing, A., 1994. Equations for the soil-water characteristics curve.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 31: 521-532.
Fredlund, D.G., Xing, A., and Huang, S., 1994. Predicting the permeability function for
unsaturated soil using the soil-water characteristics curve, Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 31: 533-546.
Fredlund, M.D., 1999. The role of unsaturated soil property functions in the practice of
unsaturated soil mechanics, Ph.D. thesis, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon,
Canada.
REFERENCES
74
Fredlund D. G., Houston S. L., Nguyen Q., Fredlund M. D. 2010. Moisture movement
through cracked clay soil profiles, Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 28:
865-888.
Gallart, F., Lorens, P., Latron, J. and Regüés, D. (2002a): Hydrological processes and
their seasonal controls in a small Mediterranean mountain catchment in the
Pyrenees. In: Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 6 (3), 527 - 537.
Hadley, R.F. and Schumm S.A., 1961. Sediment source and drainage-basin
characteristics in upper Cheyenne River Basin. United States Geological Survey
Water Supply Paper, 1531B: 137-98.
Haigh, M.J., 1978. Evolution of slopes on artificial landforms. Blaenavon, U.K
University of Chicago, Department of Geography Research Paper 183.
Haines, W.B. 1923. The volume changes associated with variations of water content in
soil. Journal of Agricultural Science, 13: 296-310.
Hanafy, A. A. D. E. 1991. Swelling/shrinkage characteristics curve of desiccated
expansive clays. ASTM Geotechnical Testing Journal, 14(3): 206-211.
Harvey, A., 1982. The role of piping in the development of badlands and gully systems in
south- east Spain In R.B Bryan and A. Yair (eds). Badlands geomorphology and
piping. GeoBooks, Norwich: 317-336.
Hardenbicker, U. and Crozier, M.J. 2002. Soil pipes and slope stability, Proc. 1st
European Conference on Landslides, Rybar J., Stemberk, J. and Wagner, P.
Editors, Prague (Czech Republic). 565 - 570.
Havlena, J., and Stephens, D., 1992. Vadose zone characterization using field
permeameters and instrumentation, Current Practices in Ground Water and
REFERENCES
75
Vadose Zone Investigations, Nielsen, D. and Sara, M., Editors, ASTM,
Philadelphia, 93-110.
Holtz, W.G. and Kovacs, W.D. 1981. An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering.
Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA.
Hodges, W., Bryan, R., 1982. The influence of material behavior on runoff initiation in
the Dinosaur Badlands, Canada, Badland Geomorphology and Piping, Bryan, R.
and Yair, A., Editors, Geobooks, Norwich, 13 - 46.
Howard A.D., 1994. Badlands. Geomorphology of Desert Environments, Abrahams,
A.D. and Parsons, A.J. Editors, Chapman and Hall, London (United Kingdom),
213-242.
Imeson, A., Kwaad, F.J.P.M., Verstraten, J.M., 1982. The relationship of soil physical
and chemical properties to the development of badlands in Morocco. In: Bryan,
R.B., Yair, A. (Eds.), Badland Geomorphology and Piping. Geobooks, Norwich.
47–71.
Imumorin, P., and Azam, S., 2011. Effect of precipitation on the geological development
of badlands in the arid regions, Bulletin of Engineering Geology Environment,
70: 223–229.
Imumorin, I.M., 2009. Engineering characterization of Badland sediments, MSc. thesis,
University of Regina, Regina, Canada.
Ito, M., 2009. Effect of Seasonal Climate on Volume Change Behaviour of Regina Clay,
MSc. Thesis, University of Regina, Canada.
Jennings, J. E., and Kerrich, J. E. (1962). The heaving of buildings and the associated
economic consequences, with particular reference to the Orange/Free State Gold
REFERENCES
76
Fields. The Civil Engineer in SA. Vol.4, No 11.
Jones, D.E. and Holtz, W.G. 1973. Expansive soils-the hidden disaster. Civil
Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, 43: 49–51.
Lam, K.C., 1977. Patterns and rates of slope wash on the badlands of Hong Kong. Earth
Surface Process, 2: 319-332.
Leong, E. C., Tripathy, S., and Rahardjo., H., 2003. Total suction measurement of
unsaturated soils with a device using the chilled-mirror dew-point technique,
Geotechnique, 53: 173-182.
Liu, T. An, Z., Yuan, B. and Han, J., 1985. The loess-paleosol sequence in China and
climate history, Episodes, 8; 21-28.
Low, P.F. 1992. Interparticle forces in clay suspensions: Flocculation, viscous flow, and
swelling. Clay-Water Interface and its Rheological Implications, Edited Güven
and Pollastro, R.M. CMS workshop lectures, The Clay Minerals Society, Boulder,
CO, 4: 157- 190.
Mitchell J. K., and Soga K., 2005., Fundamentals of Soil Behavior, 3rd ed., Willy, New
York (USA).
Moore, D.M., and Reynolds, R.C., Jr., 1989. X-ray Diffraction and the Identification and
Analysis of Clay Minerals, Oxford University Press, New York, USA.
Nam, S., Gutierrez, M., Diplas, P., Petrie, J., Wayllace, A., Lu, N., and Muñoz J.J. 2009.
Comparison of testing techniques and models for establishing the SWCC of
riverbank soils. Engineering Geology, 110:1-10.
Pham. H. Q., and Fredlund, D. G., 2008. Equation for the entire soil-water characteristics
curve of a volume change soil. Canadian Geotechnical Journal.45: 443-453.
REFERENCES
77
Potter, P. E., Maynard, J. B. and Pryor, W. A. 1984. Sedimentology of Shale: study guide
and reference source. Springer, New York.
Puppala, A. J., Punthutaecha, K., and Vanapalli, S. K., 2006. Soil-water characteristics
curves of stablized expansive soils. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 132: 736-751.
Reynolds, W.D. and Elrick, D.E. 1986. A method for simultaneous in situ measurement
in the vadose zone of field-saturated hydraulic conductivity, sorptivity and the
conductivity-pressure head relationship, Ground Water Monitoring Review, 6(1):
84-95.
Sai, J., and Anderson, D., 1990. Field hydraulic conductivity tests for compacted soil
liners, Geotechnical Testing Journal, GTJODJ, 13: 215 – 225.
Schumm, S.A., 1964. Seasonal variations of erosion rates and processes on hillslopes in
Western Colorado. Zeitschrift Fur Geomorphologie, Supplement band 5: 215-238.
Schumm, S.A., 1956b. Evolution of drainage systems and slopes at Perth Amboy, New
Jersey. Geological survey of America Bulletin, 67: 597-646.
Segerstrom, K., 1950. Erosion studies at Paricutin, State of Michoacán, Mexico. United
States Geological Survey Bulletin, 965-A.
Shah, P.H., Sreedeep, S., and Singh, D.N., 2006. Evaluation of methodologies used for
establishing soil-water characteristics curve. Journal of ASTM Int., 3(6), 11.
Sillers, W. S. 1997. The mathematical representation of the soil-water characteristic
curve. M Sc Thesis University of Saskatchewan.
REFERENCES
78
Sillers, W.S., Fredlund, D.G., and Zakerzadeh, N., 2001. Mathematical attributes of some
soil-water characteristic curve models. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering,
19: 243-283.
Smith, K. G., 1958, Erosional processes and land forms in Badlands National Monument,
South Dakota: Geological Society of America Bulletin. 69 (8): 975 - 1008.
Sreedeep, S., and Singh, D.N., 2011.Critical review of the methodologies employed for
soil suction measurement. International Journal of Geomechanics. American
Society of Civil Engineers, 11 (2): 99-104.
Thakur, V. K. S., Sreedeep, S., and Singh, D. N., 2006. Laboratory investigation on
extremely high suction measurements for fine-grained soils. Geotechnical and
Geological Engineering, 24: 565-578.
Thakur, V. K. S., Sreedeep, S., and Singh, D. N., 2007. Evaluation of various pedo-
transfer functions for developing soil-water characteristics curve of a silty soil.
Geotechnical Testing Journal, 30: 1-6.
Trimble, D. E., 1980. Cenozoic history of the Great Plains contrasted with that of the
southern Rocky Mountains: A synthesis: The Mountain Geologist. 17: 59-69.
Vanapalli, S.K., Fredlund, D.G., and Pufahl, D.E. 1999. The influence of soil structure
and stress history on the soil-water characteristics of a compacted till.
Geotechnique, 49: 143-159.
Wells, S. G. and Gutierrez, A. A., 1982. Quaternary evolution of badlands in the
southeastern Colorado Plaeteau, U.S.A.; in Bryan, R, and Yair, A., eds., Badland
geomorphology: Geo Books, Norwich, 239 – 258.
Yair, A., lavee, H., Bryan, R.B., Adar, E., 1980. Runoff and erosion processes and rates
REFERENCES
79
in the Zin valley badlands, Northern Negev, Israel. Earth Surf. Process 5. 205-
225.
Young, R.N. and Warkentin, B.P. 1975. Soil Properties and Behaviour. Elsevier
Scientific Publishing Co., New York, NY, USA.
Yong, R. N. 1999. Soil suction and soil water potentials in swelling clays in engineered
clay barriers. Engineering Geology, 54 (1-2): 3 – 13.
Yevnin, A. and Zaslavsky, D. 1970. Some factors affecting compacted clay swelling.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 7: 79-91.
APPENDIX
80
APPENDIX
The followings are the list of test results included in the appendix:
Determination of field water content
Determination of unit weights
Determination of specific gravity
Determination of field void ratio
Determination of field degree of saturation
Consistency limits
Sieve analysis
Hydrometer analysis
Determination soil water characteristics curve
Determination of field hydraulic conductivity
Determination of swelling potential curve
Determination swell-shrink curve
APPENDIX
81
Table 1: Results from field water content and dry density for sandstone, mudrock and
pediment
Determination of field water content and field dry density
S.n
o
Mas
s o
f
sam
ple
Mas
s o
f
sam
ple
af
ter
wax
Co
atin
g
Mas
s o
f w
ax
Dif
fere
nce
in
hei
gh
t of
wat
er
bef
ore
an
d
afte
r sa
mp
le
sub
mer
ged
Dia
met
er
of
gra
du
ated
cyli
nd
er
Cro
ss
sect
ion
al
area
of
a g
rad
uat
ed
cyli
nd
er
Vo
lum
e o
f
sam
ple
w
hen
coat
ed
Wax
vo
lum
e
Sam
ple
vo
lum
e
Sandstone
1 35.60 40.12 4.51 0.835 6.055 28.780 24.0317 4.963 19.068
2 18.42 21.1 2.67 0.48 6.055 28.780 13.8146 2.936 10.878
3 10.15 11.90 1.75 0.37 6.055 28.780 10.6488 1.925 8.723
4 18.82 21.79 2.97 0.54 6.055 28.780 15.5415 3.264 12.276
Mudrock 5 12.09 13.88 1.78 0.385 6.055 28.780 11.0805 1.962 9.117
Pediment 6 10.78 12.08 1.30 0.37 6.055 28.780 10.6488 1.431 9.216
Wt
of
stee
l
can
Wt
of
stee
l
can
an
d
wet
sam
ple
Wt
of
stee
l
can
an
d o
ven
dri
ed s
oil
Wt
of
wet
soil
Wt
of
dri
ed
So
il
Fie
ld
wa
ter
con
ten
t
Bu
lk
un
it
wei
gh
t, γ
b
Dry
u
nit
wei
gh
t,
γd
(gm
/cc)
Sandstone 32.70 43.032 42.527 10.328 9.823 0.051 1.69 1.61
Mudrock 32.37 43.659 41.35 11.286 8.977 0.257 1.3268 1.05
Pediment 32.27 44.567 44.151 12.291 11.875 0.035 1.16958 1.15
APPENDIX
82
Table 2: Results from specific gravity for sandstone
Specific gravity = αMs/(Mbw+Ms-Mbws)
ρ200C = 0.99823 ρt at 23
oC = 0.99756
α=ρt/ρ200C 0.999329
Ms = Mass of soil solids
Mbw = Mass of pycnometer + distilled water to the calibration mark on pycnometer
Mbws = Mass of pycnometer + distilled water + Soil
Description Test 1 Test 2
Mass of pycnometer 183.119 171.498
Weight of pycnometer + water 681.354 669.024
Wt of pycnometer + soil after vaccum 790.642 768.275
Mass ofcontainer + soil after oven 386.001 268.11
Mass of container 208.91 111.41
Description Ms Mbw Mbws α*Ms Mbw+Ms-Mbws Gs
Sandstone Test 1 177.091 681.354 790.642 176.9721 67.803 2.610093
Sandstone Test 2 156.7 669.024 768.275 156.5948 57.449 *2.725806
Selected value 2.73
*The second value was selected as the first sample has abundance of iron based constituents.
APPENDIX
83
Table 3: Results from specific gravity for mudrock
Specific gravity = αMs/(Mbw+Ms-Mbws)
ρ200C = 0.99823 ρt at 23
oC = 0.99756
α=ρt/ρ200C 0.999329
Ms = Mass of soil solids
Mbw = Mass of pycnometer + distilled water to the calibration mark on pycnometer
Mbws = Mass of pycnometer + distilled water + Soil
Description Test 1 Test 2
Mass of pycnometer 186.221 188.601
Weight of pycnometer + water 684.517 687.599
Wt of pycnometer + soil after vaccum 726.098 712.813
Mass ofcontainer + soil after oven 277.68 144.84
Mass of container 211.65 105.995
Description Ms Mbw Mbws α*Ms Mbw+Ms-Mbws Gs
Mudrock Test 1 66.03 684.517 726.098 65.98568 24.449 2.698911
Mudrock Test 2 38.845 687.599 712.813 38.81893 13.631 *2.847842
Selected value 2.85
*The second value was selected based on visual observation and the abundance of clay minerals as
compare to the other distinct sediments in consideration.
APPENDIX
84
Table 4: Results from specific gravity for pediment
Specific gravity = αMs/(Mbw+Ms-Mbws)
ρ200C = 0.99823 ρt at 23
oC = 0.99756
α=ρt/ρ200C 0.999329
Ms = Mass of soil solids
Mbw = Mass of pycnometer + distilled water to the calibration mark on pycnometer
Mbws = Mass of pycnometer + distilled water + Soil
Description Test 1 Test 2
Mass of pycnometer 181.368 182.702
Weight of pycnometer + water 679.779 680.586
Wt of pycnometer + soil after vaccum 782.997 739.278
Mass ofcontainer + soil after oven 377.8 185.895
Mass of container 213.74 92.841
Description Ms Mbw Mbws ΑMs Mbw+Ms-Mbws Gs
Pediment Test 1 164.06 679.779 782.997 163.9499 60.842 2.694683
Pediment Test 2 93.054 680.586 739.278 92.99154 34.362 *2.706232
Selected value 2.71
*The second value was selected based on the proper sample selected while the first sample had some
impurities.
Table 5: Results for field void ratio (e), porosity (n) and Field degree of saturation (S) for
sandstone, mudrock and pediment
Description Formulas Sandstone Mudrock pediment
Field void ratio ef = Gs/γd – 1 0.70625 1.688679245 1.463636
Porosity n = e/(e+1) 0.413919414 0.628070175 0.594096
Degree of saturation S = wGs/e 0.198686018 0.434078883 0.064804
APPENDIX
85
Table 6: Results from plastic limit for sandstone
Plastic limit for sandstone
S.no
Wt of
container
Wt of
container +
wet soil
Wt of container +
dry soil
Weight of wet
soil
Weight of dry
soil
Gravimetric water
content
1 32.337 37.099 35.972 4.762 3.635 31.00412655
2 32.249 38.529 36.989 6.28 4.74 32.48945148
3 32.3664 38.579 37.1794 6.2126 4.813 29.07957615
92.57315417
Plastic limit for cemented sandstone = 30.85771806
Table 7: Results from liquid limit for sandstone
Liquid limit for sandstone
S.no
No of
blows
Wt of
container
Wt of
container +
wet soil
Wt of
container +
dry soil
Weight of wet
soil
Weight of dry
soil
Gravimetric
water content
1 20 32.2204 71.9028 60.4523 39.6824 28.2319 0.405587297
2 23 32.419 58.4604 51.1493 26.0414 18.7303 0.390335446
3 32 32.4227 66.49 57.2013 34.0673 24.7786 0.374867829
Liquid limit at 25 no of blows = -0.2366(25) + 44.941 = 39.04
Figure 1: Liquid limit graph for sandstone
y = -0.2366x + 44.941
37
37.5
38
38.5
39
39.5
40
40.5
41
1 10 100
Mo
istu
re c
on
ten
t (%
)
Number of blows
APPENDIX
86
Table 8: Results from plastic limit for mudrock
Plastic limit for mudrock
S.no
Wt of
container
Wt of
container +
wet soil
Wt of container +
dry soil
Weight of wet
soil
Weight of dry
soil
Gravimetric water
content
1 32.337 39.099 36.972 6.762 4.635 45.88996764
2 32.249 38.929 36.789 6.68 4.54 47.13656388
3 32.3664 39.309 37.074 6.9426 4.7076 47.47642111
140.5029526
Plastic limit for weathered mudrock = 46.83431754
Table 9: Results from liquid limit for mudrock
Liquid limit for mudrock
S.no
No of
blows
Wt of
container
Wt of container
+ wet soil
Wt of
container +
dry soil
Weight of wet
soil
Weight of dry
soil
Gravimetric
water content
1 22 32.465 52.0296 42.265 19.5646 9.8 0.996387755
2 32 32.2169 50.997 42.734 18.7801 10.5171 0.785672857
3 29 32.548 50.873 41.963 18.325 9.415 0.946362188
Liquid limit at 25 no of blows = -1.8604(25) + 142.42 = 95.91
Figure 2: Liquid limit graph for mudrock
y = -1.8604x + 142.42
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
1 10 100
Mo
istu
re C
on
ten
t (%
)
No of blows
APPENDIX
87
Table 10: Results from plastic limit for pediment
Plastic limit for pediment
S.no
Wt of
container
Wt of
container +
wet soil
Wt of container
+ dry soil
Weight of wet
soil
Weight of dry
soil
Gravimetric water
content
1 32.337 35.433 34.902 3.096 2.565 20.70175439
2 32.249 36.249 35.483 4 3.234 23.68583797
3 32.3664 36.479 35.6994 4.1126 3.333 23.39033903
67.77793139
Plastic limit for basal pediment = 22.6
Table 11: Results from liquid limit for pediment
Liquid limit for pediment
S.no
No of
blows
Wt of
container
Wt of
container +
wet soil
Wt of
container +
dry soil
Weight of wet
soil
Weight of dry
soil
Gravimetric
water content
1 18 32.335 48.141 44.182 15.806 11.847 0.334177429
2 32 32.2408 44.9378 42.1348 12.697 9.894 0.283303012
3 22 32.3564 46.053 42.7404 13.6966 10.384 0.319010015
Liquid limit at 25 no of blows = -0.3622(25) + 39.909 = 30.854
Figure 3: Liquid limit graph for pediment
y = -0.3622x + 39.909
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
1 10 100
Mo
istu
re c
on
ten
t (%
)
Number of blows
APPENDIX
88
Table 12: Results from sieve analysis for sandstone (dry)
S.no Sieve No.
Sieve
Opening
(mm)
Mass of Soil
Retained on
Each Sieve Mn
(g)
Percent of Mass
Retained on
Each Sieve
(Rn)
Cumulative Percent
Retained (Rn)
Percent Finer
(100-F)
1 4 4.75 0 0 0 100
2 10 2 0.1 0.02013896 0.020138959 99.97986104
3 20 0.85 0.05 0.01006948 0.030208438 99.96979156
4 40 0.425 2.1 0.42291814 0.453126573 99.54687343
5 60 0.25 20.1 4.04793072 4.501057295 95.4989427
6 140 0.106 346 69.6807975 74.1818548 25.8181452
7 200 0.075 44.7 9.00211459 83.18396939 16.81603061
8 Pan
83.5
Total Mass of Soil (M): 500 g
Total Mass of Soil Retained after Seiving (M1): 498.9 g
Mass loss during sieve analysis: (M- M1)/M*100=0.69 %
Table 13: Results from sieve analysis for mudrock (dry)
S.no Sieve No.
Sieve
Opening
(mm)
Mass of Soil
Retained on
Each Sieve Mn
(g)
Percent of Mass
Retained on
Each Sieve
(Rn)
Cumulative Percent
Retained (Rn)
Percent Finer
(100-F)
1 4 4.75 231.2 46.2816535 46.28165349 53.71834651
2 10 2 147.1 29.4465019 75.72815534 24.27184466
3 20 0.85 53.2 10.6495846 86.37773997 13.62226003
4 40 0.425 19.9 3.98358523 90.36132519 9.638674807
5 60 0.25 15.3 3.06275648 93.42408167 6.575918326
6 140 0.106 10 2.00180162 95.42588329 4.574116705
7 200 0.075 3.85 0.77069362 96.19657692 3.803423081
8 Pan
19
Total Mass of Soil (M): 500 g
Total Mass of Soil Retained after Sieving (M1): 498.9 g
Mass loss during sieve analysis: (M- M1)/M*100=0.09 %
APPENDIX
89
Table 14: Results from sieve analysis for pediment (dry)
S.no Sieve No.
Sieve
Opening
(mm)
Mass of Soil
Retained on
Each Sieve Mn
(g)
Percent of Mass
Retained on
Each Sieve
(Rn)
Cumulative Percent
Retained (Rn)
Percent Finer
(100-F)
1 4 4.75 1.2 0.24052916 0.240529164 99.75947084
2 10 2 2 0.40088194 0.641411104 99.3585889
3 20 0.85 2.6 0.52114652 1.162557627 98.83744237
4 40 0.425 4 0.80176388 1.964321507 98.03567849
5 60 0.25 21.2 4.24934857 6.213670074 93.78632993
6 140 0.106 270.4 54.1992383 60.4129084 39.5870916
7 200 0.075 91.6 18.3603929 78.77330126 21.22669874
8 Pan
105.9
Total Mass of Soil (M): 500 g
Total Mass of Soil Retained after Sieving (M1): 498.9 g
Mass loss during sieve analysis: (M- M1)/M*100=0.22 %
Table 15: Results from sieve analysis for sandstone (wet)
S.no Sieve No.
Sieve
Opening
(mm)
Mass of Soil
Retained on
Each Sieve Mn
(g)
Percent of Mass
Retained on
Each Sieve
(Rn)
Cumulative Percent
Retained (Rn)
Percent Finer
(100-F)
1 4 4.75 0 0 0 100
2 10 2 0.895 0.18364776 0.183647757 99.81635224
3 20 0.85 0.215 0.0441165 0.227764258 99.77223574
4 40 0.425 0.794 0.16292326 0.39068752 99.60931248
5 60 0.25 4.728 0.97015262 1.360840142 98.63915986
6 140 0.106 257.389 52.8144275 54.17526767 45.82473233
7 200 0.075 60.361 12.3856562 66.56092386 33.43907614
8 Pan
162.964
Total Mass of Soil (M): 488.1 g
Total Mass of Soil Retained after Sieving (M1): 487.346 g
Mass loss during sieve analysis: (M- M1)/M*100=0.154 %
APPENDIX
90
Table 16: Results from sieve analysis for mudrock (wet)
S.no Sieve No.
Sieve
Opening
(mm)
Mass of Soil
Retained on
Each Sieve Mn
(g)
Percent of Mass
Retained on
Each Sieve
(Rn)
Cumulative Percent
Retained (Rn)
Percent Finer
(100-F)
1 4 4.75 0 0 0 100
2 10 2 0.222 0.04691195 0.046911947 99.95308805
3 20 0.85 0.532 0.11241962 0.159331568 99.84066843
4 40 0.425 0.903 0.19081751 0.350149083 99.64985092
5 60 0.25 0.489 0.10333307 0.453482155 99.54651784
6 140 0.106 2.98 0.62971893 1.083201085 98.91679891
7 200 0.075 3.818 0.80680096 1.89000205 98.10999795
8 Pan
464.283 98.109998 100 0
Total Mass of Soil (M): 500 g
Total Mass of Soil Retained after Sieving (M1): 473.227 g
Mass loss during sieve analysis: (M- M1)/M*100= 5.354 %
Table 17: Results from sieve analysis for pediment (wet)
S.no Sieve No.
Sieve
Opening
(mm)
Mass of Soil
Retained on
Each Sieve Mn
(g)
Percent of Mass
Retained on
Each Sieve
(Rn)
Cumulative Percent
Retained (Rn)
Percent Finer
(100-F)
1 4 4.75 0 0 0 100
2 10 2 0.724 0.14820213 0.148202128 99.85179787
3 20 0.85 1.82 0.37255231 0.520754439 99.47924556
4 40 0.425 1.375 0.28146122 0.802215663 99.19778434
5 60 0.25 8.365 1.71230774 2.514523399 97.4854766
6 140 0.106 195.617 40.0426183 42.55714175 57.44285825
7 200 0.075 73.667 15.0795665 57.63670828 42.36329172
8 Pan
206.954
Total Mass of Soil (M): 490.2 g
Total Mass of Soil Retained after Sieving (M1): 488.522 g
Mass loss during sieve analysis: (M- M1)/M*100=0.342 %
APPENDIX
91
Table 18: Results from hydrometer analysis for sandstone with calgon
S.no Time,
(min)
Hydrometer
Reading, R
Temperature,
T (0C)
Temperature
correction FT
= - 4.85 +
0.25 T
Rcp = (R+ FT-
FZ), FZ = +5.20
(corrected
hydrometer
reading)
Percent Finer,
(aX Rcp )X(2),
RcL = (R + Fm),
Fm = 1 K
L (cm) ,
Table 5.1
D (mm),
kX(L/t)1/2
Adjusted
percent
finer
1 0.25 50.1 26 1.65 46.55 91.47075 51.1 0.0124 7.9196 0.069791624 30.5869
2 0.5 49 26 1.65 45.45 89.30925 50 0.0124 8.1 0.049909037 29.86412
3 1 45.5 26 1.65 41.95 82.43175 46.5 0.0124 8.674 0.036520053 27.56435
4 2 42 26 1.65 38.45 75.55425 43 0.0124 9.248 0.026664325 25.26459
5 4 38.5 26 1.65 34.95 68.67675 39.5 0.0124 9.822 0.019430844 22.96482
6 8 36 26 1.65 32.45 63.76425 37 0.0124 10.232 0.014023517 21.32213
7 15 34 26 1.65 30.45 59.83425 35 0.0124 10.56 0.010404184 20.00797
8 30 31.5 26 1.65 27.95 54.92175 32.5 0.0124 10.97 0.007498327 18.36528
9 60 29.5 26 1.65 25.95 50.99175 30.5 0.0124 11.298 0.0053808 17.05113
10 120 28 26 1.65 24.45 48.04425 29 0.0124 11.544 0.003845999 16.06552
11 240 26 26 1.65 22.45 44.11425 27 0.0124 11.872 0.002757897 14.75136
12 480 25.3 27 1.9 22 43.23 26.3 0.0122 11.9868 0.001927928 14.45568
13 1440 23 28 2.15 19.95 39.20175 24 0.0121 12.364 0.001121201 13.10867
14 2880 22.9 25 1.4 19.1 37.5315 23.9 0.0125 12.3804 0.000819561 12.55016
Total Mass of Soil (M): 50 g (dry condition)
Meniscus Correction (Fm): 1 mm
Zero Correction (Fz): +5.20
Temperature Correction (FT): 25.9
0C
Bulk Specific Gravity (Gb) : 2.73
APPENDIX
92
Table 19: Results from hydrometer analysis for mudrock
S.no Time,
(min)
Hydrometer
Reading, R
Temperature,
T (0C)
Temperature
correction FT
= - 4.85 + 0.25
T
Rcp = (R+ FT-
FZ), FZ = +3.50
(corrected
hydrometer
reading)
Percent Finer,
(aX Rcp
)X(2),
RcL = (R +
Fm), Fm = 1 K
L (cm) ,
Table 5.1
D (mm),
kX(L/t)1/2
Adjusted
percent finer
1 0.25 53 26.7 1.825 51.325 98.83142 54 0.0124 7.444 0.06766356 96.96251785
2 0.5 52.5 26.7 1.825 50.825 97.86862 53.5 0.0124 7.526 0.04810816 96.0179244
3 1 52 26.7 1.825 50.325 96.90582 53 0.0124 7.608 0.03420243 95.07333094
4 2 50.9 26.7 1.825 49.225 94.78766 51.9 0.0124 7.7884 0.02446982 92.99522535
5 4 50.5 26.7 1.825 48.825 94.01742 51.5 0.0124 7.854 0.01737549 92.23955059
6 8 47.5 26.7 1.825 45.825 88.24062 48.5 0.0124 8.346 0.01266531 86.57198988
7 15 46 26.6 1.8 44.3 85.30408 47 0.0124 8.592 0.00938476 83.69097985
8 30 43.75 26.6 1.8 42.05 80.97148 44.75 0.0124 8.961 0.00677703 79.44030931
9 60 41.5 26.6 1.8 39.8 76.63888 42.5 0.0124 9.33 0.00488975 75.18963878
10 120 40 26.6 1.8 38.3 73.75048 41 0.0124 9.576 0.00350286 72.35585842
11 240 39 26.6 1.8 37.3 71.82488 40 0.0124 9.74 0.00249802 70.46667152
12 480 37 26.8 1.85 35.35 68.06996 38 0.0124 10.068 0.00179586 66.78275706
13 1440 33.1 27.4 2 31.6 60.84896 34.1 0.0122 10.7076 0.00105202 59.69830617
14 2880 33 25.5 1.525 31.025 59.74174 34 0.0125 10.724 0.00076277 58.6120237
Total Mass of Soil (M): 50 g (dry condition)
Meniscus Correction (Fm): 1 mm
Zero Correction (Fz): +3.50
Temperature Correction (FT): 25.9
0C
Bulk Specific Gravity (Gb) : 2.85
APPENDIX
93
Table 20: Results from hydrometer analysis for pediment with calgon
S.no Time,
(min)
Hydrometer
Reading, R
Temperature,
T (0C)
Temperature
correction FT
= - 4.85 +
0.25 T
Rcp = (R+ FT- FZ),
FZ = +1.0
(corrected
hydrometer
reading)
Percent
Finer, (aX
Rcp )X(2),
RcL = (R +
Fm), Fm =
1
K L (cm) ,
Table 5.1
D (mm),
kX(L/t)1/2
Adjusted
percent finer
1 0.25 46 24.6 1.3 46.3 91.36842 47 0.0126 8.592 0.07386653 38.70640376
2 0.5 44 24.6 1.3 44.3 87.42162 45 0.0126 8.92 0.05321915 37.03442088
3 1 41 24.6 1.3 41.3 81.50142 42 0.0126 9.412 0.03865552 34.52644655
4 2 37.2 24.6 1.3 37.5 74.0025 38.2 0.0126 10.0352 0.028224 31.34967908
5 4 34 24.6 1.3 34.3 67.68762 35 0.0126 10.56 0.02047258 28.67450646
6 8 31.2 24.6 1.3 31.5 62.1621 32.2 0.0126 11.0192 0.0147877 26.33373042
7 15 28.5 24.6 1.3 28.8 56.83392 29.5 0.0126 11.462 0.01101425 24.07655353
8 30 26.5 24.4 1.25 26.75 52.78845 27.5 0.0126 11.79 0.0078989 22.36277107
9 60 25 24.3 1.225 25.225 49.779015 26 0.0126 12.036 0.00564334 21.08788412
10 120 23 23.8 1.1 23.1 45.58554 24 0.0128 12.364 0.00410865 19.31140231
11 240 22 23.5 1.025 22.025 43.464135 23 0.0128 12.528 0.00292446 18.41271151
12 480 20.2 25.2 1.45 20.65 40.75071 21.2 0.0125 12.8232 0.00204309 17.26322328
13 1440 19.2 23.8 1.1 19.3 38.08662 20.2 0.0128 12.9872 0.00121559 16.13463483
14 2880 17 23.8 1.1 17.1 33.74514 18 0.0128 13.348 0.00087141 14.29545366
Total Mass of Soil (M): 50 g (dry condition)
Meniscus Correction (Fm): 1 mm
Zero Correction (Fz): +1.0
Temperature Correction (FT): 25.9
0C
Bulk Specific Gravity (Gb) : 2.71
APPENDIX
94
Table 21: Results from hydrometer analysis for sandstone without calgon
S.no Time,
(min)
Hydrometer
Reading, R
Temperature, T
(0C)
Temperature
correction FT
= - 4.85 + 0.25
T
Rcp = (R+ FT-
FZ), FZ = 0
(corrected
hydrometer
reading)
Percent
Finer, (aX
Rcp )X(2),
RcL = (R +
Fm), Fm =
1
K L (cm) ,
Table 5.1
D (mm),
kX(L/t)1/2
Adjusted
percent finer
1 0.25 47 25.2 1.45 48.45 95.20425 48 0.0125 8.428 0.072577545 31.83534916
2 0.5 45 25.2 1.45 46.45 91.27425 46 0.0125 8.756 0.052309177 30.52119646
3 1 42 25.2 1.45 43.45 85.37925 43 0.0125 9.248 0.038013156 28.54996741
4 2 38 25.2 1.45 39.45 77.51925 39 0.0125 9.904 0.027816362 25.92166201
5 4 33.5 25.2 1.45 34.95 68.67675 34.5 0.0125 10.642 0.020388799 22.96481843
6 8 30.5 25.1 1.425 31.925 62.732625 31.5 0.0125 11.134 0.014746557 20.97716247
7 15 28 24.7 1.325 29.325 57.623625 29 0.0126 11.544 0.011053583 19.26876396
8 30 26.3 24.5 1.275 27.575 54.184875 27.3 0.0126 11.8228 0.007909884 18.11888035
9 60 23.8 24.2 1.2 25 49.125 24.8 0.0126 12.2328 0.005689287 16.42690875
10 120 22.5 24.6 1.3 23.8 46.767 23.5 0.0126 12.446 0.004057839 15.63841713
11 240 20.1 25.3 1.475 21.575 42.394875 21.1 0.0125 12.8396 0.002891213 14.17642225
12 480 18.5 26.2 1.7 20.2 39.693 19.5 0.0124 13.102 0.00204866 13.27294227
13 1440 17.5 23.6 1.05 18.55 36.45075 18.5 0.0128 13.266 0.001228567 12.18876629
14 2880 16.5 23.8 1.1 17.6 34.584 17.5 0.0128 13.43 0.000874081 11.56454376
Total Mass of Soil (M): 50 g (dry condition)
Meniscus Correction (Fm): 1 mm
Zero Correction (Fz): 0
Temperature Correction (FT): 25.9
0C
Bulk Specific Gravity (Gb) : 2.73
APPENDIX
95
Table 22: Results from hydrometer analysis for mudrock without calgon
S.no Time,
(min)
Hydrometer
Reading, R
Temperature, T
(0C)
Temperature
correction FT
= - 4.85 + 0.25
T
Rcp = (R+ FT-
FZ), FZ = 0
(corrected
hydrometer
reading)
Percent Finer,
(aX Rcp
)X(2),
RcL = (R +
Fm), Fm = 1 K
L (cm) ,
Table 5.1
D (mm),
kX(L/t)1/2
Adjusted
percent finer
1 0.25 46.5 25.2 1.45 47.95 92.33252 47.5 0.0125 8.51 0.07292976 90.58651205
2 0.5 45.5 25.2 1.45 46.95 90.40692 46.5 0.0125 8.674 0.05206366 88.69732514
3 1 44.5 25.2 1.45 45.95 88.48132 45.5 0.0125 8.838 0.03716097 86.80813824
4 2 43.5 25.2 1.45 44.95 86.55572 44.5 0.0125 9.002 0.02651945 84.91895133
5 4 42.2 25.2 1.45 43.65 84.05244 43.2 0.0125 9.2152 0.01897284 82.46300836
6 8 39.5 25.1 1.425 40.925 78.80518 40.5 0.0125 9.658 0.01373437 77.31497405
7 15 36.5 24.9 1.375 37.875 72.9321 37.5 0.0126 10.15 0.01036473 71.55295399
8 30 33.5 24.9 1.375 34.875 67.1553 34.5 0.0126 10.642 0.0075045 65.88539328
9 60 31 24.5 1.275 32.275 62.14874 32 0.0126 11.052 0.00540773 60.97350733
10 120 29.2 23.9 1.125 30.325 58.39382 30.2 0.0128 11.3472 0.00393608 57.28959286
11 240 27.5 23.5 1.025 28.525 54.92774 28.5 0.0128 11.626 0.00281721 53.88905644
12 480 26 24.5 1.275 27.275 52.52074 27 0.0126 11.872 0.00198158 51.52757281
13 1440 24.1 24.5 1.275 25.375 48.8621 25.1 0.0126 12.1836 0.00115898 47.93811769
14 2880 23.2 25.6 1.55 24.75 47.6586 24.2 0.0125 12.3312 0.00081793 46.75737587
Total Mass of Soil (M): 50 g (dry condition)
Meniscus Correction (Fm): 1 mm
Zero Correction (Fz): 0
Temperature Correction (FT): 25.9
0C
Bulk Specific Gravity (Gb) : 2.85
APPENDIX
96
Table 23: Results from hydrometer analysis for pediment without calgon
S.No Time, t
(min)
Hydrometer
Reading, R
Temperature,
T (0C)
Temperature
correction FT
= - 4.85 +
0.25 T
Rcp = (R+ FT-
FZ), FZ = +5.0
(corrected
hydrometer
reading)
Percent
Finer, (aX
Rcp )X(2),
RcL = (R +
Fm), Fm = 1 K
L (cm) ,
Table 5.1
D (mm),
kX(L/t)1/2
Adjusted
percent finer
1 0.25 47 26.3 1.725 43.725 86.286915 48 0.0124 8.428 0.071996924 36.5537258
2 0.5 44 26.3 1.725 40.725 80.366715 45 0.0124 8.92 0.052374406 34.04575148
3 1 41.25 26.3 1.725 37.975 74.939865 42.25 0.0124 9.371 0.037958991 31.74677501
4 2 37.25 26.3 1.725 33.975 67.046265 38.25 0.0124 10.027 0.027764649 28.40280924
5 4 34.5 26.3 1.725 31.225 61.619415 35.5 0.0124 10.478 0.020069238 26.10383278
6 8 31.1 26.2 1.7 27.8 54.86052 32.1 0.0124 11.0356 0.014563799 23.24056209
7 15 29.2 26.3 1.725 25.925 51.160395 30.2 0.0124 11.3472 0.010785006 21.67307813
8 30 25.75 26.2 1.7 22.45 44.30283 26.75 0.0124 11.913 0.007813968 18.76800787
9 60 23.5 26.4 1.75 20.25 39.96135 24.5 0.0124 12.282 0.005610229 16.9288267
10 120 22 26.5 1.775 18.775 37.050585 23 0.0124 12.528 0.004006563 15.69573932
11 240 21 26.6 1.8 17.8 35.12652 22 0.0124 12.692 0.002851551 14.88064767
12 480 19.9 27 1.9 16.8 33.15312 20.9 0.0122 12.8724 0.001997878 14.04465623
13 1440 19.5 27 1.9 16.4 32.36376 20.5 0.0122 12.938 0.001156411 13.71025965
14 2880 17.5 25.1 1.425 13.925 27.479595 18.5 0.0125 13.266 0.000848367 11.64118083
Total Mass of Soil (M): 50 g (dry condition)
Meniscus Correction (Fm): 1 mm
Zero Correction (Fz): +5.0
Temperature Correction (FT): 25.9
0C
Bulk Specific Gravity (Gb) : 2.71
APPENDIX
97
Table 24: Results from soil-water characteristics curve determination for sandstone
S.n
o
Wt
of
silv
er
can
wt
of
wet
so
il
sam
ple
+
silv
er c
up
Mas
s o
f w
et
soil
sam
ple
Wt
of
silv
er
cup
and
dry
soil
sam
ple
Mas
s o
f d
ry
soil
sam
ple
vo
lum
e o
f
soil
sam
ple
cm3
Gra
vim
etri
c
wat
er c
on
ten
t
Sp
ecif
ic
gra
vit
y
Deg
ree
of
satu
rati
on
Su
ctio
n (
kP
a)
1 32.37 45.83 13.46 40.14 7.764 8.485 0.734 2.73 0.99 5
2 32.63 45.96 13.33 40.86 8.223 2.410 0.620 2.73 0.84 10
3 32.35 45.55 13.19 40.86 8.503 8.283 0.551 2.73 0.74 15
4 32.26 39.80 7.538 37.19 4.922 3.555 0.531 2.73 0.72 20
5 32.62 38.21 5.587 36.39 3.766 5.221 0.483 2.73 0.66 30
6 32.32 46.158 13.838 41.74 9.415 9.66 0.47 2.73 0.64 110
7 32.35 46.527 14.177 41.933 9.582 8.77 0.48 2.73 0.65 170
8 32.29 45.738 13.448 41.965 9.67 9.29 0.39 2.73 0.53 210
9 32.43 43.694 11.264 42.112 9.674 6.68 0.16 2.73 0.22 570
10 32.40 45.263 12.863 41.974 9.572 7.67 0.34 2.73 0.46 240
11 32.14 44.343 12.203 41.508 9.36 7.38 0.30 2.73 0.34 280
12 32.75 44.674 11.924 42.302 9.552 7.12 0.25 2.73 0.34 390
13 32.44 44.231 11.791 42.45 10.00 7.38 0.18 2.73 0.24 460
14 32.44 44.231 11.791 42.45 10.00 7.38 0.18 2.73 0.24 640
15 32.43 43.694 11.264 42.112 9.674 6.68 0.16 2.73 0.22 670
16 32.25 43.18 10.93 42.07 9.818 6.96 0.11 2.73 0.15 1220
APPENDIX
98
Table 25: Results from soil-water characteristics curve determination for mudrock
S.n
o
Wt
of
silv
er
can
wt
of
wet
so
il
sam
ple
+
silv
er c
up
Mas
s o
f w
et
soil
sam
ple
Wt
of
silv
er
cup
and
dry
soil
sam
ple
Mas
s o
f d
ry
soil
sam
ple
vo
lum
e o
f
soil
sam
ple
cm3
Gra
vim
etri
c
wat
er c
on
ten
t
Sp
ecif
ic
gra
vit
y
Deg
ree
of
satu
rati
on
Su
ctio
n (
kP
a)
1 32.232 50.984 18.752 37.262 5.030 16.277 2.727 2.85 1.00 5
2 32.359 47.455 15.095 36.610 4.250 12.898 2.5491 2.85 0.93 10
3 32.148 47.186 15.038 37.082 4.934 12.565 2.047 2.85 0.74 15
4 32.147 45.707 13.560 36.809 4.661 12.099 1.908 2.85 0.69 20
5 32.362 41.488 9.126 36.24 3.878 2.034 1.353 2.85 0.49 50
6 32.288 43.419 11.131 37.143 4.855 8.949 1.292 2.85 0.47 90
7 32.245 40.739 8.494 36.24 3.995 1.767 1.126 2.85 0.41 100
8 32.308 48.9 16.592 40.94 8.632 1.9703 0.922 2.85 0.33 150
9 32.257 40.067 7.81 36.43 4.173 1.5016 0.871 2.85 0.31 200
10 32.88 46.147 13.267 40.16 7.28 1.5670 0.822 2.85 0.30 250
11 32.243 44.748 12.505 39.509 7.266 10.749 0.721 2.85 0.26 300
12 32.381 43.723 11.342 39.552 7.171 9.280 0.581 2.85 0.21 450
13 32.152 42.837 10.685 39.332 7.18 10.165 0.488 2.85 0.17 800
14 32.846 42.801 9.955 40.005 7.159 9.450 0.390 2.85 0.14 940
15 32.561 42.228 9.667 39.762 7.201 8.095 0.342 2.85 0.12 1180
16 32.143 41.372 9.229 39.397 7.254 8.820 0.272 2.85 0.09 3660
17 32.232 41.382 9.15 39.557 7.325 7.498 0.249 2.85 0.09 4780
APPENDIX
99
Table 26: Results from soil-water characteristics curve determination for pediment
S.n
o
Wt
of
silv
er
can
wt
of
wet
so
il
sam
ple
+
silv
er c
up
Mas
s o
f w
et
soil
sam
ple
Wt
of
silv
er
cup
and
dry
soil
sam
ple
Mas
s o
f d
ry
soil
sam
ple
vo
lum
e o
f
soil
sam
ple
cm3
Gra
vim
etri
c
wat
er c
on
ten
t
Sp
ecif
ic
gra
vit
y
Deg
ree
of
satu
rati
on
Su
ctio
n (
kP
a)
1 32.48 48.417 15.937 43.33 10.85 8.891 0.468 2.71 0.748 10
2 32.329 48.057 15.728 44.335 12.006 6.413 0.310 2.71 0.494 20
3 32.626 42.048 9.422 39.673 7.047 8.260 0.337 2.71 0.540 20
4 32.46 46.018 13.558 43.317 10.857 9.754 0.248 2.71 0.248 30
5 32.364 40.831 8.467 39.409 7.045 8.220 0.201 2.71 0.322 90
6 32.237 40.355 8.118 39.463 7.226 6.967 0.123 2.71 0.197 150
7 32.347 40.007 7.66 39.472 7.125 8.186 0.075 2.71 0.119 300
APPENDIX
100
Table 27: Results from Guelph permeameter test for sandstone
Guelph Permeameter test results
Sandstone
Inner reservoir 2.14 cm2
For 5 cm Head
Reading no
Time Interval
(Minutes)
Water level in
reservoir (cm) Water level change
Rate of water level
change (cm/min)
1 0 27.6 0
2 2 27.8 0.2
3 2 27.9 0.1
4 2 28 0.1
5 2 28.1 0.1
0.05
6 2 28.2 0.1
7 2 28.3 0.1
8 2 28.4 0.1
R1 = 0.000833333 cm/sec
For 10 cm Head
Reading no
Time Interval
(Minutes)
Water level in
reservoir (cm) Water level change
Rate of water level
change (cm/min)
1 0 35.1 0
2 51 58.6 23.5
3 0.5 61.55 2.95
4 0.5 64.5 2.95
5 0.5 67.45 2.95
5.9 6 0.5 70.4 2.95
R2 = 0.098333333 cm/sec
Field saturated hydraulic conductivity
Kf = [(0.0041)(2.14)(R2)] - [(0.0054)(2.14)(R1)]
first term 0.000862777
second term 9.63E-06
Kf = 0.000853147 cm/sec 8.5 x 10
-6 m/sec
APPENDIX
101
Table 28: Results from Guelph permeameter test for mudrock
Guelph Permeameter test results
Mudrock
Inner reservoir 2.14 cm2
For 5 cm Head
Reading no
Time Interval
(Minutes)
Water level in
reservoir (cm) Water level change
Rate of water level
change (cm/min)
1 0 35.9 0
2 10 36.1 0.2
3 10 36.3 0.2
4 10 36.5 0.2
5 10 36.7 0.2
0.02 6 10 36.9 0.2
R1 = 0.000333333 cm/sec
For 10 cm Head
Reading no
Time Interval
(Minutes)
Water level in
reservoir (cm) Water level change
Rate of water level
change (cm/min)
1 0 35.8 0
2 5 37.05 1.25
3 5 37.32 0.27
4 5 37.59 0.27
5 5 37.86 0.27
0.054 6 5 38.13 0.27
R2 = 0.0009 cm/sec
Field saturated hydraulic conductivity
Kf = [(0.0041)(2.14)(R2)] - [(0.0054)(2.14)(R1)]
first term 7.8966E-06
second term 3.852E-06
Kf = 4.0446E-06 cm/sec 4 x 10
-8 m/sec
APPENDIX
102
Table 29: Results from Guelph permeameter test for pediment
Guelph Permeameter test results
Pediment
Outer reservoir 35.39 cm2
For 5 cm Head
Reading no
Time Interval
(Minutes)
Water level in
reservoir (cm) Water level change
Rate of water level
change (cm/min)
1 0 12 0
2 1 13.3 1.3
3 1 14.6 1.3
4 1 15.9 1.3
5 1 17.2 1.3
1.3 6 1 18.5 1.3
R1 = 0.021666667 cm/sec
For 10 cm Head
Reading no
Time Interval
(Minutes)
Water level in
reservoir (cm) Water level change
Rate of water level
change (cm/min)
1 0 32.7 0
2 1 34.9 2.2
3 1 37.35 2.45
4 1 39.8 2.45
5 1 42.25 2.45 2.45
R2 = 0.040833333 cm/sec
Field saturated hydraulic conductivity
Kf = [(0.0041)(2.14)(R2)] - [(0.0054)(2.14)(R1)]
first term 0.005924876
second term 0.00414063
Kf = 0.001784246 cm/sec 1.78 x 10
-5 m/sec
APPENDIX
103
Table 30: Results from free swelling test for sandstone in a cylinder
S. no Time (minutes) Total height after swelling Initial height Swelling potential (%)
1 0 33.3 33.3 0
2 0.5 33.3 33.3 0
3 4 33.5 33.3 0.600600601
4 32 33.7 33.3 1.201201201
5 64 33.9 33.3 1.801801802
6 124 34.0 33.3 2.102102102
7 664 34.5 33.3 3.603603604
8 1204 34.8 33.3 4.504504505
9 1684 35.2 33.3 5.705705706
10 1924 35.5 33.3 6.606606607
11 2704 36.5 33.3 9.60960961
12 3244 37.0 33.3 11.11111111
13 4624 39.0 33.3 17.11711712
14 4804 39.5 33.3 18.61861862
15 8884 41.0 33.3 23.12312312
16 29404 41.5 33.3 24.62462462
17 57004 41.5 33.3 24.62462462
APPENDIX
104
Table 31: Results from free swelling test for mudrock in a cylinder
S.no Time (minutes) Total height after swelling Initial height Swelling potential (%)
1 0 33.3 33.3 0
3 1 33.3 33.3 0
4 2 33.7 33.3 1.201201201
5 64 35.08 33.3 5.345345345
6 994 46.5 33.3 39.63963964
7 4414 58.0 33.3 74.17417417
8 15214 71.0 33.3 113.2132132
9 36814 81.0 33.3 143.2432432
10 62794 90.0 33.3 170.2702703
11 176134 103.0 33.3 209.3093093
12 476134 117.0 33.3 251.3513514
Table 32: Results from free swelling test for pediment in a cylinder
S.no Time (minutes) Total height after swelling Initial height Swelling potential (%)
1 0 33.3 33.3 0
2 0.5 33.3 33.3 0
3 1 33.3 33.3 0
4 4 33.63 33.3 0.990990991
5 16 34.0 33.3 2.102102102
6 184 34.63 33.3 3.993993994
7 424 34.97 33.3 5.015015015
8 484 35.1 33.3 5.405405405
9 784 35.8 33.3 7.507507508
10 1684 36.6 33.3 9.90990991
11 13744 36.8 33.3 10.51051051
APPENDIX
105
Table 33: Results from free swelling test for sandstone in an odometer
S.no Time (Minutes) Total height after swelling
(mm)
Initial height
(mm)
Swelling potential
(%)
1 0 5 5 0
2 1 5 5 0
3 4 5.03 5 0.6
4 8 5.057 5 1.14
5 16 5.11 5 2.2
6 32 5.16 5 3.2
7 64 5.21 5 4.2
8 244 5.37 5 7.4
9 604 5.52 5 10.4
10 3604 5.75 5 15
11 6000 5.85 5 17
12 10624 5.92 5 18.4
13 15844 5.925 5 18.5
14 21604 5.929 5 18.58
15 26164 5.937 5 18.74
16 27784 5.943 5 18.86
Table 34: Results from free swelling test for mudrock in an odometer
S.no Time (Minutes)
Total height after swelling
(mm)
Initial height
(mm)
Swelling potential
(%)
1 0 5 5 0
2 4 5.026 5 0.52
3 8 5.048 5 0.96
4 16 5.109 5 2.18
5 32 5.355 5 7.1
6 64 5.628 5 12.56
7 124 6.035 5 20.7
8 184 6.425 5 28.5
9 304 7.195 5 43.9
10 1384 8.795 5 75.9
11 1684 8.932 5 78.64
12 3184 9.367 5 87.34
13 10204 9.865 5 97.3
14 26404 10.085 5 101.7
15 31204 10.086 5 101.72
16 34084 10.093 5 101.86
APPENDIX
106
Table 35: Results from free swelling test for pediment in an odometer
S.no Time (Minutes) Total height after swelling (mm) Initial height (mm) Swelling potential (%)
1 0 5 5 0
2 1 5 5 0
3 2 5.009 5 0.18
4 4 5.02 5 0.4
5 8 5.041 5 0.82
6 16 5.057 5 1.14
7 32 5.075 5 1.5
8 64 5.085 5 1.7
9 124 5.092 5 1.84
10 184 5.094 5 1.88
11 244 5.098 5 1.96
APPENDIX
107
Table 36: Results from swell-shrink curve for sandstone
S.n
o
Wt
of
silv
er
can
wt
of
wet
so
il
sam
ple
+
silv
er c
up
Wt
of
silv
er
cup
and
dry
soil
sam
ple
Mas
s o
f d
ry
soil
sam
ple
vo
lum
e o
f
soil
sam
ple
cm3
Bu
lk d
ensi
ty
Gra
vim
etri
c
wat
er c
on
ten
t
Sp
ecif
ic
gra
vit
y
Dry
den
sity
Vo
id r
atio
1 32.37 45.83 40.14 7.764 8.485 1.5605 0.734 2.73 0.899877 2.033
2 32.63 45.96 40.86 8.223 2.410 1.473 0.620 2.73 0.908776 2.004
3 32.26 39.80 37.19 4.922 3.555 1.4543 0.531 2.73 0.949597 1.874
4 32.29 45.738 41.965 9.67 9.29 1.519634 0.39 2.73 1.519634 1.497
5 32.14 44.343 41.508 9.36 7.38 1.664736 0.30 2.73 1.664736 1.136
6 32.75 44.674 42.302 9.552 7.12 1.71024 0.25 2.73 1.71024 0.992
7 32.325 46.158 41.74 9.415 9.66 1.511103 0.469 2.73 1.511103 1.654
8 32.25 43.18 42.07 9.818 6.96 1.566183 0.11 2.73 1.566183 0.939
Table 37: Results from swell-shrink curve for mudrock
S.n
o
Wt
of
silv
er
can
wt
of
wet
so
il
sam
ple
+
silv
er c
up
Wt
of
silv
er
cup
and
dry
soil
sam
ple
Mas
s o
f d
ry
soil
sam
ple
vo
lum
e o
f
soil
sam
ple
cm3
Bu
lk d
ensi
ty
Gra
vim
etri
c
wat
er c
on
ten
t
Sp
ecif
ic
gra
vit
y
Dry
den
sity
Vo
id r
atio
1 32.148 47.186 37.082 4.934 12.565 1.197293 2.047 2.85 0.406 6.257
2 32.147 45.707 36.809 4.661 12.099 1.120762 1.908 2.85 0.424 6.396
3 32.288 43.419 37.143 4.855 8.949 1.244738 1.292 2.85 0.542 4.253
4 32.2894 43.7307 37.1756 4.8862 9.345 1.224 1.341 2.85 0.522 4.45
5 32.3599 47.4557 36.6103 4.2505 12.898 1.170 2.54 2.85 0.3295 7.648
6 32.243 44.748 39.509 7.266 10.749 1.166195 0.721 2.85 0.677 3.205
7 32.381 43.723 39.552 7.171 9.280 1.240318 0.581 2.85 0.784 2.634
9 32.846 42.801 40.005 7.159 9.450 1.145986 0.390 2.85 0.824 2.458
10 32.561 42.228 39.762 7.201 8.095 1.125253 0.342 2.85 0.838 2.400
11 32.143 41.372 39.397 7.254 8.820 1.116417 0.272 2.85 0.877 2.247
12 32.232 41.382 39.557 7.325 7.498 1.169691 0.249 2.85 0.936 2.043
APPENDIX
108
Table 38: Results from swell-shrink curve for pediment
S.n
o
Wt
of
silv
er
can
wt
of
wet
so
il
sam
ple
+
silv
er c
up
Wt
of
silv
er
cup
and
dry
soil
sam
ple
Mas
s o
f d
ry
soil
sam
ple
vo
lum
e o
f
soil
sam
ple
cm3
Bu
lk d
ensi
ty
Gra
vim
etri
c
wat
er c
on
ten
t
Sp
ecif
ic
gra
vit
y
Dry
den
sity
Vo
id r
atio
1 32.48 48.417 43.33 10.85 8.891 1.650946 0.468 2.71 1.123 1.411
2 32.329 48.057 44.335 12.006 6.413 1.730832 0.310 2.71 1.321 1.051
3 32.581 47.173 44.498 11.917 6.349 1.725495 0.224 2.71 1.409 0.923
4 32.564 45.999 44.448 11.884 6.034 1.651 0.130 2.71 1.460 0.855
5 32.271 55.748 54.51 22.239 8.756 1.520 0.055 2.71 1.439 0.882
6 32.067 45.157 44.889 12.822 2.102 1.474 0.020 2.71 1.444 0.875
