The SlabCalc Soil Risk Index
The SlabCalc Soil Risk Score combines the area-weighted linear extensibility of the soil in the top 100 cm with the USDA NRCS engineering limitation rating for dwellings without basements, over an 8 km area centred on each city.
SlabCalc computed an expansive-soil risk score for 180 US cities from USDA NRCS Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO), via Soil Data Access, area-weighted over an 8 km survey box centered on each city. No comparable national table of city-level expansive-soil risk scores built from primary SSURGO survey data is published anywhere else in the concrete industry.
Data last updated: September 17, 2026
Key Findings
Highest soil risk score
New Orleans, LA: 100/100
New Orleans, Louisiana scores highest in the index, a very high-risk area dominated by Harahan soil.
Lowest soil risk score
Detroit, MI: 10/100
Detroit, Michigan scores lowest in the dataset (very low band).
National mean
42.2/100
Unweighted mean soil risk score across all 180 cities in the index.
Cities needing expansive-soil detailing
18 of 180 (10%)
Cities scoring in the high or very high risk bands, where this index recommends a site-specific geotechnical report.
Why Two Measures, Not One
Linear extensibility percent (LEP) is the standard laboratory measure of how much a soil shrinks and swells with moisture change. It is a real, physical quantity — but SSURGO only reports it down to a fixed depth, and this index averages it over the top 100 cm of soil. Some of the most damaging expansive clays in the country sit below that line, which means LEP alone can call a genuinely high-risk city “low.”
Jackson, Mississippi is the clearest case in this dataset. Its area-weighted LEP over the top 100 cm is 2.08%, which on its own would read as a low-risk figure. Jackson sits on Yazoo clay, one of the most damaging expansive soils in the United States, but the clay layer lies below the 100 cm window LEP is averaged over here. Its USDA NRCS dwelling-limitation index is 0.928, among the highest of every city measured in this index.
That limitation rating comes from a separate NRCS interpretation — “ENG - Dwellings W/O Basements” — that is not depth-limited the way this index's LEP figure is. It rates how suitable the full soil profile is for a foundation without a basement, on a 0 (not limited) to 1 (very limited) scale, and it is what catches what LEP, averaged to 100 cm, misses in Jackson.
Neither measure alone would have been reliable here: LEP alone under-scores Jackson at 17/100 on its own scale, and a limitation-only score would give no physical read on swell magnitude anywhere else in the index. The SlabCalc Soil Risk Score carries both, which is why Jackson lands in the moderate band overall rather than reading as a false all-clear.
Soil Risk Score by City
Ranked by SlabCalc Soil Risk Score, highest to lowest. LEP is the area-weighted linear extensibility percent over the top 100 cm; the limitation index is the USDA NRCS dwelling-limitation rating (0 = not limited, 1 = very limited).
| Rank | City | State | Score | Band | LEP % | Limitation index | Dominant series | Drainage class | Hydrologic group | Water table (cm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | New Orleans | LA | 100 | Very High | 17.02 | 0.999 | Harahan | Very poorly drained | D | 59 |
| 2 | Brownsville | TX | 92 | Very High | 10.51 | 0.979 | Lomalta | Poorly drained | D | 40 |
| 3 | Garland | TX | 89 | Very High | 10.51 | 0.91 | Houston Black | Well drained | D | 117 |
| 4 | Frisco | TX | 89 | Very High | 10.48 | 0.901 | Houston Black | Moderately well drained | D | 231 |
| 5 | Grand Prairie | TX | 86 | Very High | 9.86 | 0.908 | Houston Black | Moderately well drained | D | 212 |
| 6 | Durham | NC | 84 | Very High | 9.56 | 0.882 | White Store | Moderately well drained | D | 96 |
| 7 | Plano | TX | 83 | Very High | 9.56 | 0.869 | Houston Black | Moderately well drained | D | — |
| 8 | Irving | TX | 83 | Very High | 9.6 | 0.868 | Ferris | Well drained | D | 189 |
| 9 | San Antonio | TX | 77 | High | 8.25 | 0.876 | Houston Black | Well drained | D | — |
| 10 | McKinney | TX | 77 | High | 8.57 | 0.833 | Houston Black | Moderately well drained | D | — |
| 11 | Dallas | TX | 76 | High | 8.71 | 0.795 | Houston Black | Well drained | D | 119 |
| 12 | Overland Park | KS | 71 | High | 6.06 | 0.968 | Chillicothe | Moderately well drained | D | 177 |
| 13 | Stockton | CA | 69 | High | 5.61 | 0.954 | Jacktone | Somewhat poorly drained | C | 309 |
| 14 | Chula Vista | CA | 69 | High | 5.68 | 0.958 | Diablo | Well drained | D | 387 |
| 15 | Topeka | KS | 69 | High | 5.66 | 0.95 | Ladysmith | Moderately well drained | D | 145 |
| 16 | Arlington | TX | 67 | High | 7.24 | 0.743 | Gasil | Well drained | D | 234 |
| 17 | Lincoln | NE | 67 | High | 5.57 | 0.931 | Wymore | Moderately well drained | C | 184 |
| 18 | Fremont | CA | 66 | High | 5.54 | 0.9 | Novato | Well drained | C | 147 |
| 19 | Fort Worth | TX | 64 | Moderate | 5.89 | 0.812 | Sanger | Well drained | D | 322 |
| 20 | San Jose | CA | 63 | Moderate | 4.6 | 0.922 | Montara | Well drained | D | 128 |
| 21 | Houston | TX | 62 | Moderate | 4.41 | 0.934 | Aris | Poorly drained | D | 78 |
| 22 | Austin | TX | 62 | Moderate | 5.4 | 0.818 | Austin | Well drained | D | 231 |
| 23 | Pierre | SD | 62 | Moderate | 6.56 | 0.701 | Highmore | Well drained | D | 171 |
| 24 | Santa Rosa | CA | 61 | Moderate | 4.16 | 0.93 | Zamora | Well drained | D | 3 |
| 25 | Eugene | OR | 61 | Moderate | 5.1 | 0.833 | Malabon | Well drained | D | 79 |
| 26 | Cincinnati | OH | 60 | Moderate | 4.05 | 0.922 | Udorthents | Well drained | D | 161 |
| 27 | Fort Wayne | IN | 59 | Moderate | 4.2 | 0.881 | Blount | Somewhat poorly drained | D | 84 |
| 28 | Reno | NV | 58 | Moderate | 4.41 | 0.846 | Reno | Well drained | D | 326 |
| 29 | Little Rock | AR | 57 | Moderate | 4.01 | 0.868 | Carnasaw | Well drained | C | 114 |
| 30 | Tulsa | OK | 56 | Moderate | 4.1 | 0.832 | Dennis | Somewhat poorly drained | D | 110 |
| 31 | San Diego | CA | 55 | Moderate | 3.85 | 0.822 | Redding | Well drained | D | 417 |
| 32 | Amarillo | TX | 55 | Moderate | 5.21 | 0.682 | Pullman | Well drained | C | 1 |
| 33 | Shreveport | LA | 55 | Moderate | 5.22 | 0.685 | Eastwood | Well drained | D | 172 |
| 34 | Baton Rouge | LA | 54 | Moderate | 4.57 | 0.744 | Oprairie | Somewhat poorly drained | C/D | 117 |
| 35 | Montgomery | AL | 54 | Moderate | 4.91 | 0.691 | Sumter | Well drained | D | 112 |
| 36 | Newport News | VA | 54 | Moderate | 4.01 | 0.798 | Chickahominy | Moderately well drained | D | 128 |
| 37 | Springfield | IL | 54 | Moderate | 4.13 | 0.784 | Ipava | Somewhat poorly drained | B | 167 |
| 38 | Frankfort | KY | 54 | Moderate | 3.94 | 0.801 | Eden | Well drained | C | 135 |
| 39 | Jefferson City | MO | 54 | Moderate | 3.82 | 0.811 | Wrengart | Moderately well drained | C | 201 |
| 40 | Charleston | WV | 54 | Moderate | 2.14 | 0.991 | Clymer | Well drained | C | 159 |
| 41 | Chicago | IL | 53 | Moderate | 4.69 | 0.702 | Orthents | Moderately well drained | C | 255 |
| 42 | Kansas City | MO | 53 | Moderate | 4.21 | 0.75 | Knox | Well drained | C | 187 |
| 43 | Chattanooga | TN | 53 | Moderate | 3.26 | 0.836 | Fullerton | Well drained | D | 234 |
| 44 | Oakland | CA | 52 | Moderate | 3.81 | 0.758 | Xeropsamments | Well drained | D | 349 |
| 45 | Bakersfield | CA | 52 | Moderate | 1.84 | 0.966 | Kimberlina | Well drained | A | — |
| 46 | Des Moines | IA | 52 | Moderate | 4.02 | 0.745 | Clarion | Moderately well drained | C | 227 |
| 47 | Honolulu | HI | 51 | Moderate | 2.55 | 0.869 | Rough mountainous land | Well drained | C | 197 |
| 48 | Lexington | KY | 51 | Moderate | 4 | 0.715 | Bluegrass | Well drained | C | 132 |
| 49 | Pittsburgh | PA | 51 | Moderate | 2.43 | 0.885 | Culleoka | Well drained | C | 151 |
| 50 | Juneau | AK | 51 | Moderate | 1.32 | 0.999 | Rock outcrop | Moderately well drained | A | 80 |
| 51 | Jackson | MS | 51 | Moderate | 2.08 | 0.928 | Riedtown | Moderately well drained | C | 140 |
| 52 | Columbus | OH | 50 | Moderate | 3.16 | 0.795 | Bennington | Somewhat poorly drained | C/D | 91 |
| 53 | Anaheim | CA | 50 | Moderate | 3.56 | 0.751 | Calleguas | Well drained | D | 86 |
| 54 | Corpus Christi | TX | 50 | Moderate | 1.02 | 0.997 | Tidal flats | Very poorly drained | D | 13 |
| 55 | Chesapeake | VA | 50 | Moderate | 1.62 | 0.947 | Tomotley | Poorly drained | B/D | 41 |
| 56 | Virginia Beach | VA | 49 | Moderate | 1.48 | 0.943 | Acredale | Poorly drained | C/D | 53 |
| 57 | Cleveland | OH | 49 | Moderate | 2.41 | 0.844 | Udorthents | Somewhat poorly drained | D | 108 |
| 58 | Buffalo | NY | 49 | Moderate | 2.63 | 0.829 | Niagara | Moderately well drained | C/D | 125 |
| 59 | Anchorage | AK | 48 | Moderate | 0.67 | 0.991 | E23-boreal rock outcrop and rubbleland | Well drained | A | 274 |
| 60 | San Bernardino | CA | 48 | Moderate | 1.33 | 0.931 | Tujunga | Somewhat excessively drained | A | 0 |
| 61 | Carson City | NV | 48 | Moderate | 2.09 | 0.848 | Incy | Well drained | D | 151 |
| 62 | San Francisco | CA | 47 | Moderate | 1.65 | 0.869 | Sirdrak | Well drained | D | 8 |
| 63 | Port St. Lucie | FL | 47 | Moderate | 1.22 | 0.929 | Pineda | Poorly drained | C/D | 70 |
| 64 | Fontana | CA | 47 | Moderate | 1.33 | 0.92 | Tujunga | Somewhat excessively drained | A | 0 |
| 65 | Rancho Cucamonga | CA | 47 | Moderate | 1.3 | 0.907 | Tujunga | Somewhat excessively drained | A | 0 |
| 66 | Irvine | CA | 46 | Moderate | 3.98 | 0.606 | Chino | Well drained | C | 264 |
| 67 | Santa Clarita | CA | 46 | Moderate | 1.99 | 0.815 | Saugus | Well drained | B | 44 |
| 68 | Salt Lake City | UT | 46 | Moderate | 3.47 | 0.678 | Deckerman | Somewhat poorly drained | D | 163 |
| 69 | Knoxville | TN | 46 | Moderate | 3.09 | 0.699 | Dewey | Well drained | B | 138 |
| 70 | Aurora | IL | 46 | Moderate | 3.7 | 0.64 | Drummer | Poorly drained | B/D | 119 |
| 71 | Augusta | ME | 46 | Moderate | 1.78 | 0.851 | Lyman | Well drained | C/D | 115 |
| 72 | Long Beach | CA | 45 | Moderate | 2.35 | 0.76 | Biscailuz | Well drained | D | 148 |
| 73 | Salem | OR | 45 | Moderate | 3.26 | 0.666 | Woodburn | Well drained | C | 124 |
| 74 | Montpelier | VT | 45 | Moderate | 1.02 | 0.901 | Tunbridge | Well drained | D | 87 |
| 75 | Sioux Falls | SD | 44 | Low | 4.25 | 0.555 | Nora | Well drained | C | 169 |
| 76 | Birmingham | AL | 44 | Low | 2.08 | 0.776 | Fullerton | Well drained | B | 140 |
| 77 | Oklahoma City | OK | 43 | Low | 3.68 | 0.579 | Renthin | Well drained | D | 162 |
| 78 | Toledo | OH | 43 | Low | 2.76 | 0.666 | Bixler | Somewhat poorly drained | B/D | 118 |
| 79 | Norfolk | VA | 43 | Low | 1.72 | 0.785 | Altavista | Poorly drained | B/D | 205 |
| 80 | Cary | NC | 43 | Low | 2.45 | 0.705 | Creedmoor | Well drained | C/D | 87 |
| 81 | Pembroke Pines | FL | 43 | Low | 0.33 | 0.932 | Lauderhill | Very poorly drained | A/D | 28 |
| 82 | Huntington Beach | CA | 42 | Low | 2.86 | 0.65 | Hueneme | Poorly drained | C | 177 |
| 83 | Glendale | CA | 42 | Low | 0.91 | 0.837 | Vista | Well drained | D | — |
| 84 | Indianapolis | IN | 41 | Low | 3 | 0.606 | Fox | Well drained | B | 149 |
| 85 | Sacramento | CA | 41 | Low | 3.34 | 0.563 | San Joaquin | Somewhat poorly drained | C | 111 |
| 86 | Rochester | NY | 41 | Low | 2.24 | 0.686 | Colonie | Moderately well drained | A | 118 |
| 87 | Orlando | FL | 40 | Low | 0.58 | 0.838 | Smyrna | Poorly drained | A/D | 51 |
| 88 | Memphis | TN | 39 | Low | 1.46 | 0.725 | Udorthents, silty | Well drained | B | 137 |
| 89 | Tucson | AZ | 39 | Low | 3.71 | 0.483 | Mohave | Well drained | C | — |
| 90 | North Las Vegas | NV | 39 | Low | 2.18 | 0.651 | Weiser | Well drained | A | — |
| 91 | Gilbert | AZ | 39 | Low | 4.14 | 0.45 | Contine | Well drained | C | — |
| 92 | Boise | ID | 39 | Low | 2.96 | 0.563 | Elijah | Well drained | C | 240 |
| 93 | Hialeah | FL | 39 | Low | 0.24 | 0.853 | Udorthents | Poorly drained | A/D | 150 |
| 94 | Albany | NY | 39 | Low | 2.45 | 0.626 | Colonie | Moderately well drained | A | 152 |
| 95 | Jacksonville | FL | 38 | Low | 1.5 | 0.692 | Ortega | Poorly drained | A | 138 |
| 96 | Miami | FL | 38 | Low | 0.09 | 0.84 | Dade | Poorly drained | A | 230 |
| 97 | Moreno Valley | CA | 38 | Low | 2.07 | 0.641 | Rockland | Well drained | A | 0 |
| 98 | Fort Collins | CO | 38 | Low | 3.34 | 0.496 | Nunn | Well drained | C | 189 |
| 99 | Nashville | TN | 37 | Low | 2.63 | 0.565 | Maury | Well drained | B | 145 |
| 100 | Louisville | KY | 37 | Low | 2.64 | 0.545 | Udorthents | Well drained | D | 152 |
| 101 | Baltimore | MD | 37 | Low | 2.54 | 0.557 | Udorthents | Well drained | D | 216 |
| 102 | Ontario | CA | 37 | Low | 1.57 | 0.673 | Tujunga | Somewhat excessively drained | A | 0 |
| 103 | Lansing | MI | 37 | Low | 1.78 | 0.65 | Marlette | Well drained | C/D | 124 |
| 104 | Helena | MT | 37 | Low | 1.93 | 0.615 | Musselshell | Well drained | B | 198 |
| 105 | Portland | OR | 36 | Low | 1.84 | 0.611 | Multnomah | Well drained | C | 142 |
| 106 | Santa Ana | CA | 36 | Low | 3.21 | 0.469 | Hueneme | Well drained | C | 245 |
| 107 | St. Louis | MO | 36 | Low | 3.45 | 0.446 | Harvester | Moderately well drained | C | 183 |
| 108 | Peoria | AZ | 36 | Low | 2.45 | 0.547 | Suncity | Well drained | D | — |
| 109 | Akron | OH | 36 | Low | 1.73 | 0.616 | Chili | Well drained | A | 102 |
| 110 | Hartford | CT | 36 | Low | 1.14 | 0.684 | Udorthents | Well drained | B | 122 |
| 111 | Bismarck | ND | 36 | Low | 2.97 | 0.489 | Temvik | Well drained | B | 238 |
| 112 | Atlanta | GA | 35 | Low | 1.45 | 0.633 | Rion | Well drained | B | 178 |
| 113 | Wichita | KS | 35 | Low | 2.77 | 0.504 | Canadian | Well drained | C | 221 |
| 114 | Greensboro | NC | 35 | Low | 3 | 0.468 | Enon | Well drained | C | 97 |
| 115 | Clarksville | TN | 35 | Low | 2.43 | 0.54 | Sengtown | Well drained | B | 129 |
| 116 | Los Angeles | CA | 34 | Low | 2.75 | 0.474 | Anthraltic Xerorthents | Well drained | D | — |
| 117 | Madison | WI | 34 | Low | 2.98 | 0.451 | Batavia | Well drained | B | 125 |
| 118 | Harrisburg | PA | 34 | Low | 1.59 | 0.583 | Berks | Well drained | B | 141 |
| 119 | Seattle | WA | 33 | Low | 0.74 | 0.654 | Alderwood | Moderately well drained | A | 163 |
| 120 | Mesa | AZ | 33 | Low | 3.69 | 0.357 | Contine | Well drained | C | — |
| 121 | Riverside | CA | 33 | Low | 2.22 | 0.511 | Cieneba | Well drained | C | 0 |
| 122 | Grand Rapids | MI | 33 | Low | 1.91 | 0.541 | Spinks | Well drained | A | 107 |
| 123 | Elk Grove | CA | 33 | Low | 3.64 | 0.372 | San Joaquin | Moderately well drained | C | 87 |
| 124 | Concord | NH | 33 | Low | 0.99 | 0.643 | Croghan | Well drained | A | 160 |
| 125 | Huntsville | AL | 32 | Low | 2.63 | 0.447 | Decatur | Well drained | B | 177 |
| 126 | Yonkers | NY | 32 | Low | 1.01 | 0.615 | Udorthents | Well drained | D | 139 |
| 127 | Annapolis | MD | 32 | Low | 2.1 | 0.49 | Annapolis | Well drained | C | 141 |
| 128 | Washington | DC | 31 | Low | 1.66 | 0.521 | Udorthents | Well drained | C | 160 |
| 129 | Aurora | CO | 31 | Low | 3.15 | 0.373 | Fondis | Well drained | C | 182 |
| 130 | El Paso | TX | 30 | Low | 2.28 | 0.436 | Hueco | Well drained | D | — |
| 131 | Omaha | NE | 30 | Low | 3.53 | 0.308 | Udorthents | Well drained | C | 293 |
| 132 | St. Petersburg | FL | 30 | Low | 1.48 | 0.513 | Myakka | Poorly drained | A/D | 114 |
| 133 | Richmond | VA | 30 | Low | 1.97 | 0.477 | Turbeville | Well drained | B | 147 |
| 134 | Fort Lauderdale | FL | 30 | Low | 1.1 | 0.559 | Immokalee | Poorly drained | A/D | 164 |
| 135 | Henderson | NV | 29 | Low | 1.56 | 0.49 | Caliza | Well drained | D | 340 |
| 136 | Spokane | WA | 29 | Low | 1.62 | 0.487 | Opportunity | Well drained | A | 73 |
| 137 | Tacoma | WA | 29 | Low | 0.93 | 0.554 | Alderwood | Moderately well drained | A | 159 |
| 138 | Santa Fe | NM | 29 | Low | 2.26 | 0.409 | Tanoan | Well drained | C | 305 |
| 139 | Boston | MA | 28 | Low | 1.1 | 0.506 | Udorthents | Well drained | A | 121 |
| 140 | Tampa | FL | 28 | Low | 0.94 | 0.53 | Myakka | Poorly drained | A | 123 |
| 141 | Lubbock | TX | 28 | Low | 3.77 | 0.247 | Amarillo | Well drained | B | 0 |
| 142 | Cape Coral | FL | 28 | Low | 0.29 | 0.603 | Matlacha | Poorly drained | B | 114 |
| 143 | Columbia | SC | 28 | Low | 1.36 | 0.486 | Lakeland | Moderately well drained | A | 128 |
| 144 | Denver | CO | 27 | Low | 2.71 | 0.334 | Truckton | Well drained | C | 166 |
| 145 | Fresno | CA | 27 | Low | 2.21 | 0.366 | San Joaquin | Well drained | D | 65 |
| 146 | Chandler | AZ | 27 | Low | 3.36 | 0.257 | Mohall | Well drained | C | — |
| 147 | Worcester | MA | 27 | Low | 0.33 | 0.577 | Udorthents | Well drained | C | 121 |
| 148 | Olympia | WA | 27 | Low | 1.54 | 0.449 | Alderwood | Moderately well drained | B | 132 |
| 149 | Charlotte | NC | 26 | Low | 2.19 | 0.346 | Cecil | Well drained | B | 123 |
| 150 | Newark | NJ | 26 | Low | 1.48 | 0.424 | Boonton | Well drained | C | 120 |
| 151 | Laredo | TX | 26 | Low | 2.95 | 0.277 | Copita | Well drained | C | — |
| 152 | Mobile | AL | 26 | Low | 0.49 | 0.523 | Wadley | Somewhat excessively drained | B/D | 99 |
| 153 | St. Paul | MN | 25 | Low | 1.6 | 0.389 | Udorthents | Well drained | B | 58 |
| 154 | Winston-Salem | NC | 25 | Low | 1.72 | 0.391 | Fairview | Well drained | B | 95 |
| 155 | Columbus | GA | 25 | Low | 1.75 | 0.372 | Dothan | Well drained | B | 210 |
| 156 | Dover | DE | 25 | Low | 1.24 | 0.422 | Hambrook | Well drained | B | 154 |
| 157 | Jersey City | NJ | 24 | Very Low | 0.9 | 0.438 | Westbrook | Well drained | C | 139 |
| 158 | Milwaukee | WI | 23 | Very Low | 2.73 | 0.243 | NOTCOM | Moderately well drained | C | 184 |
| 159 | Glendale | AZ | 23 | Very Low | 2.78 | 0.231 | Gilman | Well drained | C | — |
| 160 | Scottsdale | AZ | 23 | Very Low | 2.05 | 0.312 | Momoli | Well drained | D | — |
| 161 | Oxnard | CA | 23 | Very Low | 2.07 | 0.309 | Hueneme | Somewhat poorly drained | C | 204 |
| 162 | Surprise | AZ | 23 | Very Low | 2.63 | 0.236 | Gilman | Well drained | C | — |
| 163 | Trenton | NJ | 23 | Very Low | 1.62 | 0.349 | Matapeake | Well drained | B | 185 |
| 164 | Vancouver | WA | 22 | Very Low | 1.74 | 0.302 | Lauren | Well drained | B | 58 |
| 165 | Philadelphia | PA | 21 | Very Low | 1.38 | 0.325 | Chester | Well drained | B | 291 |
| 166 | Raleigh | NC | 21 | Very Low | 1.6 | 0.295 | Beltline | Well drained | C | 89 |
| 167 | Colorado Springs | CO | 21 | Very Low | 1.97 | 0.265 | Blakeland | Well drained | A | 79 |
| 168 | Minneapolis | MN | 21 | Very Low | 1.81 | 0.283 | Udorthents | Well drained | A | 158 |
| 169 | Albuquerque | NM | 20 | Very Low | 1.65 | 0.266 | Cut and fill land | Well drained | A | 238 |
| 170 | Fayetteville | NC | 20 | Very Low | 1.47 | 0.296 | Wagram | Well drained | A | 371 |
| 171 | Augusta | GA | 20 | Very Low | 1.65 | 0.276 | Troup | Well drained | A | 173 |
| 172 | Tempe | AZ | 20 | Very Low | 2.64 | 0.169 | Laveen | Well drained | C | — |
| 173 | Phoenix | AZ | 19 | Very Low | 2.25 | 0.185 | Gilman | Well drained | B | — |
| 174 | Las Vegas | NV | 19 | Very Low | 2.06 | 0.216 | Cave | Well drained | D | 310 |
| 175 | Providence | RI | 18 | Very Low | 0.66 | 0.329 | Merrimac | Well drained | A | 161 |
| 176 | Cheyenne | WY | 16 | Very Low | 2.19 | 0.126 | Ascalon | Well drained | B | 95 |
| 177 | Tallahassee | FL | 14 | Very Low | 1.33 | 0.185 | Orangeburg | Well drained | B | 188 |
| 178 | Modesto | CA | 13 | Very Low | 1.36 | 0.156 | Hanford | Well drained | B | 31 |
| 179 | New York | NY | 10 | Very Low | 0.42 | 0.189 | Nagunt | Well drained | D | 157 |
| 180 | Detroit | MI | 10 | Very Low | 1.2 | 0.089 | Shebeon | Somewhat poorly drained | D | 207 |
Soil Risk by State
Population-weighted mean score across each state's cities in the index, ranked highest to lowest.
| Rank | State | Cities in index | Score | Band |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Louisiana (LA) | 3 | 76 | High |
| 2 | Texas (TX) | 18 | 65 | High |
| 3 | Arkansas (AR) | 1 | 57 | Moderate |
| 4 | West Virginia (WV) | 1 | 54 | Moderate |
| 5 | Illinois (IL) | 3 | 53 | Moderate |
| 6 | Iowa (IA) | 1 | 52 | Moderate |
| 7 | Kansas (KS) | 3 | 51 | Moderate |
| 8 | Hawaii (HI) | 1 | 51 | Moderate |
| 9 | Mississippi (MS) | 1 | 51 | Moderate |
| 10 | Ohio (OH) | 5 | 49 | Moderate |
| 11 | Oklahoma (OK) | 2 | 48 | Moderate |
| 12 | Alaska (AK) | 2 | 48 | Moderate |
| 13 | Missouri (MO) | 3 | 47 | Moderate |
| 14 | Virginia (VA) | 5 | 46 | Moderate |
| 15 | Utah (UT) | 1 | 46 | Moderate |
| 16 | Maine (ME) | 1 | 46 | Moderate |
| 17 | South Dakota (SD) | 2 | 45 | Moderate |
| 18 | Indiana (IN) | 2 | 45 | Moderate |
| 19 | Vermont (VT) | 1 | 45 | Moderate |
| 20 | California (CA) | 28 | 44 | Low |
| 21 | Nebraska (NE) | 2 | 44 | Low |
| 22 | Oregon (OR) | 3 | 42 | Low |
| 23 | Kentucky (KY) | 3 | 42 | Low |
| 24 | Tennessee (TN) | 5 | 40 | Low |
| 25 | Alabama (AL) | 4 | 39 | Low |
| 26 | Idaho (ID) | 1 | 39 | Low |
| 27 | Maryland (MD) | 2 | 37 | Low |
| 28 | Montana (MT) | 1 | 37 | Low |
| 29 | Connecticut (CT) | 1 | 36 | Low |
| 30 | North Dakota (ND) | 1 | 36 | Low |
| 31 | Florida (FL) | 11 | 35 | Low |
| 32 | North Carolina (NC) | 7 | 33 | Low |
| 33 | New Hampshire (NH) | 1 | 33 | Low |
| 34 | Nevada (NV) | 5 | 32 | Low |
| 35 | District of Columbia (DC) | 1 | 31 | Low |
| 36 | Georgia (GA) | 3 | 30 | Low |
| 37 | Washington (WA) | 5 | 30 | Low |
| 38 | Massachusetts (MA) | 2 | 28 | Low |
| 39 | South Carolina (SC) | 1 | 28 | Low |
| 40 | Colorado (CO) | 4 | 27 | Low |
| 41 | Wisconsin (WI) | 2 | 27 | Low |
| 42 | Pennsylvania (PA) | 3 | 26 | Low |
| 43 | Arizona (AZ) | 10 | 26 | Low |
| 44 | New Jersey (NJ) | 3 | 25 | Low |
| 45 | Delaware (DE) | 1 | 25 | Low |
| 46 | Minnesota (MN) | 2 | 23 | Very Low |
| 47 | New Mexico (NM) | 2 | 21 | Very Low |
| 48 | Michigan (MI) | 3 | 18 | Very Low |
| 49 | Rhode Island (RI) | 1 | 18 | Very Low |
| 50 | Wyoming (WY) | 1 | 16 | Very Low |
| 51 | New York (NY) | 5 | 13 | Very Low |
What Does Expansive Soil Do to a Slab?
Expansive clay changes volume with its moisture content: it swells as it wets and shrinks as it dries. That is a fundamentally different loading condition than the one most slab-on-grade design assumes. On stable soil, a slab settles a small, roughly uniform amount under its own weight and stays put. On expansive soil, the ground itself moves underneath the slab, and it rarely moves the same amount everywhere at once.
Heave is the upward movement that happens as clay gains moisture and swells; settlement, in this context, is the downward movement as clay loses moisture and shrinks. A slab does not need much total movement to crack — it needs differential movement, meaning different parts of the same slab moving by different amounts.
Two patterns of differential movement show up most often on expansive soil:
- Edge lift — the slab perimeter gains moisture faster than the interior, often after rain following a dry spell, and swells upward relative to a comparatively stable center. Cracking tends to run inward from the edges.
- Center lift — the perimeter dries and shrinks (common where paving, irrigation changes, or nearby tree roots draw moisture from the edge soil) while the soil under the center of the slab, insulated from the weather by the slab itself, stays wetter and comparatively swollen. The edges effectively settle relative to the center.
A slab acts as a partial vapor barrier: soil directly beneath it evaporates far more slowly than exposed soil at the perimeter. That difference — not the total amount of clay present — is usually what drives edge lift and center lift, and it is why seasonal moisture cycling around the slab perimeter (irrigation, drainage, gutters, nearby vegetation) matters as much as the soil's intrinsic swell potential. Keeping subgrade moisture uniform under and around a slab, rather than trying to keep it simply dry, is the practical goal on expansive soil.
ACI 332 (Code Requirements for Residential Concrete) and PTI DC10.5 (Design of Post-Tensioned Slabs-on-Ground) set out engineering procedures — stiffened foundations, post-tensioning, moisture-conditioned subgrade, edge and interior beam layouts — for building on expansive soil. This page does not attempt to reproduce either document; a geotechnical engineer or structural engineer applies them to a specific site and soil report.
How Should a Contractor Read This Score?
The risk band on this page maps to a practical starting point for slab design decisions. It is a screening signal, not a substitute for site-specific geotechnical work.
| Band | Score | Slab guidance |
|---|---|---|
| Very Low | 0–24 | Standard slab-on-grade detailing is normally adequate; no expansive-soil measures are indicated by the survey data. |
| Low | 25–44 | Standard slab-on-grade detailing is usually adequate. Confirm drainage moves water away from the slab edge. |
| Moderate | 45–64 | Expect some seasonal movement. Uniform subgrade moisture, positive drainage and control joints at design spacing matter more here than the average site. |
| High | 65–79 | Expansive-soil detailing is warranted: a site-specific geotechnical report, stiffened or post-tensioned slab design, moisture-conditioned subgrade and strict drainage control. |
| Very High | 80–100 | Treat expansive soil as a primary design driver. A geotechnical investigation is not optional, and slab systems should be engineered for the measured swell potential. |
Methodology
Area of interest: For each city, SlabCalc draws an 8 km bounding box centered on the same population centroid used by the SlabCalc Freeze-Thaw Index, and queries every USDA SSURGO map unit polygon that intersects it.
Area weighting: Each soil component's contribution is weighted by the acreage of its map unit that actually falls inside the box, multiplied by the component's percentage of that map unit. Weighting by each map unit's listed component percentages alone, without regard to how much of the map unit falls inside the box, would overweight components that happen to sit in a small sliver of a large map unit at the edge of the area — so this index always weights by intersected acreage first.
LEP (linear extensibility percent): Depth-weighted within each component over the top 100 cm of soil, then area-and-component weighted across the box, using only major components. This is a directly measured SSURGO value, not a SlabCalc estimate.
Dwelling-limitation index: The USDA NRCS engineering interpretation rating for “ENG - Dwellings W/O Basements,” area-and-component weighted the same way, on its native 0 (not limited) to 1 (very limited) scale. This is also a directly reported NRCS value.
Soil Risk Score (SlabCalc composite): The two measures above are real, independently reported USDA data. The formula that blends them into a single 0-100 score, and the band thresholds that label it, are SlabCalc's editorial composition, not a USDA, ACI, or PTI standard:
lepScore = min(100, lepPercent / 12.0 * 100) limitScore = dwellingLimitationIndex * 100 soilRiskScore = round(0.55 * lepScore + 0.45 * limitScore)
LEP is capped at a 12% reading for scoring purposes because SSURGO LEP values above 12% are rare and represent the far tail of expansive behavior; the cap and the 0.55/0.45 weighting between the two measures were chosen by SlabCalc to keep either measure from dominating the score on its own, not derived from any published standard.
Other fields: Dominant soil series, drainage class, hydrologic group, water table depth and flood frequency are area-weighted (numeric fields) or the dominant-condition value (categorical fields) across the same box, drawn directly from SSURGO component and map unit aggregate tables.
Source: USDA NRCS Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO), via Soil Data Access (https://sdmdataaccess.sc.egov.usda.gov/), licensed Public domain (USDA NRCS).
Limitations
- Every score on this page is an area average over an 8 km box, not a site assessment. Soil composition varies enormously within a single city, and often within a single lot — a low-scoring city can contain individual parcels with genuinely expansive soil, and a high-scoring city can contain parcels with none.
- LEP is only reported and averaged to 100 cm depth in this index. Jackson, Mississippi is the clearest illustration: its LEP reads 2.08% (low, on its own), because its expansive clay sits below that 100 cm window, which is exactly why the dwelling-limitation index is carried alongside LEP rather than reported on its own.
- This index does not substitute for a geotechnical report. It is a planning-level screening tool built from public survey data, not a site investigation. Any project on soil scoring moderate or above should be evaluated by a geotechnical engineer against the actual soil at the actual building location.
How to Cite This Dataset
This dataset is free to cite, reference, and reuse in reporting, research, or analysis under a CC BY 4.0 license — we ask only that you link back to this page as the source. The underlying USDA NRCS SSURGO data is US public domain.
SlabCalc. (2026). “The SlabCalc Soil Risk Index: Expansive Soil Risk for 180 US Cities.” Retrieved from https://www.slabcalc.co/research/soil-risk-index.
Download the full dataset as CSV (180 cities). Data last updated September 17, 2026.
Questions about the data or want the underlying figures for a story? Contact us.

