Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Oku Kerek PDF
Oku Kerek PDF
net/publication/286450084
CITATIONS READS
25 1,396
1 author:
Sai K. Vanapalli
University of Ottawa
241 PUBLICATIONS 2,781 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Sai K. Vanapalli on 10 December 2015.
S.K. Vanapalli
Civil Engineering Department, University of Ottawa, Canada
ABSTRACT: Several investigators over the last 50 years have contributed to our present understanding of the
shear strength of unsaturated soils (SSUS). Many advances have been made during this period with respect to the
measurement, interpretation and prediction/estimation of the SSUS. The focus during the last fifteen years has
been directed more towards the development of simple techniques for predicting or estimating the SSUS because
experimental procedures are time consuming, need elaborate equipment, and require highly trained personnel.
Shear strength is a key engineering property required in the design of several geotechnical structures such as
the shallow and deep foundations, earth structures including excavations and the stability of slopes. However,
limited studies are reported in the literature with respect to the applications of the SSUS in practice. This paper
provides a brief background of the SSUS and details of how our present understanding can be extended for
several geotechnical applications.
579
Bishop et al. (1960) and Bishop & Donald (1961) the water content (either gravimetric water content or
determined the SSUS and interpreted them using volumetric water content or degree of saturation) is
Eq. (1). Jennings & Burland (1962) suggested that commonly referred as the Soil-Water Characteristic
Eq. (1) may pose some limitations to simultaneously Curve (SWCC). The SWCC is also referred in the lit-
interpret the mechanical behavior of unsaturated soils erature as the Soil-Water Retention Curve (SWRC) or
(i.e. for explaining both the shear strength and volume Soil Moisture Curve (SMC). Detailed discussions of
change behavior). Bishop & Blight (1963) reevaluated how SWCC can be used as a tool in the prediction
the proposed effective stress equation (i.e. Eq. (1)) and of the SSUS are discussed in several publications in
noted that, ‘‘a variation in matric suction, (ua − uw ) greater detail (Fredlund et al. 1996, Vanapalli et al.
did not result in the same change in effective stress as 1996a, Barbour 1998).
did a change in net normal stress, (σ − ua )’’. Several Both Eq. (1) and (2) are widely used in the inter-
investigators realized that the influence of (σ −ua ) and pretation of the experimental results of the SSUS.
(ua − uw ) should be considered as independent SSV s There are several other approaches available in the
for interpreting the engineering behavior of unsat- literature for interpreting, predicting or estimating the
urated soils (Bishop & Blight 1963, Burland 1964, SSUS including the critical state soil mechanics (see
1965, Matyas & Radhakrishna 1968). Table 1). Several different philosophies were used by
Fredlund & Morgenstern (1977) research work laid these investigators towards the common goal of bet-
a foundation towards using two independent SSVs, ter understanding the SSUS over the last 50 years.
(σ − ua ) and (ua − uw ) for explaining the unsaturated The contributions of these investigators were useful to
soils behavior. Fredlund et al. (1978) extended this better our present understanding of the SSUS.
approach and proposed an equation for interpreting
the experimental results of the SSUS:
3 DETERMINATION OF THE SHEAR
τ = c + (σn − ua ) tan φ + (ua − uw ) tan φ b (2) STRENGTH OF UNSATURATED SOILS
The shear strength contribution due to matric suc- Donald (1957) was probably the earliest investiga-
tion, φ b was initially assumed to be linear based on the tor who modified the conventional direct shear testing
analysis of experimental results published in the liter- apparatus and determined both the SWCC (Figure 1(a))
ature prior to 1978, which were mostly conducted on and the shear strength (Figure 1(b)) behavior of four
clayey type of soils over a limited range of suction different sands. This pioneering research work was
(i.e. typically lower than 200 kPa). As many fine- undertaken at the University of Melbourne, Mel-
grained soils do not significantly desaturate nonlin- bourne, Australia under the supervision of Aitchison.
early in this suction range, a reasonable approximation The nonlinear variation of shear strength with respect
was made and the variation of shear strength with to matric suction over a range of 0 to 30 kPa and the
respect to matric suction was represented by an aver- relationship between the SWCC and the shear strength
age constant slope, tan φ b . This concept was similar was presented.
to using a constant slope, tan φ for interpreting the No attempt was however made to provide a relation-
SSSS. The tan φ b value was found to be lower than ship or propose a semi-empirical technique to predict
tan φ for many tested unsaturated soils. Comprehen- the variation of the shear strength with respect to
sive experimental studies by several investigators con- matric suction using the SWCC as a tool. More details
ducted over a large suction range using more elaborate of Donald & Aitchison’s work on the SSUS and com-
testing equipments have shown that the shear strength parisons of the measured and predicted shear strength
variation with respect to suction beyond a certain value behavior using various semi-empirical equations are
was nonlinear (Escario & Sáez 1987, Gan & Fredlund summarized in another paper of this conference
1988). The shear strength increases at the same rate (Vanapalli & Lacasse 2009).
as for an increase in total stress up to a certain suc- Other early experimental studies reported in the
tion value (i.e. φ b = φ ), which from later studies literature were undertaken at the Imperial College,
was recognized to be equal to the air-entry value of London using conventional triaxial equipment with a
the soil (Fredlund & Rahardjo 1993). Soils begin to porous ceramic disk sealed to the base of the triaxial
desaturate when the suction values are greater than cell pedestal. The pore-water pressures were measured
the air-entry value and the shear strength contribution by balancing the pressure in the measuring system in
due to suction becomes less than φ (i.e. φ b < φ ). the range of 0 to 90 kPa using a null indicator (Bishop
These observations led to the development of several 1961).
mathematical and semi-empirical models to predict the Bishop & Donald (1961) adopted a different tech-
nonlinear variation of shear strength with respect to nique such that the SSUS can be tested over a suction
suction. The relationship of the variation of water con- range (i.e. 0 to 200 kPa) by using a bubble pump which
tent with respect to suction was used as a tool in these facilitates the removal of diffused air from the ceramic
studies. The relationship between the soil suction and disk.
580
Table 1. Various approaches for interpreting, predicting or estimating the shear strength of unsaturated soils
(summarized from Vanapalli 1994, Vanapalli & Fredlund 2000, Garven & Vanapalli 2006, Garven 2009).
Principle/Theory/
Author Equation Approach Eqn.
(Continued)
581
Table 1. (Continued)
Principle/Theory/
Author Equation Approach Eqn.
582
Table 1. (Continued)
Principle/Theory/
Author Equation Approach Eqn.
a1 (ua − uw )
Miao et al. (2002) τ = c + (σ − ua ) tan φ + Empirical approach (34)
1 − a1
1+ (ua − uw ) using fitting
pa parameters
Pa : atmospheric pressure (101.3 kPa)
a1 : fitting parameter
Rassam & Cook τ = c + (σ − ua ) tan φ + (ua − uw) tan φ Empirical approach (35)
(2002) (ua − uw )r tan φ − τSr using the SWCC
−
[(ua − uw )r − (ua − uw )b ]β and fitting param-
tan φ ((ua −uw )r −(ua −uw )b ) eters
× [(ua − uw ) − (ua − uw )b ] tan φ (ua −uw )r −τSr
Aubney & Lytton τ = c + (σ − ua ) tan φ + f1 (ua − uw ) θ tan φ Empirical approach (36)
(2003) f1 : factor ranging from 1 to 1/θ
(ua − uw )
Lee et al. (2003) τ = c + (σ − ua ) tan φ + Empirical approach (37)
a3 + b3 (ua − uw ) using fitting
1 1
a3 = , b3 = parameters
tan φ Cmax
Cmax : ultimate increment of apparent cohesion
(ua − uw )
Schick (2004) τ = c + (σ − ua ) tan φ + Empirical approach (38)
a2 + b2 (ua − uw ) (hyperbolic
a2 = tan(φ − 90), b2 = tan β2 = 1/τus function)
Tekinsoy et al. τ = c + (σ − ua ) tan φ +tan φ [(ua − uw )b + pa ] Mathematical (39)
(2004) (ua − uw ) + pa function
× ln
pa
τ = c + (σ − ua ) tan φ + (ua − uw )b
1−ζ
Xu (2004) Fractal approach (40)
ζ
× (ua − uw ) tan φ , ζ = Ds − 2
(ua − uw )
Jiang et al. (2004) τ = c + (σ − ua ) tan φ + tan φ DEM* and the (41)
a + d (ua − uw ) SWCC
a, b: parameters (dimensionless)
S − Sr
Jiang et al. (2004) τ = c + (σ − ua ) tan φ + 1 − σeqm (tan φ ) DEM* and the (42)
100 − Sr SWCC
σeqm : generalized equilibrium stress
Lee et al. (2005) τ = c + (σa − ua ) tan φ + (ua − uw )b tan φ DEM * and the (43)
+ [(ua − uw ) − (ua − uw )b ] θ κ [1 + λ (σn − ua )] tan φ SWCC
κ, λ: fitting parameters
Matsushi & τ = σ tan φ + Ce−μθw Exponential (44)
Matsukura e: void ratio function
(2006) C, μ: hypothetical maximum value of cohesion at θ = 0
and coefficient related to susceptibility of strength
reduction
Vilar (2006) τ = c + (σ − ua ) tan φ Hyperbolic model (45)
(ua − uw ) with one measured
+
1 1 1 experimental data
+ − result
tan φ τm − c (ua − uw )m tan φ
τ m , (ua − uw )m : measured maximum cohesion and suction
Shen et al. (2008) τ = c + (σ − ua ) tan φ + s tan φ : s ≤ ssa Elasto-plastic (46)
τ = c + (σ − ua ) tan φ
model (CSM)
s+1
+ tan φ ssa + (ssa + 1) ln : s ≥ ssa
ssa + 1
ssa : saturation suction
583
with the measuring system to flush out diffused air
from below the ceramic disk (i.e. high air-entry disk)
(Bocking & Fredlund 1980). Such a procedure enables
a more reliable measurement of volume change of the
specimen. More design details and experimental pro-
cedures for determining the shear strength using the
modified triaxial and direct shear equipments is avail-
able in Fredlund & Rahardjo (1993) and Fredlund &
Vanapalli (2002).
The double wall triaxial cell has also been used
by several investigators as it facilitates in the reli-
able measurement of the volume change behavior of
unsaturated soils. The first double wall cell triax-
ial equipment was developed by Bishop & Donald
(1961). Several researchers in later and recent years
used more sophisticated designs of the double wall
triaxial equipment (Wheeler 1988, Ng et al. 2002,
Aversa & Nicotera 2002, Nishimura et al. 2007, Oh &
Vanapalli 2008a).
Figure 1. (a) SWCCs and (b) variation of shear strength 3.3 Modified ring shear test apparatus
with respect to suction for four sands (modified after Donald
1957). The main advantage of the modified ring shear testing
device over other devices (i.e. modified direct, triax-
ial, biaxial shear test) lies in determining the shear
The axis translation technique introduced by Hilf strength behavior over an unlimited displacement of
(1956) was used by later investigators to modify the the specimen. This technique allows determining both
conventional testing equipment to measure the SSUS. the peak and residual shear strength behavior of unsat-
This technique was useful to reduce the cavitation urated soils (Vanapalli et al. 2005). This is possible
problems significantly. More details of the axis trans- because the shearing deformations are circumferential
lation technique in unsaturated soils testing are avail- such that geometry of the shear surface is not affected
able in Vanapalli et al. (2008). by the shearing process. In addition, multistage test-
ing can be conducted on the same specimen without
any restriction of shear displacements. The design can
also allow for the measurement and/or control of vol-
3.1 Modified triaxial and direct shear tests
ume, water content and matric suction of specimens. In
Conventional triaxial and direct shear testing equip- other words, SWCC information can be derived contin-
ments were modified to accomodate axis translation uously even during the shearing stage of the specimen
technique such that the effective SSUS can be deter- (Vanapalli et al. 2005, Infante Sedano 2006).
mined over a large suction range (Ho & Fredlund 1982,
Escario & Sáez 1986, Gan & Fredlund 1988). A long
3.4 Hydro-mechanical behaviour of unsaturated
period of time is required to achieve uniform matric
soils
suction condition in the test specimen prior to the
determination of the shear strength. Also, significantly More recently, Gallipoli et al. (2003), Wheeler et al.
long period of time is required for shearing the test (2003), Tarantino & Tombalato (2005), Infante Sedano
specimen. The pore-air diffusion occurs through water et al. (2007) and Laloui et al. (2008) have proposed
due to long period of testing. A diffused air-volume coupling of hydro-mechanical behaviour of unsatu-
indicator (DAVI ) is commonly used in conjunction rated soils (HMUS). Different equipment which
584
include modified direct, triaxial or ring shear tests shows the initial stress state for IU test. If the specimen
can be used for determining the HMUS. Several new is sheared immediately after the application of the con-
equipments which facilitate innovative modifications fining pressure (i.e. IU test), shear strength in terms of
are now available to address challenges associated total stress conditions will be equal to τ IU . However,
with the measurements of SSUS, HMUS and unsatu- if air is allowed to drain after applying confining pres-
rated soil testing (Rampino et al. 1999, Matsuok et al. sure without any change in water content (i.e. Ie U test),
2002, Hoyos et al. 2006). the volume of the specimen will decrease. The vol-
ume change in the specimen is mainly due to decrease
in the air voids. Such a loading condition also leads
4 DIFFERENT TYPES OF SHEAR STRENGTH to an increase in the degree of saturation accompa-
TESTS FOR UNSATURATED SOILS nied with a decrease of suction value in the specimen.
Point B indicates the initial stress state of the Ie U
Bishop et al. (1960) studies show how different types test, which has lower initial suction value than IU
of tests can be conducted to determine the SSUS. More test by ψ at the same confining pressure (Figure 2).
comprehensive details of different tests and testing Hence, if only the initial suction values of the speci-
procedures are summarized in Fredlund & Rahardjo mens are taken into account, the shear strength from IU
(1993). These tests can be divided into two main cate- tests (τ IU ) will be higher than that obtained from Ie U
gories by taking account of both loading and drainage tests (τ IeU ). Figure 3 shows the variation of undrained
conditions (i.e. drained and undrained loading condi- shear strength with confining pressure for IU, Ie U
tions). tests for unsaturated soil and CU test for saturated soil
(i.e. CU _sat).
4.1 SSUS under drained loading conditions
(Effective stress approach)
,
on
The shear strength parameters determined from con- IU : shear strength of an unsaturated
cti
specimen from IU test
solidated drained (CD) tests are used in the assessment b
u
Su
IeU : shear strength of an unsaturated
of the long term stability of geotechnical structures. specimen from IeU test
cs : cohesion including the effect
Many investigators focused on determining the SSUS of suction
in the suction range of 0 to 500 kPa as this range is
Shear Stress,
IU <
of significant interest to the practicing geotechnical IU
IU =
IeU
IeU
engineers. Long period of time and elaborate test- ' A IU > IeU
cs
ing facilities are required for determining the shear
B
strength parameters from CD tests. Due to this rea-
( 3)f
son, most investigators focused on the development of
empirical or semi-empirical techniques to estimate or c'
predict the effective SSUS. Normal stress,
shear strength obtained for relatively dry soil speci- Confining pressure (kPa)
mens where drainage of air is not permitted prior to
undrained shear (i.e. IU test) is significantly lower Figure 3. Variation of shear strength with confining pres-
than Ie U . This phenomenon can be explained using the sure for unsaturated specimens (modified after Oh et al.
Mohr circles for both tests shown in Figure 2. Point A 2008).
585
4.3 Constant water content tests The pore-air pressure can be assumed to be
atmospheric and the test results can be interpreted
Constant water content (CW ) test can be used to sim-
assuming constant matric suction. Eq. (3) can be used
ulate the case where the pore-air is under drained
in practical applications to determine the contribution
condition while the pore-water is undrained condition
of matric suction towards undrained shear strength,
(Rahardjo et al. 2004, Vanapalli et al. 2005, Thu et al.
φ b , knowing the unconfined compressive strength,
2006, Infante Sedano et al. 2007). The stability of
σ 1/2 and matric suction, (ua − uw ) of the soil along
unsupported vertical trench in unsaturated soils can
with the effective shear strength parameters, c and φ .
be reliably estimated when the shear strength parame-
ters from CW tests are used rather than CD tests results
(Vanapalli et al. 2009). More details on this topic are 4.5 Other types of shear strength tests
discussed in a later section of the paper.
Vanapalli et al. 2005 provide details of different types
of shear strength tests such as Constant load with con-
4.4 Unconfined compression tests stant water content (CLW ) tests, Constant volume with
Geotechnical engineers are aware that it is the matric constant water content (CVW ) tests, Constant load
suction which holds the soil together in unconfined with constant suction (CLS) tests and Constant volume
compression tests (Fredlund & Rahardjo 1993). The with constant suction (CVS) tests that can be con-
independent contribution of matric suction towards the ducted using modified ring shear tests. More details
undrained shear strength is not consciously consid- and discussions on these types of tests along with the
ered in conventional analyses. The matric suction in test results are summarized in Infante Sedano et al.
an unsaturated fine-grained soil (UFG) is a function of (2007).
the in-situ pore-water pressure and the change in pore-
water pressure resulting from the stress relief during
sampling. Due to this reason, the measured undrained 5 COMPARISON OF THE DIFFERENT TYPES
shear strength must be interpreted taking into account OF SHEAR STRENGTH TESTS
the influence of matric suction.
Vanapalli et al. (1999) proposed a method to Geotechnical engineers are interested in understand-
estimate φ b with respect to matric suction using uncon- ing the differences in the shear strength behavior under
fined compression tests results for unsaturated fine- different loading and drainage conditions. Figure 5
grained soils assuming a planar shear strength envelope shows the SSUS obtained using CD tests (modified
(Figure 4). direct shear equipment; Vanapalli et al. 1996a, b),
unconfined compression tests (Vanapalli et al. 2007)
and CU tests (modified triaxial shear equipment,
tan φ b Oh & Vanapalli 2008a) for identical Indian Head till
σ σ1 specimens.
1
(cos φ + sin φ tan φ ) − tan φ − c The trends of results shown in Figure 5 may not
= 2 2
(ua − uw ) be along similar lines for other unsaturated soils as
(3) many parameters influence the SSUS. The influence
120
CD (Measured, Vanapalli et al. 1996)
n
(u atric
)
80
a -
M
60
40
b
20
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
c' Suction,(u a- u w ) (kPa)
Net normal stress, ( n- ua)
Figure 5. SSUS from consolidated drained (CD), uncon-
Figure 4. Three-dimensional representation of unconfined fined compression (UC), and Consolidated Undrained (CU )
compression test expressed in terms of stress state variables. tests.
586
of some of these parameters on the SSUS is discussed shows minimum shear strength. However, at relatively
in the next section. higher water content (w = 27.0%), the rate of strain
effect is negligible.
200
w = 16.4%, = 2915 kPa = 200 kPa
w = 21.5%, = 1417 kPav 32 kPa
Shear strength (kPa)
25 kPa
150 100
Oh et al. 2008
Kaolin
50
100 Predicted
envelopes
0
50 0 100 200 300 400
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Matric suction (kPa)
Rate of strain, (mm/min)
Figure 7. Variation of shear strength with matric suction
Figure 6. Variation of shear strength with rate of strain under different net normal stresses (modified after Vanapalli
(0.00061 ≤ ε̇(mm/min) ≤ 1.52) (from Oh et al. 2008). et al. 1996a).
587
250
Matric suction, (u a - uw)
which is of more practical interest to the conventional
Initial water content = 13%
Dry of optimum conditions geotechnical engineers.
50 kPa Dry density = 1.73 Mg/m3
200 100 kPa
Shear strength (kPa)
200 kPa
350 kPa
150 500 kPa
7 PREDICTION OF THE SHEAR STRENGTH
OF UNSATURATED SOILS
100
Several investigators proposed different techniques
50 using empirical, semi-empirical, or computational
procedures for the estimation or prediction of the SSUS
(see Table 1). Many of the models use SWCC as a tool
0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 for predicting the SSUS. The SWCC is convention-
ally measured using the pressure plate in low suction
Net normal stress, ( n - u a ) (kPa)
and vapor pressure technique in high suction range
(Fredlund & Rahardjo 1993, Vanapalli et al. 2004).
Figure 8. Variation of shear strength with net normal stress As the soil moves from a saturated state to drier con-
under different matric suction (modified after Vanapalli et al.
ditions; the distribution of soil, water, and air phases
1996b).
change as the stress state changes. The SWCC typi-
cally has three zones (i.e. boundary effect zone, transi-
150 tion zone and residual zone of unsaturation) as shown
Net norma l stres s = 25 kPa in Figure 10(a) (Vanapalli et al. 1999b). During the
Wet of optimum
125 process of desaturation, the wetted area of contact
Shear strength (kPa)
588
100 '
Transi tion (ua - uw) b
(a)
Shear strength,
: air entry value
Degree of saturation, S (%)
Boundary
80
Residual
suction value
60
b
1
Residual zone b
40 of
b
2
unsaturation
3
Air-ent ry
20 value (ua - uw) b (ua- uw) 1 (ua- uw) 2 (ua- uw) 3
Plast ic Clays
A = φ.
A
Silts/Clays
b
< '
φb = S κ φ or tan φ b = S κ tan φ (7)
)
b
= ' Cohes ionl ess
Soils (Sands )
This equation can also be applied over the entire
Strength at range of degree of saturation. The above concept can
Saturation
be extended to rewrite Eq. (2) as below (Vanapalli et al.
Matric suction, (ua - uw) (kPa) 1996a, Fredlund et al. 1996).
Figure 10. (a) SWCC showing different zones and (b) the τ = c + (σn − ua ) tan φ + (ua − uw ) (S κ ) tan φ
variation of shear strength of unsaturated soils in various
(8)
zones of unsaturation for different soils.
Juca 1987, Vanapalli & Fredlund 2000, Vanapalli Eq. (8) can be used for predicting the shear strength
et al. 2000). This characteristic behavior implies that behavior of unsaturated soils over the entire range of
the φ b value for all soils continuously change (i.e. suction (i.e. from fully saturated to dry condition).
decreases) beyond the air-entry value as the suction A differential equation form can be written to
value increases (i.e. φ1b → φ2b → φ3b ) (Figure 11). In explain the experimental behavior of unsaturated soils
as below.
other words, the φ b value is a function of the suction
value and can be written as:
dunsat
tan φ b =
1 d(ua − uw )
φb ∝ (4) (9)
f (ua − uw ) d(S κ )
= (S κ ) + (ua − uw ) tan φ
d(ua − uw )
Eq. (4) can be rewritten as given below based on the
fact that the degree of saturation also decreases with
increasing suction value. Eq. (9) indicates that at suction values close to
the residual state conditions, the net contribution
φ b ∝ f (S κ ) (5) of matric suction causes a reduction in the shear
strength of sandy soils since S is small and the value of
[d(S κ )]/[d(ua − uw )] is negative. Vanapalli et al.
The constant, κ is a parameter that can be used to (1996a), Fredlund et al. (1996), Vanapalli et al. (1998b),
provide a good fit between the measured shear strength and Vanapalli et al. (2000a) provide evidence with
data and predicted values derived from the SWCC. their experimental studies and using other investiga-
Eq. (6) can be obtained from Eq. (5) by removing tors experimental results in the literature to support
the proportionality relationship using constant A. this behavior for fine-grained soils.
The fitting parameter κ value is required for pre-
φb = S κ A (6) dicting the SSUS using the effective shear strength
589
parameters (c and φ ) (i.e. Eq. (8)). Vanapalli & is one of the key reasons for differences in the predicted
Fredlund (2000) provided a relationship between the and measured shear strength values using different
fitting parameter, κ and plasticity index, Ip using five models. Also, standard protocols were not used by
data sets of shear strength as below: all investigators for measurement of the SUSS.
Vilar (2006) suggests using a simple hyperbolic
κ = −0.0008(Ip2 ) + 0.0801(Ip ) + 1 (10) model with one measured experimental data result to
estimate the SSUS more reliably (Eq. (45)). Similar
Garven & Vanapalli (2006) expanded the data of types of approaches were proposed by Vanapalli &
compacted soils and proposed a new relationship Catana (2005) and Catana et al. (2006) to reliably
(Figure 12) as given below. estimate the SWCC of coarse and fine-grained soils
respectively using one measured data point. Such
κ = −0.0016(Ip2 ) + 0.0975(Ip ) + 1 (11) approaches cannot be considered as prediction meth-
ods as some test results are necessary. However, stud-
From Eq. (10) and (11), it can be seen that a fitting ies with limited tests or other simple tests would be of
parameter κ = 1 is required for predicting the shear value as they significantly improve our confidence in
strength of unsaturated soils with plasticity index, the prediction or estimation of the SSUS.
Ip = 0 (i.e. sandy soils).
Oliviera & Marinho (2003) have analyzed the shear 7.2 Undrained shear strength
strength behavior of several expansive soils and sug-
gested a different equation as below: Oh & Vanapalli (2009) proposed a simple model to
predict the variation of shear strength of the unsat-
κ = −0.0044(Ip2 ) + 0.22455(Ip ) + 0.9715 (12) urated fine-grained (i.e. UFG) soils with respect to
suction using the shear strength of unconfined com-
In spite of significant contributions from various pression test results for saturated condition (i.e. cu(sat) )
researchers, to date there is no model or equation that and the SWCC as given below.
is available in the literature that can reliably predict
or estimate the shear strength of all unsaturated soils (ua − uw ) ν
cu(unnsat) = cu(sat) 1 + (S )/μ (13)
(Garven & Vanapalli 2006). Such a behavior can be (Pa /100)
attributed to the use of SWCC which is measured using
conventional procedures without the application of any where, cu(unsat) , cu(sat) = shear strength under unsat-
stress. Also, the shear strength behavior is influenced urated and saturated conditions, respectively, and ν,
by various parameters such as volume change behav- μ = fitting parameters.
ior due to loading or stress history, type of soil, shear Eq. (13) is proposed on the assumption that the
strength response during shearing including dilation. undrained shear strength, cu(unsat) is half the uncon-
Infante Sedano (2006) studies support these obser- fined compressive strength of unsaturated soils
vations which show that the SWCC measured using (i.e. φ = 0 concept). The φ = 0 concept is fre-
conventional procedures and the SWCC relationship quently used for total stress analyses in assessing
derived from the water content and suction relation- the stability of embankments, slopes and foundations
ships after shearing can be significantly different. This located on saturated fine-grained soils. The design of
pavements and the assessment of the ultimate bearing
capacity of clays are two other examples that often
7
A. Red Silty Clay F. Botkin Silt utilize the undrained shear strength. This assump-
6
B. Madrid Gray Clay
C. Adams Clay
G. Ste. Rosalie Clay tion may not be fully valid for the UFG soils due to
H. LD Dhanauri Clay
D. Indian Head Till (dry of opt.) I. HD Dhanauri Clay different drainage conditions compared to saturated
E. Indian Head Till (opt.)
Fitting parameter ,
590
10000 load will be predominant (Poulos & Davis 1974,
90
3 (I P
)
Agarwal & Rana 1987). Figure 14 shows the variation
0. 0
88
e of measured matric suction with depth and typical data
1000 .10 88 from the test tank for an average matric suction value
= 2 0.99
Fitting parameter,
Kaolin
2 =
(Pineda and
Colmenares 2005) R of 6 kPa.
Red Cotton soil
Based on the model footing tests results, Vanapalli &
100 Botkin silty soil
(Vanapalli et al., 2000)
(Babu etal., 2005)
Mohamed (2007) proposed an equation (Eq. (15)) to
Clayey soil
predict the variation of the bearing capacity of unsatu-
10
Chen (1984) rated soils with respect to matric suction using the
saturated shear strength parameters (i.e. c and φ )
Kaolin
(Ridley,1993)
=9
Indian Head till
(Vanapalli et al., 2007)
and the SWCC.
1
0 20 40 60 80
qu = [c + (ua − uw )b (tan φ − S ψ tan φ )
Plasticity index, IP
+ (ua − uw )AVR S ψ tan φ ]Nc
Figure 13. Relationship between plasticity index, IP and
Nq B
the fitting parameter, μ (from Oh & Vanapalli 2009). × 1.0 + + 0.5Bγ Nγ
Nc L
B
× 1.0 − 0.4 (15)
8 THE USE OF SHEAR STRENGTH L
PROPERTIES OF UNSATURATED SOILS
IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING where, ψ = fitting parameter, B, L = width and
PRACTICE APPLICATIONS length of a footing, Nc , Nq , Nγ = bearing capacity
factors.
The design of both shallow and deep foundations for Figure 15 provides comparisons between the mea-
drained and undrained loading conditions, the stabil- sured and predicted bearing capacity values for sand.
ity of slopes, and the critical depth of excavations are The results of the study by Vanapalli & Mohamed
based on the saturated shear strength parameters in (2007) are encouraging since there was good agree-
conventional geotechnical engineering practice. The ment between the measured and predicted bearing
remainder of the paper provides a succinct background capacity values.
of how our present understanding of the SSUS can be Lins et al. (2009) extended the approach proposed
extended for interpreting and predicting the bearing by Vanapalli & Mohamed (2007) (i.e. Eq. (15)) to
capacity of unsaturated soils in drained and undrained provide comparisons between measured and predicted
loading conditions. Also, some details are provided bearing capacity tests results using a model continuous
of how SSUS behavior can be extended in the design (i.e. strip footing) assuming plain strain loading con-
of pile foundations. Lastly, a simple method is dis- ditions. The saturated shear strength parameters were
cussed to estimate the critical height of vertical trench
in unsaturated soils is presented.
1
591
determined from biaxial tests (Schanz & Alabdullah 1400
Matric suction = 6 kPa
2007). The results of the study also suggest a reason-
1200 1.1 ' = 39.0
able comparison between the measured and predicted elastic
1000
Esat and the SWCC.
800
592
Load shaft resistance of piles in sands and silty soils. The
results show that the shaft resistance of the tested piles
is significantly higher under unsaturated conditions
A A' compared to saturated conditions both in compression
and tension. Therefore, a technique for estimating the
Footing shaft resistance of test piles under unsaturated condi-
tions is presented taking account influence of matric
suction extending conventional β method. The contri-
bution of matric suction to the total shaft resistance
was found to be around 50% of the total shaft capac-
ity in silty soil but almost negligible in clean sand.
B B'
(Eq. (17)). The shaft resistance contribution due to
matric suction Q(ua − uw ) can be predicted using the
Figure 18. Failure mechanism in unsaturated fine-grained
soils below a footing (Oh & Vanapalli 2009).
SWCC and the saturated shear strength parameters.
Qfus = Qf + Q(ua − uw )
500
γL
= β (π dL)
2
400
+ (ua − uw ) (S κ )(tan φ ) πdL
Predicted B.C (kPa)
(17)
205 kPa
100 kPa
160 kPa
300 where β = coefficient, γ = unit weight of soil, d =
perimeter of pile, L = embedded length of pile, S =
Predicted B.C
degree of saturation, κ = fitting parameter.
55 kPa
200 = Measur ed B.C Mohamed & Vanapalli (2009) conducted cone pen-
R2 = 0.93 etration tests (CPT s) in a specially designed tank at the
University of Ottawa to experimentally investigate the
100 variation of bearing capacity of sand with respect to
matric suctio n matric suction. The results showed dramatic increase
= 0 kPa of the cone tip resistance under unsaturated conditions
0 while the sleeve friction was almost negligible.
0 100 200 300 400 500
The comparison between the resistances obtained
Measured B.C (kPa) from the CPT s and the bearing capacity results from
the model footing tests (Mohamed & Vanapalli 2006)
Figure 19. Comparison between the measured and the under similar conditions show that the bearing capacity
predicted bearing capacity values (from Vanapalli et al. estimated in stress influence zone (i.e. 150 mm from
2007). the surface for both CPT and model footing test) was
approximately the same (Figure 20).
strength for an unsaturated soil, NCW = bearing capac-
ity factor with respect to constant water content con-
dition. 1000
CPT (Mohamed & Vanapall i 2009)
To verify the validity of the proposed method,
or cone resistance, qc (kPa)
soils for five different suction values (i.e. 0, 55, 100, 600
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
9 BEARING CAPACITY OF PILE Matric suction, (ua - uw) (kPa)
FOUNDATION IN UNSATURATED SOILS
Figure 20. Comparison between the cone resistance from
Vanapalli & Eigenbrod (2009) carried out model pile the CPTs and the bearing capacity from PLTs tests with
load tests in both saturated and unsaturated sands to respect to matric suction (modified after Mohamed &
interpret the contribution of matric suction towards the Vanapalli 2009).
593
10 ESTIMATION OF THE CRITICAL HEIGHT 11 SUMMARY
OF AN UNSUPPORTED VERTICAL
TRENCH IN UNSATURATED SOILS Significant advancements were made during the last
50 years since the pioneering research work in the area
Recent studies related to the stability of an initially of SUSS by Bishop (1959). Later studies by Fredlund
unsaturated trench (Whenham et al. 2007, Tomboy et al. (1978) laid a foundation for interpreting the SSUS
et al. 2008) and a compacted unsaturated embankment in terms of independent SSVs. The research under-
(Oh & Vanapalli 2008a) show that failures are likely taken by various investigators has contributed towards
to occur due to the loss of matric suction associated better understanding the SSUS. The focus of research
with infiltration conditions prior to reaching saturated since First International Conference on Unsaturated
condition. In other words, the conventional stability Soils in 1995 has been two folds: (i) to determine the
analysis approach using the principles of saturated soil SSUS using different types of innovative equipment,
mechanics may not be always conservative and may and (ii) proposing simple models for estimating or pre-
not be reliable for analyzing the stability of slopes or dicting the SSUS. Shear strength is a key engineering
trenches in unsaturated soils. property required in the design of several geotechni-
Vanapalli et al. (2009) performed stability analysis cal structures. However, limited number of practical
for a full scale instrumented test trench at the site of applications and case studies are available in the lit-
BBRI at Limelette, Belgium (Whenham et al. 2007). erature that implements our present understanding of
The analysis was conducted for four different sce- the SSUS. This paper provides a brief summary of the
narios such as i) initial condition (immediately after SSUS and how it can be applied in the design of shal-
excavation), ii) saturated condition, iii) first localized low and deep foundations, earth structures including
failure, and iv) general failure. excavations. However, most of the studies summarized
The active earth pressure for the unsaturated soils, in this paper are based on model studies conducted on
σ a was estimated using two different types of shear a limited number of unsaturated soils. More large scale
strength parameters (c , φ from CU tests for saturated and field studies on different unsaturated soils would
soils and cCW from constant water content tests) as be valuable.
given below. The practicing engineer is interested in a framework
that is simple and runs parallel to their understanding
of the conventional geotechnical engineering princi-
σa = γ zKa − 2 c + (ua − uw )S κ tan φ Ka (18)
ples. In other words, our future research focus should
be based on extending conventional techniques that are
σa = γ zKa − 2 c + (ua − uw ) tan φub Ka
well known in geotechnical engineering practice for
= γ zKa − 2cCW Ka (19) implementing our present understanding of the SUSS.
594
Aversa, S. & Nicotera, M.V. 2002. A triaxial and oedometer Cui, Y.J. & Delage, P. 1996. Yielding and plastic behaviour
apparatus for testing unsaturated soils, Geotech Testing of an unsaturated compacted silt, Géotechnique 46(2):
Journal 25(1): 3–15. 291–311.
Bao, C., Gong, B. & Zhan, L. 1998. Properties of unsaturated Cundall, P.A. & Strack, O.D.L. 1979. The distinct numeri-
soils and slope stability of expansive soils, Keynote lec- cal model for granular assemblies. Géotechnique 29(1):
ture. Proc. 2nd Inter. Conf. on Unsaturated Soils, Beijing, 47–65.
China, 1: 71–98. Donald, I.B. 1957. Effective stresses in unsaturated non-
Babu, G.L.S., Rao, R.S. & Peter, J. 2005. Evaluation of cohesive soils with controlled negative pore pressure.
shear strength functions based on soil water character- M.Eng. Sc. Thesis, University of Melbourne, Melbourne,
istic curves. Journal of Testing and Evaluation 33(6): Australia.
461–465. Donald, I.B. 1961. The mechanical properties of saturated
Barbour, S.L. 1998. Nineteenth Canadian Geotechnical and partly saturated soils with special reference to nega-
Colloquium: The soil-water characteristic curve: a his- tive pore water pressure. PhD dissertation. University of
torical perspective. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 35: London.
873–894. Escario, V. & Sáez, J. 1986. The shear strength of partly
Bishop, A.W. 1959. The principle of effective stress. Lec- saturated soils. Géotechnique, 36(3): 453–456.
ture delivered in Oslo, Norway, 1955; Technisk Ukeblad, Escario, V. & Juca, J. 1989. Shear strength and deformation
106(39): 859–863. of partly saturated soils. Proc. 12th Intern. Conf. on Soil
Bishop, A.W., Alpan, I., Blight, G.E. & Donald, I.B. 1960. Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Rio de Janeiro,
Factors controlling the shear strength of partly saturated 2: 43–46.
cohesive soils. Proc. 5th Intern. Conf. on Soil. Mech. Fakher, A., Jones, C.J.F.P. & Clarke, B.G. 1999. Yield stress
Foundation Engineering, Paris, 1: 13–21. of super soft clays. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoen-
Bishop, A.W. 1961. The measurement of pore pressure in the vironmental engineering 125(6): 499–509.
triaxial test. Pore Pressure and Suction in Soils. London: Fisher, R.A. 1926. On the capillary forces in an ideal soil.
Butterworths, 63: 66. Journal of Agricultural Science 16: 492–505.
Bishop, A.W. & Donald, I.B. 1961. The experimental study of Fredlund, D.G. & Morgenstern, N.R. 1977. Stress state vari-
partly saturated soil in triaxial apparatus. ASCE Res. Conf. ables for unsaturated soils. Journal of the Geotechnical
Shear Strength of Cohesive Soils, University of Colorado, Engineering Division, ASCE, 103(GT5): 447–466.
Boulder: 503–532. Fredlund, D.G., Morgenstern, N.R. & Widger, R.A. 1978.
Bishop, A.W. & Henkel, D.J. 1962. The measurement of soil The shear strength of unsaturated soils. Canadian Geo-
properties in the triaxial test. 2nd ed. London, England: technical Journal 15: 313–321.
Edward Arnold Publications: 227. Fredlund, D.G. & Rahardjo, H. 1993. Soil mechanics for
Bishop, A.W. & Blight, G.E. 1963. Some aspects of effective unsaturated soils. John Wiley and Sons, INC., NewYork.
stress in saturated and unsaturated soils. Géotechnique Fredlund, D.G., Xing, A., Fredlund, M.D. & Barbour, S.L.
13(3): 177–197. 1996. Relationship of the unsaturated soil shear strength
Blatz, J.A. & Graham, J. 2000. A system for controlled to the soil-water characteristic curve. Canadian Geotech-
suction in triaxial tests. Géotechnique, 50(4): 465–469. nical Journal 33(3): 440–448.
Blatz, J.A., Graham, J. & Chandler, N.A. 2002. Influence Fredlund, D.G. & Vanapalli, S.K. 2002. Shear strength
of suction on the strength and stiffness of compacted of unsaturated soils. Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 4-
sand-bentonite. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 39: Physical methods, Soil Science Society of America, Book
1005–1015. Series 5, ed. Dane J.H. and Topp, G.C, pp. 324–360.
Bocking, K.A. & Fredlund, D.G. 1980. Limitations of the Gallipoli, D., Gens, A., Sharma, R.S. & Vaunat, J. 2003. An
axis translation technique. Proc. 4th Intern. Conf. on elasto-plastic model for unsaturated soil incorporating the
Expansive Soils, Denver, pp. 117–135. effect of suction and degree of saturation on mechanical
Burland, J.B. 1964. Effective stresses in partly saturated soils. behavior. Géotechnique 53(1): 123–135.
Géotechnique. 14: 65–68. Gan, J.K.M. & Fredlund, D.G. 1988. Multistage direct shear
Burland, J.B. 1965. Some aspects of the mechanical behavior testing of unsaturated soils. American Society for Testing
of partly saturated soils. A symposium in print, Moisture Materials. Geotechnical Testing Journal 11(2): 132–138.
Equilibria and Moisture Changes in the Soils Beneath Garven, E.A. & Vanapalli, S.K. 2006. Evaluation of empiri-
Covered Area. 65–68. cal procedures for predicting the shear strength of unsat-
Colmenares, J.E. & Ridley, A.M. 2002. Stress-strain and urated soils. Proc. 4th Intern. Conf. on Unsaturated Soils,
strength relationships for a reconstituted clayey silt. Proc. 2–6 April 2006, Carefree, Arizona, American Society of
3rd Intern. Conf. on Unsaturated Soils, Recife, Brazil, Civil Engineers Geotechnical Special Publication, 147(2):
10–12 March 2002, 2: 481–484. 2570–2581.
Catana, C., Vanapalli, S.K. & Garga, V.K. 2006. The water Garven, E.A. 2009. Review of semi-empirical procedures for
retention characteristics of compacted clays. Proc. 4th the prediction of the shear strength of unsaturated soils.
Intern. Conf. on Unsaturated Soils, Carefree, Arizona, M.A.Sc thesis, University of Ottawa, In preparation.
American Society of Civil Engineers Geotechnical Special Graecen, E.L. 1960. Water content and soil strength. Journal
Publication 147(2): 1348–1359. of Soil Science 11(2): 313–333.
Chen, J.C. 1984. Evaluation of strength parameters of Haines, W.B. 1925. A note on the cohesion developed by
partially saturated soils on the basis of initial suction capillary forces in an ideal soil. Journal of Agricultural
and unconfined compression strength, M.Sc. thesis, Science 15: 529–535.
Asian Institute of Technology Report, Bangkok, Hilf, J.W. 1956. An investigation of pore-water pressure in
Thailand. compacted soilw, Ph.D. disseration, Tech. Memo No. 654,
595
U.S. Department of the Interior Buereau of Reclamation, 1st International Conference on Unsaturated Soils, 3:
Division and Consturction Division, Denver, CO, 654 P. 1201–1222.
Ho, D.Y.F. & Fredlund, D.G. 1982. A multistage triaxial test Matsuoka, H., Sun, D., Kogane, A., Fukuzawa, N. & Ichihara,
for unsaturated soils. ASTM Geotechnical Testing Journal W. 2002. Stress-strain behaviour of unsaturated soil in
5:18–25. true triaxial tests. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 39(3):
Houston, S.L., Perez-Garcia, N. & Houston, W.N. 2008. 608–619.
Shear strength and shear-induced volume change behavior Matsushi, Y. & Matsukura, Y. 2006. Cohesion of unsat-
of unsaturated soils from a triaxial test program. Jour- urated residual soils as a function of volumetric water
nal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, content. Bulletin of Engineering Geology Environment 65:
134(11): 1619–1632. 449–455.
Hoyos, L.R., Takkabutr, P. & Puppala, A.J. 2006. A modified Matyas, E.L. & Radhakrishna, H.S. 1968. Volume change
pressure plate device for SWCC testing under anisotropic characteristics of partially saturated soils. Géotechnique
stress state. Unsaturated Soils 2006, GSP No. 147, 18(4): 432–448.
American Society of Civil Engineers Geotechnical Spe- Miao, L., Liu, S. & Lai, Y. 2002. Research of soil-water
cial Publication, Miller GA, Zapata CE, Houston SL. characteristics and shear strength features of Nanyang
Fredlund DG (eds), 2: 1753–1762. expansive soil. Engineering Geology 65(4): 261–267.
Infante Sedano, J.Á. 2006. A modified ring shear test device Mitachi, T. & Kudo, Y. 1989. Method of predicting in situ
for determining the hydro-mechanical behavior of unsat- undrained strength of clays based of the suction and
urated soils. Ph.D. thesis. University of Ottawa. unconfined compressive strength. Journal of Japanese
Infante Sedano, J.Á., Vanapalli, S.K. & Garga, V.K. 2007. Society of Civil Engineering 541: 147–158.
Modified ring shear apparatus for unsaturated soils test- Mohamed, F.M.O. & Vanapalli, S.K. 2006. Laboratory
ing. Geotechnical Testing Journal 30(1): 1–12. investigations for the measurement of the bearing capac-
Jennings. J.E. & Burland, J.B. 1962. Limitations of the use of ity of an unsaturated coarse-grained soil. Proc. 59th
effective stresses in partly saturated soils. Géotechnique Canadian Geotechnical Conference, 1–4 October 2006,
12(2): 125–144. Vancouver, BC.
Jiang, M.J., Leroueil, S. & Konrad, J.M. 2004. Insight into Mohamed, F.M.O. & Vanapalli, S.K. 2009. An experimen-
shear strength functions of unsaturated granulates by tal investigation of the bearing capacity of unsaturated
DEM analyses. Computers and Geotechnics 31: 473–489. sand using cone penetration tests. Proc. 62nd Cana-
Karube, D. 1988. New concept of effective stress in unsatu- dian Geotechnical Conference (Accepted for publica-
rated soil and its proving tests. Advanced Triaxial Testing tion).
of Soil and Rock, American Society of Testing Materials Ng, C.W.W., Zhan, L.T. & Cui, Y.J. 2002. A new simple
STP 977, ASTM, Philadelphia: 539–552. system measuring volume changes in unsaturated soils.
Katti, D.R., Tang, J. & Yazdani, S. 2003. Undrained response Canadian Geotechnical Journal 39(3): 757–764.
of clays to varying strain rate. Journal of Geotechnical Nishimura, T. & Vanapalli, S.K. 2005. Volume change
and Geoenvironmental Engineering 129(3): 278–282. and shear strength behavior of an unsaturated soil in
Khalili, N. & Khabbaz, M.H. 1998. A unique relationship for the high suction range. Proc. 16th Intern. Conf. on Soil
χ for the determination of the shear strength of unsaturated Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Osaka, Japan,
soils. Géotechnique 48(5): 681–687. 12–16 September 2005. pp. 563–566.
Laloui, L., François, B., Nuth, M., Péron, H. & Koliji, A. Nishimura, T., Toyota, H., Oh, W.T. & Vanapalli, S.K. 2007.
2008. A thermo-hydro-mechanical stress-strain frame- Evaluation of critical state parameters for an unsaturated
work for modeling the performance of clay barriers in silty soil. Proc. 60th Canadian Geotechnical Conference:
deep geological repositories for radioactive waste. Proc. 1029–1036.
1st European Conference on Unsaturated Soils. Keynote Nishimura, T., Toyota, H., Vanapalli, S.K. & Oh, W.T.
paper. 2008a. Determination of the shear strength behavior of
Lamborn, M.J. 1986. A micromechanical approach to mod- an unsaturated soil in the high suction range using the
eling partly saturated soils. M.Sc. thesis, Texas A & M vapor pressure technique. Proc. 1st European Conference
University, Texas. on Unsaturated Soils. Unsaturated Soils: Advances in
Lee, S.J., Lee, S.R. & Kim, Y.S. 2003. An approach to Geo-Engineering, Toll et al. (eds). CRC Press: Taylor
estimate the unsaturated shear strength using artificial and Francis Group: 441–447.
neural network and hyperbolic formulation. Computers Nishimura, T., Toyota, H., Vanapalli, S.K. & Oh, W.T. 2008b.
and Geotechnics 30(6): 489–503. The shear strength behavior of a silty soil in the residual
Lee, I.-M., Sung, S.-G. & Cho, G.-C. 2005. Effect of stress zone of unsaturation. Proc. 12th IACMAG Conference,
state on the unsaturated shear strength of a weathered Goa, India, 2213–2221.
granite. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 42(2): 624–631. Öberg, A.L. & Sallfors, G. 1997. Determination of shear
Lins, Y., Schanz, T. & Vanapalli, S.K. 2009. Bearing capac- strength parameters of unsaturated silts and sands based
ity and settlement behavior of a strip footing on an on the water retention curve. Geotechnical Testing
unsaturated coarse-grained soil. Proc. 4th Asia-Pacific Journal 20(1): 40–48.
Conference on Unsaturated Soils, New Castle, Australia. Oh, W.T., Garga, V.K. & Vanapalli, S.K. 2008. Shear strength
(Accepted for publication). characteristics of statically compacted unsaturated kaolin.
Lu, Z. 1992. The relationship of shear strength to swelling Canadian Geotechnical Journal 45(7): 910–922.
pressure for unsaturated soils. Chinese Journal of Oh, W.T. & Vanapalli, S.K. 2008a. Instability of unsaturated
Geotechnical Engineering 143: 1–8. [in Chinese]. compacted soil slope due to rain infiltration. Proc. 61st
Lytton, R. 1995. Keynote Address: Foundations and Pave- Canadian Geotechnical Conference, 21–24 September
ments on Unsaturated Soils, Keynote Address, Proc. 2008, Edmonton: 513–520.
596
Oh, W.T. & Vanapalli, S.K. 2008b. Modeling the bearing Shen, D., Gens, A., Fredlund, D.G. & Sloan, S.W. 2008.
capacity and settlement behavior of unsaturated soils. Unsaturated soils: From constitutive modelling to numeri-
Proc. 12th IACMAG Conference, Goa, India: 2126–2137. cal algorithms. Computers and Geotechnics 35: 810–824.
Oh, W.T. & Vanapalli, S.K. 2009. A simple method to Skempton, A.W. 1948. The φu = 0 analysis for stability and
estimate the bearing capacity of unsaturated fine-grained its theoretical basis, Proc. 2nd International Conference
soils. Proc. 62nd Canadian Geotechnical Conference, of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 1:
20–24 September, 2009. (Accepted for publication). 72–77.
Oliveira, O.M. & Marinho, F.A.M. 2003. Unsaturated shear Sridharan, A. 1968. Some studies on the strength of partly
strength behaviour of a compacted residual soil. Proc. saturated clays. PhD thesis, Purdue University, U.S.A.
Asian Conference on Unsaturated Soils: Unsaturated Tarantino, A. & Tombalato, S. 2005. Coupling hydraulic
Soil Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Issues. Osaka, and mechanical behavior in unsaturated compacted clay.
Japan. 237–242. Géotechnique 55(4): 307–317.
Poulos, H.D. & Davis, E.H. 1974. Elastic solutions for soil Tekinsoy, M.A., Kayadelen, C., Keskin, M.S. & Soyle-
and rock mechanics. John Wiley and Sons, New York. mez, M. 2004. An equation for predicting shear strength
Peterson, R.F.W. 1988. Interpretation of triaxial compres- envelope with respect to matric suction. Computers and
sion test results on partially saturated soils. Advanced Geotechnics 31(7): 589–593.
Triaxial Testing of Soil and Rock, ASTM STP 977, Terzaghi, K. 1936. The shear resistance of saturated soils.
American Society for Testing and Material, Philadelphi: Proc. 1st Intern. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
512–538. Engineering 1: 54–56.
Rahardjo, H., Heng, O.B. & Leong, E.C. 2004. Shear Terzaghi, K., 1943. Theoretical Soil Mechanics, John Wiley
strength of a compacted residual soil from consoli- and Sons, New York, NY, USA.
dated drained and constant water content triaxial tests, Thu, T.M., Rahardjo, H. & Leong, E.C. 2006. Shear strength
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 41(3): 421–436. and pore-water pressure characteristics during constant
Rampino, C., Mancuso, C. & Vinale, F. 1999. Laboratory water content triaxial tests. Journal of Geotechnical and
testing on an unsaturated soil: equipment, procedures, Geoenvironmental Engineering, 132(3): 411–419.
and first experimental results, Canadian Geotechnical Toll, D.G. 1990. A framework for unsaturated soils behavior.
Journal 36(1): 1–12. Géotechnique 40(1): 31–44.
Rassam, D.W. & Williams, D.J. 1999. Bearing capacity Tomboy, V., Whenham, V. & De Vos, M. Shear strength of
of dessicated tailings. Journal of Geotechnical and unsaturated soil and its influence on slope stability. In:
Geoenvironmental Engineering 125(7): 600–609. Proc. 1st European Conference on Unsaturated Soils,
Rassam, D.W. & Cook, F.J. 2002. Predicting the shear 2–4 July 2008, Durham: 459–464.
strength envelope of unsaturated soils. Geotechnical Vanapalli, S.K. 1994. Simple test procedures and their
Testing Journal 28: 215–220. interpretation in evaluating the shear strength of unsat-
Ridley, A.M. 1993. The measurement of soil moisture urated soils. Ph.D. thesis. University of Saskatchewan,
suction, PhD Thesis, University of London. Saskatoon.
Romero E., Facio, J.A., Lloret, A., Gens, A. & Alonso, E.E. Vanapalli, S.K., Fredlund, D.G., Pufahl, D.E. & Clifton,
1997. A new suction and temperature controlled triaxial A.W. 1996a. Model for the prediction of shear strength
apparatus. Proc. 14th Intern. Conf. on Soil Mechanics with respect to soil suction. Canadian Geotechnical
and Foundation Engineering, Hamburg, Rotterdam: Journal 33(3): 379–392.
Balkema: 185–188. Vanapalli, S.K., Fredlund, D.G. & Pufahl, D.E. 1996b. The
Röhm, S.A. & Vilar, O.M. 1995. Shear strength of an unsat- relationship between the soil-water characteristic curve
urated sandy soil. Proc.1st Intern. Conf. on unsaturated and unsaturated shear strength of a compacted glacial
Soils, 1: 189–195. till. American Society of Testing Materials, Geotechnical
Satija, B.S. 1978. Shear strength behavior of partially sat- Testing Journal 19(3): 259–268.
urated soils. PhD thesis, Indian Institute of Technology, Vanapalli, S.K., Pufahl, D.E. & Fredlund, D.G. 1998a Effect
Delhi, India: 327. of compaction on the unsaturated shear strength of a com-
Schanz, T. & Alabdullah, J. 2007. Testing unsaturated soil pacted till. Proc. 2nd Intern. Conf. on Unsaturated Soils,
for plane strain conditions: a new double wall biaxial Beijing, International Academic Publishers, 1: 161–166.
device. Proc. Intern. Conf. ‘‘From Experimental Evi- Vanapalli, S.K., Sillers, W.S. & Fredlund, M.D. 1998b
dence towards Numerical Modeling of Unsaturated Soil,’’ The meaning and relevance of residual water content
Weimar, Germany, Unsaturated Soils: Experimental to unsaturated soils. Proc. 51st Canadian Geotechnical
Studies, 169–178. Conference, 1998, Edmonton: 101–108.
Schick, P. 2004. Scherfestigkeit durch Kapillarität in unze- Vanapalli, S.K., Pufahl, D.E. & Fredlund, D.G. 1999a.
mentierten ungesättigten bindigen Böden, Bautechnik Interpretation of the shear strength of unsaturated soils
81(1): 31–37. in undrained loading conditions. Proc. 52nd Canadian
Schnaid, F., Consoli, N.C., Cumdani, R. & Milititsky, J. Geotechnical Conference, Regina, October 25–27, 1999,
1995. Load-settlement response of shallow foundations 643–650.
in structured unsaturated soils. Proc. 1st International Vanapalli, S.K., Fredlund, D.G. & Pufahl, D.E. 1999b. The
Conference on Unsaturated Soils, 6–8 September, Paris, influence of soil structure and stress history on the soil-
999–1004. water characteristics of a compacted till. Géotechnique
Shen, Z. 1996. The problems in the present studies on 49(2): 143–159.
mechanics for unsaturated soils. Proc. Symposium on Vanapalli, S.K., Wright, A. & Fredlund, D.G. 2000. Shear
Geotechnical Aspects of Regional Soils, Nanjing [in strength of two unsaturated silty soils over the suction
Chinese]. range from 0 to 1,000,000 kPa. Proc. 53rd Canadian
597
Geotechnical Conference, Montreal, October 15–18: Vanapalli, S.K., Shen, H. & Oh, W.T. 2009. Estimation of
1161–1168. the critical height of an unsupported vertical trench in
Vanapalli, S.K. & Fredlund, D.G. 2000. Comparison of unsaturated soils. Proc. Intern. Conf. on Unsatuarted
empirical procedures to predict the shear strength of Soil Mecahnics and Deep Geological Nuclear Waste
unsaturated soils uses the soil-water characteristic curve. Disposal. (In Review).
Geo-Denver 2000, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vanapalli, S.K. & Eigenbrod, K.D. 2009. A technique for
Special Publication, 99: 195–209. estimating shaft resistance of test pile in unsaturated
Vanapalli, S.K., Salinas, L.M., Avila, D. & Karube. D. 2004. soils. Revised version in preparation for submission to
Suction and storage characteristics of unsaturated soils: the Canadian Geotechnical Journal.
Presented the State-of-the-art report, Proc. 3rd Intern. Vilar, O.M. 2006. A simplified procedure to estimate the
Conf. on Unsaturated Soils, Brazil, 3: 1045–1069. shear strength envelope of unsaturated soils. Canadian
Vanapalli, S.K. & Catana, M.C. 2005. Estimation of the Geotechnical Journal 43: 1088–1095.
soil-water characteristic curve of coarse grained soils Villar, M.V., Romero, E., Buenfil, C., Lloret, A. & Martin,
using one point measurement and simple properties. P.W. 2005. The application of the axis translation tech-
Intern. Symp. on Advanced Experimental Unsaturated nique to the triaxial testing of unsaturated soils. Proc.
Soil Mechanics, Trento, Italy: 401–407. Intern. Conf. on Problematic Soils, 25–27 May 2005,
Vanapalli, S.K., Garga, V.K. & Infante Sedano, J.A. 2005. Eastern Mediterranean University Press, 1: 87–94.
Determination of the shear strength of unsaturated soils Wheeler, S.J. 1988. The undrained shear strength of soils con-
using the modified ring shear apparatus. Intern. Symp. taining a large gas bubbles. Géotechnique 38(1): 399–413.
on Advanced Experimental Unsaturated Soil Mechanics, Wheeler, S.J. & Sivakumar, V. 1995. An elasto-plastic crit-
Trento, Italy: 125–130. ical state framework for unsaturated soils. Géotechnique
Vanapalli, S.K. & Mohamed, F.M.O. 2007. Bearing capacity 50(4): 369–376.
of model footings in unsaturated soils. Proc. Intern. Wheeler, S.J., Sharma, R.S. & Buisson, M.S.R. 2003. Cou-
Conf. ‘‘From Experimental Evidence towards Numerical pling of hydraulic hysterisis and stress-strain behaviour
Modeling of Unsaturated Soil,’’ Weimar, Germany, in unsaturated soils, Géotechnique 53(1): 41–54.
Unsaturated Soils: Experimental Studies: 483–493. Whenham, V., De Vos, M., Legrand, C., Charlier, R. &
Vanapalli, S.K. Oh, W.T. & Puppala, A.J. 2007. Determi- Verbrugge, J.-C. Influence of soil suction on trench sta-
nation of the bearing capacity of unsaturated soils under bility. Proc. 2nd International Conference on Mechanics
undrained loading conditions, Proc. 60th Canadian of Unsaturated Soils, Weimar, Germany, 7–9 March:
Geotechnical Conference, 21–24 October, Ottawa: 495–501.
1002–1009. Xu, Y. & Sun, D. 2002. A fractal model for soil pores and
Vanapalli, S.K., Nicotera, M. & Sharma, R. 2008. Axis its application to determination of water permeability,
translation and negative water column techniques for suc- Physica A 316 (1–4): 56–64.
tion control. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering Xu, Y. 2004. Bearing capacity of unsaturated expansive soils.
Journal. 26: 645–660. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 22: 611–625.
Vanapalli, S.K., Hong, S. & Oh, W.T. 2009. Estimation of Yu, S., Ma, A. & Wang, Z. 1998. The feature of suction
the critical height of an unsupported vertical trench in and hyperbola model for shear strength of unsaturated
unsaturated soils. Proc. Intern. Symp. on Unsaturated soil. Proc. 2nd Technical Committee of Intern. Conf. on
Soil Mechanics and Deep Geological Nuclear Waste Dis- Unsaturated Soils, 1: 192–195.
posal, 24–28 August 2009, Shanghai, China. (Accepted Zhan, L.T. & Ng, C.W.W. 2006. Shear strength charac-
for publication). teristics of an unsaturated expansive clay. Canadian
Vanapalli, S.K. & Lacasse, F. 2009. Comparison between the Geotechnical Journal 43: 751–763.
measured and predicted shear strength behaviour of four
unsaturated sands. Proc. 4th Asia-Pacific Conference on
Unsaturated Soils. New Castle, Australia. (Accepted for
publication).
598