Exponential Equation for Predicting Shear Strength Envelope

of Unsaturated Soils
Reza Ahmadi Naghadeh, Ph.D.1; and Nabi Kartal Toker, Ph.D.2

Abstract: An exponential equation is introduced to predict the nonlinear variation of shear strength with matric suction for unsaturated soils.
The proposed equation involves three constant parameters, two of which are effective shear strength parameters (i.e., f 0 and c0 ). The third pa-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 04/16/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

rameter is the maximum capillary cohesion, c00max , which is the maximum possible increase in shear strength due to matric suction. A procedure
for the determination of c00max from the soil-water characteristic curve (SWCC) is devised. The proposed equation is validated through a series
of constant-suction consolidated drained triaxial tests conducted on specimens reconstituted by isotropic consolidation from the slurry state. In
addition, the validity of the equation is investigated by applying it to the test results of five other soils that were available in the literature for
the low-suction range (i.e., up to 1,500 kPa). A comparative study on the prediction of shear strength was carried out between the proposed
equation and six other shear strength equations found in the literature. The results show that the proposed equation provides reliable predic-
tions of the shear strength of unsaturated soils when the shear strength converges to an asymptotic value at the residual water content. DOI:
10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001435. © 2019 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Unsaturated soil; Shear strength; Suction; Apparent cohesion.

Introduction shear strength parameters c and f ) by performing laboratory or field

Estimating the shear strength of soils is critical in most geotechnical
projects. The shear strength of saturated soils is well defined
through the effective stress concept and Mohr-Coulomb strength
criterion in classic soil mechanics (Terzaghi 1925, 1936). However,
despite impressive advances in unsaturated soil mechanics over the
past few decades, unanswered questions still exist from both a theo-
retical and an experimental point of view. The presence of the air
phase in unsaturated soil brings considerable difficulties to both lab-
oratory measurements and the formulation of the shear strength
(Bishop et al. 1960). Different methods have been developed and
reported in the literature for predicting the shear strength of unsatu-
rated soils (Fredlund and Morgenstern 1977; Fredlund et al. 1996;
Karube et al. 1997; Vanapalli et al. 1996; Öberg and Sällfors 1997;
Bao et al. 1998; Khalili and Khabbaz 1998; Vanapalli and Fredlund
2000; Khalili et al. 2004; Tekinsoy et al. 2004; Xu 2004; Garven
and Vanapalli 2006; Rojas 2008a; Xu and Cao 2015). In general,
most of these methods are developed following two fundamental
concepts: the effective stress (Bishop 1959) and independent stress
state variables (Fredlund and Morgenstern 1977). Shear strength
equations can be divided into two categories, prediction- and
fitting-type equations (Goh 2012). Prediction-type equations predict
the shear strength of a soil without the necessity for unsaturated soil
strength tests through easily obtainable parameters (e.g., saturated
1
Postdoctoral Researcher, Architecture and Civil Engineering Dept.,
Chalmers Univ. of Technology, 412 96 Gothenburg, Sweden (correspond-
ing author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2215-441X. Email: reza
.ahmadi@chalmers.se
2
Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering Dept., Middle East Technical
Univ., Ankara 06800, Turkey. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8858
-0510. Email: toker@metu.edu.tr
Note. This manuscript was submitted on April 11, 2018; approved on
December 31, 2018; published online on April 16, 2019. Discussion pe-
riod open until September 16, 2019; separate discussions must be submit-
ted for individual papers. This paper is part of the International Journal
of Geomechanics, © ASCE, ISSN 1532-3641.
tests. However, the fitting-type equations (Fredlund et al. 1978;
Rassam and Cook 2002; Lee et al. 2005; Vilar 2006) are developed
to best fit the data measured from unsaturated soil strength tests by
employing fitting parameters. Patil et al. (2016a, b) performed a se-
ries of suction-controlled drained triaxial tests on compacted silty
sand specimens over a wide range of suction (50–300,000 kPa). Patil
et al. (2017) evaluated some of the shear strength equations using
their own data and introduced new fitting-type equations to predict
shear strength at suction beyond residual suction. The fitting-type
equations are not the subject of discussion in this article.
In this article, a prediction-type exponential equation is proposed
for estimating the variation of shear strength with matric suction in
unsaturated soils. The following section provides background on
currently available shear strength equations for unsaturated soils.
Next, the procedure for obtaining the new model’s parameters is
explained. Finally, the predictive capabilities of the proposed equa-
tion are evaluated using three statistical criteria against laboratory
tests performed in this study and the test results of five different
soils published in the literature.
Background on Shear Strength Equations
Terzaghi’s effective stress principle (s ¼ s 0 þ uw ) is formulated
based on the two-phase media assumption (either totally saturated
or completely dry soil). In the case of the partially saturated soils,
the total volume of soil mass is a three-phase system (solids, water,
and gas). Therefore, the two-phase-based effective stress principle
is not valid for partially saturated soils. Bishop (1959) expanded the
effective stress principle to unsaturated soils as follows:
s 0 ¼ ðs  ua Þ þ x ðua  uw Þ (1)
where ua = pressure in the gas phase (air and vapor); uw = pressure
in the liquid phase (water); and x = Bishop’s effective stress param-
eter, which is 1 for the saturated condition and decreases with the
degree of saturation to zero for the dry condition.

© ASCE 04019061-1 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2019, 19(7): 04019061

 Coulomb’s linear shear strength equation and Terzaghi’s effec- where ðua  uw ÞAE is the air-entry (AE) value; and f is the fitting pa-
tive stress principle have been widely used in estimating the shear rameter. Fredlund et al. (1996) employed this equation for u in the
strength of saturated soils, as follows: place of x to obtain a fitting-type shear strength equation, as
follows:
t ¼ c0 þ s 0  tan f 0 (2)
" #f
0 0 ðua  uw ÞAE
where t = shear strength; c0 = cohesion; and f 0 = internal friction t ¼ c þ ðs  ua Þtan f þ ðua  uw Þ tan f 0
ðua  uw Þ
angle of the soil sample.
Rewriting Eq. (2) for the Bishop effective stress [Eq. (1)], the (10)
shear strength equation takes the following form:
Khalili and Khabbaz (1998) analyzed the shear strength data
t ¼ c0 þ ðs  ua Þ  tan f 0 þ x ðua  uw Þ  tan f 0 (3) published in the literature and introduced an empirical relation
between the effective stress parameter x and soil suction. The fit-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 04/16/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The alternative for the effective stress approach [Eq. (3)] is using ting parameter f is determined as –0.55. Khalili et al. (2004) pro-
the independent stress variable concept, which was introduced by posed the following formulation for the effective stress parameter:
Fredlund and Morgenstern (1977), as follows: 8
>
> 1 ðua  uw Þ  ðua  uw ÞAE
>
<"
t ¼ c0 þ ðs  ua Þ  tan f 0 þ ðua  uw Þ  tan f b (4)
x¼ ðua  uw Þ 0:55 (11)
>
> ðu  u Þ 
>
:
ðua  uw Þ  ðua  uw ÞAE
where f b = angle of increase in shear strength with suction. The a w AE
general form of the equation is similar to Eq. (3), and the two equa-
tions can be unified when Vanapalli et al. (1996) proposed a fitting-type equation involv-
tan f b ¼ x tan f (5) ing normalized water content ðHÞ with a fitting parameter k :

Therefore, f b is a variable that changes with suction; this has uw

H¼ (12)
been confirmed experimentally by Gan et al. (1988), Escario and us
Jucá (1989), Oloo and Fredlund (1996), Vanapalli et al. (1996),
Ahmadi-Naghadeh (2016), and Patil et al. (2016a). k
t ¼ c0 þ ðs  ua Þtan f 0 þ ðua  uw ÞðHÞ tan f 0 (13)
Most of the strength formulations that use the effective stress are
based on developing an appropriate procedure to determine
Bishop’s effective stress parameter, x . Bishop and Donald (1961) where u w = volumetric water content at given matric suction; and
and Jennings and Burland (1962) indicated an inconsistent relation- u s = volumetric water content in the saturated condition.
ship between x and degree of saturation for different soil types. Vanapalli and Fredlund (2000) and Garven and Vanapalli
Öberg and Sällfors (1997) used the degree of saturation for x and (2006) proposed a correlation between fitting parameter k and the
proposed the following equation: plasticity index (Ip), given in Eqs. (14) and (15), respectively.

k ¼ 0:008  Ip2 þ 0:0801  Ip þ 1 (14)
t ¼ c0 þ s  ua Þtan f 0 þ ðSÞðua  uw Þtan f 0 (6)

Vanapalli et al. (1996) and Karube et al. (1997) proposed equa- k ¼ 0:0016  Ip2 þ 0:0975  Ip þ 1 (15)
tions Eqs. (7) and (8) that disregard the residual water and express
x as proportions of the rest of the pore water. Patil et al. (2017) also tested and modified Eq. (9) using their ex-
  perimental data to predict shear strength at suction beyond residual
S  Sr
t ¼ c0 þ ðs  ua Þtan f 0 þ ðua  uw Þ tan f 0 (7) suction. The modified equation uses two different values of the
100  Sr best-fitting parameter, k . For suction values up to residual suction
( c < c r), they use k = 1.21, and for beyond residual suction
  ( c r < c ), they use k = 1.81.
0 0 u  ur
t ¼ c þ ðs  ua Þtan f þ ðua  uw Þ tan f 0 (8) Bao et al. (1998) proposed a relation for the effective stress pa-
us  ur
rameter that involves the AE value and residual suction value, in
log-scale, as follows:
where S and u = degree of saturation and the volumetric water con-
tent; Sr and u r = their residual values; and u s = volumetric water logðua  uw Þr  logðua  uw Þ
content at the saturated condition. Residual values are obtained x¼ (16)
logðua  uw Þr  logðua  uw ÞAE
from the soil-water characteristic curve (SWCC), which is the rela-
tion between the quantity of water and suction. Inspection of these
equations indicates that x is 1.0 at full saturation, zero at the resid- where ðua  uw Þr = residual suction.
ual state, and linearly interpolated in between. The two equations Xu (2004) and Xu and Cao (2015) presented a relation for the
are identical unless the soil’s volume changes with water content. effective stress parameter x based on a fractal model for the pore-
Brooks and Corey (1964) proposed Eq. (9) to describe the size distribution, as follows:
SWCC.  D3
ðua  uw Þ
" #f x¼ (17)
ðua  uw ÞAE ðua  uw ÞAE
u ¼ (9)
ðua  uw Þ
where D = surface fractal dimension of soil pores.

© ASCE 04019061-2 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2019, 19(7): 04019061

 Rojas (2008a, b) introduced a relation for the effective stress pa-
rameter x based on the dry, unsaturated, and saturated fraction of
unsaturated soils, as follows:
x ¼ f s þ Suw f u
where f s = saturated fraction; f u = unsaturated fraction; and Suw =
degree of saturation of the unsaturated fraction.
Tekinsoy et al. (2004) introduced an empirical equation that
relates the shear strength to the SWCC through the AE value:
 
t ¼ c0 þ ðs  ua Þtan f 0 þ ðua  uw Þðua  uw ÞAE þ Pat
 
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 04/16/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
AE value (air enters to the largest pores). In the transition stage, the
water content considerably decreases with increasing suction. In the
first part of the transition stage (i.e., primary transition stage), which
starts from the AE value, the air phase appears as occluded bubbles,
(18) and the water phase can be considered as the continuous phase. In
the second part (i.e., secondary transition stage), significant varia-
tion in the response of the soil occurs. In this part, more water
drains, and the related pores are occupied by air, and therefore the
continuity of the water phase reduces, the volumetric behavior is
not directly related to the water-content variation, and a single stress
state cannot describe the soil response (Nishimura et al. 1997;
Fredlund et al. 2001; Colmenares Montanez 2002; Melgarejo
Corredor 2004).

ðua  uw Þ þ Pat
 ln tan f 0 (19)
Pat
where Pat = atmospheric pressure.
Note that the consensus among these equations suggests that
suction has no influence over the f 0 and that the contribution of
suction is an increase in cohesion, generally called apparent cohe-
sion (ca ¼ c0 þ c00 Þ, as follows:
t ¼ c0 þ c00 þ ðs  ua Þ  tan f 0
In this article, a new parameter called the transition suction, c t ,
is assumed as the onset of the secondary transition part of the drying
SWCC (beyond the AE value), which is used in the proposed shear
strength equation (discussed in the next section). A graphical proce-
dure is adopted to estimate c t . As an example, the SWCC of
Madrid clayey sand (Escario and Jucá 1989) is provided in Fig. 2.
To determine the c t , as presented in Fig. 3, the SWCC is plotted in
arithmetic scale (instead of semilogarithmic scale). By visual obser-
vation, the initial linear portion of the curve beyond the AE is identi-
(20) fied. The transition suction, c t , is the point where the SWCC

where the c00 = capillary cohesion and is proportional to matric suc-

tion (Lu and Likos 2004). Table 1 summarizes the capillary cohe-
sion terms of the shear strength prediction equations that were
reviewed, including the matric suction range over which these equa-
tions were originally tested.

Soil-Water Characteristic Curve

The results of previous studies demonstrate a consistent relationship

of the SWCC with unsaturated shear strength properties (Vanapalli
et al. 1996; Al Aqtash and Bandini 2015). Many equations use
SWCC to predict the shear strength of the unsaturated soils. The
SWCC explains the relationship between the soil suction and the
amount of water in the soil. The amount of water can be expressed
as gravimetric water content, degree of saturation, or volumetric
water content. White et al. (1970) and Vanapalli et al. (1996)
defined three stages of desaturation: the boundary-effect stage, the
funicular regime or transition stage (primary and secondary transi-
tion zone), and the residual stage. The AE value and the onset of the
residual stage, which are the limits between the stages, are key com-
ponents of the SWCC and can be determined graphically (Fig. 1). In Fig. 1. Typical SWCC showing different stages. (Adapted from
the boundary-effect stage, the soil is assumed to be saturated with Vanapalli et al. 1996.)
the continuous water phase. This stage is limited to zero suction and

Table 1. Summary of reviewed shear strength equations

Reference Equation Suction range

00 0
c ¼ ðua  uw ÞðSÞtan f
a
Öberg and Sällfors (1997) 0–1,000 kPa
Vanapalli et al. (1996)a c00 ¼ ðua  uw ÞðS  Sr =100  Sr Þtan f 0 or c00 ¼ ðua  uw Þðu  u r =u s  u r Þtan f 0 0–500 kPa
 0:55
Khalili and Khabbaz (1998)a c00 ¼ ðua  uw Þ ðua  uw Þ=ðua  uw ÞAE  tan f 0 0–800 kPa
   

Bao et al. (1998)a c00 ¼ ðua  uw Þ  logðua  uw Þr  logðua  uw Þ = logðua  uw Þr  logðua  uw ÞAE  tan f 0 0–500 kPa
k
c00 ¼ ðua  uw ÞðHÞ tan f 0 k ¼ 0:0016  Ip 2 þ 0:0975  Ip þ 1
a
Garven and Vanapalli (2006) 0–1,500 kPa
k
Patil et al. (2017) c ¼ ðua  uw ÞðHÞ tan f 0 k ¼ 1:21 for c < c r ; k ¼ 1:81 for c r < c
00 0– 300 MPa
h
Xu (2004); Xu and Cao (2015) c00 ¼ ðua  uw Þ ðua  uw Þ= ðua  uw ÞAE D3  tan f 0 0–500 kPa
   
c00 ¼ ðua  uwAE Þ þ Pat ln ðua  uw Þ þ ðPat =Pat Þ tan f 0
a
Tekinsoy et al. (2004) 0–500 kPa
a
The predictive capabilities of the proposed method are compared to these equations.

© ASCE 04019061-3 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2019, 19(7): 04019061


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 04/16/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. SWCC of the Madrid clay sand from Escario and Jucá (1989).
Fig. 3. SWCC of the Madrid clay sand in arithmetic scale and graphi-
cal representation of transition suction, c t .
deviates from this straight line. In this example (Madrid clay), the
transition suction, c t , of the soil is determined to be 150 kPa.
Introduced Equation
The shear strength of an unsaturated soil increases at a decreasing
rate toward an asymptotic value, cmax , as suction approaches its re-
sidual value (Fig. 4). The cmax is the maximum apparent cohesion
that could be achieved; it is the sum of drained cohesion intercept
(c0 ) and maximum capillary cohesion (c00max ). A graphical procedure
is introduced to estimate the c00max , through the SWCC. As presented
in Fig. 4, if shear strength were to be increased with suction at its
initial rate (i.e., c  tan f 0 ), it would intersect the asymptotic value
(i.e., cmax ) at suction c t (called the transition suction in this article).
© ASCE 04019061-4
Int. J. Geomech., 2019, 19(7): 04019061
Fig. 4. Asymptotic variation of the shear strength with suction and the
position of the transition suction and c00max .
Therefore, once the transition suction is determined (with the proce-
dure explained previously), the c00max ; c00 ; ca , and therefore the shear
strength can be estimated, as follows:


c00max ¼ tan f 0  c t (21)
The nonlinear variation of the stress-independent component of
shear strength (i.e., apparent cohesion) with suction is formulated
with an exponential equation, as follows:
c00 ¼ c00max  ½1  eð c = c t Þ  (22)
Substituting Eqs. (21) and (22) into Eq. (20), the general form of
the proposed shear strength equation is
t ¼ c0 þ ðs  ua Þ  tan f 0 þ ½1  eðc = c t Þ   c t  tan f 0 (23)
where c = matric suction (ua – uw). This equation involves three
constant parameters to be evaluated. By determining the transition
suction, c t , the c00max can be determined through Eq. (21), and
finally, the shear strength can be estimated with Eq. (23). Therefore
ct ½
x¼  1  e ð c = c t Þ  (24)
c
The transition suction, c t , is a graphical parameter that mathe-
matically fits the shape of the apparent cohesion–suction relation-
ship; it can be obtained by the proposed methodology, and it does
not have a proven physical meaning. In this study, it is hypothe-
sized that the transition suction is the transition to the funicular
regime.
Experimental Study
The majority of the shear strength equations are developed and vali-
dated based on the experimental data of compacted specimens; a
few studies have reported specimens prepared from a slurry
(Cunningham et al. 2003; Ahmadi-Naghadeh 2016). In this study, a
series of constant-suction triaxial tests was conducted on specimens
isotropically reconstituted from a slurry to validate the proposed
equation. The conventional triaxial setup is modified to induce and
control suction using the axis-translation technique (Hilf 1956).
Ceramics with an AE value of 500 kPa were used to control the
water-phase pressure at the top and bottom boundaries of the speci-
mens. The measurement method proposed by Ahmadi-Naghadeh
and Toker (2017) was adopted to monitor the volume change of the
specimens. This method models the expansion of the triaxial cell by
Int. J. Geomech.
 a modified version of the Burgers viscoelastic model and requires
the use of distilled, deaired water as the cell fluid. A custom com-
puter code can untangle pressure- and time-dependent components
of triaxial cell’s expansion, provided that it is calibrated without a
specimen beforehand. Ahmadi-Naghadeh and Toker (2017) vali-
dated the method by applying it to tests on saturated specimens and
comparing the measurements to changes in pore-fluid volume,
which showed an error margin no greater than that of widely
accepted methods, such as the use of a double cell.
Soil Properties
The soil used in this study was a silt from Mersin, Turkey. Table 2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 04/16/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
technique with double drainage (to reduce the length of the drainage
to half and therefore the testing time to a quarter) was employed to
control and induce soil suction. For this purpose, a triaxial base, top
cap, and pedestal with new features were developed. The pedestal
and top cap included a peripheral annular coarse porous metal (for
pore-air pressure) and high-AE ceramic at the center (for pore-
water pressure). A diffused air-volume indicator (DAVI) was devel-
oped, following Fredlund (1975), to flush and measure the volume
of diffused air.
Following equalization, under the same constant suction, speci-
mens were isotropically compressed to the desired value of net
stress. Compression was applied by increasing the cell pressure at a
constant rate of 4 kPa/h. The specimen was left under the target net

summarizes the index properties of the soil sample determined stress for 24 h to ensure complete dissipation of the excess pore-
experimentally. The soil sample is classified as low-plasticity silt
ML according to the USCS.
The saturated shear strength parameters of the soil (i.e., effective
cohesion c0 and effective angle of internal friction f 0 ) were deter-
mined from a series of consolidated drained triaxial (CD) tests.
Specimens, 5 cm in diameter and 10 cm in height, with a dry density
of 15.8 kg/m3, were prepared from a slurry following the procedure
introduced by Ahmadi-Naghadeh and Toker (2018). An effective
internal friction angle of f 0 = 37° and an effective cohesion of c0 =
0 were determined by shearing specimens of the material at a strain
rate of 0.004%/min.
The SWCC of the soil was obtained using the modified triaxial
setup. The maximum suction was limited to 400 kPa due to the AE
value of the ceramic (500 kPa). To prevent inflation of the mem-
brane inside the triaxial cell, the SWCC was obtained at 10-kPa
isotropic net stress. The rest of the curve at higher suctions was ex-
trapolated by fitting these data to Fredlund and Xing (1994)’s equa-
tion. Fig. 5 presents the SWCC data from experiments and the best
fits from the Fredlund and Xing (1994) equation. The AE value and
the residual suction were determined as 40 and 350 kPa, respec-
tively. The transition suction c t , which is introduced in this study,
was determined as 170 kPa (Fig. 6).
Fig. 5. SWCC of Mersin silt.
Unsaturated Shear Strength
In total, 10 constant-suction consolidated drained triaxial tests were
performed at constant matric suctions of 20, 100, 200, and 400 kPa.
For each suction, triaxial tests were conducted at three net confining
pressures (i.e., 25, 100, and 400 kPa), except for the test at 20-kPa
suction, in which only one test was performed at 400-kPa net stress
(by that time, independence of the friction angle from suction had
become clear, and determination of the apparent cohesion remained
as the only aim of the test).
For this, first, initially saturated specimens were subjected to the
desired suction value, through a drying path, until suction equaliza-
tion was achieved. The equalization of the specimen under the
applied suction was assumed when the rate of water flow decreased
to less than 0.1 cc per day. In this study, the axis-translation

Table 2. Summary of index properties of soil used in this study

Property Description/value
Liquid limit 25.3%
Plastic limit 19.9%
Plasticity index (Ip) 5.4
USCS classification ML
Specific gravity (Gs) 2.72 Fig. 6. SWCC of Mersin silt in arithmetic scale and representation of
Maximum proctor dry density (g/cm3) 1.86 transition suction, c t.

© ASCE 04019061-5 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2019, 19(7): 04019061

 water pressure. Following compression, specimens were sheared at
a strain rate of 0.004%/min at constant suction and net stress (in
which both air and water phases were in the drained condition).
Procedural details such as triaxial setup modifications, selection of
compression and shearing rate, and procedures for saturation of the
ceramics and flushing of the diffused air, can be found in Ahmadi-
Naghadeh (2016).
Figs. 7–11 illustrate the Mohr’s stress circles and corresponding
failure envelopes (plotted at maximum shear strength) for each se-
ries of triaxial tests (i.e., for each suction value). The shear strength
parameters (i.e., friction angle and apparent cohesion intercept) for
each series were obtained.
The failure envelope for the single test at 20-kPa suction was
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 04/16/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
plotted by assuming the same angle of internal friction as the satu-
rated tests. Fig. 12 presents the variation of the shear strength (cohe-
sion intercept) with matric suction. The nonlinear variation of the
Fig. 7. Mohr circles and cohesion intercepts at the saturated condition.
Fig. 8. Mohr circles and cohesion intercepts at a suction of 20 kPa.
© ASCE 04019061-6
Int. J. Geomech., 2019, 19(7): 04019061
shear strength with matric suction is evident and in agreement with
previous studies.
Evaluation of the Model Performance
The performance of the proposed equation Eq. (23) was investi-
gated through laboratory tests conducted on specimens isotropically
reconstituted from a slurry and the results of five other published
studies. In addition, the predictive capabilities of the proposed
method were compared with those of selected equations, as noted in
Table 1.
The performance of the equations is evaluated using three statis-
tical criteria. The first criterion is the Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency
(NSE) (Nash and Sutcliffe 1970). This criterion reveals the effec-
tiveness of the measured versus predicted curve to the 1:1 line. The
Fig. 9. Mohr circles and cohesion intercepts at a suction of 100 kPa.
Fig. 10. Mohr circles and cohesion intercepts at a suction of 200 kPa.
Int. J. Geomech.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 04/16/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 11. Mohr circles and cohesion intercepts at a suction of 400 kPa.

Fig. 13. Comparisons between experimental measurement of Mersin

silt and predicted values.

reveal an overestimation tendency. Values close to zero indicate

better prediction.
2 n 3
X
6 ðEi  Pi Þ  1007
6 i¼1 7
PBIAS ¼ 6
6 Xn
7
7 (26)
4 ðE Þ 5
i
i¼1

The mean relative error (MRE), as defined by Eq. (27), is the last
criterion selected to evaluate the performance of the proposed
equation.
n  
1X  Ei  Pi 
MRE ¼  100 (27)
n i¼1  Ei 

Fig. 12. Variation of cohesion intercept with respect to matric suction. Smaller values of the MRE indicate better prediction of the
model.
In the absence of a universally accepted criterion in the litera-
ture, in this study, performance was considered satisfactory when
NSE varies from −1 to 1.0, with the value of 1 revealing the best NSE > 0.70, PBIAS = 625%, and MRE < 10%.
prediction, as follows:
2 n 3
X 2 Comparison of Proposed Equation Predictions with
6 ðEi  Pi Þ 7
6 i¼1 7 Test Results
6
NSE ¼ 1  6 n 7 (25)
X
 7
4 Ei  E 5
2
The apparent cohesion was estimated using the proposed equation
i¼1 and three constant parameters (saturated shear strength parameters,
c0 = 0 and f 0 = 37°, and the transition suction, c t = 170 kPa).
where Ei = experimental measurement of the ith data point, Pi = pre- Comparisons between predicted values and experimental measure-
dicted value of the ith data point; and E is the mean of the experi- ment are presented in Fig. 13. The comparison reveals a successful
mental measurements. The NSE does not measure the tendency of agreement between the measured and estimated results.
the prediction regarding under- or overestimation. For this, the per- Fig. 13 also presents comparisons between the predicted values
cent bias (PBIAS) criterion was selected to measure the average of the proposed equation and the equations summarized in Table 1.
tendency of the predicted values (unde- orr overestimating) against The predictions of the equations were evaluated quantitatively
the experimental measurements. Positive values of PBIAS express using the statistical measures (i.e., NSE, PBIAS, and MRE) and are
an underestimation tendency of the predictions, and negative values summarized in the This Study column of Table 3. It can be seen that

© ASCE 04019061-7 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2019, 19(7): 04019061

 the prediction values for the proposed equation are more accurate
for this soil compared with other equations.
Comparison of Proposed Equation Predictions with
Published Data in Literature
Comparisons were performed between the values predicted by the
proposed equation and the experimental data published in the litera-
ture. For this, experimental results from Escario and Jucá (1989),
Vanapalli (1994), Miao et al. (2002), Thu (2006), and Kayadelen
et al. (2007) were selected for analysis. The input parameters of the
equations were extracted from each publication’s data and are pre-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 04/16/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
analyzed because a constant friction angle with suction is
reported. The AE value of 30 kPa and a residual suction of
12,000 kPa were adopted from Vanapalli and Fredlund (2000).
As presented in Fig. 3, the transition value of 150 kPa was deter-
mined through the SWCC. Fig. 14 compares the predicted values
of the proposed equations and selected equations with experimen-
tal measurements. The results of the statistical evaluation are
summarized in Table 3. An acceptable agreement between the
predicted and measured values is evident.
Vanapalli (1994) performed a series of suction-controlled multi-
stage direct shear tests on Indian Head till. Statically compacted
specimens were prepared at optimum water content. The average
saturated shear strength parameters were reported as f 0 = 23° and

sented in Table 4. All input parameters, except transition suction,
were taken from the original study or related sources in the litera-
ture. The transition suction, which is proposed in this study, was
determined through the SWCC of each soil.
Escario and Jucá (1989) performed a series of suction-
controlled direct shear tests on three different soils. Two of these,
Madrid gray clay and Guadalix red clay (red clay), presented a
variable effective friction angle (i.e., dependent on matric suc-
tion), which contradicts the available shear strength equations in
the literature. The Madrid clayey sand was selected to be
c0 = 0. The SWCC was obtained using a pressure-plate apparatus.
The transition suction of c t = 220 kPa was determined through the
SWCC. Fig. 15 presents the experimental measurements of the
cohesion intercept with the predicted values of the proposed equa-
tion and the selected equations for comparison.
Miao et al. (2002) studied the characteristics of the Nanyang ex-
pansive soil in its unsaturated state. They used a pressure plate with
and without load exerted on the specimen while obtaining the
SWCCs of the soil. They reported the superiority of the loaded
specimen in reflecting the behavior of expansive soil. Therefore, in

Table 3. Comparisons between the predicted values of apparent cohesion by proposed equations and the various published equations

This Escario and Vanapalli et al. Miao et al. Trinh Minh Kayadelen Average of
Reference (equations) Criteria study Jucá (1989) (1996) (2002) Thu (2006) et al. (2007) six soils
Proposed equation MRE 3.0 3.6 5.5 4.4 9.8 3.5 4.98
PBIAS 3.4 –1.8 5.6 4.5 3.5 2.5 2.94
NSE 0.99 0.99 0.94 0.97 0.97 0.99 0.98
Öberg and Sällfors (1997) MRE 10.5 30.3 29.7 3.8 30.7 16.1 20.18
PBIAS 11.7 −33.6 −36.5 –2.0 31.1 –17.4 −7.81
NSE 0.95 0.60 0.78 0.98 0.49 0.85 0.77
Vanapalli et al. (1996) MRE 40.1 3.0 11.4 3.1 92.3 14.3 27.37
PBIAS 57.4 –1.3 8.9 2.9 97.4 –14.9 25.08
NSE –0.82 0.98 0.97 0.99 −0.44 0.87 0.42
Khalili and Khabbaz (1998) MRE 23.1 15.5 41.1 24.4 28.0 23.4 25.91
PBIAS 28.5 15.9 47.6 26.2 27.5 26.4 28.70
NSE 0.61 0.69 −0.20 −0.20 0.63 0.07 0.27
Bao et al. (1998) MRE 60.3 54.9 9.9 24.4 103.3 15.8 44.77
PBIAS 74.3 −61.0 11.2 14.7 109.9 –18.9 21.71
NSE −1.08 0.42 0.91 0.53 −0.41 0.85 0.20
Garven and Vanapalli (2006) MRE 27.2 26.9 8.8 8.1 68.5 7.3 24.45
PBIAS 36.5 28.9 4.9 8.5 70.5 4.0 25.55
NSE 0.22 0.01 0.99 0.88 −0.37 0.99 0.45
Tekinsoy et al. (2004) MRE 32.2 42.4 11.3 2.3 25.7 9.9 20.63
PBIAS −34.3 −45.4 –6.7 2.1 −28.0 –8.9 −20.22
NSE 0.85 0.53 0.98 0.99 0.80 0.97 0.85
Note: Acceptable values (i.e., MRE < 10%, PBIAS = 625%, and NSE > 0.70) are shown in bold.

Table 4. Summary of soil properties used for analysis

Property Escario and Jucá (1989) Vanapalli (1994) Miao et al. (2002) Thu (2006) Kayadelen et al. (2007)
Classification CL CL CH MH CH
c0 (kPa) 41 0 32 0 14.82
f 0 (degrees) 39.5 23 21.3 32 21.9
Liquid limit (percentage) 32 36 58.3 51 77
Plasticity index (Ip) 15 19 31.8 15.4 45
Air-entry value (kPa) 30 30 25 47 40
Residual suction (kPa) 12,000 3,000 1,500 200 285,000
Transition suction (kPa) 150 220 240 190 240

© ASCE 04019061-8 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2019, 19(7): 04019061

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 04/16/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 14. Comparisons between experimental data of Madrid clayey
sand from Escario and Jucá (1989) and model predictions.
Fig. 15. Comparisons between experimental data of Vanapalli (1994)
and model predictions.
this study, the SWCC with the preloaded specimen was used to
determine the transition suction of the soil. They used a modified
triaxial setup to perform a series of constant-suction CD tests on the
statically compacted specimen with a dry density of 1.5 g/cm3 and
an initial water content of 17%. Fig. 16 presents the experimental
measurements of the cohesion intercepts and predicted values using
the proposed equation and selected equations for comparison.
Thu (2006) performed a series of suction-controlled CD triax-
ial tests to obtain the shear strength of the statically compacted
coarse kaolin. The SWCC of the specimen was also determined
through the same modified triaxial setup. The AE value of 47 kPa
and the residual suction value of 200 kPa were reported in the
© ASCE
Int. J. Geomech., 2019, 19(7): 04019061
Fig. 16. Comparisons between experimental data of Miao et al. (2002)
and model predictions.
Fig. 17. Comparisons between experimental data of Thu (2006) and
model predictions.
original study. Table 4 provides the input parameters of the equa-
tions. Fig. 17 presents the experimental measurements and the
predicted values of the proposed equation and the selected equa-
tions for comparison.
Kayadelen et al. (2007) performed a series of suction-controlled
triaxial tests on residual clay. They employed a pressure plate to
obtain the SWCC of the soil. They used the Fredlund and Xing
(1994) fitting equation to obtain the entire SWCC. The AE value
and the residual suction were adopted from the reported values and
are presented in Table 4. A transition suction equal to 240 kPa was
determined through the reported SWCC. Fig. 18 presents the
04019061-9 Int. J. Geomech.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 04/16/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 18. Comparisons between experimental data of Kayadelen et al.

(2007) and model predictions.

experimental measurements of the cohesion intercepts and pre-

dicted values using the proposed equation and selected equations
for comparison.
The average of the statistical analyses of the six soils is presented
as a bar chart in Figs. 19 and summarized in Table 3. For the pro-
posed equation, the MRE of 4.98, PBIAS of 2.94%, and NSE of
0.98 indicate a satisfactory prediction for all soils, better than the
other equations available in the literature.

Sensitivity Analysis

Ultimately, the proposed equation involves three parameters (i.e.,

f 0 , c0 , and c t ). A graphical procedure is introduced to determine
the third parameter, c t . Although the introduced procedure is clear
and repeatable, different values for c t may be reported due to the
approximate nature of graphical methods. Therefore, a parameter
sensitivity analysis was carried out to measure the amount of vari-
ability of the transition suction. It was performed by varying the
transition suction while holding the other two better-defined param-
eters (i.e., c0 and f 0 ) fixed. The MRE was determined for each new
transition suction. Table 5 summarizes the maximum and minimum
values of c t that satisfy MRE = 10. It was concluded that the shear
strength can be estimated to a reasonable level of accuracy with up
to 620% variation in transition suction.

Discussion
The estimation procedure for the AE value of the soil from the
SWCC still is a matter of debate in the literature (Zargarbashi and
Khalili 2011). Vanapalli et al. (1996) indicated that clearly defining
the residual condition is difficult, especially for fine-grained soils.
Therefore, different values of AE and residual suction could be
interpreted for a given SWCC. Thus, in determining the input pa-
rameters for the same data and model, different predictions could be
reported by other studies. Therefore, the accuracy of the models is
highly dependent on selecting correct input parameters.
Fig. 19. Statistical analysis of the prediction of the equations for the
average of six soils (Table 3): (a) MRE; (b) PBIAS; and (c) NSE.
As argued by Vanapalli et al. (1996), the shear strength of unsat-
urated soils after the residual state may decrease, increase, or remain
approximately constant. There is little published experimental
research on the shear strength behavior of unsaturated soils beyond
the residual state. Patil et al. (2016a, b, 2017) showed that com-
pacted silty sand with an overconsolidated stress history shows

© ASCE 04019061-10 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2019, 19(7): 04019061

 Table 5. Sensitivity of apparent cohesion prediction to transition-suction
determination
Transition
suction Lower Upper
Reference (kPa) bound bound Relative range
Escario and Jucá (1989) 150 120 172 −20% to þ15%
Vanapalli (1994) 220 190 295 −14% to þ34%
Miao et al. (2002) 240 90 1,000 −63% to þ3.17
Thu (2006) 190 170 200 −11% to þ5%
Kayadelen et al. (2007) 240 180 380 −25% to þ58%
This study 170 150 225 −12% to þ32%
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 04/16/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
increasing shear strength even beyond residual suction and that the
shear strength envelope tends to flatten at a very high total suction
of approximately 300 MPa, in contrast to the assumption of the pro-
posed equation in this study. As provided in Table 1, all equations
were tested over the low range of matric suction because a widely
accepted, systematic understanding of unsaturated soils beyond the
residual state is still lacking in the literature. Similar to the rest of
the comparable equations, the proposed equation might not be able
to predict the shear strength at high suctions, perhaps with the
exception of overconsolidated silty sands. Monotonically increas-
ing to a horizontal asymptote, the proposed equation can character-
ize the strength if it continues to increase with residual suction val-
ues but will be an underestimation beyond a certain high suction
value. It is best suited for capturing shear strength that converges to
an asymptotic value at the residual water content.
This study introduces a graphical procedure to determine the
transition suction, c t . It can be seen from the data in Table 4 that
the transition suction decreases as the friction angle increases; how-
ever, further research could usefully explore how transition suction
is related to soil properties, such as friction angle and plasticity.
Previous studies on unsaturated soils have shown that, in gen-
eral, the response of the soil specimens changes from strain-
hardening behavior in the saturated condition to strain-softening
behavior as suction increases (Ahmadi-Naghadeh 2016; Patil et al.
2017). Similar behavior was also reported by Miao et al. (2002),
Thu (2006), and Kayadelen et al. (2007) and in this study (where
their results were used for testing equations), with the exception of
Vanapalli (1994), where a strain-hardening response was observed
for multistage direct shear tests. The stress–strain behavior for
Madrid clayey sand is not reported. In these studies, shear strength
data were obtained at peak state. The results of the statistical analy-
sis reveal a good accuracy of the proposed method, for both the
strain-softening and strain-hardening responses of the soils consid-
ered in this study, in the prediction of the shear strength compared
with the other equations of a similar level of complexity.
Conclusion
In this study, an exponential equation [Eq. (23)] was developed to
predict the shear strength envelope of unsaturated soils. The equa-
tion involves three constant parameters, two of which are conven-
tional effective shear strength parameters and the third of which is
the maximum capillary cohesion, c00max . The effective shear strength
parameters (i.e., f 0 and c0 ) can be determined through conventional
saturated shear strength tests. The procedure to obtain the third pa-
rameter, through the SWCC, is explained in detail. The proposed
equation was validated against laboratory tests conducted in this
study. It was further validated through the test results of five other
soils published in the literature. A comparison of the prediction of
© ASCE 04019061-11
Int. J. Geomech., 2019, 19(7): 04019061
shear strength was performed between the proposed equation and
six other published shear strength equations. For the six sets of test
results, the proposed equation was found to predict the shear
strength accurately. The average performance of the proposed equa-
tion over all six soils was found to be better than all other five pre-
diction equations found in the literature. The introduced equation
was developed based on the assumption that the shear strength of an
unsaturated soil increases at a decreasing rate toward an asymptotic
value as suction approaches its residual value. Therefore, it is best
suited for capturing shear strength that converges to an asymptotic
value at the residual water content.
References
Ahmadi-Naghadeh, R. 2016. “Hydro-mechanical behavior of unsaturated
specimens isotropically reconstituted from slurry and compacted speci-
mens.” Ph.D. thesis, Middle East Technical Univ.
Ahmadi-Naghadeh, R., and N. K. Toker. 2017. “Volume change measure-
ment in triaxial tests by monitoring cell fluid volume based on visco-
elastic behavior of the test setup.” Geotech. Test. J. 40 (4): 683–697.
Ahmadi-Naghadeh, R., and N. K. Toker. 2018. “A new isotropic specimen
preparation method from slurry for both saturated and unsaturated triax-
ial testing of a low-plasticity silt.” Geotech. Test. J. 42 (4):
GTJ20170269. https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ20170269.
Al Aqtash, U., and P. Bandini. 2015. “Prediction of unsaturated
shear strength of an adobe soil from the soil–water characteristic
curve.” Constr. Build. Mater. 98: 892–899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.conbuildmat.2015.07.188.
Bao, C., B. Gong, and L. Zhan. 1998. “Properties of unsaturated soils and
slope stability of expansive soils, keynote lecture.” In Proc., 2nd Int.
Conf. on Unsaturated Soils (UNSAT 98), 71–98. Beijing: International
Academic.
Bishop, A. 1959. “The principle of effective stress.” Teknisk Ukeblad 106
(39): 859–863.
Bishop, A. W., I. Alpan, G. E. Blight, and I. B. Donald. 1960. “Factors con-
trolling the strength of partially saturated cohesive soils.” In Proc.,
Research Conf. on Shear Strength of Cohesive Soils, 503–532. Reston,
VA: ASCE.
Bishop, A. W., and I. B. Donald. 1961. “The experimental study of partly
saturated soil in the triaxial apparatus.” In 5th Int. Conf. on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 13–21. Paris: Dunod.
Brooks, R. H., and A. T. Corey. 1964. Hydraulic properties of porous
media. Hydrology Paper No. 3. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State Univ.
Cunningham, M. R., A. M. Ridley, K. Dineen, and J. B. Burland. 2003.
“The mechanical behaviour of a reconstituted unsaturated silty clay.”
Geotechnique 53 (2): 183–194. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2003.53.2
.183.
Escario, V., and J. F. T. Jucá. 1989. “Strength and deformation of partly sat-
urated soils.” In Vol. 2 of Proc., 12th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, 43–46. Boca Raton, FL: CRC.
Fredlund, D. G. 1975. “A diffused air volume indicator for unsaturated
soils.” Can. Geotech. J. 12 (4): 533–539. https://doi.org/10.1139/t75
-061.
Fredlund, D. G., and N. R. Morgenstern. 1977. “Stress state variables for
saturated and unsaturated soils.” J. Geotech. Eng. Div. 103 (5): 447–
466.
Fredlund, D. G., N. R. Morgenstern, and R. A. Widger. 1978. “The shear
strength of unsaturated soils.” Can. Geotech. J. 15 (3): 313–321. https://
doi.org/10.1139/t78-029.
Fredlund, D. G., G. W. Wilson, and S. L. Barbour. 2001. “Unsaturated soil
mechanics and property assessment.” In Geotechnical and geoenviron-
mental engineering handbook, edited by R. K. Rowe, 107–146. Berlin:
Springer.
Fredlund, D. G., and A. Xing. 1994. “Equations for the soil-water character-
istic curve.” Can. Geotech. J. 31 (4): 521–532. https://doi.org/10.1139
/t94-061.
Fredlund, D. G., A. Xing, M. D. Fredlund, and S. L. Barbour. 1996. “The
relationship of the unsaturated soil shear to the soil-water characteristic
Int. J. Geomech.
 curve.” Can. Geotech. J. 33 (3): 440–448. https://doi.org/10.1139/t96
-065.
Gan, J. K. M., D. G. Fredlund, and H. Rahardjo. 1988. “Determination of the
shear strength parameters of an unsaturated soil using the direct shear
test.” Can. Geotech. J. 25 (3): 500–510. https://doi.org/10.1139/t88-055.
Garven, E. A., and S. K. Vanapalli. 2006. “Evaluation of empirical proce-
dures for predicting the shear strength of unsaturated soils.” In Proc.,
4th Int. Conf. on Unsaturated Soils 2006, 2570–2581. Reston, VA:
ASCE.
Goh, S. G. 2012. “Hysteresis effects on mechanical behaviour of unsatu-
rated soils.” Ph.D. thesis, School of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Nanyang Technological Univ.
Hilf, J. W. 1956. “An investigation of pore-water pressure in compacted co-
hesive soils.” Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 04/16/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Colorado.
Jennings, J. E. B., and J. B. Burland. 1962. “Limitations to the use of effec-
tive stresses in partly saturated soils.” Geotechnique 12 (2): 125–144.
https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1962.12.2.125.
Karube, D., S. Kato, M. Honda, and K. Tsurugasaki. 1997. “The relation-
ship between shearing characteristics and the composition of pore-water
in unsaturated soil.” Doboku Gakkai Ronbunshu 1997 (575): 49–58.
https://doi.org/10.2208/jscej.1997.575_49.
Kayadelen, C., M. A. Tekinsoy, and T. Tas kıran. 2007. “Influence of matric
suction on shear strength behavior of a residual clayey soil.” Environ.
Geol. 53 (4): 891–901. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-007-0701-2.
Khalili, N., F. Geiser, and G. E. Blight. 2004. “Effective stress in unsatu-
rated soils: A review with new evidence.” Int. J. Geomech. 4 (2): 115–
126. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1532-3641(2004)4:2(115).
Khalili, N., and M. Khabbaz. 1998. “A unique relationship for x for the
determination of the shear strength of unsaturated soils.” Geotechnique
48 (5): 681–687. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1998.48.5.681.
Lee, I. M., S. G. Sung, and G. C. Cho. 2005. “Effect of stress state on the un-
saturated shear strength of a weathered granite.” Can. Geotech. J. 42
(2): 624–631. https://doi.org/10.1139/t04-091.
Lu, N., and W. J. Likos. 2004. Unsaturated soil mechanics. Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley.
Melgarejo Corredor, M. L. 2004. “Laboratory and numerical investigations
of soil retention curves.” Ph.D. thesis, Imperial College London.
Miao, L., S. Liu, and Y. Lai. 2002. “Research of soil–water characteristics
and shear strength features of Nanyang expansive soil.” Eng. Geol. 65
(4): 261–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-7952(01)00136-3.
Montanez, J. E. C. 2002. “Suction and volume changes of compacted sand-
bentonite mixtures.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of London.
Nash, J. E., and J. V. Sutcliffe. 1970. “River flow forecasting through con-
ceptual models part I—A discussion of principles.” J. Hydrol. 10 (3):
282–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(70)90255-6.
Nishimura, T., S. H. Mydin, S. Ogawa, Y. Endou, and H. Toyota. 1997.
“Constitutive surface for unsaturated soils.” In Proc., Prefailure
Deformation Characteristics of Geomaterials (IS-NAGOYA 97), 425–
430. Rotterdam, Netherlands: A. A. Balkema.
Öberg, A., and G. Sällfors. 1997. “Determination of shear strength parame-
ters of unsaturated silts and sands based on the water retention curve.”
Geotech. Test. J. 20 (1): 40–48. https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ11419J.
Oloo, S. Y., and D. G. Fredlund. 1996. “A method for determination of f b
for statically compacted soils.” Can. Geotech. J. 33 (2): 272–280.
https://doi.org/10.1139/t96-006.
Patil, U. D., L. R. Hoyos, and A. J. Puppala. 2016a. “Modeling essential
elastoplastic features of compacted silty sand via suction-controlled
© ASCE 04019061-12
Int. J. Geomech., 2019, 19(7): 04019061
triaxial testing.” Int. J. Geomech. 16 (6): D4016012. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000726.
Patil, U. D., L. R. Hoyos, and A. J. Puppala. 2016b. “Characterization of
compacted silty sand using a double-walled triaxial cell with fully auto-
mated relative-humidity control.” Geotech. Test. J. 39 (5): 742–756.
https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ20150156.
Patil, U. D., A. J. Puppala, L. R. Hoyos, and A. Pedarla. 2017. “Modeling
critical-state shear strength behavior of compacted silty sand via
suction-controlled triaxial testing.” Eng. Geol. 231: 21–33. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2017.10.011.
Rassam, D. W., and F. Cook. 2002. “Predicting the shear strength envelope
of unsaturated soils.” Geotech. Test. J. 25 (2): 215–220. https://doi.org
/10.1520/GTJ11365J.
Rojas, E. 2008a. “Equivalent stress equation for unsaturated soils. I:
Equivalent stress.” Int. J. Geomech. 8 (5): 285–290. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)1532-3641(2008)8:5(285).
Rojas, E. 2008b. “Equivalent stress equation for unsaturated soils. II: Solid-
porous model.” Int. J. Geomech. 8 (5): 291–299. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)1532-3641(2008)8:5(291).
Tekinsoy, M. A., C. Kayadelen, M. S. Keskin, and M. Söylemez. 2004. “An
equation for predicting shear strength envelope with respect to matric
suction.” Comput. Geotech. 31 (7): 589–593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.compgeo.2004.08.001.
Terzaghi, K. 1925. Erdbaumechanik auf bodenphysikalischer grundlage.
Leipzig, Germany: Franz Deuticke.
Terzaghi, K. 1936. “The shearing resistance of saturated soils and the angle
between the planes of shear.” In Vol. 1 of Proc., Int. Conf. on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 54–56. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Thu, T. M. 2006. “Shear strength and volume change relationship for an un-
saturated soil.” Ph.D. thesis, School of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Nanyang Technological Univ.
Vanapalli, S. K. 1994. “Simple test procedures and their interpretation in
evaluating the shear strength of unsaturated soils.” Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of
Civil Engineering, Univ. of Saskatchewan.
Vanapalli, S. K., and D. G. Fredlund. 2000. “Comparison of different proce-
dures to predict unsaturated soil shear strength.” In Proc., Geo-Denver
2000: Advanced in Unsaturated Geotechnics, 195–209. Reston, VA:
ASCE.
Vanapalli, S. K., D. G. Fredlund, D. E. Pufahl, and A. W. Clifton. 1996.
“Model for the prediction of shear strength with respect to soil suction.”
Can. Geotech. J. 33 (3): 379–392. https://doi.org/10.1139/t96-060.
Vilar, O. M. 2006. “A simplified procedure to estimate the shear strength
envelope of unsaturated soils.” Can. Geotech. J. 43 (10): 1088–1095.
https://doi.org/10.1139/t06-055.
White, N. F., H. R. Duke, D. K. Sunada, and A. T. Corey. 1970. “Physics of
desaturation in porous materials.” J. Irrig. Drain. Div. 96 (2): 165–191.
Xu, Y. F. 2004. “Fractal approach to unsaturated shear strength.” J.
Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 130 (3): 264–273. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)1090-0241(2004)130:3(264).
Xu, Y. F., and L. Cao. 2015. “Fractal representation of effective stress of un-
saturated soils.” Int. J. Geomech. 15 (6): 04014098. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000446.
Zargarbashi, S., and N. Khalili. 2011. “Discussion of ‘Shear Strength
Equations for Unsaturated Soil under Drying and Wetting’ by Goh
Shin Guan, Harianto Rahardjo, and Leong Eng Choon.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. 137 (12): 1310–1313. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000455.
Int. J. Geomech.