Exponential Equation For Predicting Shear Strength

You might also like

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 12

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


tests. However, the fitting-type equations (Fredlund et al. 1978;
Estimating the shear strength of soils is critical in most geotechnical Rassam and Cook 2002; Lee et al. 2005; Vilar 2006) are developed
projects. The shear strength of saturated soils is well defined to best fit the data measured from unsaturated soil strength tests by
through the effective stress concept and Mohr-Coulomb strength employing fitting parameters. Patil et al. (2016a, b) performed a se-
criterion in classic soil mechanics (Terzaghi 1925, 1936). However, ries of suction-controlled drained triaxial tests on compacted silty
despite impressive advances in unsaturated soil mechanics over the sand specimens over a wide range of suction (50–300,000 kPa). Patil
past few decades, unanswered questions still exist from both a theo- et al. (2017) evaluated some of the shear strength equations using
retical and an experimental point of view. The presence of the air their own data and introduced new fitting-type equations to predict
phase in unsaturated soil brings considerable difficulties to both lab- shear strength at suction beyond residual suction. The fitting-type
oratory measurements and the formulation of the shear strength equations are not the subject of discussion in this article.
(Bishop et al. 1960). Different methods have been developed and In this article, a prediction-type exponential equation is proposed
reported in the literature for predicting the shear strength of unsatu- for estimating the variation of shear strength with matric suction in
rated soils (Fredlund and Morgenstern 1977; Fredlund et al. 1996; unsaturated soils. The following section provides background on
Karube et al. 1997; Vanapalli et al. 1996; Öberg and Sällfors 1997; currently available shear strength equations for unsaturated soils.
Bao et al. 1998; Khalili and Khabbaz 1998; Vanapalli and Fredlund Next, the procedure for obtaining the new model’s parameters is
2000; Khalili et al. 2004; Tekinsoy et al. 2004; Xu 2004; Garven explained. Finally, the predictive capabilities of the proposed equa-
and Vanapalli 2006; Rojas 2008a; Xu and Cao 2015). In general, tion are evaluated using three statistical criteria against laboratory
most of these methods are developed following two fundamental tests performed in this study and the test results of five different
concepts: the effective stress (Bishop 1959) and independent stress soils published in the literature.
state variables (Fredlund and Morgenstern 1977). Shear strength
equations can be divided into two categories, prediction- and Background on Shear Strength Equations
fitting-type equations (Goh 2012). Prediction-type equations predict
the shear strength of a soil without the necessity for unsaturated soil Terzaghi’s effective stress principle (s ¼ s 0 þ uw ) is formulated
strength tests through easily obtainable parameters (e.g., saturated based on the two-phase media assumption (either totally saturated
or completely dry soil). In the case of the partially saturated soils,
1
Postdoctoral Researcher, Architecture and Civil Engineering Dept., the total volume of soil mass is a three-phase system (solids, water,
Chalmers Univ. of Technology, 412 96 Gothenburg, Sweden (correspond- and gas). Therefore, the two-phase-based effective stress principle
ing author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2215-441X. Email: reza is not valid for partially saturated soils. Bishop (1959) expanded the
.ahmadi@chalmers.se effective stress principle to unsaturated soils as follows:
2
Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering Dept., Middle East Technical
Univ., Ankara 06800, Turkey. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8858 s 0 ¼ ðs  ua Þ þ x ðua  uw Þ (1)
-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- where ua = pressure in the gas phase (air and vapor); uw = pressure
riod open until September 16, 2019; separate discussions must be submit- in the liquid phase (water); and x = Bishop’s effective stress param-
ted for individual papers. This paper is part of the International Journal eter, which is 1 for the saturated condition and decreases with the
of Geomechanics, © ASCE, ISSN 1532-3641. 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- AE value (air enters to the largest pores). In the transition stage, the
rameter x based on the dry, unsaturated, and saturated fraction of water content considerably decreases with increasing suction. In the
unsaturated soils, as follows: first part of the transition stage (i.e., primary transition stage), which
starts from the AE value, the air phase appears as occluded bubbles,
x ¼ f s þ Suw f u (18) and the water phase can be considered as the continuous phase. In
the second part (i.e., secondary transition stage), significant varia-
where f s = saturated fraction; f u = unsaturated fraction; and Suw = tion in the response of the soil occurs. In this part, more water
degree of saturation of the unsaturated fraction. drains, and the related pores are occupied by air, and therefore the
Tekinsoy et al. (2004) introduced an empirical equation that continuity of the water phase reduces, the volumetric behavior is
relates the shear strength to the SWCC through the AE value: not directly related to the water-content variation, and a single stress
  state cannot describe the soil response (Nishimura et al. 1997;
t ¼ c0 þ ðs  ua Þtan f 0 þ ðua  uw Þðua  uw ÞAE þ Pat Fredlund et al. 2001; Colmenares Montanez 2002; Melgarejo
  Corredor 2004).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 04/16/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

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


Fig. 4. Asymptotic variation of the shear strength with suction and the
position of the transition suction and c00max .
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 04/16/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

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)
Fig. 2. SWCC of the Madrid clay sand from Escario and Jucá (1989).
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-
Fig. 3. SWCC of the Madrid clay sand in arithmetic scale and graphi- sized that the transition suction is the transition to the funicular
cal representation of transition suction, c t . regime.

deviates from this straight line. In this example (Madrid clay), the Experimental Study
transition suction, c t , of the soil is determined to be 150 kPa.
The majority of the shear strength equations are developed and vali-
dated based on the experimental data of compacted specimens; a
Introduced Equation few studies have reported specimens prepared from a slurry
(Cunningham et al. 2003; Ahmadi-Naghadeh 2016). In this study, a
The shear strength of an unsaturated soil increases at a decreasing series of constant-suction triaxial tests was conducted on specimens
rate toward an asymptotic value, cmax , as suction approaches its re- isotropically reconstituted from a slurry to validate the proposed
sidual value (Fig. 4). The cmax is the maximum apparent cohesion equation. The conventional triaxial setup is modified to induce and
that could be achieved; it is the sum of drained cohesion intercept control suction using the axis-translation technique (Hilf 1956).
(c0 ) and maximum capillary cohesion (c00max ). A graphical procedure Ceramics with an AE value of 500 kPa were used to control the
is introduced to estimate the c00max , through the SWCC. As presented water-phase pressure at the top and bottom boundaries of the speci-
in Fig. 4, if shear strength were to be increased with suction at its mens. The measurement method proposed by Ahmadi-Naghadeh
initial rate (i.e., c  tan f 0 ), it would intersect the asymptotic value and Toker (2017) was adopted to monitor the volume change of the
(i.e., cmax ) at suction c t (called the transition suction in this article). specimens. This method models the expansion of the triaxial cell by

© ASCE 04019061-4 Int. J. Geomech.

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


a modified version of the Burgers viscoelastic model and requires technique with double drainage (to reduce the length of the drainage
the use of distilled, deaired water as the cell fluid. A custom com- to half and therefore the testing time to a quarter) was employed to
puter code can untangle pressure- and time-dependent components control and induce soil suction. For this purpose, a triaxial base, top
of triaxial cell’s expansion, provided that it is calibrated without a cap, and pedestal with new features were developed. The pedestal
specimen beforehand. Ahmadi-Naghadeh and Toker (2017) vali- and top cap included a peripheral annular coarse porous metal (for
dated the method by applying it to tests on saturated specimens and pore-air pressure) and high-AE ceramic at the center (for pore-
comparing the measurements to changes in pore-fluid volume, water pressure). A diffused air-volume indicator (DAVI) was devel-
which showed an error margin no greater than that of widely oped, following Fredlund (1975), to flush and measure the volume
accepted methods, such as the use of a double cell. of diffused air.
Following equalization, under the same constant suction, speci-
Soil Properties mens were isotropically compressed to the desired value of net
stress. Compression was applied by increasing the cell pressure at a
The soil used in this study was a silt from Mersin, Turkey. Table 2 constant rate of 4 kPa/h. The specimen was left under the target net
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 04/16/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

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 shear strength with matric suction is evident and in agreement with
a strain rate of 0.004%/min at constant suction and net stress (in previous studies.
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 Evaluation of the Model Performance
ceramics and flushing of the diffused air, can be found in Ahmadi-
Naghadeh (2016). The performance of the proposed equation Eq. (23) was investi-
Figs. 7–11 illustrate the Mohr’s stress circles and corresponding gated through laboratory tests conducted on specimens isotropically
failure envelopes (plotted at maximum shear strength) for each se- reconstituted from a slurry and the results of five other published
ries of triaxial tests (i.e., for each suction value). The shear strength studies. In addition, the predictive capabilities of the proposed
parameters (i.e., friction angle and apparent cohesion intercept) for method were compared with those of selected equations, as noted in
each series were obtained. Table 1.
The failure envelope for the single test at 20-kPa suction was The performance of the equations is evaluated using three statis-
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- tical criteria. The first criterion is the Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency
rated tests. Fig. 12 presents the variation of the shear strength (cohe- (NSE) (Nash and Sutcliffe 1970). This criterion reveals the effec-
sion intercept) with matric suction. The nonlinear variation of the tiveness of the measured versus predicted curve to the 1:1 line. The

Fig. 7. Mohr circles and cohesion intercepts at the saturated condition. Fig. 9. Mohr circles and cohesion intercepts at a suction of 100 kPa.

Fig. 8. Mohr circles and cohesion intercepts at a suction of 20 kPa. Fig. 10. Mohr circles and cohesion intercepts at a suction of 200 kPa.

© ASCE 04019061-6 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. 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 analyzed because a constant friction angle with suction is
for this soil compared with other equations. 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-
Comparison of Proposed Equation Predictions with mined through the SWCC. Fig. 14 compares the predicted values
Published Data in Literature of the proposed equations and selected equations with experimen-
tal measurements. The results of the statistical evaluation are
Comparisons were performed between the values predicted by the summarized in Table 3. An acceptable agreement between the
proposed equation and the experimental data published in the litera- predicted and measured values is evident.
ture. For this, experimental results from Escario and Jucá (1989), Vanapalli (1994) performed a series of suction-controlled multi-
Vanapalli (1994), Miao et al. (2002), Thu (2006), and Kayadelen stage direct shear tests on Indian Head till. Statically compacted
et al. (2007) were selected for analysis. The input parameters of the specimens were prepared at optimum water content. The average
equations were extracted from each publication’s data and are pre- saturated shear strength parameters were reported as f 0 = 23° and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 04/16/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

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


Fig. 16. Comparisons between experimental data of Miao et al. (2002)
sand from Escario and Jucá (1989) and model predictions.
and model predictions.

Fig. 15. Comparisons between experimental data of Vanapalli (1994)


Fig. 17. Comparisons between experimental data of Thu (2006) and
and model predictions.
model predictions.

this study, the SWCC with the preloaded specimen was used to
determine the transition suction of the soil. They used a modified original study. Table 4 provides the input parameters of the equa-
triaxial setup to perform a series of constant-suction CD tests on the tions. Fig. 17 presents the experimental measurements and the
statically compacted specimen with a dry density of 1.5 g/cm3 and predicted values of the proposed equation and the selected equa-
an initial water content of 17%. Fig. 16 presents the experimental tions for comparison.
measurements of the cohesion intercepts and predicted values using Kayadelen et al. (2007) performed a series of suction-controlled
the proposed equation and selected equations for comparison. triaxial tests on residual clay. They employed a pressure plate to
Thu (2006) performed a series of suction-controlled CD triax- obtain the SWCC of the soil. They used the Fredlund and Xing
ial tests to obtain the shear strength of the statically compacted (1994) fitting equation to obtain the entire SWCC. The AE value
coarse kaolin. The SWCC of the specimen was also determined and the residual suction were adopted from the reported values and
through the same modified triaxial setup. The AE value of 47 kPa are presented in Table 4. A transition suction equal to 240 kPa was
and the residual suction value of 200 kPa were reported in the determined through the reported SWCC. Fig. 18 presents the

© ASCE 04019061-9 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. 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
Fig. 19. Statistical analysis of the prediction of the equations for the
The estimation procedure for the AE value of the soil from the average of six soils (Table 3): (a) MRE; (b) PBIAS; and (c) NSE.
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. As argued by Vanapalli et al. (1996), the shear strength of unsat-
Therefore, different values of AE and residual suction could be urated soils after the residual state may decrease, increase, or remain
interpreted for a given SWCC. Thus, in determining the input pa- approximately constant. There is little published experimental
rameters for the same data and model, different predictions could be research on the shear strength behavior of unsaturated soils beyond
reported by other studies. Therefore, the accuracy of the models is the residual state. Patil et al. (2016a, b, 2017) showed that com-
highly dependent on selecting correct input parameters. 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 shear strength was performed between the proposed equation and
determination six other published shear strength equations. For the six sets of test
Transition
results, the proposed equation was found to predict the shear
suction Lower Upper strength accurately. The average performance of the proposed equa-
Reference (kPa) bound bound Relative range tion over all six soils was found to be better than all other five pre-
diction equations found in the literature. The introduced equation
Escario and Jucá (1989) 150 120 172 −20% to þ15% was developed based on the assumption that the shear strength of an
Vanapalli (1994) 220 190 295 −14% to þ34% unsaturated soil increases at a decreasing rate toward an asymptotic
Miao et al. (2002) 240 90 1,000 −63% to þ3.17 value as suction approaches its residual value. Therefore, it is best
Thu (2006) 190 170 200 −11% to þ5% suited for capturing shear strength that converges to an asymptotic
Kayadelen et al. (2007) 240 180 380 −25% to þ58% value at the residual water content.
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.

References
increasing shear strength even beyond residual suction and that the
shear strength envelope tends to flatten at a very high total suction Ahmadi-Naghadeh, R. 2016. “Hydro-mechanical behavior of unsaturated
of approximately 300 MPa, in contrast to the assumption of the pro- specimens isotropically reconstituted from slurry and compacted speci-
posed equation in this study. As provided in Table 1, all equations mens.” Ph.D. thesis, Middle East Technical Univ.
were tested over the low range of matric suction because a widely Ahmadi-Naghadeh, R., and N. K. Toker. 2017. “Volume change measure-
accepted, systematic understanding of unsaturated soils beyond the ment in triaxial tests by monitoring cell fluid volume based on visco-
residual state is still lacking in the literature. Similar to the rest of elastic behavior of the test setup.” Geotech. Test. J. 40 (4): 683–697.
the comparable equations, the proposed equation might not be able Ahmadi-Naghadeh, R., and N. K. Toker. 2018. “A new isotropic specimen
preparation method from slurry for both saturated and unsaturated triax-
to predict the shear strength at high suctions, perhaps with the ial testing of a low-plasticity silt.” Geotech. Test. J. 42 (4):
exception of overconsolidated silty sands. Monotonically increas- GTJ20170269. https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ20170269.
ing to a horizontal asymptote, the proposed equation can character- Al Aqtash, U., and P. Bandini. 2015. “Prediction of unsaturated
ize the strength if it continues to increase with residual suction val- shear strength of an adobe soil from the soil–water characteristic
ues but will be an underestimation beyond a certain high suction curve.” Constr. Build. Mater. 98: 892–899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
value. It is best suited for capturing shear strength that converges to .conbuildmat.2015.07.188.
an asymptotic value at the residual water content. Bao, C., B. Gong, and L. Zhan. 1998. “Properties of unsaturated soils and
This study introduces a graphical procedure to determine the slope stability of expansive soils, keynote lecture.” In Proc., 2nd Int.
Conf. on Unsaturated Soils (UNSAT 98), 71–98. Beijing: International
transition suction, c t . It can be seen from the data in Table 4 that
Academic.
the transition suction decreases as the friction angle increases; how- Bishop, A. 1959. “The principle of effective stress.” Teknisk Ukeblad 106
ever, further research could usefully explore how transition suction (39): 859–863.
is related to soil properties, such as friction angle and plasticity. Bishop, A. W., I. Alpan, G. E. Blight, and I. B. Donald. 1960. “Factors con-
Previous studies on unsaturated soils have shown that, in gen- trolling the strength of partially saturated cohesive soils.” In Proc.,
eral, the response of the soil specimens changes from strain- Research Conf. on Shear Strength of Cohesive Soils, 503–532. Reston,
hardening behavior in the saturated condition to strain-softening VA: ASCE.
behavior as suction increases (Ahmadi-Naghadeh 2016; Patil et al. Bishop, A. W., and I. B. Donald. 1961. “The experimental study of partly
2017). Similar behavior was also reported by Miao et al. (2002), saturated soil in the triaxial apparatus.” In 5th Int. Conf. on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 13–21. Paris: Dunod.
Thu (2006), and Kayadelen et al. (2007) and in this study (where Brooks, R. H., and A. T. Corey. 1964. Hydraulic properties of porous
their results were used for testing equations), with the exception of media. Hydrology Paper No. 3. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State Univ.
Vanapalli (1994), where a strain-hardening response was observed Cunningham, M. R., A. M. Ridley, K. Dineen, and J. B. Burland. 2003.
for multistage direct shear tests. The stress–strain behavior for “The mechanical behaviour of a reconstituted unsaturated silty clay.”
Madrid clayey sand is not reported. In these studies, shear strength Geotechnique 53 (2): 183–194. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2003.53.2
data were obtained at peak state. The results of the statistical analy- .183.
sis reveal a good accuracy of the proposed method, for both the Escario, V., and J. F. T. Jucá. 1989. “Strength and deformation of partly sat-
strain-softening and strain-hardening responses of the soils consid- urated soils.” In Vol. 2 of Proc., 12th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, 43–46. Boca Raton, FL: CRC.
ered in this study, in the prediction of the shear strength compared
Fredlund, D. G. 1975. “A diffused air volume indicator for unsaturated
with the other equations of a similar level of complexity. 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
Conclusion saturated and unsaturated soils.” J. Geotech. Eng. Div. 103 (5): 447–
466.
In this study, an exponential equation [Eq. (23)] was developed to Fredlund, D. G., N. R. Morgenstern, and R. A. Widger. 1978. “The shear
predict the shear strength envelope of unsaturated soils. The equa- strength of unsaturated soils.” Can. Geotech. J. 15 (3): 313–321. https://
tion involves three constant parameters, two of which are conven- doi.org/10.1139/t78-029.
tional effective shear strength parameters and the third of which is Fredlund, D. G., G. W. Wilson, and S. L. Barbour. 2001. “Unsaturated soil
the maximum capillary cohesion, c00max . The effective shear strength mechanics and property assessment.” In Geotechnical and geoenviron-
parameters (i.e., f 0 and c0 ) can be determined through conventional mental engineering handbook, edited by R. K. Rowe, 107–146. Berlin:
Springer.
saturated shear strength tests. The procedure to obtain the third pa-
Fredlund, D. G., and A. Xing. 1994. “Equations for the soil-water character-
rameter, through the SWCC, is explained in detail. The proposed istic curve.” Can. Geotech. J. 31 (4): 521–532. https://doi.org/10.1139
equation was validated against laboratory tests conducted in this /t94-061.
study. It was further validated through the test results of five other Fredlund, D. G., A. Xing, M. D. Fredlund, and S. L. Barbour. 1996. “The
soils published in the literature. A comparison of the prediction of relationship of the unsaturated soil shear to the soil-water characteristic

© ASCE 04019061-11 Int. J. Geomech.

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


curve.” Can. Geotech. J. 33 (3): 440–448. https://doi.org/10.1139/t96 triaxial testing.” Int. J. Geomech. 16 (6): D4016012. https://doi.org/10
-065. .1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000726.
Gan, J. K. M., D. G. Fredlund, and H. Rahardjo. 1988. “Determination of the Patil, U. D., L. R. Hoyos, and A. J. Puppala. 2016b. “Characterization of
shear strength parameters of an unsaturated soil using the direct shear compacted silty sand using a double-walled triaxial cell with fully auto-
test.” Can. Geotech. J. 25 (3): 500–510. https://doi.org/10.1139/t88-055. mated relative-humidity control.” Geotech. Test. J. 39 (5): 742–756.
Garven, E. A., and S. K. Vanapalli. 2006. “Evaluation of empirical proce- https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ20150156.
dures for predicting the shear strength of unsaturated soils.” In Proc., Patil, U. D., A. J. Puppala, L. R. Hoyos, and A. Pedarla. 2017. “Modeling
4th Int. Conf. on Unsaturated Soils 2006, 2570–2581. Reston, VA: critical-state shear strength behavior of compacted silty sand via
ASCE. suction-controlled triaxial testing.” Eng. Geol. 231: 21–33. https://doi
Goh, S. G. 2012. “Hysteresis effects on mechanical behaviour of unsatu- .org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2017.10.011.
rated soils.” Ph.D. thesis, School of Civil and Environmental Rassam, D. W., and F. Cook. 2002. “Predicting the shear strength envelope
Engineering, Nanyang Technological Univ. of unsaturated soils.” Geotech. Test. J. 25 (2): 215–220. https://doi.org
Hilf, J. W. 1956. “An investigation of pore-water pressure in compacted co- /10.1520/GTJ11365J.
hesive soils.” Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Rojas, E. 2008a. “Equivalent stress equation for unsaturated soils. I:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 04/16/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Colorado. Equivalent stress.” Int. J. Geomech. 8 (5): 285–290. https://doi.org/10


Jennings, J. E. B., and J. B. Burland. 1962. “Limitations to the use of effec- .1061/(ASCE)1532-3641(2008)8:5(285).
tive stresses in partly saturated soils.” Geotechnique 12 (2): 125–144. Rojas, E. 2008b. “Equivalent stress equation for unsaturated soils. II: Solid-
https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1962.12.2.125. porous model.” Int. J. Geomech. 8 (5): 291–299. https://doi.org/10.1061
Karube, D., S. Kato, M. Honda, and K. Tsurugasaki. 1997. “The relation- /(ASCE)1532-3641(2008)8:5(291).
ship between shearing characteristics and the composition of pore-water Tekinsoy, M. A., C. Kayadelen, M. S. Keskin, and M. Söylemez. 2004. “An
in unsaturated soil.” Doboku Gakkai Ronbunshu 1997 (575): 49–58. equation for predicting shear strength envelope with respect to matric
https://doi.org/10.2208/jscej.1997.575_49. suction.” Comput. Geotech. 31 (7): 589–593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
Kayadelen, C., M. A. Tekinsoy, and T. Tas kıran. 2007. “Influence of matric .compgeo.2004.08.001.
suction on shear strength behavior of a residual clayey soil.” Environ. Terzaghi, K. 1925. Erdbaumechanik auf bodenphysikalischer grundlage.
Geol. 53 (4): 891–901. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-007-0701-2. Leipzig, Germany: Franz Deuticke.
Khalili, N., F. Geiser, and G. E. Blight. 2004. “Effective stress in unsatu- Terzaghi, K. 1936. “The shearing resistance of saturated soils and the angle
rated soils: A review with new evidence.” Int. J. Geomech. 4 (2): 115– between the planes of shear.” In Vol. 1 of Proc., Int. Conf. on Soil
126. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1532-3641(2004)4:2(115). Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 54–56. Cambridge, MA:
Khalili, N., and M. Khabbaz. 1998. “A unique relationship for x for the Harvard University Press.
determination of the shear strength of unsaturated soils.” Geotechnique Thu, T. M. 2006. “Shear strength and volume change relationship for an un-
48 (5): 681–687. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1998.48.5.681. saturated soil.” Ph.D. thesis, School of Civil and Environmental
Lee, I. M., S. G. Sung, and G. C. Cho. 2005. “Effect of stress state on the un- Engineering, Nanyang Technological Univ.
saturated shear strength of a weathered granite.” Can. Geotech. J. 42 Vanapalli, S. K. 1994. “Simple test procedures and their interpretation in
(2): 624–631. https://doi.org/10.1139/t04-091. evaluating the shear strength of unsaturated soils.” Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of
Lu, N., and W. J. Likos. 2004. Unsaturated soil mechanics. Hoboken, NJ: Civil Engineering, Univ. of Saskatchewan.
Wiley. Vanapalli, S. K., and D. G. Fredlund. 2000. “Comparison of different proce-
Melgarejo Corredor, M. L. 2004. “Laboratory and numerical investigations dures to predict unsaturated soil shear strength.” In Proc., Geo-Denver
of soil retention curves.” Ph.D. thesis, Imperial College London. 2000: Advanced in Unsaturated Geotechnics, 195–209. Reston, VA:
Miao, L., S. Liu, and Y. Lai. 2002. “Research of soil–water characteristics ASCE.
and shear strength features of Nanyang expansive soil.” Eng. Geol. 65 Vanapalli, S. K., D. G. Fredlund, D. E. Pufahl, and A. W. Clifton. 1996.
(4): 261–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-7952(01)00136-3. “Model for the prediction of shear strength with respect to soil suction.”
Montanez, J. E. C. 2002. “Suction and volume changes of compacted sand- Can. Geotech. J. 33 (3): 379–392. https://doi.org/10.1139/t96-060.
bentonite mixtures.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of London. Vilar, O. M. 2006. “A simplified procedure to estimate the shear strength
Nash, J. E., and J. V. Sutcliffe. 1970. “River flow forecasting through con- envelope of unsaturated soils.” Can. Geotech. J. 43 (10): 1088–1095.
ceptual models part I—A discussion of principles.” J. Hydrol. 10 (3): https://doi.org/10.1139/t06-055.
282–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(70)90255-6. White, N. F., H. R. Duke, D. K. Sunada, and A. T. Corey. 1970. “Physics of
Nishimura, T., S. H. Mydin, S. Ogawa, Y. Endou, and H. Toyota. 1997. desaturation in porous materials.” J. Irrig. Drain. Div. 96 (2): 165–191.
“Constitutive surface for unsaturated soils.” In Proc., Prefailure Xu, Y. F. 2004. “Fractal approach to unsaturated shear strength.” J.
Deformation Characteristics of Geomaterials (IS-NAGOYA 97), 425– Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 130 (3): 264–273. https://doi.org/10.1061
430. Rotterdam, Netherlands: A. A. Balkema. /(ASCE)1090-0241(2004)130:3(264).
Öberg, A., and G. Sällfors. 1997. “Determination of shear strength parame- Xu, Y. F., and L. Cao. 2015. “Fractal representation of effective stress of un-
ters of unsaturated silts and sands based on the water retention curve.” saturated soils.” Int. J. Geomech. 15 (6): 04014098. https://doi.org/10
Geotech. Test. J. 20 (1): 40–48. https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ11419J. .1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000446.
Oloo, S. Y., and D. G. Fredlund. 1996. “A method for determination of f b Zargarbashi, S., and N. Khalili. 2011. “Discussion of ‘Shear Strength
for statically compacted soils.” Can. Geotech. J. 33 (2): 272–280. Equations for Unsaturated Soil under Drying and Wetting’ by Goh
https://doi.org/10.1139/t96-006. Shin Guan, Harianto Rahardjo, and Leong Eng Choon.” J. Geotech.
Patil, U. D., L. R. Hoyos, and A. J. Puppala. 2016a. “Modeling essential Geoenviron. Eng. 137 (12): 1310–1313. https://doi.org/10.1061
elastoplastic features of compacted silty sand via suction-controlled /(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000455.

© ASCE 04019061-12 Int. J. Geomech.

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

You might also like