Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Exponential Equation For Predicting Shear Strength
Exponential Equation For Predicting Shear Strength
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.
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 :
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.
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
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.
Substituting Eqs. (21) and (22) into Eq. (20), the general form of
the proposed shear strength equation is
ct ½
x¼ 1 e ð c = c t Þ (24)
c
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
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
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.
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.
Fig. 11. Mohr circles and cohesion intercepts at a suction of 400 kPa.
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
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.
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
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
Sensitivity Analysis
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
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