See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/268590614

Prediction of the Soil-Water Characteristic Curve Based on Grain-Size-

Distribution and Index Properties

Conference Paper  in  Geotechnical Special Publication · October 2005

DOI: 10.1061/40776(155)4

CITATIONS READS

28 1,017

4 authors, including:

Yasora Perera Claudia Zapata

University of Moratuwa Arizona State University
6 PUBLICATIONS   104 CITATIONS    60 PUBLICATIONS   616 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Implementation of an Introductory Module on Biogeotechnics in a Freshman Engineering Course View project

Fiber reinforced materials View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Claudia Zapata on 29 August 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Prediction of the Soil-Water Characteristic Curve
Based on Grain-Size-Distribution and Index Properties

Y. Y. Perera1, C. E. Zapata2, W. N. Houston3, and S. L. Houston4

1
GCTS, 6301 South Maple Avenue, Suite #1, Tempe, Arizona, 85283; PH (480) 456
-0110; FAX (480) 456-4727; email: yugantha@gcts.com
2, 3, 4
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Arizona State University,
Tempe, Arizona, 85287; PH (480) 965-3589; FAX (480) 965-0557; emails:
claudia.zapata@asu.edu, bill.houston@asu.edu, and sandra.houston@asu.edu.

Abstract

The grain-size-distribution (GSD) of a soil is intimately related to its pore size

distribution and hence, the GSD holds a close relation with the soil-water
characteristic curve (SWCC). In addition, the plasticity index (PI) is a measure of the
water holding capacity of the soil and therefore, it plays an important role in shaping
the SWCC. This paper presents two sets of statistically derived equations that
describe the SWCC of non-plastic and plastic soils. Data from 154 non-plastic soils
and 63 plastic soils were analyzed. Soil samples were collected as part of the
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) 9-23 project entitled
Environmental Effects in Pavement Mix and Structural Design Systems. Samples
were obtained from underneath paved roads of 30 sites located throughout the United
States. The soil samples were subjected to laboratory testing that included index
testing and SWCC testing. SWCCs were determined using a newly developed
pressure plate device capable of overburden pressure application, continuous
measurements of moisture content, and volume change monitoring. In addition to the
collected field data, a database of published soil index properties and SWCCs was
incorporated to the analysis. Each SWCC data set was fitted with Fredlund and Xing
curve, which provided an S-shaped curve with four parameters, af, bf, cf, and hrf.
Using multiple regression analysis, equations were derived for these four parameters
based on predictors derived from GSD and PI. The equations presented in this paper
are useful in predicting the SWCC of any given soil without carrying out actual
SWCC testing and they can easily be incorporated into computer codes to solve
various unsaturated soil mechanics problems such as determining moisture beneath
covered areas.
Introduction

The soil-water characteristic curve (SWCC) represents the relationship between

matric suction and water content for a particular soil. The matric suction is a very
important soil property and it is fundamental when solving engineering problems
associated with unsaturated soil mechanics in the three (3) classic areas: fluid flow,
compressibility, and shear strength. For example, when modeling unsaturated
moisture flow beneath a highway pavement, the hydraulic conductivity of the base
course and subgrade materials, as a function of water content, must be known. This
function can be estimated based on the SWCC.

Even though the application of unsaturated soil theories and the introduction of
unsaturated soil testing into engineering practice has gained some popularity, the
determination of the SWCC still requires specialized unsaturated soil testing
equipment, testing experience, and lengthy testing programs. As an alternative to
laboratory testing, this paper presents a simple and inexpensive method to derive
SWCCs based on grain-size-distribution (GSD) and simple index properties.

Several attempts have been made to estimate the SWCC based on GSD and other soil
properties. The adopted methods can be classified into three major approaches
(Zapata 1999):

1) Statistical estimation of water contents at selected matric suction values,

2) Correlation, by regression analysis, of soil properties with the fitting
parameters of an analytical equation that represents the SWCC, and
3) Estimation of the SWCC using a physics-based conceptual model.

Comparison of different models can be found in van Genuchten and Leij, 1992;
Williams and Ahuja, , 1992; Kern, 1995; Nandagiri and Prasad, 1997; and Zapata,
1999. In this study the second approach was adopted. Researchers that have adopted
the second approach include Ghosh, 1980; Williams et al., 1983; Ahuja et al., 1985;
Rawls et al., 1992; Cresswell and Paydar, 1996; Tomasellaand Hodnett, 1998; and
Zapata, 1999.

The analytical equation for SWCC determination that was adopted in this study is the
Fredlund and Xing equation that contain four fitting parameters. The four fitting
parameters were correlated to the parameters derived from GSD and PI.

Background

A project entitled Environmental Effects in Pavement Mix and Structural Design

Systems designated NCHRP 9-23 project has been carried out at Arizona State
University (ASU) since 2000. The NCHRP 9-23 project main objective is the study
of the effects of environmental factors in two important areas of pavement design: the
equilibrium moisture contents under highway pavements; and the pavement aging
effects. A team composed of geotechnical and advanced pavement researchers at
ASU has performed the tasks associated with these studies.

2
As part of the NCHRP 9-23 project, material samples were collected from beneath
highway pavement of 30 sites located throughout the United States. The samples
were subjected to an extensive laboratory-testing program. The laboratory program
included determination of moisture content (w), in-situ dry unit weight ( d), liquid
limit (LL), plastic limit (PL), specific gravity (Gs), GSD, hydrometer analysis,
saturated hydraulic conductivity (ksat), and SWCCs of base course and subgrade
materials.

The test results obtained were combined with an existing database compiled by
Zapata in 1999. Based on the available database, Zapata developed a useful family of
SWCCs for both granular soils and fine-grained soils based on GSD parameters such
as the percent passing No. 200 sieve (P200), the diameter corresponding to 60%
passing (D60) and the PI, as shown in Figure 1 (Zapata, et al., 2000). The equations
developed in this study were adopted in the NCHRP 1-37A project entitled Design
Guide for New and Rehabilitated Pavement Design.

1.0
0.9
0.8
Degree of Saturation, S

0.7
wPI =
0.6 50
wPI=
0.1
0.5
0.4
D60 = D60 =
0.3
1 mm 0.1 mm
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Matric Suction (kPa)

Figure 1. Family of SWCCs (Zapata, et al., 2000).

Field Testing

Thirty (30) sites were visited for sampling and testing. Out of the 30 sites visited, 28
sites are part of the on-going Long Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) monitoring
program. The other two sites tested were WesTrack and MnRoad testing facilities.
At each site, three locations (three feet apart from each other) along the center of the
outer lane (the lane next to the shoulder of the highway) were cored and soil samples
were collected from each unbound layer beneath the pavement. During the coring,
extra care was exercised to keep the unbound layers from moisture contamination.

Sand cone tests were performed on granular base materials, and tube samples were
collected from fine-grained subgrade materials. The granular base materials and tube
samples were transported to the ASU geotechnical laboratory for testing. A detailed
description of fieldwork is presented in Perera’s doctoral dissertation entitled
Moisture Equilibria beneath Paved Areas (Perera, 2003).

3
Laboratory Testing

Selected samples representing unbound layers at each site were subjected to SWCC
testing using a new pressure plate device. The device is equipped with new features
that enable overburden pressure simulation, volume change measurements, and
moisture content determination of the sample without dismantling the apparatus
during data acquisition. Details of the device and the test procedure are presented in
Perera’s doctoral dissertation (Perera, 2003).

The granular base material was collected as disturbed samples. These samples were
reconstituted in 2.42-inch internal diameter and 1-inch high brass rings using only the
fraction passing No. 4 sieve (minus No. 4). The reconstitution was performed in such
a way that the unit weight of the minus No. 4 laboratory sample was equivalent to the
unit weight of the minus No. 4 material in the field. The volume of minus No. 4 was
computed using GSD, in situ dry unit weight, and Gs data. Two assumptions were
imposed. First, that the voids formed by the fraction passing No. 4 material (plus No.
4) are completely filled by the minus No. 4 material and second, the Gs of both
fractions are the same,Based on the volume of No. 4 material and the GSD, the in situ
unit weight of minus No. 4 material was determined. The procedure is presented in
Perera’s doctoral dissertation (Perera, 2003).

In the case of tube samples, SWCC samples were prepared by direct extrusion of the
soil into brass rings, tested in undisturbed conditions. Prior to testing, samples were
saturated overnight. Clayey samples required several days of saturation. Saturation
was considered complete when a distinctive wetness appeared throughout the top of
the soil sample. The degree of saturation achieved after this soaking process ranged
between 87% and 100%.

The experimentally determined SWCCs were plotted in terms of degree of saturation

(S) versus matric suction on a semi-log plot. In general, three matric suction
measurements, at different water contents, were obtained for each soil. Test results
were plotted as shown schematically in Figure 2. The data points were subjected to a
nonlinear regressing fitting process with the Fredlund and Xing sigmoidal curve
using SoilVision ® software package (SoilVision, 2000), a program exclusively
designed for handling unsaturated soils. Furthermore, the soil samples were tested
for w, d, PI, GSD, Gs, and ksat. The test results are presented in Perera’s doctoral
dissertation (Perera, 2003).

4
 1
0.9 Sand
0.8 Silt

Degree of Saturation, S
0.7 Clay

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Matric Suction (kPa)

Figure 2. Typical SWCCs.

Data Analysis

For the purpose of analysis, the soils with a weighted PI of less than 1.0 were
categorized as non-plastic (NP) soils. The Weighted PI (wPI), is referred to as the
product of P200 (expressed as a decimal) and the PI of the soil. The soils that
exhibited wPI greater than or equal to 1.0 were categorized as plastic (PI) soils.

Zapata investigated the uncertainty in SWCC and impacts on unsaturated shear

strength predictions. A database containing 180 experimentally obtained SWCCs
collected from published journal papers was used in Zapata’s analyses in developing
the family of curves. Of these other SWCCs, the best 134 curves were pooled with
the 83 curves determined under the NCHRP 9-23 project. The number of soils used
in the analysis from each database is summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Database used in analysis

Soil Type
Database Source
Non-Plastic Plastic
NCHRP 9-23 project 36 47
Published journal papers 118 16
Total 154 63

Curve Fitting Process

The matric suction versus degree of saturation, S, data associated with each sample
was plotted on a semi-log plot. Each set of points was then fitted with a nonlinear
sigmoid proposed by Fredlund and Xing (Fredlund and Xing, 1994). This function is
a four-parameter equation as defined below:

5
 θs
θw C(h) cf (1)
bf
h
ln exp(1)
af

where,
h
ln 1
h rf
C(h) 1 (2)
106
ln 1
h rf

S = volumetric water content,

h = matric suction in kPa,
af = fitting parameter, which is primarily a function of the air
entry value of the soil,
bf = fitting parameter, which is primarily a function of the rate
of water extraction from the soil, once the air entry value
has been exceeded,
cf = fitting parameter, which is primarily a function of the
residual water content,
hrf = fitting parameter, which is primarily a function of the
suction at which residual water content occurs, and
C(h) = correction factor which is a function of matric suction.

The curve fitting procedure consisted of several steps as described herein. From the
GSD of each soil, D10 through D90 in millimeters, and P200 values expressed in
decimals were tabulated. The Atterberg limits (LL, PL, and PI) and the wPI were
added to the tabulation. These values were also combined to obtain functions that
could be used in the multiple regression process. A few of these combinations
included D90/D10, P200(D90/D10), D0, and D100. D0 and D100 are estimated by
projecting the two extremes of the GSD curve on to Percent Passing = 0 and 100%
lines, respectively as shown in Figure 3. By means of a statistical multiple regression
program, the best correlations between af, bf, cf, hrf, and the GSD and index
parameters were determined and expressed as equations.

Results

The two sets of equations derived by correlations for non-plastic soils and plastic
soils are presented in this section. Equations 3 through 6 describe the Fredlund and
Xing fitting parameters for the SWCC of a non-plastic soil while Equations 7 through
10 describe the Fredlund and Xing fitting parameters for the SWCC of a plastic soil.

6
 Figure 3. Projection of GSD to obtain D0 and D100

Correlation Equations for Non-Plastic Soils

af 1.14a - 0.5 (3)

where:

a 2.79 14.1log( D20 ) 1.9 10 6 P200

4.34
7 log( D30 ) 0.055D100
40
log( D60 )
m1
D100 10
30
m1
[log( D90 ) log( D60 )]

Note: There may exist some extreme cases where the computed value of af is
negative, which will lead to erroneous results. Therefore, the value of af has been
limited to 1.0.

bf 0.936b - 3.8 (4)

where:

D90
b 5.39 0.29 ln P200 3D00.57 0.021P200
1.19
m10.1
D10
30
log( D30 )
m2
D0 10

7
 20
m2
[log( D30 ) log( D10 )]

cf 0.26e0.758c 1.4D10 (5)

where:
1
c log m1.15
2 - 1
bf

hrf 100 (6)

Correlation Equations for Plastic Soils

af 32.835 ln(wPI ) 32.438 (7)

0.3185
bf 1.421 wPI (8)

cf 0.2154 ln(wPI ) 0.7145 (9)

hrf 500 (10)

where:

wPI = weighed Plasticity index equal to the product of P200 (expressed as a

decimal) and the PI

Error Analysis

A statistical analysis was performed to find out the error associated with the newly
proposed functions (Equations 3 through 10). In the error analysis, the field
measured S was compared with the predicted S. The percent mean algebraic error
(ealg) and the percent mean absolute error (eabs) were computed by using Equations 11
and 12 below. The sum of the squared error based on measured S (Se), and the mean
squared error based on average measured S (Sy) were computed using Equations 13
and 14, respectively.

The corresponding values of Se/Sy and the adjusted coefficient of correlation (R2), 1 –
(Se/Sy)2, are presented in Table 2. In addition, the same error analysis was performed
for the model developed by Zapata in 1999 for comparison. The results of both
analyses are also presented in Table 2.

8
 Sm -Sp 100
Sm
ealg (11)
n

Sm -Sp 100
Sm
eabs (12)
n

2
Sm S p
Se (13)
n-p

2
Sm S p
Sy (14)
n-p

where:

Sm = measured degree of saturation,

Sp = predicted degree of saturation,
Sm = average measured degree of saturation,
n = number of data points,
p = number of parameters associated with the proposed functions.

Table 2. Errors associated with SWCC predictions.

Non-Plastic Soils Plastic Soils

Parameter Proposed Proposed
Zapata Zapata
Model Model
ealg 8.6% 88.5% 0.1% 20.4%
eabs 14.8% 88.5% 9.2% 23.9%
Se/Sy 0.65 1.01 0.70 0.91
Adjusted R2 0.58 -0.02 0.51 0.18

According to the results in Table 2, the percent mean algebraic and absolute errors
associated with the proposed model for non-plastic soils were found to be 8.6% and
14.8%, respectively. The same errors associated with the Zapata model were found
to be 88.5%. Similarly, the percent mean algebraic and absolute errors associated
with the proposed model for plastic soils were 0.1% and 9.2%, respectively, while the
same errors associated with the Zapata model were 20.4% and 23.9%, respectively.
Therefore, the new models provide a far better prediction than the models developed
in 1999. The adjusted R2 values also reflect the predictive capability of the new
model. The measured S versus predicted S plots for non-plastic and plastic soils are
shown in Figures 4 and 5, respectively.

9
 1.0

0.9

ealg = 8.6%
0.8
eabs = 14.8%
0.7
se/sy = 0.65
Predicted Degree of Saturation
2
R = 0.58
0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Measured Degree of Saturation

Figure 4. Measured versus predicted S for non-plastic soils.

1.0

0.9
ealg = 0.1%
0.8 eabs = 9.2%
Predicted Degree of Saturation

se/sy = 0.70
0.7 2
R = 0.51
0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Measured Degree of Saturation

Figure 5. Measured versus predicted S for plastic soils.

10
Conclusions

The determination of SWCC of a soil by experimental procedures requires

specialized unsaturated soil testing equipment, testing experience, and lengthy testing
programs. The formulations presented in this paper circumvent this obstacle by using
only basic soil properties, GSD and PI, to derive the SWCC.

The degree of saturation of soils could be predicted using derived SWCCs with less
than 15% error for non-plastic soils and less than 10% error for plastic soils when the
absolute error is considered as the criteria.

Predicted SWCCs using the equations presented in this paper have been particularly
useful in determining moisture content beneath highway pavements and in general, a
powerful tool for practicing engineers in the stage of adopting the unsaturated soil
theory into the routine and classical testing and design procedures.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank NCHRP for providing funds for this research work under the
NCHRP 9-23 project Environmental Effects in Pavement Mix and Structural Design
Systems. We greatly appreciate the assistance and much valuable help provided by
the Departments of Transportation (DOTs) of the visited states, MnRoad, and
WesTrack personnel. Part of this work is based upon research supported by the
National Science Foundation (NSF). This support is gratefully acknowledged.

References

Ahuja, L. R., Naney, J. W. and Williams, R. D. (1985). "Estimating Soil Water

Characteristics from Simpler Properties or Limited Data.” Soil Science Society of
America Journal, Vol. 49, No. 5, pp. 1100-1105.

Cresswell, H. P. and Paydar, Z. (1996). "Water Retention in Australian Soils. 1.

Description and Prediction Using Parametric Functions.” Australian Journal of
Soil Research, Vol. 34, No. 2. pp. 195–212.

Fredlund, D. G., and Xing, A. (1994). “Equations for the Soil-Water Characteristic
Curve.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 521-532.

Ghosh, R. K. (1980). "Estimation of Soil-Moisture Characteristics from Mechanical

Properties of Soils.” Soil Science, Vol. 130, No. 2, pp. 60-63.

Kern, J. S. (1995). "Evaluation of Soil–Water Retention Models Based on Basic Soil

Physical Properties.” Soil Science Society of American Journal, Vol. 59, No. 4,
pp. 1134–1141.

11
 Nandagiri, L. and Prasad, R. (1997). "Relative Performances of Textural Models in
Estimating Soil Moisture Characteristic.” Journal of Irrigation and Drainage
Engineering–ASCE, Vol. 123, No. 3, pp. 211–214.

Perera Y. Y. Moisture Equilibria Beneath Paved Areas. PhD Dissertation, Arizona

State University, Arizona, USA, 2003.

Rawls, W. J., Ahuja, L. R., and Brakensiek, D. L. (1992). "Estimating Soil Hydraulic
Properties from Soils Data.” Proceedings of the International Workshop on
Indirect Methods for Estimating the Hydraulic Properties of Unsaturated Soils,
van Genuchten, M. Th., Leij, F. J., and Lund, L. J., editors. University of
California. Riverside, CA. pp. 329-340.

Soil Vision User’s Guide, Version 2, 1st Edition. Soil Vision Systems Ltd.,
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, 2000.

Tomasella, J. and Hodnett, M. G. (1998). "Estimating Soil Water Retention

Characteristics from Limited Data in Brazilian Amazonia.” Soil Science, Vol.
163, No. 3, pp. 190–202.

Williams, J., Prebble, R., Williams, W., and Hignett, C. (1983). "The Influence of
Texture, Structure and Clay Mineralogy on the Soil Moisture Characteristic.”
Australian Journal of Soil Research, Vol. 21, pp. 15 – 32.

Williams, R. D. and Ahuja, L. R. (1992). "Estimating Soil Water Characteristics

Using Measured Physical Properties and Limited Data.” Proceedings of the
International Workshop on Indirect Methods for Estimating the Hydraulic
Properties of Unsaturated Soils, van Genuchten, M. Th., Leij, F. J., and Lund, L.
J., editors. University of California. Riverside, CA. pp. 405-416.

van Genuchten, M. Th. and Leij, F. J. (1992). "On Estimating the Hydraulic
Properties of Unsaturated Soils". Proceedings of the International Workshop on
Indirect Methods for Estimating the Hydraulic Properties of Unsaturated Soils.
van Genuchten, M. Th., Leij, F. J., and Lund, L. J., editors. University of
California. Riverside, CA. pp. 1-14.

Zapata C. E. Uncertainty in Soil-Water-Characteristic Curve and Impacts on

Unsaturated Shear Strength Predictions. PhD Dissertation, Arizona State
University, Arizona, USA, 1999.

Zapata, C. E., Houston, W. N., Houston, S. L., and Walsh, K. D. (2000). “Soil-Water
Characteristic Curve Variability.” In: C. D. Shackelford, S. L. Houston, and N-Y
Chang (eds). Advances in Unsaturated Geotechnics. ASCE – GEO Institute
Geotechnical Special Publication, No. 99. Also Proceedings of Sessions of Geo-
Denver 2000, Aug. 5-8, 2000, Denver, CO. pp. 84-124.

12

View publication stats