Engineering Geology 124 (2012) 90–97

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Engineering Geology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enggeo

A comparative study of suction stress between sand and silt under

unsaturated conditions
Young-Suk Song a, Woong-Ki Hwang b,⁎, Soo-Jung Jung c, Tae-Hyung Kim d
a
Geologic Environment Division, Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources, Republic of Korea
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Korea Maritime University, Republic of Korea
c
Geotechnical Disaster Research Team, National Institute for Disaster Prevention, Republic of Korea
d
Department of Civil Engineering, Korea Maritime University, Republic of Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The purpose of this study is to estimate and compare suction stress between sand and silt sampled from the
Received 20 July 2011 coast of Korea. The water content and matric suction of sand (Joomunjin) and silt (Saemangeum) were first
Received in revised form 10 October 2011 examined using an automated soil–water characteristic curve (SWCC) apparatus based on the axis transla-
Accepted 11 October 2011
tion technique. SWCCs were then estimated from the test results using the van Genuchten (1980) model.
Available online 20 October 2011
At equal matric suction, the corresponding water content of silt was higher than that of sand. Moreover,
Keywords:
the saturated water content and air-entry value (AEV) of silt were larger than those of sand. Using the fitting
Unsaturated soils SWCC parameters, suction stress characteristic curves (SSCCs) were estimated according to the method pro-
Sand posed by Lu and Likos (2006). The SSCC behavior for sand and silt was different and significantly depended
Silt on the material properties, particularly pore size and pore size distribution. For sand, the suction stress exhib-
Soil–water characteristics curve (SWCC) ited rapid variation with changes in matric suction, but for silt, the suction stress approached a constant value
Suction stress characteristics curve (SSCC) as the matric suction increased. In addition, when the matric suction was smaller than the AEV of soil, the
suction stress was equal to the magnitude of the matric suction. In contrast, when the matric suction
exceeded the AEV of soil, suction stress had a nonlinear shape with respect to the matric suction.
© 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Unsaturated soil, which is conceptualized as partially saturated
soil as opposed to fully dry or fully saturated soil, has a variety of dif-
ferent behavioral characteristics as compared with saturated soil.
Consequently, there are many geotechnical issues related to the diffi-
culty of analyzing and predicting the behavior of unsaturated soil
with the classic theory of saturated soil (Fredlund and Rahardjo,
1993; Lu and Likos, 2004). Recently, increased attention has been de-
voted to unsaturated soils, and research on the estimation of strength
parameters and the development of analysis techniques for unsatu-
rated soil has rapidly progressed. Additionally, the study of unsaturat-
ed soils has been expanded to various geotechnical factors, such as
slope stability and seepage (Jennings and Burland, 1962; Fredlund
and Morgenstern, 1977; Fredlund et al., 1978; Lu and Likos, 2006;
Lu et al., 2007, 2009; Chae et al., 2010).
Many experimental and theoretical investigations have been
conducted to estimate the properties of unsaturated soil and explain its
behavior. In particular, a variety of studies aiming to elucidate the
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: gold-a1142@nate.com (W.-K. Hwang).
relationship between soil suction and the effective stress or shear
strength of unsaturated soil have been performed since Bishop's pioneer-
ing work in the 1950s (Bishop, 1959; Coleman, 1962; Bishop and Blight,
1963; Fredlund et al., 1978; Vanapalli et al., 1996; Khalili and Khabbaz,
1998). There are two main approaches: the effective stress approach
proposed by Bishop (1959) and the two independent stress state
variables approach proposed by Fredlund et al. (1978). However, these
approaches have limited applicability to a wide variety of matric
suction and unsaturated soil parameters, including effective stress
parameter χ or angle of shearing resistance with respect to matric
suction ϕb (Gan et al., 1988; Escario et al., 1989; Vanapalli et al., 1996).
The suction stress concept was recently proposed to more effectively
express and evaluate the influence of matric suction on the effective
stress and shear strength of unsaturated soil (Lu and Likos, 2006). This
concept is advantageous because it can represent the state of stress
for unsaturated soil using a single stress variable by expanding both
Terzaghi's (1943) and Bishop's effective stress principles (1959) and be-
cause it can be expressed with the soil–water characteristic curve
(SWCC). The applicability and validity of suction stress have been inves-
tigated by several studies (Lu et al., 2009; Kim et al., 2010).
Suction stress refers to the net interparticle force generated within a
matrix of unsaturated soil particles due to the combined effects of
negative pore water pressure and surface tension. The macroscopic

0013-7952/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2011.10.006
 Y.-S. Song et al. / Engineering Geology 124 (2012) 90–97
consequence of suction stress is a force that tends to pull the soil grains
toward one another. Similarly to the SWCC, suction stress is significant-
ly dependent of the soil type.
In this study, soil–water characteristic tests for sand (Jumunjin) and
silt (Saemangeum) were first conducted using the axis translation tech-
nique (Hilf, 1956). Pairs of sand and silt samples were evaluated for
matric suction and volumetric water content using an automated
SWCC apparatus. SWCCs were then estimated from the test results
using the van Genuchten (1980) model. Suction stress characteristic
curves (SSCCs) were also estimated using the SWCC parameters accord-
ing to the method proposed by Lu and Likos (2006). From these results,
SWCCs and SSCCs for sand and silt were analyzed and compared.
2. Effective stress and failure criteria of unsaturated soil
Currently, there are two widely recognized macroscale approaches for
describing the state of stress in unsaturated soil: (1) the modified effec-
tive stress approach, which is generally attributed to the work of Bishop
(1959), and (2) the independent stress state variable approach, which
is generally attributed to the work of Fredlund and Morgenstern (1977).
To express the effect of soil suction on the effective stress of unsat-
urated porous media, Bishop (1959) proposed the effective stress ap-
proach by introducing the effective stress parameter χ into Terzaghi's
classic effective stress equation as follows:
σ ′ ¼ σ −ua þ χ ðua −uw Þ ð1Þ
where the effective stress parameter χ is considered to vary between
zero and unity as a function of the degree of pore water saturation.
σ − ua is the net normal stress, and ua − uw is the matric suction.
When χ equals zero (corresponding to perfectly dry conditions) or
unity (corresponding to fully saturated conditions), Eq. (1) reduces
to Terzaghi's effective stress principle for air- or water-saturated
soil, respectively. For all other values of χ, χ(ua − uw), which is the
second term in Eq. (1), describes the contribution of matric suction
to effective stress. Following Bishop's approach, the macroscopic en-
gineering behavior of unsaturated soil can be described using the ef-
fective stress defined by Eq. (1) within the established framework of
saturated soil mechanics. Shear strength, for example, may be de-
scribed by incorporating the modified effective stress expression
into the classical Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion as follows:
τf ¼ c′ þ ½ðσ −ua Þ þ χ ðua −uw Þ tanϕ′ ð2Þ
where c is the effective cohesion intercept, and ϕ′ is the effective
angle of internal friction.
Following Fredlund and Morgenstern's (1977) independent stress
state variable approach, the net normal stress (σ − ua) and matric
suction (ua − uw) are treated independently with respect to their
roles in the mechanical behavior of unsaturated soil. Macroscopic be-
havior is described in terms of the independent stress state variables
and conjugate material properties. Shear strength, for example, may
be described as:
b
τf ¼ c′ þ ðσ −ua Þ tanϕ′ þ ðua −uw Þ tanϕ ð3Þ
where the first two terms comprise the classical Mohr–Coulomb cri-
terion, and the third term includes ϕ b as an additional friction angle
to capture the contribution of matric suction to shear strength.
The effectiveness, validity, and practicality of these two different
approaches for describing the state of stress and the corresponding
behavior of unsaturated soil remain largely uncertain. Difficulties as-
sociated with experimentally or theoretically determining the effec-
tive stress parameter χ have limited the general applicability of
Bishop's approach in research and practice, although it has the advan-
tage in that changes in shear strength as well as changes in total
91
stress, pore water pressure, and pore air pressure are related to a sin-
gle stress variable (Bishop, 1959; Khalili and Khabbaz, 1998). Experi-
mental studies have also suggested the non-uniqueness of χ = f(S).
Similar experimental and conceptual difficulties associated with de-
termining necessary material variables, such as the nonlinear term
ϕ b, over a wide saturation range have limited the practical applicabil-
ity of the independent stress variable approach (Gan et al., 1988;
Escario et al., 1989; Vanapalli et al., 1996; Lu and Likos, 2006). Recent-
ly, Lu et al. (2010) conceptualized a closed-form equation to repre-
sent the state of effective stress in unsaturated soil by introducing
the concept of the SSCC, as explained below.
3. Characteristic curves of unsaturated soils
3.1. The SWCC
The SWCC is one of the most important factors for understanding the
behavior of unsaturated soil. It is commonly defined as a constitutive re-
lationship of soil between soil suction and water content (Fredlund and
Rahardjo, 1993). The water content is defined as the amount of water
present in a pore space between or among soil particles. Generally, the
SWCC represents the ability of soil to retain water at a certain level of ap-
plied suction.
Fig. 1 shows the typical SWCC (Lu and Likos, 2004). Water content
can be expressed in terms of gravimetric water content (w), volumetric
water content (θ), or degree of saturation (S). Soil suction can be
expressed in terms of matric suction or total suction. Matric suction is
regarded as the total suction on the supposition that matric suction is
predominant at a low suction level in the geotechnical engineering
field. The air-entry value (AEV) is defined as the matric suction at
which air first begins to enter the largest soil pores. The residual water
content (θr) is defined as the minimum volumetric water content. Pore
water resides primarily as an isolated formation that cannot be removed
even by the application of extremely high pressure. The saturated water
content (θs) is defined as the maximum volumetric water content (i.e., all
of the available pore space in soil is filled with water). As shown in Fig. 1,
the SWCC can generally be divided into three zones according to the
state of water retention, namely, the capillary fringe (or simply capillary)
zone, the continuous capillary (funicular) zone and the residual (pendu-
lar) zone (Schubert, 1975). The soil in the capillary fringe zone remains
saturated under negative pore water pressure. The soil in the continuous
capillary zone is characterized by a continuous water phase. The soil in
the residual zone is characterized by an isolated, discontinuous water
phase. The point Ψb, which is located between the capillary fringe zone
and the continuous capillary zone, is referred to as the AEV.
Fig. 2 shows the typical behaviors of SWCCs for different types of
soils such as sand, silt and clay. As shown in the figure, sand has a
Residual
Zone
Continuous
Capillary
Zone
Capillary
Fringe
Zone
Fig. 1. A typical SWCC (modified from Lu and Likos, 2004).
92 Y.-S. Song et al. / Engineering Geology 124 (2012) 90–97
Fig. 2. Representative SWCCs for sand, silt, and clay (Lu and Likos, 2004).
relatively low AEV and low θs because of the relatively large pore
throats formed among the sand particles. Silt may adsorb a great
amount of water because its specific surface area is larger than that
of sand. The AEV of silt is also larger than that of sand. Clay has the
highest adsorption capacity of water because its specific surface and
surface charge properties are relatively larger than those of sand
and silt. Meanwhile, the overall slope and shape of the capillary
zone are controlled primarily by the pore size distribution. Soils
with a relatively narrow pore size distribution are marked by relative-
ly flat characteristic curves in the capillary zone because a large por-
tion of pore water is drained over a relatively narrow range of suction.
3.2. The SSCC
Lu and Likos (2006) introduced the concept of suction stress to
represent the state of stress for unsaturated soil. Suction stress σ s is
phenomenologically conceptualized, as presented in Eq. (4):
s F pc F cap
σ ¼ þ þ χ ðua −uw Þ ¼ σ pc þ σ cap þ χ ðua −uw Þ
A A
F pc ¼ F ce þ F vdw þ F edl
where Fpc is the interparticle physicochemical force, and Fcap is the
capillary force arising from surface tension. As shown in Eq. (5), Fpc
is the sum of the interparticle physicochemical force attributable to
cementation force Fce, van der Waals attraction force Fvdw, and
double-layer repulsion force Fedl.
Effective stress is estimated by introducing suction stress and con-
sidering a variety of states arising in unsaturated soil. Consequently,
suction stress can be used as an index that assesses the state of stress
for unsaturated soil because of the close relationship between matric
suction and the degree of saturation. The effective stress of unsaturat-
ed soil can be expressed as shown in Eq. (6) (Lu and Likos, 2006):
s
σ ′ ¼ ðσ −ua Þ−σ ¼ ðσ −ua Þ þ ðua −uw ÞSe
where Se is the effective degree of saturation. As shown in Eq. (6),
suction stress can be treated as the effective stress when no external
stress is present. Therefore, it is important to consider such stresses
when determining the strength of unsaturated soil. In addition, note
that the graphic representation of suction stress is the shaded area
under the normalized SWCC shown in Fig. 3. Thus, suction stress
has a close relationship with the SWCC. This relationship between
Fig. 3. Relationship between the SSCC and the SWCC (Lu et al., 2010).
suction stress and matric suction (or the effective degree of satura-
tion) is defined as the SSCC, which can estimate and predict the
strength of unsaturated soil according to water content (Lu and
Likos, 2006; Lu et al., 2010).
4. Test method and materials
4.1. Test method
In this study, the SWCCs of sand and silt were estimated using an au-
tomated SWCC apparatus. Note that the volumetric water content and
matric suction of soils can be continuously measured under unsaturated
conditions. The measurement principle of the automated SWCC appara-
tus is also simple. The automated SWCC apparatus can minimize some of
the errors that are induced by the presence of an experimenter because
the measured data can be automatically recorded by the measurement
system (Wayllace and Lu, in press).
Fig. 4 shows the automated SWCC apparatus at the Korea Institute
of Geoscience and Mineral Resources. As shown in Fig. 4, the auto-
ð4Þ
mated SWCC apparatus is composed of a pressure panel, flow cell,
water reservoir, air bubble trap, sample preparation accessories, and
ð5Þ measurement system. Fig. 5 shows the overall diagram of the auto-
mated SWCC apparatus. First, controlled air pressure is applied to sat-
urated soil by the pressure panel. When the air pressure exceeds the
AEV of soil, pore water is expelled and transferred to the balance
through the high air-entry (HAE) disk and air bubble trap. The air
pressure serves as the matric suction of unsaturated soil, and the
HAE disk is operated to restrict the transfer of pore air and soil parti-
cles. The balance is linked to a computer. Thus, the applied air pres-
sure and the mass of the drained pore water can be verified and
stored by the measurement system in real time. Therefore, the exper-
imenter can accurately know when to apply the next round of air
pressure to the soil. In this manner, the SWCC for the drying process
can be obtained by increasing the air pressure, and the SWCC for
the wetting process can be obtained by decreasing the air pressure.
ð6Þ
4.2. Test materials
In this study, sand and silt were used as soil samples. The maxi-
mum and minimum dry densities of sand and silt were obtained
from ASTM D 4253-83 and ASTM D 4254-83, respectively. The soil
samples were generated under equal relative density conditions
(Dr = 75%), and then both matric suction and volumetric water
content were measured using the automated SWCC apparatus after
 Y.-S. Song et al. / Engineering Geology 124 (2012) 90–97 93

Fig. 4. Automated SWCC apparatus.

Pressure Dryingprocess
Drying process
panel Wetting process
Wetting process
Air pressure

Flow cell

Soil

Pore water

O-ring
HAE disk Water
Air bubble outflow
Balance
trap Water
O-ring inflow
Spacer tube

Water inflow
SWRC
Reservoir
Program

Fig. 5. Schematic diagram of the automated SWCC apparatus.

saturating the soil samples. Fig. 6 shows the grain size distribution
curves of sand and silt. Table 1 shows the properties of sand and
silt. The grain size of sand was larger and more uniform than that of
silt. Therefore, for sand, the variation in volumetric water content is
expected to be greater than that of silt with the same variation in
matric suction. Meanwhile, the AEV of sand is expected to be
smaller than that of silt because sand has a larger pore size and a
more uniform grain size distribution than silt.

Table 1
Physical soil properties of sand and silt.

Description Symbol Sand Silt

Specific gravity Gs 2.621 2.685

Max. void ratio emax 0.919 1.452
Min. void ratio emin 0.625 0.692
Void ratio at Dr= 75% e75% 0.699 0.882
g3
Max. dry density γmax ðcmÞ 1.613 1.587
Min. dry density γmin 1.366 1.095
Effective particle size D10 (mm) 0.421 0.017
Particle size of D30 D30 0.512 0.048
Particle size of D60 D60 0.631 0.102
Uniformity coefficient Cu 1.499 6.022
Coefficient of curvature Cc 0.987 1.340
Fig. 6. Grain size distribution curves of sand and silt.
94 Y.-S. Song et al. / Engineering Geology 124 (2012) 90–97

5. Test results and analysis water content decreased. Comparing the characteristics of sand and
silt, the matric suction for silt was higher than that of sand at an
5.1. Test results equal volumetric water content. Additionally, θs and the AEV of silt
were higher than those of sand.
The values of matric suction and water mass for sand and silt were
recorded by the automated SWCC apparatus. Fig. 7 shows the amount 5.2. Estimation of SWCC
of water expelled from sand and silt as a function of time. As shown in
the figure, after confirming that the mass of water outflow remained Regarding SWCC estimation, numerous models have been pro-
unchanged at certain levels of matric suction, the next level of matric posed for fitting analytical functions using experimental results
suction was applied. For silt, the initial variation in the mass of water (Brooks and Corey, 1964; van Genuchten, 1980; Fredlund and Xing,
out was lower than that of sand, and the test time for silt was relative- 1994). Among the many models, the van Genuchten (1980) model
ly longer than that for sand. was used in this study because it is the most frequently and represen-
Fig. 8 shows the relationship between matric suction and volu- tatively used model for estimating the SWCC. As shown in Eq. (7), van
metric water content. As the matric suction increased, volumetric Genuchten (1980) proposed an equation based on the original equa-
tions of Mualem (1976). This equation has produced good results for
a variety of soils.
(a) Sand θ−θr

1
m
Se ¼ ¼ : ð7Þ
θs −θr 1 þ ½α ðua −uw Þ n

In Eq. (7), α is the parameter related to the AEV, n is the parameter

related to the slope of SWCC, and mis the parameter related to the re-
sidual water content.
  
m ¼ 1− exp −0:8Sp 0bSp ≤1 ð8aÞ

0:5755 0:1 0:025  

m ¼ 1− þ 2 þ 3
Sp > 1 ð8bÞ
Sp Sp Sp

n ¼ 1=ð1−mÞ ð8cÞ
(b) Silt
1  m1 1−m
α¼ 2 −1 : ð8dÞ
hp

Because α, n and m are curve-fitting parameters, the intermediate

Fig. 7. Mass of water outflow for various matric suction states.
point P between θs and θr must be estimated to obtain these parameters.
(ua − uw)p is the matric suction corresponding to P, and Sp is the slope of
the SWCC at point P (van Genuchten, 1980). Thus, the curve-fitting pa-
rameters α, n and m can be obtained by substituting (ua − uw)p and Sp
into Eq. (8). Table 2 shows the results for the fitting parameters
obtained using least squares regression analysis. The values corre-
sponded with the typical range of fitting parameters for sand and silt.
Fig. 9 shows the SWCCs estimated according to the van Genuchten
model. The SWCCs revealed nonlinear relationships between matric
suction and volumetric water content (Kim et al., 1996). For sand, the
AEV, θs and θr were 2.10 kPa, 0.413, and 0.028, respectively. Conversely,
for silt, the AEV, θsand θr were 8.15 kPa, 0.469, and 0.044, respectively.
As such, the AEV of silt is approximately 4-fold larger than that of sand.
Fig. 10 compares the SWCCs for sand and silt. Silt had greater sat-
urated volumetric water content, greater volumetric water content,
and a higher effective degree of saturation at an equal matric suction.

5.3. Estimation of the SSCC

The van Genuchten parameters for the SWCC can be used to

determine the SSCC according to the effective degree of saturation
from Eq. (9) and the matric suction from Eq. (10). A closed-form

Table 2
The values of the fitting parameters.

Soil type α n m

Sand 0.393 8.553 0.883

Silt 0.052 2.003 0.501
Fig. 8. Relationship between matric suction and volumetric water content.
 Y.-S. Song et al. / Engineering Geology 124 (2012) 90–97 95

(a) Sand (a) Relationship between matric suction

and volumetric water content

(b) Silt
(b) Relationship between matric suction and
effective degree of saturation

Fig. 9. SWCCs according to the van Genuchten model.

expression for suction stress for the full range of saturation can be Fig. 10. Comparison of the SWCCs for sand and silt.
derived by substituting Eq. (7) into Eq. (6).

s Se  1−n
n
1
σ ¼− Se −1 ð0≤Se ≤1Þ ð9Þ
n

α
s
σ ¼ −ðua −uw Þðua −uw Þ≤0 ð10aÞ

s ðua −uw Þ
σ ¼− ðua −uw Þ > 0: ð10bÞ
ð1 þ ½α ðua −uw Þn Þðn−1Þ=n

Fig. 11 shows the SSCCs for sand and silt in terms of matric suc-
tion. As shown in the figure, the suction stresses for sand and silt
exhibited different behaviors with variations in matric suction. For
sand, the magnitude of suction stress exhibited an up-and-down
characteristic over a relatively small range of matric suction. Thus,
for matric suction values of 0 and 6.3 kPa, suction stress also has a
value of 0 kPa. In addition, suction stress reaches a maximum value
of − 1.8 kPa at the matric suction of 2.0 kPa. Hereafter, this maximum
is considered to be absolute magnitude, although the suction stress
takes a negative value. This maximum suction stress behavior has Fig. 11. SSCCs for sand and silt with respect to matric suction.
been described previously for sand-sized granular media (Kim,
2001). A practical illustration of this mechanical behavior is the con- Fig. 12 shows the SSCCs for sand and silt in terms of the effective
struction of sandcastles. If the sand is too dry or too wet, it cannot degree of saturation. For sand, although the suction stress increased
be used to build a structurally sound sandcastle. For silt, as matric as the effective degree of saturation increased from a fully dry condi-
suction increased, suction stress increased gradually and then tion to an almost saturated condition, it rapidly approached zero near
approached a constant value. The value of maximum suction stress saturation. Conversely, for silt, the maximum value of suction stress
was approximately 19.1 kPa. exists in the residual zone, and then the suction stress decreased
96 Y.-S. Song et al. / Engineering Geology 124 (2012) 90–97
Fig. 12. SSCCs for sand and silt with respect to the effective degree of saturation.
gradually as the effective degree of saturation increased and rapidly
approached zero near saturation.
Fig. 13 presents the relationship between SSCCs and matric suc-
tion. If the matric suction is lower than the AEV of soil, suction stress
exhibits a linear relationship with matric suction, and its magnitude is
equal to the magnitude of matric suction, that is, σ s = − (ua − uw).
Once the matric suction exceeds the soil's AEV, suction stress exhibits
a nonlinear relationship with matric suction, depending on the type
(a) Sand
(b) Silt
Fig. 13. Comparison between the SSCCs and suction stress.
of soil. Therefore, the effective stress of unsaturated soil has a non-
linear relationship with respect to soil water content and soil suction.
5.4. Relationship between the SWCC and the SSCC
Fig. 14 shows the relationship between the SWCCs and the SSCCs
for sand and silt. As the effective degree of saturation decreased
from 1 to 0, matric suction ranged from 0 to approximately 6 kPa
for sand and from 0 to approximately 2000 kPa for silt. Meanwhile,
suction stress ranged from 0 to approximately 2 kPa for sand and
from 0 to approximately 19.1 kPa for silt. Both SWCCs and SSCCs
exhibited nonlinear relationships with soil water content and/or soil
suction, depending on the soil type.
6. Conclusions
In this study, soil–water characteristic tests for sand and silt were
performed using the axis translation technique to estimate SWCCs.
Matric suction and volumetric water content were measured for
sand and silt using an automated SWCC apparatus. From the test re-
sults, van Genuchten's SWCC fitting parameters were estimated. The
values for the fitting parameters (i.e., α, n and m) were 0.393, 8.553,
and 0.883 for sand and 0.052, 2.003, and 0.501 for silt, respectively.
These parameters were also used to estimate SSCCs.
(a) Sand
(b) Silt
Fig. 14. Comparison between the SWCCs and the SSCCs for sand and silt.
 Y.-S. Song et al. / Engineering Geology 124 (2012) 90–97
For sand, suction stress had an up-and-down characteristic in a
relatively narrow range of matric suction. Suction stress reached a
maximum value of 1.8 kPa at the matric suction of 2.0 kPa. However,
for silt, suction stress increased gradually as the matric suction in-
creased and approached a constant value at high suction. The maxi-
mum value of suction stress was approximately 19.1 kPa.
In addition, the magnitude of suction stress for both sand and silt
had a linear relationship of the same magnitude as matric suction
until the matric suction equaled the AEV. However, once the matric
suction exceeded the AEV of soil, the SSCC exhibited a similar non-
linear relationship as the SWCC with soil suction or soil water con-
tent, depending on the type of soil. In particular, the sand and silt
used in this study clearly exhibited different characteristics.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the Basic Research Project of the
Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources (KIGAM) funded
by the Ministry of Knowledge Economy of Korea.
References
Bishop, A.W., 1959. The principle of effective stress. Teknisk Ukeblad I Samarbeide Med
Teknikk 106 (39), 859–863.
Bishop, A.W., Blight, G.E., 1963. Some aspects of effective stress in saturated and partly
saturated soils. Geotechnique 13 (3), 177–197.
Brooks, R.H., Corey, A.T., 1964. Hydraulic properties of porous media. Hydrology Papers, 3.
Civil Engineering Dept., Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.
Chae, J.G., Kim, B.S., Park, S.W., Kato, S., 2010. Effect of suction on unconfined compressive
strength in partly saturated soils. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 14 (3), 281–290.
Coleman, J.D., 1962. Correspondence: stress strain relations for partly saturated soil.
Geotechnique 12 (4), 348–350.
Escario, V., Juca, J., Coppe, M.S., 1989. Strength and deformation of partly saturated
soils. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering: Rio de Janeiro Vol. 3, 44–46.
Fredlund, D.G., Morgenstern, N.R., 1977. Stress variables for unsaturated soils. Journal
of the Geotechnical Engineering Division 103, 447–466.
97
Fredlund, D.G., Morgenstern, N.R., Widger, D.A., 1978. The shear strength of unsaturat-
ed soils. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 15 (3), 313–321.
Fredlund, D.G., Rahardjo, H., 1993. Soil Mechanics for Unsaturated Soils. John Wiley &
Sons Inc., New York.
Fredlund, D.G., Xing, A., 1994. Equations for the soil–water characteristic curve.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 31 (3), 521–532.
Gan, J.K.M., Fredlund, D.G., Rahardjo, H., 1988. Determination of the shear strength pa-
rameters of an unsaturated soil using the direct shear test. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal 25 (3), 500–510.
Hilf, J.W., 1956. An investigation of pore water pressure in compacted cohesive soils.
Technical Memorandum No, 654. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Recla-
mation, Design and Construction Division, Denver, CO.
Jennings, J.E.B., Burland, J.B., 1962. Limitation to the use of effective stresses in partly
saturated soils. Geotechnique 12 (2), 125–144.
Khalili, N., Khabbaz, M.H., 1998. A unique relationship for χ for the determination of the
shear strength of unsaturated soils. Geotechnique 48 (5), 681–687.
Kim, B.S., Shibuya, S., Park, S.W., Kato, S., 2010. Application of suction stress for estimat-
ing unsaturated shear strength of soils using direct shear testing under low confin-
ing pressure. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 47 (9), 955–970.
Kim, S.K., Ryu, C.H., Song, J.K., 1996. Measurements of soil–water characteristics for dif-
ferent unsaturated soils. Journal of Korean Geotechnical Society 12 (6), 139–151.
Kim, T.H. 2001. Moisture-induced tensile strength and cohesion in sand, Ph.D. thesis,
Univ. of Colorado at Boulder, CO.
Lu, N., Likos, W.J., 2004. Unsaturated Soil Mechanics. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York.
Lu, N., Likos, W.J., 2006. Suction stress characteristic curve for unsaturated soil. Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 132 (2), 131–142.
Lu, N., Godt, J.W., Wu, D.T., 2010. A closed-form equation for effective stress in unsaturated
soil. Water Resources Research 46, W05515.
Lu, N., Kim, T.-H., Sture, S., Likos, W.J., 2009. Tensile strength of unsaturated sand.
Journal of Engineering Mechanics 135 (12), 1410–1419.
Lu, N., Wu, B., Tan, C.P., 2007. Tensile strength characteristics of unsaturated soils.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 133 (2), 144–154.
Mualem, Y., 1976. A new model for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated
porous media. Water Resources Research 12 (3), 513–522.
Schubert, H., 1975. Tensile strength of agglomerates. Powder Technology 11, 107–119.
Terzaghi, K., 1943. Theoretical Soil Mechanics. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York.
van Genuchten, M.T., 1980. A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic con-
ductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal 44, 892–898.
Vanapalli, S.K., Fredlund, D.G., Pufahl, M.D., Clifton, A.W., 1996. Model for prediction of
shear strength with respect to soil suction. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 33 (3),
379–392.
Wayllace, A., Lu, N., in press. A transient water release and lmbibitions method for
rapidly measuring wetting and drying soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity
functions. Geotechnical Testing Journal.