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

net/publication/286450084

Shear strength of unsaturated soils and its applications in

geotechnical engineering practice

Conference Paper · November 2009

CITATIONS READS

25 1,396

1 author:

Sai K. Vanapalli
University of Ottawa
241 PUBLICATIONS   2,781 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Desiccation Cracking in Cohesive Soils View project

Loess Microstructure and mechanical behaviour View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sai K. Vanapalli on 10 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Unsaturated Soils – Buzzi, Fityus & Sheng (eds)
© 2010 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-80480-6

Shear strength of unsaturated soils and its applications in geotechnical

engineering practice

S.K. Vanapalli
Civil Engineering Department, University of Ottawa, Canada

ABSTRACT: Several investigators over the last 50 years have contributed to our present understanding of the
shear strength of unsaturated soils (SSUS). Many advances have been made during this period with respect to the
measurement, interpretation and prediction/estimation of the SSUS. The focus during the last fifteen years has
been directed more towards the development of simple techniques for predicting or estimating the SSUS because
experimental procedures are time consuming, need elaborate equipment, and require highly trained personnel.
Shear strength is a key engineering property required in the design of several geotechnical structures such as
the shallow and deep foundations, earth structures including excavations and the stability of slopes. However,
limited studies are reported in the literature with respect to the applications of the SSUS in practice. This paper
provides a brief background of the SSUS and details of how our present understanding can be extended for
several geotechnical applications.

1 INTRODUCTION interpreting the engineering behavior of unsaturated

The effective stress equation proposed by Terzaghi
(1936) laid a foundation towards the establishment of
geotechnical engineering as one of the independent
fields of civil engineering. The difference between
total stress, σ and pore-water pressure, uw (i.e. σ  =
σ − uw ) is defined as the effective stress. The effec-
tive stress equation from a continuum mechanics stand
point of view is an independent stress state variable
(SSV ) that can be used as a tool for rational explana-
tion of the engineering behavior of saturated soils. The
Mohr-Coulomb theory along with the effective stress
equation formed a framework in the interpretation of
the shear strength of saturated soils (SSSS). The bear-
ing capacity of shallow and deep foundations, the pres-
sures against retaining walls, depth of excavations and
the stability of slopes are estimated or determined rou-
tinely in geotechnical engineering practice using the
effective or total shear strength parameters based on
the assumption that the soils are in a state of saturated
condition.
Many soils in nature are more commonly found in
a state of unsaturated condition; particularly in arid
and semi-arid regions. Also, expansive soils, col-
lapsible soils, residual soils and compacted soils that
are conventionally categorized as problematic soils
are typically unsaturated soils. Unlike saturated soils
which need only one independent SSV (i.e. σ − uw ) to
interpret the mechanical behavior of saturated soils,
two independent SSVs; namely, net normal stress,
(σ − ua ) and matric suction (ua − uw ) are required for
soils (Fredlund & Rahardjo 1993).
Several investigators were aware of the influence of
suction on the shear strength of soils prior to the devel-
opment of the mechanics of saturated soils (Haines
1925, Fisher 1926). However, the influence of suc-
tion is generally ignored in conventional geotechnical
engineering practice extending the conservative
assumption that the soils are saturated. In this paper,
background information related to our present under-
standing of the shear strength of unsaturated soils
(SSUS) that evolved over the last 50 years is suc-
cinctly summarized. In addition, details of how our
present understanding of the SSUS can be extended
for several routine geotechnical applications are
detailed.
2 BACKGROUND
Bishop (1959) proposed an effective stress equation
for unsaturated soils and suggested that it can be used
for interpreting the SSUS extending the same philos-
ophy as Terzaghi (1943) used for the SSSS.
τ = c + [(σn − ua ) + χ (ua − uw )] tan φ  (1)
where, τ is shear strength of unsaturated soil, c is
effective cohesion, φ  is effective internal frictional
angle, (σn − ua ) is net normal stress, (ua − uw ) is
matric suction; and χ is parameter dependent on the
degree of saturation (between 0 and 1).

579
 Bishop et al. (1960) and Bishop & Donald (1961)
determined the SSUS and interpreted them using
Eq. (1). Jennings & Burland (1962) suggested that
Eq. (1) may pose some limitations to simultaneously
interpret the mechanical behavior of unsaturated soils
(i.e. for explaining both the shear strength and volume
change behavior). Bishop & Blight (1963) reevaluated
the proposed effective stress equation (i.e. Eq. (1)) and
noted that, ‘‘a variation in matric suction, (ua − uw )
did not result in the same change in effective stress as
did a change in net normal stress, (σ − ua )’’. Several
investigators realized that the influence of (σ −ua ) and
(ua − uw ) should be considered as independent SSV s
for interpreting the engineering behavior of unsat-
urated soils (Bishop & Blight 1963, Burland 1964,
1965, Matyas & Radhakrishna 1968).
Fredlund & Morgenstern (1977) research work laid
a foundation towards using two independent SSVs,
(σ − ua ) and (ua − uw ) for explaining the unsaturated
soils behavior. Fredlund et al. (1978) extended this
approach and proposed an equation for interpreting
the experimental results of the SSUS:
τ = c + (σn − ua ) tan φ  + (ua − uw ) tan φ b (2)
The shear strength contribution due to matric suc-
tion, φ b was initially assumed to be linear based on the
analysis of experimental results published in the liter-
ature prior to 1978, which were mostly conducted on
clayey type of soils over a limited range of suction
(i.e. typically lower than 200 kPa). As many fine-
grained soils do not significantly desaturate nonlin-
early in this suction range, a reasonable approximation
was made and the variation of shear strength with
respect to matric suction was represented by an aver-
age constant slope, tan φ b . This concept was similar
to using a constant slope, tan φ  for interpreting the
SSSS. The tan φ b value was found to be lower than
tan φ  for many tested unsaturated soils. Comprehen-
sive experimental studies by several investigators con-
ducted over a large suction range using more elaborate
testing equipments have shown that the shear strength
variation with respect to suction beyond a certain value
was nonlinear (Escario & Sáez 1987, Gan & Fredlund
1988). The shear strength increases at the same rate
as for an increase in total stress up to a certain suc-
tion value (i.e. φ b = φ  ), which from later studies
was recognized to be equal to the air-entry value of
the soil (Fredlund & Rahardjo 1993). Soils begin to
desaturate when the suction values are greater than
the air-entry value and the shear strength contribution
due to suction becomes less than φ  (i.e. φ b < φ  ).
These observations led to the development of several
mathematical and semi-empirical models to predict the
nonlinear variation of shear strength with respect to
suction. The relationship of the variation of water con-
tent with respect to suction was used as a tool in these
studies. The relationship between the soil suction and
580
the water content (either gravimetric water content or
volumetric water content or degree of saturation) is
commonly referred as the Soil-Water Characteristic
Curve (SWCC). The SWCC is also referred in the lit-
erature as the Soil-Water Retention Curve (SWRC) or
Soil Moisture Curve (SMC). Detailed discussions of
how SWCC can be used as a tool in the prediction
of the SSUS are discussed in several publications in
greater detail (Fredlund et al. 1996, Vanapalli et al.
1996a, Barbour 1998).
Both Eq. (1) and (2) are widely used in the inter-
pretation of the experimental results of the SSUS.
There are several other approaches available in the
literature for interpreting, predicting or estimating the
SSUS including the critical state soil mechanics (see
Table 1). Several different philosophies were used by
these investigators towards the common goal of bet-
ter understanding the SSUS over the last 50 years.
The contributions of these investigators were useful to
better our present understanding of the SSUS.
3 DETERMINATION OF THE SHEAR
STRENGTH OF UNSATURATED SOILS
Donald (1957) was probably the earliest investiga-
tor who modified the conventional direct shear testing
apparatus and determined both the SWCC (Figure 1(a))
and the shear strength (Figure 1(b)) behavior of four
different sands. This pioneering research work was
undertaken at the University of Melbourne, Mel-
bourne, Australia under the supervision of Aitchison.
The nonlinear variation of shear strength with respect
to matric suction over a range of 0 to 30 kPa and the
relationship between the SWCC and the shear strength
was presented.
No attempt was however made to provide a relation-
ship or propose a semi-empirical technique to predict
the variation of the shear strength with respect to
matric suction using the SWCC as a tool. More details
of Donald & Aitchison’s work on the SSUS and com-
parisons of the measured and predicted shear strength
behavior using various semi-empirical equations are
summarized in another paper of this conference
(Vanapalli & Lacasse 2009).
Other early experimental studies reported in the
literature were undertaken at the Imperial College,
London using conventional triaxial equipment with a
porous ceramic disk sealed to the base of the triaxial
cell pedestal. The pore-water pressures were measured
by balancing the pressure in the measuring system in
the range of 0 to 90 kPa using a null indicator (Bishop
1961).
Bishop & Donald (1961) adopted a different tech-
nique such that the SSUS can be tested over a suction
range (i.e. 0 to 200 kPa) by using a bubble pump which
facilitates the removal of diffused air from the ceramic
disk.
Table 1. Various approaches for interpreting, predicting or estimating the shear strength of unsaturated soils
(summarized from Vanapalli 1994, Vanapalli & Fredlund 2000, Garven & Vanapalli 2006, Garven 2009).

Principle/Theory/
Author Equation Approach Eqn.

Bishop (1959) τ = c + [(σ − ua ) + χ (ua − uw )] tan φ  Stress Partitioning (1)

χ: variable which is related to the degree of saturation approach for
interpreting the
SSUS
Fredlund et al. τ = c + (σ − ua ) tan φ  + (ua − uw ) tan φ b Independent (2)
(1978) SSVs approach
for interpreting
the SSUS
Graecen (1960) τ = [σn + (ua − uw )] tan φ  (1 − na ) Empirical (13)
na : percentage of air voids approach
σ n : applied stress
Sridharan τ = f [σ − uw − R − A] Soil mineralogy (14)
(1968) R: net repulsive pressure
A:
 net attractive
 pressure
(σ1 − σ3 )f
Satija (1978) = a + (σ3 − ua )f tan α + (ua − uw )f tan β Statistical analysis (15)
2 approach
a: intercept
α: arctangent of coefficient associated with (σ 3 − ua )f
β: arctangent of coefficient associated with (ua − uw )f
(ua − uw )f : matric suction at failure
Lamborn τ = c + (σ − ua ) tan φ  + (ua − uw ) θw tan φ  Prediction using (16)
(1986) θ w : volumetric water content the SWCC
Lytton (1995)
Karube (1988) q = M  [p + f (ua − uw )] Elasto-plastic (17)
p, q: net total mean stress and deviator stress model (CSM)
Peterson (1988) τ = c + (σ − ua ) tan φ  + Cψ Extension of (18)
Cψ : apparent cohesion due to suction Hvorslev’s
Theory
Abramento & τ = c + (σ − ua ) tan φ  + α (ua − uw )β Empirical (19)
Carvalho α, β: fitting parameters approach
(1989) using fitting
parameters
 2.5
τ o + τb
Escario & Juca tan φ  ((ua − uw )m − (ua − uw ))2.5 Empirical (20)
(1989) (ua − uw )m approach
+ (τ + τb )2.5 = (τm + τb )2.5 (2.5◦
(ua − uw ): the suction at maximum shear strength ellipse)
τ 0 : shear strength when suction = 0 kPa
τ m : is the maximum shear strength
τb : the difference between maximum shear, τm , and the
total height of the ellipse, b, that has been fit to
experimental points
Toll (1990) q = Ma (p − ua ) + Mw (ua − uw ) Critical state soil (21)
Ma : total stress ratio mechanics
Mw : suction ratio
Lu (1992) τ = c + (σ − ua ) tan φ  + Ps tan φ  Assumption: (22)
Ps : swelling pressure of the soil (= χ (ua − uw )) Swelling pres-
sure is a function
of suction

(Continued)

581
Table 1. (Continued)

Principle/Theory/
Author Equation Approach Eqn.

Wheeler & q = Mp + μ(ua − uw ) Elasto-plastic (23)

Sivakumar (1995) M , μ(ua − uw ): slope and intercept model (CSM)
Röhm & Vilar (1995) q = c + (p − ua ) tan α  Empirical (24)
c : relative cohesion dependent upon the change in suc- approach
tion and net normal stress (determined by regression
to experimental data)
tan α  : angle of shearing resistance determined from
regression to experimental data
Shen (1996) τ = c + (σ − ua ) tan φ  + (ua − uw ) Empirical (25)
1 approach
× tan φ 
1 + d (ua − uw ) using
d: fitting parameter fitting
  parameter
θw − θr
Vanapalli et al. (1996): τ = c +(σ − ua ) tan φ  +(ua − uw ) (tan φ  ) Prediction using (26)
General Equation θs − θr the SWCC
θw : volumetric water content
θr : volumetric water content at residual suction
θ s : volumetric water content at saturation
Vanapalli et al. (1996) τ = c + (σ − ua ) tan φ  + (ua − uw ) (κ ) (tan φ  ) Prediction using (27)
Fredlund et al. (1996): : normalized volumetric water content defined by the SWCC and
κ equation (= θ w /θ s ), which is also equal to degree of fitting param-
saturation eter κ
Öberg & Sallfors τ = c + (σ − ua ) + S (ua − uw ) tan φ  Prediction using (28)
(1997) S: degree of saturation the SWCC
Bao et al. (1998) τ = c  + (σ − ua ) tan φ  + (ua − uw )  Prediction using (29)
log (ua − uw )r − log (ua − uw ) the SWCC
× (tan φ  )
log (ua − uw )r − log (ua − uw )b
(ua − uw )r : residual suction value
(ua − uw )b : air entry value
Khalili & Khabbaz τ = c + (σ − 
 ua ) tan φ +η(ua − uw ) Prediction using (30)
(1998) (u a − uw ) air-entry value
× tan φ  from the
(ua − uw )b
η: fitting parameter SWCC and
fitting param-
eter η
1
Yu et al. (1998) τ = c + (σ − ua ) tan φ  + (ua − uw ) Empirical (31)
1 (ua − uw )
+ approach
tan α β using fitting
α: rate of suction change per unit of shear strength parameters
contributed by the suction and the SWCC
β: shear strength at the suction value of 1,000,000 kPa.
Rassam & τ = α + σ tan φ  + (ua − uw ) tan φ  − φ  [(ua − uw ) Empirical (32)
Williams (1999) − (ua − uw )b ]β approach
α, β: fitting parameters using the
SWCC and
fitting param-
eters

Xu & Sun (2002) τ = c + (σ − ua ) tan φ  + m(1−ζ ) (ua − uw )ζ tan φ  , Fractal (33)

ζ = 2D/3 − 1 approach
D and m: fractal dimensions

582
Table 1. (Continued)

Principle/Theory/
Author Equation Approach Eqn.
a1 (ua − uw )
Miao et al. (2002) τ = c + (σ − ua ) tan φ  + Empirical approach (34)
1 − a1
1+ (ua − uw ) using fitting
pa parameters
Pa : atmospheric pressure (101.3 kPa)
a1 : fitting parameter
Rassam & Cook τ = c + (σ − ua ) tan φ  + (ua − uw) tan φ  Empirical approach (35)
(2002) (ua − uw )r tan φ  − τSr using the SWCC
−
[(ua − uw )r − (ua − uw )b ]β and fitting param-
tan φ  ((ua −uw )r −(ua −uw )b ) eters
× [(ua − uw ) − (ua − uw )b ] tan φ (ua −uw )r −τSr
Aubney & Lytton τ = c + (σ − ua ) tan φ  + f1 (ua − uw ) θ tan φ  Empirical approach (36)
(2003) f1 : factor ranging from 1 to 1/θ
(ua − uw )
Lee et al. (2003) τ = c + (σ − ua ) tan φ  + Empirical approach (37)
a3 + b3 (ua − uw ) using fitting
1 1
a3 = , b3 = parameters
tan φ  Cmax
Cmax : ultimate increment of apparent cohesion
(ua − uw )
Schick (2004) τ = c + (σ − ua ) tan φ  + Empirical approach (38)
a2 + b2 (ua − uw ) (hyperbolic
a2 = tan(φ  − 90), b2 = tan β2 = 1/τus function)
Tekinsoy et al. τ = c + (σ − ua ) tan φ  +tan φ  [(ua − uw )b + pa ] Mathematical (39)
(2004) (ua − uw ) + pa function
× ln
pa
τ = c + (σ − ua ) tan φ  + (ua − uw )b
1−ζ
Xu (2004) Fractal approach (40)
ζ 
× (ua − uw ) tan φ ,  ζ = Ds − 2 
  (ua − uw )
Jiang et al. (2004) τ = c + (σ − ua ) tan φ + tan φ  DEM* and the (41)
a + d (ua − uw ) SWCC
a, b: parameters (dimensionless)  
S − Sr
Jiang et al. (2004) τ = c + (σ − ua ) tan φ  + 1 − σeqm (tan φ  ) DEM* and the (42)
100 − Sr SWCC
σeqm : generalized equilibrium stress
Lee et al. (2005) τ = c + (σa − ua ) tan φ  + (ua − uw )b tan φ  DEM * and the (43)
+ [(ua − uw ) − (ua − uw )b ] θ κ [1 + λ (σn − ua )] tan φ  SWCC
κ, λ: fitting parameters
Matsushi & τ = σ  tan φ  + Ce−μθw Exponential (44)
Matsukura e: void ratio function
(2006) C, μ: hypothetical maximum value of cohesion at θ = 0
and coefficient related to susceptibility of strength
reduction
Vilar (2006) τ = c + (σ − ua ) tan φ  Hyperbolic model (45)
(ua − uw ) with one measured
+  
1 1 1 experimental data
+ − result
tan φ  τm − c (ua − uw )m tan φ 
τ m , (ua − uw )m : measured maximum cohesion and suction
Shen et al. (2008) τ = c + (σ − ua ) tan φ  + s tan φ  : s ≤ ssa Elasto-plastic (46)
τ = c + (σ  − ua ) tan φ

 model (CSM)
s+1
+ tan φ  ssa + (ssa + 1) ln : s ≥ ssa
ssa + 1
ssa : saturation suction

* DEM = Distinct Element Method (introduced by Cundall & Strack 1979).

583

Figure 1. (a) SWCCs and (b) variation of shear strength
with respect to suction for four sands (modified after Donald
1957).
The axis translation technique introduced by Hilf
(1956) was used by later investigators to modify the
conventional testing equipment to measure the SSUS.
This technique was useful to reduce the cavitation
problems significantly. More details of the axis trans-
lation technique in unsaturated soils testing are avail-
able in Vanapalli et al. (2008).
3.1 Modified triaxial and direct shear tests
Conventional triaxial and direct shear testing equip-
ments were modified to accomodate axis translation
technique such that the effective SSUS can be deter-
mined over a large suction range (Ho & Fredlund 1982,
Escario & Sáez 1986, Gan & Fredlund 1988). A long
period of time is required to achieve uniform matric
suction condition in the test specimen prior to the
determination of the shear strength. Also, significantly
long period of time is required for shearing the test
specimen. The pore-air diffusion occurs through water
due to long period of testing. A diffused air-volume
indicator (DAVI ) is commonly used in conjunction
584
with the measuring system to flush out diffused air
from below the ceramic disk (i.e. high air-entry disk)
(Bocking & Fredlund 1980). Such a procedure enables
a more reliable measurement of volume change of the
specimen. More design details and experimental pro-
cedures for determining the shear strength using the
modified triaxial and direct shear equipments is avail-
able in Fredlund & Rahardjo (1993) and Fredlund &
Vanapalli (2002).
The double wall triaxial cell has also been used
by several investigators as it facilitates in the reli-
able measurement of the volume change behavior of
unsaturated soils. The first double wall cell triax-
ial equipment was developed by Bishop & Donald
(1961). Several researchers in later and recent years
used more sophisticated designs of the double wall
triaxial equipment (Wheeler 1988, Ng et al. 2002,
Aversa & Nicotera 2002, Nishimura et al. 2007, Oh &
Vanapalli 2008a).
3.2 Modified biaxial test apparatus
The shear strength parameters can be determined
more reliably using specialized equipment such as the
modified biaxial triaxial tests (Schanz & Alabdullah
2007) to interpret the bearing capacity of continu-
ous footings, stability analysis of long retaining walls
and embankments which fail in plain strain loading
conditions.
3.3 Modified ring shear test apparatus
The main advantage of the modified ring shear testing
device over other devices (i.e. modified direct, triax-
ial, biaxial shear test) lies in determining the shear
strength behavior over an unlimited displacement of
the specimen. This technique allows determining both
the peak and residual shear strength behavior of unsat-
urated soils (Vanapalli et al. 2005). This is possible
because the shearing deformations are circumferential
such that geometry of the shear surface is not affected
by the shearing process. In addition, multistage test-
ing can be conducted on the same specimen without
any restriction of shear displacements. The design can
also allow for the measurement and/or control of vol-
ume, water content and matric suction of specimens. In
other words, SWCC information can be derived contin-
uously even during the shearing stage of the specimen
(Vanapalli et al. 2005, Infante Sedano 2006).
3.4 Hydro-mechanical behaviour of unsaturated
soils
More recently, Gallipoli et al. (2003), Wheeler et al.
(2003), Tarantino & Tombalato (2005), Infante Sedano
et al. (2007) and Laloui et al. (2008) have proposed
coupling of hydro-mechanical behaviour of unsatu-
rated soils (HMUS). Different equipment which
include modified direct, triaxial or ring shear tests
can be used for determining the HMUS. Several new
equipments which facilitate innovative modifications
are now available to address challenges associated
with the measurements of SSUS, HMUS and unsatu-
rated soil testing (Rampino et al. 1999, Matsuok et al.
2002, Hoyos et al. 2006).
4 DIFFERENT TYPES OF SHEAR STRENGTH
TESTS FOR UNSATURATED SOILS
Bishop et al. (1960) studies show how different types
of tests can be conducted to determine the SSUS. More
comprehensive details of different tests and testing
procedures are summarized in Fredlund & Rahardjo
(1993). These tests can be divided into two main cate-
gories by taking account of both loading and drainage
conditions (i.e. drained and undrained loading condi-
tions).
4.1 SSUS under drained loading conditions
(Effective stress approach)
shows the initial stress state for IU test. If the specimen
is sheared immediately after the application of the con-
fining pressure (i.e. IU test), shear strength in terms of
total stress conditions will be equal to τ IU . However,
if air is allowed to drain after applying confining pres-
sure without any change in water content (i.e. Ie U test),
the volume of the specimen will decrease. The vol-
ume change in the specimen is mainly due to decrease
in the air voids. Such a loading condition also leads
to an increase in the degree of saturation accompa-
nied with a decrease of suction value in the specimen.
Point B indicates the initial stress state of the Ie U
test, which has lower initial suction value than IU
test by ψ at the same confining pressure (Figure 2).
Hence, if only the initial suction values of the speci-
mens are taken into account, the shear strength from IU
tests (τ IU ) will be higher than that obtained from Ie U
tests (τ IeU ). Figure 3 shows the variation of undrained
shear strength with confining pressure for IU, Ie U
tests for unsaturated soil and CU test for saturated soil
(i.e. CU _sat).

,
on
The shear strength parameters determined from con- IU : shear strength of an unsaturated

cti
specimen from IU test
solidated drained (CD) tests are used in the assessment b
u
Su
IeU : shear strength of an unsaturated
of the long term stability of geotechnical structures. specimen from IeU test
cs : cohesion including the effect
Many investigators focused on determining the SSUS of suction
in the suction range of 0 to 500 kPa as this range is
Shear Stress,

IU <
of significant interest to the practicing geotechnical IU

IU =
IeU

IeU

engineers. Long period of time and elaborate test- ' A IU > IeU
cs
ing facilities are required for determining the shear
B
strength parameters from CD tests. Due to this rea-
( 3)f
son, most investigators focused on the development of
empirical or semi-empirical techniques to estimate or c'
predict the effective SSUS. Normal stress,

Figure 2. Possible Mohr circles for IU and Ie U tests (from

4.2 SSUS under undrained loading conditions Oh et al. 2008).
(Total stress approach)
Limited number of studies were undertaken to inter-
350
pret the SSUS extending the SSVs approach in terms w = 16.4%
Oh et al. 2008
(Kaolin)
of total stresses (i.e. undrained loading conditions) 300
IU
(Mitachi & Kudo 1989, Vanapalli et al. 1999a, IeU
250
Colmenares & Ridley 2002, Oh et al. 2008). Two CU_sat

different types of tests can be carried out to obtain 200

the undrained SSUS; that is IU (i.e. Isotropic confine-
150
ment under undrained condition, undrained shear),
and Ie U (Isotropic confinement under drained con- 100
dition, allowed to come to Equilibrium, Undrained
50
shear) test.
Oh et al. (2008) conducted IU and Ie U tests on stat- 0
ically compacted Kaolin. The results showed that the 0 100 200 300 400 500

shear strength obtained for relatively dry soil speci-
mens where drainage of air is not permitted prior to
undrained shear (i.e. IU test) is significantly lower
than Ie U . This phenomenon can be explained using the
Mohr circles for both tests shown in Figure 2. Point A
Confining pressure (kPa)
Figure 3. Variation of shear strength with confining pres-
sure for unsaturated specimens (modified after Oh et al.
2008).

585
4.3 Constant water content tests
Constant water content (CW ) test can be used to sim-
ulate the case where the pore-air is under drained
condition while the pore-water is undrained condition
(Rahardjo et al. 2004, Vanapalli et al. 2005, Thu et al.
2006, Infante Sedano et al. 2007). The stability of
unsupported vertical trench in unsaturated soils can
be reliably estimated when the shear strength parame-
ters from CW tests are used rather than CD tests results
(Vanapalli et al. 2009). More details on this topic are
discussed in a later section of the paper.
4.4 Unconfined compression tests
Geotechnical engineers are aware that it is the matric
suction which holds the soil together in unconfined
compression tests (Fredlund & Rahardjo 1993). The
independent contribution of matric suction towards the
undrained shear strength is not consciously consid-
ered in conventional analyses. The matric suction in
an unsaturated fine-grained soil (UFG) is a function of
the in-situ pore-water pressure and the change in pore-
water pressure resulting from the stress relief during
sampling. Due to this reason, the measured undrained
shear strength must be interpreted taking into account
the influence of matric suction.
Vanapalli et al. (1999) proposed a method to
estimate φ b with respect to matric suction using uncon-
fined compression tests results for unsaturated fine-
grained soils assuming a planar shear strength envelope
(Figure 4).
tan φ b
σ
1
(cos φ  + sin φ  tan φ  ) −
= 2
(ua − uw )
n
tio
uw suc
Shear Stress,
(u atric
)
a -
M
b
c'
Net normal stress, ( n- ua)
Figure 4. Three-dimensional representation of unconfined
compression test expressed in terms of stress state variables.
The pore-air pressure can be assumed to be
atmospheric and the test results can be interpreted
assuming constant matric suction. Eq. (3) can be used
in practical applications to determine the contribution
of matric suction towards undrained shear strength,
φ b , knowing the unconfined compressive strength,
σ 1/2 and matric suction, (ua − uw ) of the soil along
with the effective shear strength parameters, c and φ  .
4.5 Other types of shear strength tests
Vanapalli et al. 2005 provide details of different types
of shear strength tests such as Constant load with con-
stant water content (CLW ) tests, Constant volume with
constant water content (CVW ) tests, Constant load
with constant suction (CLS) tests and Constant volume
with constant suction (CVS) tests that can be con-
ducted using modified ring shear tests. More details
and discussions on these types of tests along with the
test results are summarized in Infante Sedano et al.
(2007).
5 COMPARISON OF THE DIFFERENT TYPES
OF SHEAR STRENGTH TESTS
Geotechnical engineers are interested in understand-
ing the differences in the shear strength behavior under
different loading and drainage conditions. Figure 5
shows the SSUS obtained using CD tests (modified
direct shear equipment; Vanapalli et al. 1996a, b),
unconfined compression tests (Vanapalli et al. 2007)
and CU tests (modified triaxial shear equipment,
Oh & Vanapalli 2008a) for identical Indian Head till
σ1  specimens.
tan φ  − c The trends of results shown in Figure 5 may not
2
be along similar lines for other unsaturated soils as
(3) many parameters influence the SSUS. The influence
120
CD (Measured, Vanapalli et al. 1996)
UC (Measured, Vanapalli et al. 2007)
100 CU (Measured, Oh and Vanapalli 2008)
Shear strength (kPa)
80
60
40
20
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Suction,(u a- u w ) (kPa)
Figure 5. SSUS from consolidated drained (CD), uncon-
fined compression (UC), and Consolidated Undrained (CU )
tests.
586
of some of these parameters on the SSUS is discussed
in the next section.
6 FACTORS INFLUENCING THE SHEAR
STRENGTH OF UNSATURATED SOILS
Several factors such as the soil type, soil gradation,
stress state, soil structure, density, rate of strain, stress
state and soil mineralogy influence the shear strength
of unsaturated soils. Some of the key factors are dis-
cussed below:
6.1 Rate of strain
Research works of Donald (1961) and Bishop &
Henkel (1962) provide valuable information on influ-
ence of the strain rate on SSUS. This information can
be used to ensure equilibrium conditions with respect
to dissipation of pore pressure towards reliable deter-
mination of the SSUS. Fredlund & Rahardjo (1993)
provides a comprehensive summary of rate of strain
that should be used for determining the effective SSUS.
However, limited information is available in the liter-
ature with respect to strain rates for determining the
total stress parameters for unsaturated soils. Oh et al.
(2008) carried out Ie U tests on statically compacted
unsaturated Kaolin using seven different strain rates
(i.e. 1.52, 0.23, 0.51, 1.14, 0.076, 0.0030, and 0.00061
mm/min) under a confining pressure of 200 kPa. The
results showed two distinctive behaviors (Figure 6). At
large rate of strain higher than 0.23 mm/min, the shear
strength decreases with decreasing rate of strain. This
behavior is similar to that of saturated soils (Fakher
et al. 1999, Katti et al. 2003). However, for low rate
of strain, the shear strength increases with decreas-
ing rate of strain). Nishimura & Vanapalli (2005) also
showed similar trends in results for the specimens
tested at a high suction value (i.e. 39,000 kPa). The
specimens tested at a rate of strain of 0.23 mm/min
250
w = 16.4%,
w = 21.5%,
Shear strength (kPa)
200 w = 27.0%,
150
Oh et al. 2008
Kaolin
100
50
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1
Rate of strain, (mm/min)
Figure 6. Variation of shear strength with rate of strain
(0.00061 ≤ ε̇(mm/min) ≤ 1.52) (from Oh et al. 2008).
shows minimum shear strength. However, at relatively
higher water content (w = 27.0%), the rate of strain
effect is negligible.
6.2 Matric suction and net normal stress
Figure 7 shows the variation of shear strength with
respect to matric suction under different values of net
normal stress for Indian Head till (Vanapalli et al.
1996a). The air-entry value of the soil increases with
increasing net normal stress. This is attributed to the
fact that the desaturation of the specimen under higher
net normal stress starts at higher matric suction values
since the void ratio along with the coefficient of per-
meability of the specimen decreases with increasing
applied stress.
Figure 8 shows the variation of shear strength with
respect to matric suction for different net normal stress
values (Vanapalli et al. 1996b). The results of this
study show that the slopes of the net normal stress
and shear strength relationship (i.e. effective internal
friction angle, φ  ) are approximately the same irre-
spective of the matric suction values. In other words,
matric suction does not influence the effective internal
friction angle, φ  . These results support the procedures
followed for predicting the SSUS using the SWCC and
the effective SSSS parameters (i.e. c and φ  ).
6.3 Molding water content (i.e. structure)
The variation of shear strength for the specimens com-
pacted at different water contents (i.e. different struc-
tures) with respect to matric suction with a net normal
stress of 25 kPa is shown in Figure 9.
At any particular matric suction, the shear strength
of a specimen with respect to wet of optimum condi-
tions show higher shear strength compared to optimum
and dry of optimum specimens due to influence of
250
Initial water content = 16.3 %
Optimum condition
Dry density = 1.80Mg/m3
Net normal stress
Shear strength (kPa)
200
= 2915 kPa = 200 kPa
= 1417 kPav 32 kPa
= 505 kPa 50 kPa
150 100 kPa 75 kPa
25 kPa
100
50
Predicted
envelopes
0
0 100 200 300 400
1 10
Matric suction (kPa)
Figure 7. Variation of shear strength with matric suction
under different net normal stresses (modified after Vanapalli
et al. 1996a).
587
 250
Matric suction, (u a - uw)
which is of more practical interest to the conventional
Initial water content = 13%
Dry of optimum conditions geotechnical engineers.
50 kPa Dry density = 1.73 Mg/m3
200 100 kPa
Shear strength (kPa)

200 kPa
350 kPa
150 500 kPa
7 PREDICTION OF THE SHEAR STRENGTH
OF UNSATURATED SOILS
100
Several investigators proposed different techniques
50 using empirical, semi-empirical, or computational
procedures for the estimation or prediction of the SSUS
(see Table 1). Many of the models use SWCC as a tool
0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 for predicting the SSUS. The SWCC is convention-
ally measured using the pressure plate in low suction
Net normal stress, ( n - u a ) (kPa)
and vapor pressure technique in high suction range
(Fredlund & Rahardjo 1993, Vanapalli et al. 2004).
Figure 8. Variation of shear strength with net normal stress As the soil moves from a saturated state to drier con-
under different matric suction (modified after Vanapalli et al.
ditions; the distribution of soil, water, and air phases
1996b).
change as the stress state changes. The SWCC typi-
cally has three zones (i.e. boundary effect zone, transi-
150 tion zone and residual zone of unsaturation) as shown
Net norma l stres s = 25 kPa in Figure 10(a) (Vanapalli et al. 1999b). During the
Wet of optimum
125 process of desaturation, the wetted area of contact
Shear strength (kPa)

between the soil particles decreases. The suction as

100
75
50
25
0
0 100 200
Matric suction, (u a - uw) (kPa)
Figure 9. Variation of shear strength with matric suction
under the same net normal stress (i.e. 25 kPa) (from Vanapalli
1996b).
matric suction on more inter-aggregate contact area
points (Vanapalli et al. 1996a, b).
It is beyond the scope of this paper to address
how various other parameters such as density, volume
change behavior, dilatancy, mineralogy influence the
drained and undrained SSUS. Some of these aspects
are addressed in greater detail in Vanapalli et al.
1998, Oh et al. 2008, Zhan & Ng 2006, Houston
et al. 2008, Alabdullah & Schanz 2009). Also, the
shear strength behavior in high suction range (i.e.
greater than 1500 kPa) is not discussed in this paper.
More details of shear strength behavior in high suction
range are available in Cui & Delage 1996, Vanapalli
& Fredlund (2000), Vanapalli et al. 2000, Blatz &
Graham (2000), Blatz et al. (2002), Nishimura &
Vanapalli (2005) and Nishimura et al. 2008(a, b). The
focus of the studies presented in this paper is directed
more towards the shear strength behavior in the matric
suction range of 0 to 500 kPa, as it is the suction range
a stress state contributes to shear strength along the
Optimum
wetted area of contact of soil particles. In other words,
there is a relationship between the rate at which shear
Dry of optimum strength changes in unsaturated conditions and the
wetted area of water contact between the soil particles
or aggregates which can be derived from the SWCC.
As the suction of a soil increases due to desat-
uration conditions, the shear strength will increase
300 400 500 in a linear fashion up to the air-entry value of the
soil. This is the point where the pores of a saturated
soil begin to desaturate. In the linear regime, φ b is
the same as φ  . Once the soil starts to desaturate,
there is a nonlinear increase in the shear strength. The
shear strength contribution due to suction, φ b is less
than the angle of shearing resistance, φ  (Point A in
Figure 10(b)). The rate of increase in the shear strength
contribution starts decreasing with an increase in suc-
tion value (i.e. φ b reduces). In this non-linear regime,
φ b gradually decreases and the SWCC can be used as
a more effective tool to describe how φ b varies with
an increase in suction values. In the residual zone of
unsaturation, the shear strength may increase, decrease
or remain constant depending on the type of soil and
the amount of drainage that takes place from the soil
pores (Figure 10(b)).
7.1 Effective shear strength
Early studies reported in the literature show that the
effective shear strength of coarse-grained soils starts
to decrease beyond residual suction value (Donald
1957) (see Figure 1 and Figure 10(b)). Such a behav-
ior was also observed for fine-grained soils when they
were tested over a large suction range (Escario &

588
 100 '
Transi tion (ua - uw) b
(a)

Shear strength,
: air entry value
Degree of saturation, S (%)

Boundary
80
Residual
suction value
60
b
1
Residual zone b

40 of
b
2
unsaturation
3

Air-ent ry
20 value (ua - uw) b (ua- uw) 1 (ua- uw) 2 (ua- uw) 3

Suction (ua - uw)

0
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Figure 11. Variation of φ b with respect to suction.
Suct io n (kPa)

Linear Non linea r

Regime Regime Eq. (7) can be written by substituting the shear
(b) strength contribution due to suction at saturated con-
ditions (i.e. φ b = φ  when S = 1) which implies that
Shear strength

Plast ic Clays
A = φ.
A
Silts/Clays
b
< '
φb = S κ φ or tan φ b = S κ tan φ  (7)
)
b
= ' Cohes ionl ess
Soils (Sands )
This equation can also be applied over the entire
Strength at range of degree of saturation. The above concept can
Saturation
be extended to rewrite Eq. (2) as below (Vanapalli et al.
Matric suction, (ua - uw) (kPa) 1996a, Fredlund et al. 1996).

Figure 10. (a) SWCC showing different zones and (b) the τ = c + (σn − ua ) tan φ  + (ua − uw ) (S κ ) tan φ 
variation of shear strength of unsaturated soils in various
(8)
zones of unsaturation for different soils.

Juca 1987, Vanapalli & Fredlund 2000, Vanapalli Eq. (8) can be used for predicting the shear strength
et al. 2000). This characteristic behavior implies that behavior of unsaturated soils over the entire range of
the φ b value for all soils continuously change (i.e. suction (i.e. from fully saturated to dry condition).
decreases) beyond the air-entry value as the suction A differential equation form can be written to
value increases (i.e. φ1b → φ2b → φ3b ) (Figure 11). In explain the experimental behavior of unsaturated soils
as below.
other words, the φ b value is a function of the suction
value and can be written as:
dunsat
tan φ b =
1 d(ua − uw )
φb ∝ (4)   (9)
f (ua − uw ) d(S κ )
= (S κ ) + (ua − uw ) tan φ 
d(ua − uw )
Eq. (4) can be rewritten as given below based on the
fact that the degree of saturation also decreases with
increasing suction value. Eq. (9) indicates that at suction values close to
the residual state conditions, the net contribution
φ b ∝ f (S κ ) (5) of matric suction causes a reduction in the shear
strength of sandy soils since S is small and the value of
[d(S κ )]/[d(ua − uw )] is negative. Vanapalli et al.
The constant, κ is a parameter that can be used to (1996a), Fredlund et al. (1996), Vanapalli et al. (1998b),
provide a good fit between the measured shear strength and Vanapalli et al. (2000a) provide evidence with
data and predicted values derived from the SWCC. their experimental studies and using other investiga-
Eq. (6) can be obtained from Eq. (5) by removing tors experimental results in the literature to support
the proportionality relationship using constant A. this behavior for fine-grained soils.
The fitting parameter κ value is required for pre-
φb = S κ A (6) dicting the SSUS using the effective shear strength

589
parameters (c and φ  ) (i.e. Eq. (8)). Vanapalli &
Fredlund (2000) provided a relationship between the
fitting parameter, κ and plasticity index, Ip using five
data sets of shear strength as below:
κ = −0.0008(Ip2 ) + 0.0801(Ip ) + 1
Garven & Vanapalli (2006) expanded the data of
compacted soils and proposed a new relationship
(Figure 12) as given below.
κ = −0.0016(Ip2 ) + 0.0975(Ip ) + 1
From Eq. (10) and (11), it can be seen that a fitting
parameter κ = 1 is required for predicting the shear
strength of unsaturated soils with plasticity index,
Ip = 0 (i.e. sandy soils).
Oliviera & Marinho (2003) have analyzed the shear
strength behavior of several expansive soils and sug-
gested a different equation as below:
κ = −0.0044(Ip2 ) + 0.22455(Ip ) + 0.9715
In spite of significant contributions from various
researchers, to date there is no model or equation that
is available in the literature that can reliably predict
or estimate the shear strength of all unsaturated soils
(Garven & Vanapalli 2006). Such a behavior can be
attributed to the use of SWCC which is measured using
conventional procedures without the application of any
stress. Also, the shear strength behavior is influenced
by various parameters such as volume change behav-
ior due to loading or stress history, type of soil, shear
strength response during shearing including dilation.
Infante Sedano (2006) studies support these obser-
vations which show that the SWCC measured using
conventional procedures and the SWCC relationship
derived from the water content and suction relation-
ships after shearing can be significantly different. This
7
A. Red Silty Clay
6
B. Madrid Gray Clay
C. Adams Clay
D. Indian Head Till (dry of opt.)
E. Indian Head Till (opt.)
Fitting parameter ,
5 K. Nanyang Clay
4
2
= -0.0016 ( Ip )+0.0975 ( Ip)+1
3 C
K I
F
A
D,E
2 and proposed the relationship between the fitting para-
H
1
G meter μ and plasticity index IP (Figure 13, Eq. (14)).
0 μ = 2.1088e0.0903(IP )
0 10 20
Plasticity index, Ip
Figure 12. Relationship between κ and IP (from Garven &
Vanapalli 2006).
is one of the key reasons for differences in the predicted
and measured shear strength values using different
models. Also, standard protocols were not used by
all investigators for measurement of the SUSS.
Vilar (2006) suggests using a simple hyperbolic
(10) model with one measured experimental data result to
estimate the SSUS more reliably (Eq. (45)). Similar
types of approaches were proposed by Vanapalli &
Catana (2005) and Catana et al. (2006) to reliably
estimate the SWCC of coarse and fine-grained soils
respectively using one measured data point. Such
(11) approaches cannot be considered as prediction meth-
ods as some test results are necessary. However, stud-
ies with limited tests or other simple tests would be of
value as they significantly improve our confidence in
the prediction or estimation of the SSUS.
7.2 Undrained shear strength
Oh & Vanapalli (2009) proposed a simple model to
predict the variation of shear strength of the unsat-
(12) urated fine-grained (i.e. UFG) soils with respect to
suction using the shear strength of unconfined com-
pression test results for saturated condition (i.e. cu(sat) )
and the SWCC as given below.
 
(ua − uw ) ν
cu(unnsat) = cu(sat) 1 + (S )/μ (13)
(Pa /100)
where, cu(unsat) , cu(sat) = shear strength under unsat-
urated and saturated conditions, respectively, and ν,
μ = fitting parameters.
Eq. (13) is proposed on the assumption that the
undrained shear strength, cu(unsat) is half the uncon-
fined compressive strength of unsaturated soils
(i.e. φ = 0 concept). The φ = 0 concept is fre-
quently used for total stress analyses in assessing
the stability of embankments, slopes and foundations
located on saturated fine-grained soils. The design of
pavements and the assessment of the ultimate bearing
capacity of clays are two other examples that often
F. Botkin Silt utilize the undrained shear strength. This assump-
G. Ste. Rosalie Clay tion may not be fully valid for the UFG soils due to
H. LD Dhanauri Clay
I. HD Dhanauri Clay different drainage conditions compared to saturated
soils. However, Oh & Vanapalli (2009) showed that
φ = 0 concept can be conservatively extended tow-
ards estimation of bearing capacity of the UFG soils.
B
Oh & Vanapalli (2009) analyzed the unconfined
compression tests results for six different UFG soils
Regression
(14)
30 40 50
A value for the parameter, ν equal to 2 can be used
in the prediction of the variation of unconfined com-
pressive strength with respect to suction using Eq. (13)
for the UFG soils.
590
 10000 load will be predominant (Poulos & Davis 1974,
90
3 (I P
)
Agarwal & Rana 1987). Figure 14 shows the variation
0. 0

88
e of measured matric suction with depth and typical data
1000 .10 88 from the test tank for an average matric suction value
= 2 0.99
Fitting parameter,

Kaolin
2 =
(Pineda and
Colmenares 2005) R of 6 kPa.
Red Cotton soil
Based on the model footing tests results, Vanapalli &
100 Botkin silty soil
(Vanapalli et al., 2000)
(Babu etal., 2005)
Mohamed (2007) proposed an equation (Eq. (15)) to
Clayey soil
predict the variation of the bearing capacity of unsatu-
10
Chen (1984) rated soils with respect to matric suction using the
saturated shear strength parameters (i.e. c and φ  )
Kaolin
(Ridley,1993)
=9
Indian Head till
(Vanapalli et al., 2007)
and the SWCC.
1
0 20 40 60 80
qu = [c + (ua − uw )b (tan φ  − S ψ tan φ  )
Plasticity index, IP
+ (ua − uw )AVR S ψ tan φ  ]Nc
Figure 13. Relationship between plasticity index, IP and     
Nq B
the fitting parameter, μ (from Oh & Vanapalli 2009). × 1.0 + + 0.5Bγ Nγ
Nc L
  
B
× 1.0 − 0.4 (15)
8 THE USE OF SHEAR STRENGTH L
PROPERTIES OF UNSATURATED SOILS
IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING where, ψ = fitting parameter, B, L = width and
PRACTICE APPLICATIONS length of a footing, Nc , Nq , Nγ = bearing capacity
factors.
The design of both shallow and deep foundations for Figure 15 provides comparisons between the mea-
drained and undrained loading conditions, the stabil- sured and predicted bearing capacity values for sand.
ity of slopes, and the critical depth of excavations are The results of the study by Vanapalli & Mohamed
based on the saturated shear strength parameters in (2007) are encouraging since there was good agree-
conventional geotechnical engineering practice. The ment between the measured and predicted bearing
remainder of the paper provides a succinct background capacity values.
of how our present understanding of the SSUS can be Lins et al. (2009) extended the approach proposed
extended for interpreting and predicting the bearing by Vanapalli & Mohamed (2007) (i.e. Eq. (15)) to
capacity of unsaturated soils in drained and undrained provide comparisons between measured and predicted
loading conditions. Also, some details are provided bearing capacity tests results using a model continuous
of how SSUS behavior can be extended in the design (i.e. strip footing) assuming plain strain loading con-
of pile foundations. Lastly, a simple method is dis- ditions. The saturated shear strength parameters were
cussed to estimate the critical height of vertical trench
in unsaturated soils is presented.
1

8.1 Bearing capacity of unsaturated soils 3 Tensiometer 4 Model footing

(drained loading conditions) P

3
Mohamed & Vanapalli (2006) carried out model foot-
ing tests to determine the variation of bearing capacity B
4

of an unsaturated sand under drained loading con- 7 kPa

ditions using two different footing sizes (i.e. 100 × Average
10 mm
Stress
1.5B
100 mm and 150 × 150 mm). A specially designed suction value
150 mm
bulb

bearing capacity tank (900 × 900 × 750 mm) which

4 kPa
1
2
has provisions to simulate fully saturated and unsat- 300mm 2 kPa
urated conditions was used for conducting the tests.
The matric suction value at the center of gravity of the 500mm 1 kPa
matric suction distribution diagram in the depth zone 600mm
GWT
from 0 to 1.5B (B = width or diameter of footing)
region was considered as the average value of matric
suction in the analysis of the results (Vanapalli & Figure 14. Variation of measured matric suction with depth
Mohamed 2007, Vanapalli et al. 2007). This is the for an average matric suction of 6 kPa in the stress bulb zone
zone of depth in which the stresses due to the applied (modified after Mohamed & Vanapalli 2006).

591
determined from biaxial tests (Schanz & Alabdullah 1400
Matric suction = 6 kPa
2007). The results of the study also suggest a reason-
1200 1.1 ' = 39.0
able comparison between the measured and predicted elastic

Applied stress (kPa)

range
bearing capacity values (Figure 16). 1000
Oh & Vanapalli (2008b) proposed a methodology
800
to estimate the bearing capacity and settlement in
unsaturated sandy soils by predicting the stress ver- 600
sus settlement behavior. In addition, finite element
analyses were also undertaken using the model footing 400
Measured
test results (Mohamed & Vanapalli 2006) to simulate 200 FEM '= 35.3
the stress versus settlement behavior in unsaturated Proposed (Oh & Vanapalli 2008)

sandy soils. The proposed method and finite ele- 0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
ment analysis were performed using elastic—perfectly
plastic model. The predicted bearing capacities and Settlement (mm)
settlements from the proposed method and finite ele-
ment analysis were compared with the model footing Figure 17. Comparison of stress versus settlement behavior
test results. There was good agreement between the obtained from the model footing tests, the FEA and idealized
behaviour (modified after Oh & Vanapalli 2008).
measured and the predicted results (Figure 17).
The simple method proposed by Oh & Vanapalli
(2008b) is promising and can be applied to unsaturated
soils in conventional geotechnical engineering prac-
1200 tice. The proposed method needs only conventional
(Vanapalli and Mohamed 2007)
soil properties such as the effective cohesion c , effec-
tive internal friction angle φ  , modulus of elasticity,
Bearing capacity, qu (kPa)

1000
Esat and the SWCC.
800

600 8.2 Bearing capacity of unsaturated soils

(undrained loading conditions)
400 Measured (100 x 100 mm)
Predicted (100 x 100 mm) The behavior of the UFG soils below footings can be
Measured (150 x 150 mm)
200 Predicted (150 x 150 mm)
interpreted using a punching shear failure mechanism
(Schnaid et al. 1995). For a punching shear failure,
0 the slip surfaces below footings do not extend to the
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
ground surface but instead restrict to vertical planes
Matric suction, (ua - uw) (kPa) as shown in Figure 18. This characteristic behavior
indicates that the bearing capacity of the UFG soils
Figure 15. Comparison between the measured and pre- is governed by the compressibility of the soil below
dicted bearing capacity values (modified after Vanapalli & a footing (i.e. soil A-A’-B-B’ in Figure 18; hereafter
Mohamed 2007). referred as soil block). When the soil block, A-A’-B-B’
is compressed due to the stress applied by a footing the
1000 soil around the soil block acts as confining pressure. In
Lins et al. 2009 Measured other words, the bearing capacity of the UFG soils can
Predicted be represented as a function of a compressive strength
Bearing capacity (kPa)

800 (Vanapalli and Mohamed 2007)

of the soil block.
By extending this concept, Vanapalli et al. (2007)
600 proposed a simple method to predict the variation of
the bearing capacity of the UFG soils using uncon-
400 fined compression tests results for unsaturated soil
specimens. The proposed equation takes the same
200
form as Skempton (1948) equation for interpreting
the bearing capacity of saturated soils under undrained
loading condition (Eq. (16)).
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
q   
B
u(unsat)
Matric suction, (ua - uw) (kPa) qult(unsat) = 1 + 0.2 NCW (16)
2 L
Figure 16. Comparison between the measured and pre-
dicted bearing capacity versus matric suction under plane where, qult(unsat) = ultimate bearing capacity for an
strain loading conditions (modified after Lins et al. 2009). unsaturated soil, qu(unsat) = unconfined compressive

592
 Load
A A'
Footing
B B'
Figure 18. Failure mechanism in unsaturated fine-grained
soils below a footing (Oh & Vanapalli 2009).
500
400
Predicted B.C (kPa)
100 kPa
300
55 kPa
200
100
matric suctio n
= 0 kPa
0 while the sleeve friction was almost negligible.
0 100 200 300
Measured B.C (kPa)
Figure 19. Comparison between the measured and the
predicted bearing capacity values (from Vanapalli et al.
2007).
strength for an unsaturated soil, NCW = bearing capac-
ity factor with respect to constant water content con-
dition.
To verify the validity of the proposed method,
Vanapalli et al. (2007) carried out model footing (B ×
L = 50 × 50 mm) tests on statically compacted UFG
soils for five different suction values (i.e. 0, 55, 100,
160, 205 kPa) using specially designed equipments.
The results showed that there is a good agreement
between the measured and the predicted (Eq. (16))
bearing capacity values as shown in Figure 19.
9 BEARING CAPACITY OF PILE
FOUNDATION IN UNSATURATED SOILS
Vanapalli & Eigenbrod (2009) carried out model pile
load tests in both saturated and unsaturated sands to
interpret the contribution of matric suction towards the
shaft resistance of piles in sands and silty soils. The
results show that the shaft resistance of the tested piles
is significantly higher under unsaturated conditions
compared to saturated conditions both in compression
and tension. Therefore, a technique for estimating the
shaft resistance of test piles under unsaturated condi-
tions is presented taking account influence of matric
suction extending conventional β method. The contri-
bution of matric suction to the total shaft resistance
was found to be around 50% of the total shaft capac-
ity in silty soil but almost negligible in clean sand.
(Eq. (17)). The shaft resistance contribution due to
matric suction Q(ua − uw ) can be predicted using the
SWCC and the saturated shear strength parameters.
Qfus = Qf + Q(ua − uw )
 
γL
= β (π dL)
2

+ (ua − uw ) (S κ )(tan φ  ) πdL
(17)
205 kPa
160 kPa
where β = coefficient, γ = unit weight of soil, d =
perimeter of pile, L = embedded length of pile, S =
Predicted B.C
degree of saturation, κ = fitting parameter.
= Measur ed B.C Mohamed & Vanapalli (2009) conducted cone pen-
R2 = 0.93 etration tests (CPT s) in a specially designed tank at the
University of Ottawa to experimentally investigate the
variation of bearing capacity of sand with respect to
matric suction. The results showed dramatic increase
of the cone tip resistance under unsaturated conditions
400 500
The comparison between the resistances obtained
from the CPT s and the bearing capacity results from
the model footing tests (Mohamed & Vanapalli 2006)
under similar conditions show that the bearing capacity
estimated in stress influence zone (i.e. 150 mm from
the surface for both CPT and model footing test) was
approximately the same (Figure 20).
1000
CPT (Mohamed & Vanapall i 2009)
or cone resistance, qc (kPa)
Model footing test (100 mm x100 mm)
800 (Vanapalli & Moh amed 2007)
Bearing capacity, q
600
400
200
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Matric suction, (ua - uw) (kPa)
Figure 20. Comparison between the cone resistance from
the CPTs and the bearing capacity from PLTs tests with
respect to matric suction (modified after Mohamed &
Vanapalli 2009).
593
10 ESTIMATION OF THE CRITICAL HEIGHT
OF AN UNSUPPORTED VERTICAL
TRENCH IN UNSATURATED SOILS
Recent studies related to the stability of an initially
unsaturated trench (Whenham et al. 2007, Tomboy
et al. 2008) and a compacted unsaturated embankment
(Oh & Vanapalli 2008a) show that failures are likely
to occur due to the loss of matric suction associated
with infiltration conditions prior to reaching saturated
condition. In other words, the conventional stability
analysis approach using the principles of saturated soil
mechanics may not be always conservative and may
not be reliable for analyzing the stability of slopes or
trenches in unsaturated soils.
Vanapalli et al. (2009) performed stability analysis
for a full scale instrumented test trench at the site of
BBRI at Limelette, Belgium (Whenham et al. 2007).
The analysis was conducted for four different sce-
narios such as i) initial condition (immediately after
excavation), ii) saturated condition, iii) first localized
failure, and iv) general failure.
The active earth pressure for the unsaturated soils,
σ a was estimated using two different types of shear
strength parameters (c , φ  from CU tests for saturated
soils and cCW from constant water content tests) as
given below.
11 SUMMARY
Significant advancements were made during the last
50 years since the pioneering research work in the area
of SUSS by Bishop (1959). Later studies by Fredlund
et al. (1978) laid a foundation for interpreting the SSUS
in terms of independent SSVs. The research under-
taken by various investigators has contributed towards
better understanding the SSUS. The focus of research
since First International Conference on Unsaturated
Soils in 1995 has been two folds: (i) to determine the
SSUS using different types of innovative equipment,
and (ii) proposing simple models for estimating or pre-
dicting the SSUS. Shear strength is a key engineering
property required in the design of several geotechni-
cal structures. However, limited number of practical
applications and case studies are available in the lit-
erature that implements our present understanding of
the SSUS. This paper provides a brief summary of the
SSUS and how it can be applied in the design of shal-
low and deep foundations, earth structures including
excavations. However, most of the studies summarized
in this paper are based on model studies conducted on
a limited number of unsaturated soils. More large scale
and field studies on different unsaturated soils would
be valuable.
The practicing engineer is interested in a framework
that is simple and runs parallel to their understanding
  of the conventional geotechnical engineering princi-
σa = γ zKa − 2 c + (ua − uw )S κ tan φ  Ka (18)
ples. In other words, our future research focus should
  be based on extending conventional techniques that are
σa = γ zKa − 2 c + (ua − uw ) tan φub Ka

= γ zKa − 2cCW Ka (19)
where Ka = active earth pressure coefficient, c,
φ bu = cohesion and angle indicating the rate of increase
in shear strength relative to matric suction, respectively
from CW tests.
When an UFG soil fails at a relatively fast rate in
field conditions, the pore-air is under drained condi-
tion while the pore-water is under undrained condition.
This drainage condition can be simulated using the
constant water content (CW ) test results (Rahardjo
et al. 2004, Thu et al. 2006, Infante Sedano et al. 2007).
Due to this reason, the stability analysis using the CW
test results (Eq. (18)) provides more realistic estimates
with the field observations in comparison to stabil-
ity analysis based using the effective shear strength
parameters derived from CD test results (Eq. (19)).
The study also has shown that the general failures
(i.e. scenario iv) occurred due to decrease in matric
suction with depth without further change in the satu-
rated depth conditions. Therefore, the general failure
of the trench can be attributed to an increase in the
active earth pressure associated with an increase in the
unit weight of the soil. More comprehensive details of
this study are summarized in Vanapalli et al. (2009).
594
well known in geotechnical engineering practice for
implementing our present understanding of the SUSS.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to thank the Natural Science and
Engineering Research Council for providing finan-
cial support for conducting the research. The help
received from Dr. Won Taek Oh in the preparation
of the figures, formatting and editing of this paper is
sincerely acknowledged.
REFERENCES
Abramento & Carvalho, 1989. Geotechnical parameters
for the study of natural slope instabilization at Serra do
Mar, Brazil. Proc. 12th International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Rio De Janeiro,
Brazil, 13–18 August 1989: 1599–1602.
Alabdullah, J. & Schanz, T. 2009. Shear strength of unsatu-
rated sand under plain strain conditions. Proc. 4th Asia-
Pacific Conf. on Unsaturated Soils. New Castle, Australia
(Paper accepted for publication).
Aubney, C. & Lytton, R. 2003. Estimating strength versus
location and time in high-plasticity clays. Texas Trans-
portation Institute, College Station, Texas.
Aversa, S. & Nicotera, M.V. 2002. A triaxial and oedometer
apparatus for testing unsaturated soils, Geotech Testing
Journal 25(1): 3–15.
Bao, C., Gong, B. & Zhan, L. 1998. Properties of unsaturated
soils and slope stability of expansive soils, Keynote lec-
ture. Proc. 2nd Inter. Conf. on Unsaturated Soils, Beijing,
China, 1: 71–98.
Babu, G.L.S., Rao, R.S. & Peter, J. 2005. Evaluation of
shear strength functions based on soil water character-
istic curves. Journal of Testing and Evaluation 33(6):
461–465.
Barbour, S.L. 1998. Nineteenth Canadian Geotechnical
Colloquium: The soil-water characteristic curve: a his-
torical perspective. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 35:
873–894.
Bishop, A.W. 1959. The principle of effective stress. Lec-
ture delivered in Oslo, Norway, 1955; Technisk Ukeblad,
106(39): 859–863.
Bishop, A.W., Alpan, I., Blight, G.E. & Donald, I.B. 1960.
Factors controlling the shear strength of partly saturated
cohesive soils. Proc. 5th Intern. Conf. on Soil. Mech.
Foundation Engineering, Paris, 1: 13–21.
Bishop, A.W. 1961. The measurement of pore pressure in the
triaxial test. Pore Pressure and Suction in Soils. London:
Butterworths, 63: 66.
Bishop, A.W. & Donald, I.B. 1961. The experimental study of
partly saturated soil in triaxial apparatus. ASCE Res. Conf.
Shear Strength of Cohesive Soils, University of Colorado,
Boulder: 503–532.
Bishop, A.W. & Henkel, D.J. 1962. The measurement of soil
properties in the triaxial test. 2nd ed. London, England:
Edward Arnold Publications: 227.
Bishop, A.W. & Blight, G.E. 1963. Some aspects of effective
stress in saturated and unsaturated soils. Géotechnique
13(3): 177–197.
Blatz, J.A. & Graham, J. 2000. A system for controlled
suction in triaxial tests. Géotechnique, 50(4): 465–469.
Blatz, J.A., Graham, J. & Chandler, N.A. 2002. Influence
of suction on the strength and stiffness of compacted
sand-bentonite. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 39:
1005–1015.
Bocking, K.A. & Fredlund, D.G. 1980. Limitations of the
axis translation technique. Proc. 4th Intern. Conf. on
Expansive Soils, Denver, pp. 117–135.
Burland, J.B. 1964. Effective stresses in partly saturated soils.
Géotechnique. 14: 65–68.
Burland, J.B. 1965. Some aspects of the mechanical behavior
of partly saturated soils. A symposium in print, Moisture
Equilibria and Moisture Changes in the Soils Beneath
Covered Area. 65–68.
Colmenares, J.E. & Ridley, A.M. 2002. Stress-strain and
strength relationships for a reconstituted clayey silt. Proc.
3rd Intern. Conf. on Unsaturated Soils, Recife, Brazil,
10–12 March 2002, 2: 481–484.
Catana, C., Vanapalli, S.K. & Garga, V.K. 2006. The water
retention characteristics of compacted clays. Proc. 4th
Intern. Conf. on Unsaturated Soils, Carefree, Arizona,
American Society of Civil Engineers Geotechnical Special
Publication 147(2): 1348–1359.
Chen, J.C. 1984. Evaluation of strength parameters of
partially saturated soils on the basis of initial suction
and unconfined compression strength, M.Sc. thesis,
Asian Institute of Technology Report, Bangkok,
Thailand.
595
Cui, Y.J. & Delage, P. 1996. Yielding and plastic behaviour
of an unsaturated compacted silt, Géotechnique 46(2):
291–311.
Cundall, P.A. & Strack, O.D.L. 1979. The distinct numeri-
cal model for granular assemblies. Géotechnique 29(1):
47–65.
Donald, I.B. 1957. Effective stresses in unsaturated non-
cohesive soils with controlled negative pore pressure.
M.Eng. Sc. Thesis, University of Melbourne, Melbourne,
Australia.
Donald, I.B. 1961. The mechanical properties of saturated
and partly saturated soils with special reference to nega-
tive pore water pressure. PhD dissertation. University of
London.
Escario, V. & Sáez, J. 1986. The shear strength of partly
saturated soils. Géotechnique, 36(3): 453–456.
Escario, V. & Juca, J. 1989. Shear strength and deformation
of partly saturated soils. Proc. 12th Intern. Conf. on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Rio de Janeiro,
2: 43–46.
Fakher, A., Jones, C.J.F.P. & Clarke, B.G. 1999. Yield stress
of super soft clays. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoen-
vironmental engineering 125(6): 499–509.
Fisher, R.A. 1926. On the capillary forces in an ideal soil.
Journal of Agricultural Science 16: 492–505.
Fredlund, D.G. & Morgenstern, N.R. 1977. Stress state vari-
ables for unsaturated soils. Journal of the Geotechnical
Engineering Division, ASCE, 103(GT5): 447–466.
Fredlund, D.G., Morgenstern, N.R. & Widger, R.A. 1978.
The shear strength of unsaturated soils. Canadian Geo-
technical Journal 15: 313–321.
Fredlund, D.G. & Rahardjo, H. 1993. Soil mechanics for
unsaturated soils. John Wiley and Sons, INC., NewYork.
Fredlund, D.G., Xing, A., Fredlund, M.D. & Barbour, S.L.
1996. Relationship of the unsaturated soil shear strength
to the soil-water characteristic curve. Canadian Geotech-
nical Journal 33(3): 440–448.
Fredlund, D.G. & Vanapalli, S.K. 2002. Shear strength
of unsaturated soils. Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 4-
Physical methods, Soil Science Society of America, Book
Series 5, ed. Dane J.H. and Topp, G.C, pp. 324–360.
Gallipoli, D., Gens, A., Sharma, R.S. & Vaunat, J. 2003. An
elasto-plastic model for unsaturated soil incorporating the
effect of suction and degree of saturation on mechanical
behavior. Géotechnique 53(1): 123–135.
Gan, J.K.M. & Fredlund, D.G. 1988. Multistage direct shear
testing of unsaturated soils. American Society for Testing
Materials. Geotechnical Testing Journal 11(2): 132–138.
Garven, E.A. & Vanapalli, S.K. 2006. Evaluation of empiri-
cal procedures for predicting the shear strength of unsat-
urated soils. Proc. 4th Intern. Conf. on Unsaturated Soils,
2–6 April 2006, Carefree, Arizona, American Society of
Civil Engineers Geotechnical Special Publication, 147(2):
2570–2581.
Garven, E.A. 2009. Review of semi-empirical procedures for
the prediction of the shear strength of unsaturated soils.
M.A.Sc thesis, University of Ottawa, In preparation.
Graecen, E.L. 1960. Water content and soil strength. Journal
of Soil Science 11(2): 313–333.
Haines, W.B. 1925. A note on the cohesion developed by
capillary forces in an ideal soil. Journal of Agricultural
Science 15: 529–535.
Hilf, J.W. 1956. An investigation of pore-water pressure in
compacted soilw, Ph.D. disseration, Tech. Memo No. 654,
 U.S. Department of the Interior Buereau of Reclamation,
Division and Consturction Division, Denver, CO, 654 P.
Ho, D.Y.F. & Fredlund, D.G. 1982. A multistage triaxial test
for unsaturated soils. ASTM Geotechnical Testing Journal
5:18–25.
Houston, S.L., Perez-Garcia, N. & Houston, W.N. 2008.
Shear strength and shear-induced volume change behavior
of unsaturated soils from a triaxial test program. Jour-
nal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
134(11): 1619–1632.
Hoyos, L.R., Takkabutr, P. & Puppala, A.J. 2006. A modified
pressure plate device for SWCC testing under anisotropic
stress state. Unsaturated Soils 2006, GSP No. 147,
American Society of Civil Engineers Geotechnical Spe-
cial Publication, Miller GA, Zapata CE, Houston SL.
Fredlund DG (eds), 2: 1753–1762.
Infante Sedano, J.Á. 2006. A modified ring shear test device
for determining the hydro-mechanical behavior of unsat-
urated soils. Ph.D. thesis. University of Ottawa.
Infante Sedano, J.Á., Vanapalli, S.K. & Garga, V.K. 2007.
Modified ring shear apparatus for unsaturated soils test-
ing. Geotechnical Testing Journal 30(1): 1–12.
Jennings. J.E. & Burland, J.B. 1962. Limitations of the use of
effective stresses in partly saturated soils. Géotechnique
12(2): 125–144.
Jiang, M.J., Leroueil, S. & Konrad, J.M. 2004. Insight into
shear strength functions of unsaturated granulates by
DEM analyses. Computers and Geotechnics 31: 473–489.
Karube, D. 1988. New concept of effective stress in unsatu-
rated soil and its proving tests. Advanced Triaxial Testing
of Soil and Rock, American Society of Testing Materials
STP 977, ASTM, Philadelphia: 539–552.
Katti, D.R., Tang, J. & Yazdani, S. 2003. Undrained response
of clays to varying strain rate. Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering 129(3): 278–282.
Khalili, N. & Khabbaz, M.H. 1998. A unique relationship for
χ for the determination of the shear strength of unsaturated
soils. Géotechnique 48(5): 681–687.
Laloui, L., François, B., Nuth, M., Péron, H. & Koliji, A.
2008. A thermo-hydro-mechanical stress-strain frame-
work for modeling the performance of clay barriers in
deep geological repositories for radioactive waste. Proc.
1st European Conference on Unsaturated Soils. Keynote
paper.
Lamborn, M.J. 1986. A micromechanical approach to mod-
eling partly saturated soils. M.Sc. thesis, Texas A & M
University, Texas.
Lee, S.J., Lee, S.R. & Kim, Y.S. 2003. An approach to
estimate the unsaturated shear strength using artificial
neural network and hyperbolic formulation. Computers
and Geotechnics 30(6): 489–503.
Lee, I.-M., Sung, S.-G. & Cho, G.-C. 2005. Effect of stress
state on the unsaturated shear strength of a weathered
granite. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 42(2): 624–631.
Lins, Y., Schanz, T. & Vanapalli, S.K. 2009. Bearing capac-
ity and settlement behavior of a strip footing on an
unsaturated coarse-grained soil. Proc. 4th Asia-Pacific
Conference on Unsaturated Soils, New Castle, Australia.
(Accepted for publication).
Lu, Z. 1992. The relationship of shear strength to swelling
pressure for unsaturated soils. Chinese Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering 143: 1–8. [in Chinese].
Lytton, R. 1995. Keynote Address: Foundations and Pave-
ments on Unsaturated Soils, Keynote Address, Proc.
596
1st International Conference on Unsaturated Soils, 3:
1201–1222.
Matsuoka, H., Sun, D., Kogane, A., Fukuzawa, N. & Ichihara,
W. 2002. Stress-strain behaviour of unsaturated soil in
true triaxial tests. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 39(3):
608–619.
Matsushi, Y. & Matsukura, Y. 2006. Cohesion of unsat-
urated residual soils as a function of volumetric water
content. Bulletin of Engineering Geology Environment 65:
449–455.
Matyas, E.L. & Radhakrishna, H.S. 1968. Volume change
characteristics of partially saturated soils. Géotechnique
18(4): 432–448.
Miao, L., Liu, S. & Lai, Y. 2002. Research of soil-water
characteristics and shear strength features of Nanyang
expansive soil. Engineering Geology 65(4): 261–267.
Mitachi, T. & Kudo, Y. 1989. Method of predicting in situ
undrained strength of clays based of the suction and
unconfined compressive strength. Journal of Japanese
Society of Civil Engineering 541: 147–158.
Mohamed, F.M.O. & Vanapalli, S.K. 2006. Laboratory
investigations for the measurement of the bearing capac-
ity of an unsaturated coarse-grained soil. Proc. 59th
Canadian Geotechnical Conference, 1–4 October 2006,
Vancouver, BC.
Mohamed, F.M.O. & Vanapalli, S.K. 2009. An experimen-
tal investigation of the bearing capacity of unsaturated
sand using cone penetration tests. Proc. 62nd Cana-
dian Geotechnical Conference (Accepted for publica-
tion).
Ng, C.W.W., Zhan, L.T. & Cui, Y.J. 2002. A new simple
system measuring volume changes in unsaturated soils.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 39(3): 757–764.
Nishimura, T. & Vanapalli, S.K. 2005. Volume change
and shear strength behavior of an unsaturated soil in
the high suction range. Proc. 16th Intern. Conf. on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Osaka, Japan,
12–16 September 2005. pp. 563–566.
Nishimura, T., Toyota, H., Oh, W.T. & Vanapalli, S.K. 2007.
Evaluation of critical state parameters for an unsaturated
silty soil. Proc. 60th Canadian Geotechnical Conference:
1029–1036.
Nishimura, T., Toyota, H., Vanapalli, S.K. & Oh, W.T.
2008a. Determination of the shear strength behavior of
an unsaturated soil in the high suction range using the
vapor pressure technique. Proc. 1st European Conference
on Unsaturated Soils. Unsaturated Soils: Advances in
Geo-Engineering, Toll et al. (eds). CRC Press: Taylor
and Francis Group: 441–447.
Nishimura, T., Toyota, H., Vanapalli, S.K. & Oh, W.T. 2008b.
The shear strength behavior of a silty soil in the residual
zone of unsaturation. Proc. 12th IACMAG Conference,
Goa, India, 2213–2221.
Öberg, A.L. & Sallfors, G. 1997. Determination of shear
strength parameters of unsaturated silts and sands based
on the water retention curve. Geotechnical Testing
Journal 20(1): 40–48.
Oh, W.T., Garga, V.K. & Vanapalli, S.K. 2008. Shear strength
characteristics of statically compacted unsaturated kaolin.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 45(7): 910–922.
Oh, W.T. & Vanapalli, S.K. 2008a. Instability of unsaturated
compacted soil slope due to rain infiltration. Proc. 61st
Canadian Geotechnical Conference, 21–24 September
2008, Edmonton: 513–520.
Oh, W.T. & Vanapalli, S.K. 2008b. Modeling the bearing
capacity and settlement behavior of unsaturated soils.
Proc. 12th IACMAG Conference, Goa, India: 2126–2137.
Oh, W.T. & Vanapalli, S.K. 2009. A simple method to
estimate the bearing capacity of unsaturated fine-grained
soils. Proc. 62nd Canadian Geotechnical Conference,
20–24 September, 2009. (Accepted for publication).
Oliveira, O.M. & Marinho, F.A.M. 2003. Unsaturated shear
strength behaviour of a compacted residual soil. Proc.
Asian Conference on Unsaturated Soils: Unsaturated
Soil Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Issues. Osaka,
Japan. 237–242.
Poulos, H.D. & Davis, E.H. 1974. Elastic solutions for soil
and rock mechanics. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Peterson, R.F.W. 1988. Interpretation of triaxial compres-
sion test results on partially saturated soils. Advanced
Triaxial Testing of Soil and Rock, ASTM STP 977,
American Society for Testing and Material, Philadelphi:
512–538.
Rahardjo, H., Heng, O.B. & Leong, E.C. 2004. Shear
strength of a compacted residual soil from consoli-
dated drained and constant water content triaxial tests,
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 41(3): 421–436.
Rampino, C., Mancuso, C. & Vinale, F. 1999. Laboratory
testing on an unsaturated soil: equipment, procedures,
and first experimental results, Canadian Geotechnical
Journal 36(1): 1–12.
Rassam, D.W. & Williams, D.J. 1999. Bearing capacity
of dessicated tailings. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 125(7): 600–609.
Rassam, D.W. & Cook, F.J. 2002. Predicting the shear
strength envelope of unsaturated soils. Geotechnical
Testing Journal 28: 215–220.
Ridley, A.M. 1993. The measurement of soil moisture
suction, PhD Thesis, University of London.
Romero E., Facio, J.A., Lloret, A., Gens, A. & Alonso, E.E.
1997. A new suction and temperature controlled triaxial
apparatus. Proc. 14th Intern. Conf. on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, Hamburg, Rotterdam:
Balkema: 185–188.
Röhm, S.A. & Vilar, O.M. 1995. Shear strength of an unsat-
urated sandy soil. Proc.1st Intern. Conf. on unsaturated
Soils, 1: 189–195.
Satija, B.S. 1978. Shear strength behavior of partially sat-
urated soils. PhD thesis, Indian Institute of Technology,
Delhi, India: 327.
Schanz, T. & Alabdullah, J. 2007. Testing unsaturated soil
for plane strain conditions: a new double wall biaxial
device. Proc. Intern. Conf. ‘‘From Experimental Evi-
dence towards Numerical Modeling of Unsaturated Soil,’’
Weimar, Germany, Unsaturated Soils: Experimental
Studies, 169–178.
Schick, P. 2004. Scherfestigkeit durch Kapillarität in unze-
mentierten ungesättigten bindigen Böden, Bautechnik
81(1): 31–37.
Schnaid, F., Consoli, N.C., Cumdani, R. & Milititsky, J.
1995. Load-settlement response of shallow foundations
in structured unsaturated soils. Proc. 1st International
Conference on Unsaturated Soils, 6–8 September, Paris,
999–1004.
Shen, Z. 1996. The problems in the present studies on
mechanics for unsaturated soils. Proc. Symposium on
Geotechnical Aspects of Regional Soils, Nanjing [in
Chinese].
597
Shen, D., Gens, A., Fredlund, D.G. & Sloan, S.W. 2008.
Unsaturated soils: From constitutive modelling to numeri-
cal algorithms. Computers and Geotechnics 35: 810–824.
Skempton, A.W. 1948. The φu = 0 analysis for stability and
its theoretical basis, Proc. 2nd International Conference
of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 1:
72–77.
Sridharan, A. 1968. Some studies on the strength of partly
saturated clays. PhD thesis, Purdue University, U.S.A.
Tarantino, A. & Tombalato, S. 2005. Coupling hydraulic
and mechanical behavior in unsaturated compacted clay.
Géotechnique 55(4): 307–317.
Tekinsoy, M.A., Kayadelen, C., Keskin, M.S. & Soyle-
mez, M. 2004. An equation for predicting shear strength
envelope with respect to matric suction. Computers and
Geotechnics 31(7): 589–593.
Terzaghi, K. 1936. The shear resistance of saturated soils.
Proc. 1st Intern. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering 1: 54–56.
Terzaghi, K., 1943. Theoretical Soil Mechanics, John Wiley
and Sons, New York, NY, USA.
Thu, T.M., Rahardjo, H. & Leong, E.C. 2006. Shear strength
and pore-water pressure characteristics during constant
water content triaxial tests. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 132(3): 411–419.
Toll, D.G. 1990. A framework for unsaturated soils behavior.
Géotechnique 40(1): 31–44.
Tomboy, V., Whenham, V. & De Vos, M. Shear strength of
unsaturated soil and its influence on slope stability. In:
Proc. 1st European Conference on Unsaturated Soils,
2–4 July 2008, Durham: 459–464.
Vanapalli, S.K. 1994. Simple test procedures and their
interpretation in evaluating the shear strength of unsat-
urated soils. Ph.D. thesis. University of Saskatchewan,
Saskatoon.
Vanapalli, S.K., Fredlund, D.G., Pufahl, D.E. & Clifton,
A.W. 1996a. Model for the prediction of shear strength
with respect to soil suction. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal 33(3): 379–392.
Vanapalli, S.K., Fredlund, D.G. & Pufahl, D.E. 1996b. The
relationship between the soil-water characteristic curve
and unsaturated shear strength of a compacted glacial
till. American Society of Testing Materials, Geotechnical
Testing Journal 19(3): 259–268.
Vanapalli, S.K., Pufahl, D.E. & Fredlund, D.G. 1998a Effect
of compaction on the unsaturated shear strength of a com-
pacted till. Proc. 2nd Intern. Conf. on Unsaturated Soils,
Beijing, International Academic Publishers, 1: 161–166.
Vanapalli, S.K., Sillers, W.S. & Fredlund, M.D. 1998b
The meaning and relevance of residual water content
to unsaturated soils. Proc. 51st Canadian Geotechnical
Conference, 1998, Edmonton: 101–108.
Vanapalli, S.K., Pufahl, D.E. & Fredlund, D.G. 1999a.
Interpretation of the shear strength of unsaturated soils
in undrained loading conditions. Proc. 52nd Canadian
Geotechnical Conference, Regina, October 25–27, 1999,
643–650.
Vanapalli, S.K., Fredlund, D.G. & Pufahl, D.E. 1999b. The
influence of soil structure and stress history on the soil-
water characteristics of a compacted till. Géotechnique
49(2): 143–159.
Vanapalli, S.K., Wright, A. & Fredlund, D.G. 2000. Shear
strength of two unsaturated silty soils over the suction
range from 0 to 1,000,000 kPa. Proc. 53rd Canadian
 Geotechnical Conference, Montreal, October 15–18:
1161–1168.
Vanapalli, S.K. & Fredlund, D.G. 2000. Comparison of
empirical procedures to predict the shear strength of
unsaturated soils uses the soil-water characteristic curve.
Geo-Denver 2000, American Society of Civil Engineers,
Special Publication, 99: 195–209.
Vanapalli, S.K., Salinas, L.M., Avila, D. & Karube. D. 2004.
Suction and storage characteristics of unsaturated soils:
Presented the State-of-the-art report, Proc. 3rd Intern.
Conf. on Unsaturated Soils, Brazil, 3: 1045–1069.
Vanapalli, S.K. & Catana, M.C. 2005. Estimation of the
soil-water characteristic curve of coarse grained soils
using one point measurement and simple properties.
Intern. Symp. on Advanced Experimental Unsaturated
Soil Mechanics, Trento, Italy: 401–407.
Vanapalli, S.K., Garga, V.K. & Infante Sedano, J.A. 2005.
Determination of the shear strength of unsaturated soils
using the modified ring shear apparatus. Intern. Symp.
on Advanced Experimental Unsaturated Soil Mechanics,
Trento, Italy: 125–130.
Vanapalli, S.K. & Mohamed, F.M.O. 2007. Bearing capacity
of model footings in unsaturated soils. Proc. Intern.
Conf. ‘‘From Experimental Evidence towards Numerical
Modeling of Unsaturated Soil,’’ Weimar, Germany,
Unsaturated Soils: Experimental Studies: 483–493.
Vanapalli, S.K. Oh, W.T. & Puppala, A.J. 2007. Determi-
nation of the bearing capacity of unsaturated soils under
undrained loading conditions, Proc. 60th Canadian
Geotechnical Conference, 21–24 October, Ottawa:
1002–1009.
Vanapalli, S.K., Nicotera, M. & Sharma, R. 2008. Axis
translation and negative water column techniques for suc-
tion control. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering
Journal. 26: 645–660.
Vanapalli, S.K., Hong, S. & Oh, W.T. 2009. Estimation of
the critical height of an unsupported vertical trench in
unsaturated soils. Proc. Intern. Symp. on Unsaturated
Soil Mechanics and Deep Geological Nuclear Waste Dis-
posal, 24–28 August 2009, Shanghai, China. (Accepted
for publication).
Vanapalli, S.K. & Lacasse, F. 2009. Comparison between the
measured and predicted shear strength behaviour of four
unsaturated sands. Proc. 4th Asia-Pacific Conference on
Unsaturated Soils. New Castle, Australia. (Accepted for
publication).
598
View publication stats
Vanapalli, S.K., Shen, H. & Oh, W.T. 2009. Estimation of
the critical height of an unsupported vertical trench in
unsaturated soils. Proc. Intern. Conf. on Unsatuarted
Soil Mecahnics and Deep Geological Nuclear Waste
Disposal. (In Review).
Vanapalli, S.K. & Eigenbrod, K.D. 2009. A technique for
estimating shaft resistance of test pile in unsaturated
soils. Revised version in preparation for submission to
the Canadian Geotechnical Journal.
Vilar, O.M. 2006. A simplified procedure to estimate the
shear strength envelope of unsaturated soils. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 43: 1088–1095.
Villar, M.V., Romero, E., Buenfil, C., Lloret, A. & Martin,
P.W. 2005. The application of the axis translation tech-
nique to the triaxial testing of unsaturated soils. Proc.
Intern. Conf. on Problematic Soils, 25–27 May 2005,
Eastern Mediterranean University Press, 1: 87–94.
Wheeler, S.J. 1988. The undrained shear strength of soils con-
taining a large gas bubbles. Géotechnique 38(1): 399–413.
Wheeler, S.J. & Sivakumar, V. 1995. An elasto-plastic crit-
ical state framework for unsaturated soils. Géotechnique
50(4): 369–376.
Wheeler, S.J., Sharma, R.S. & Buisson, M.S.R. 2003. Cou-
pling of hydraulic hysterisis and stress-strain behaviour
in unsaturated soils, Géotechnique 53(1): 41–54.
Whenham, V., De Vos, M., Legrand, C., Charlier, R. &
Verbrugge, J.-C. Influence of soil suction on trench sta-
bility. Proc. 2nd International Conference on Mechanics
of Unsaturated Soils, Weimar, Germany, 7–9 March:
495–501.
Xu, Y. & Sun, D. 2002. A fractal model for soil pores and
its application to determination of water permeability,
Physica A 316 (1–4): 56–64.
Xu, Y. 2004. Bearing capacity of unsaturated expansive soils.
Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 22: 611–625.
Yu, S., Ma, A. & Wang, Z. 1998. The feature of suction
and hyperbola model for shear strength of unsaturated
soil. Proc. 2nd Technical Committee of Intern. Conf. on
Unsaturated Soils, 1: 192–195.
Zhan, L.T. & Ng, C.W.W. 2006. Shear strength charac-
teristics of an unsaturated expansive clay. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 43: 751–763.