Thises MScHadeel

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/329894606
BEHAVIOR OF PARTIALLY SATURATED SOILS UNDER STRIP FOOTINGS IN

SELECTED LOCATIONS AT BAGHDAD CITY HADEEL AMMAR MOHAMMED
Thesis · April 2012

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.24851.73763
CITATION READS
1 85
3 authors, including:
Hadeel Ammar
Al-Mustansiriya University
5 PUBLICATIONS 1 CITATION
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Creep Behavior of Iraqi Gypsiferous soil View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Hadeel Ammar on 24 December 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Republic of Iraq
Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research
University of Baghdad
College of Engineering
Civil Engineering Department
BEHAVIOR OF PARTIALLY SATURATED

SOILS UNDER STRIP FOOTINGS IN
SELECTED LOCATIONS AT BAGHDAD CITY
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO
THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF BAGHDAD IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER
OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING
(GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING)
by
HADEEL AMMAR MOHAMMED
(B.Sc Civil Eng. 2006)
Supervised by
Prof. Dr. Mohammed Y. Fattah Inst. Dr. Mahmood D. Ahmed
Jmad Alawal 1433 April 2012

TO My Dear
Husband and Daughter
With Love
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
All praises and thanks be to Allah for grace and mercy.
I would like to express deep gratitude to my supervisors Prof. Dr.

Mohammed Y. Fattah, and Dr. Mahmood D. Ahmed for their keen
encouragement and significant suggestions, which improved this work. So,
I feel deeply indebted and grateful to them.
Special thanks are due to all the staff of Soil Mechanics Laboratory
at Civil Engineering Department in the University of Baghdad and
University of Technology, for their assistance throughout this work.
I wish to express sincere appreciation and gratitude to the Assistant

Instructor Ahmed Salman Al-Shammary, for his precious time spent,
and great support through the finite element program execution for this
work. My thanks are also extended to Instructor Asma Y. Yahya for great
support during the experimental program and providing some accessories
needed for this work.
At last but not the least, special gratitude is due to all of my family,
especially my husband, for his constant support in countless ways to
pursue my dream.
Hadeel
I
ABSTRACT
The mechanical behavior of partially saturated soils is different from

that of fully saturated soils. A common engineering problem which often
involves partially saturated soils is that of a shallow foundation resting
above the ground water table. In many cases, a capillary zone exists above
the ground water table, where the soil is partially saturated and which can
be very large depending on the soil type. Typical footing analyses ignore
this zone and assume that the soil above the ground water table is dry.
In this thesis, a shallow foundation (strip footing, 1 m in width) is
assumed to be constructed on fully saturated and partially saturated Iraqi
soils, and analyzed by finite element method. A procedure is proposed to
define the H – modulus function from the soil water characteristic curve
which is measured by the filter paper method. Fitting methods are applied
through the program (SoilVision), after indentifying the basic properties of
the soil such as Attereberg limits, particle size distribution, specific gravity,
void ratio, porosity and wet and dry unit weights. Then, the soil water
characteristic curve is converted to relation correlating the void ratio and
matric suction. The slope of the latter relation can be used to define the H –
modulus function.
The finite element programs SIGMA/W and SEEP/W are then used in
the analysis. Eight nodded isoparametric quadrilateral elements are used for
modeling both the soil skeleton and pore water pressure. A parametric
study was carried out and different parameters were changed to study their
effects on the behavior of partially saturated soil. These parameters include
the degree of saturation of the soil (S), depth of water table, shear strength
of soil and the unsaturated soil modulus (H).
The study reveals that when the soil becomes partially saturated by
dropping water table at different depths with different degrees of saturation,
the bearing capacity of shallow foundation increases about (4 – 7) times
II
higher than the bearing capacity of the same soil under saturated
conditions. This result is attributed to matric suction value (i.e negative
pore water pressure). The behavior of soil in partially saturated condition is
like that of fully saturated condition but in different values; smaller values
of displacement. It is found that the settlement is reduced when the water
table drops to a depth of 2 m (i.e. twice the foundation width) by about (92
%).
It is also concluded that the Mandel – Cryer effect is reduced with
increase of the depth of water table due to the development of negative
pore water pressure.
III
CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENT…………………………………………….. I
ABSTRACT………………………………………………………… II
CONTENTS………………………………………………………... IV
LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………. VII
LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………… XII
LIST OF NOTATION……………………………………………….. XIV
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 General………………………………………………………….. 1
1.2 Summary of Unsaturated Soil Behavior……………………………… 2
1.3 Scope of the Thesis……………………………………………….. 3
1.4 Thesis Layout……………………………………………………. 3
CHAPTER TWO: LITRATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction………………………………………………………. 5
2.2 Subsurface Water…………………………………………………. 5
2.3 Capillary Effect in Soil…………………………………………….. 7
2.4 Surface Tension…………………………………………………… 8
2.5 The State of the Air and the Water Phase in Partially Saturated
Soil…………………………………………………………………. 9
2.6 Soil Suction Concept ……………………………………………… 11
2.7 Soil Suction Measurement…………………………………………. 12
2.7.1 Filter Paper Method…………………………………………... 12
2.7.2 Axis – Translation Technique………………………………….. 15
2.7.3 Tensiometer Technique……………………………………….. 16
2.8 Shear Strength of Unsaturated Soil………………………………….. 16
2.9 Soil Water Characteristic Curve…………………………………….. 19
2.10 An Overview of Bearing Capacity Theories…………………………. 22
2.11 The Bearing Capacity of Foundation on Unsaturated Soil…………….. 24
CHAPTER THREE: EXPERIMENTAL WORK

3.1 Introduction……………………………………………………… 33
3.2 Experimental Program……………………………………………... 33
3.2.1 Water Content and Degree of Saturation………………………... 33
3.2.2 Specific Gravity……………………………………………… 33
3.2.3 Atterbeger Limits…………………………………………….. 34
3.2.4 Grain size Distribution………………………………………... 34
3.2.5 Unconfined Compression Test…………………………………. 35
IV
Contents
3.2.6 Consolidation Test…………………………………………… 36
3.2.7 Total and matric suction measurement by filter paper method…….. 37
3.2.7.1 Total Suction of Soil Measurements…………………….. 38
3.2.7.2 Matric Suction of Soil Measurements……………………. 40
CHAPTER FOUR: FINITE ELEMENT FORMULAION, COMPUTER

PROGRAMS AND VERFICATION
4.1 Introduction………………………………………………………. 43
4.2 The Finite Element Method………………………………………… 43
4.2.1 Finite Element Equations…………………………………….... 44
4.2.2 Plastic Matrix (Elastic – Plastic Model)…………………………. 45
4.2.3 Finite Element Formulation for Coupled Consolidation Analysis…... 47
4.3 Computer Programs……………………………………………….. 53
4.3.1 The Program (SoilVision)……………………………………… 53
4.3.1.1 Soil Water Characteristic Measurement Techniques………... 54
4.3.2 The Program (SIGMA/W) ……………………………………. 57
4.3.2.1 Application Program……………………………………. 58
4.3.2.2 Constitutive Models…………………………………….. 59
4.3.2.3 Coupled Consolidation …………………………………. 60
4.3.2.4 Additional Material Properties for Unsaturated Coupled
Analysis (H – Modulus Function) ………………………... 61
4.3.2.5 Initial Water Table……………………………………… 63
4.3.2.6 Definition of Hydraulic Condactivity …………………….. 64
4.4 Verification Ploblem………………………………………………. 66
4.4.1 Ploblem of Influence of Partially Saturated Soil on The Behavior of
Footing……………………………………………………… 66
CHAPTER FIVE: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

5.1 Introduction………………………………………………………. 72
5.2 Description of the Problem ………………………………………… 72
5.2.1 Finite Element Description and Constitutive Models……………… 72
5.2.2 Material Properties……………………………………………. 73
5.2.3 Variables Used for Unsaturated Soil Analysis……………………. 77
5.2.4 Required Relationships for Unsaturated Soils……………………. 78
5.2.4.1 Suction Versus Degree of Saturation……………………… 78
5.2.4.2 H-Modulus Function…………………………………….. 79
5.2.4.3 Volumetric Water Content 85
(θ w )……………………………
5.3 Defining the Ultimate Bearing Capacity from Load Tests……………… 89
5.4 Results of Finite Element Analysis and Discussion……………………. 89
5.4.1 Effect of Degree of Saturation…………………………………. 92
5.4.2 Effect of Water Table Level……………………………………. 98
5.4.3 Effect of Soil Type……………………………………………. 103
5.4.4 Variation Bearing Capacity with Matric Suction............................ 107
5.4.5 Vertical Displacement…………………………………………. 110
5.4.6 Mandel – Cryer Effect………………………………………… 117
V
Contents
5.4.7 Contour Lines of Vertical Displacement………………………… 119
CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Conclusions………………………………………………………. 122
6.2 Recommendations………………………………………………… 124
REFERENCES............................................................................... 125
APPENDIX A……………………………………………………….. a
VI
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. No. Page
(2.1) A visualization of saturated/ unsaturated soil mechanics based on the

nature of the fluid phases (from Ng and Menzies, 2007)…………... 6
(2.2) A diagram of a capillary fringe (after Simth, 1978)………………. 8
(2.3) Original setup for the null-type, axis-translation device for measuring
negative pore-water pressures (after Hilf, 1956)………………….. 16
(2.4) Extended Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope for unsaturated soils (after

Fredlund and Rahradjo , 1993)…………………………………. 19
(2.5) Illustration of the in situ zones of desaturationfined

de by a soil –
water characteristic curve (after Fredlund, 2006) …………………. 20
(2.6) Effect of texture and structure on SWCC (from Hillel,1971)………. 21
(2.7) SWCC (drying and wetting) of the materials used, (after Alabdullah,
2010)………………………………………………………… 22
(2.8) General shear failure surface as assumed by Terzaghi for a strip

footing (after Terzaghi 1943)…………………………………... 24
(2.9) Variation the ultimate bearing capacity due to matric suction change
(after Rahardjo and Fredlund, 1992)…………………………….. 27
(2.10) Stress versus settlement relationship for (100 mm x 100 mm), (after
Mohamed and Vanapalli, 2006)………………………………… 28
(2.11) Comparison of stress versus settlement behaviors obtained from the

model footing tests, the FEA and idealized behavior, (after Oh and
Vanapalli, 2008)……………………………………………… 30
(2.12) Comparison between the measured and predicted values for bearing
capacity and settlement (after Oh and Vanapalli, 2008)…………… 31
(2.13) Load-settlement relationships of model strip footing on Hostun sand,

(after Jamal Alabdullah, 2010)…………………………………. 32
(2.14) Measured and predicted ultimate bearing capacity of unsaturated

Hostun sand versus matric suction, (after Jamal Alabdullah 2010)….. 32
(3.1) Grain size distribution…………………………………………. 34
(3.2) Stress – strain relationship from unconfined compression test for

VII
List of Figures
undisturbed samples................................................................... 35
(3.3) Results of oedometer test………………………………………. 37
(3.4) Calibration suction-water content curves for Wetting of wetting filter

paper (ASTM- 5298-03)……………………………………. 38
(3.5) Total and matric suction measurement (Bulut et al., 2001)………… 41
(4.1) Elastic – perfectly plastic constitutive relationship (Krahn, 2004)…... 60
(4.2) H-Modulus as a function of pore-water pressure, (Krahn, 2004)……. 62
(4.3) Calculation of initial pore – water pressure, (Krahn, 2004)………… 64
(4.4) A Conductivity function, (Krahn, 2004)…………………………. 65
(4.5) Problem geometry, (Costa et al., 2003). ………………………… 67
(4.6) Finite element mesh of the plate load test verification problem…….. 68
(4.7) Soil water characteristic curve for lateritic soil specimen, (costa et al,
2003)………………………………………………………… 69
(4.8) H-Modulus functions as calculated in this work from the soil water
characteristic curve …………………………………………… 69
(4.9) Relation between the hydraulic conductivity and pore water pressure
for partially saturated Costa's soil……………………………….. 70
(4.10) The applied stress versus settlement relationships for plate load test... 71
(5.1) Typical finite element mesh of the soil beneath the footing………... 73
(5.2) Results of unconfined compression test on remolded samples from

(Rasafa 1) site at different degrees of saturation………………….. 76


(5.5) Relationship between the total suction and degree of saturation……. 78
(5.6) Relationship between the matric suction and degree of saturation…… 78
VIII
List of Figures
(5.7) Relationships between the gravitational water content and the matric
suction for the three soils obtained by the program soil Vision……... 81
(5.8) Relationships between the void ratio and the matric suction for the
three soils…………………………………………………….. 82
(5.9) Relations between the H-Modulus and the matric suction for the three
soils………………………………………………………….. 84
(5.10) A sample plot for the graphical solution of the four parameters (a, n,
m, and h) (Fredlund and Xing 1994)……………………………. 86
(5.11) Relationships between volumetric water content and matric suction

for the three soils……………………………………………… 87
(5.12) Relation between the hydraulic conductivity and pore water pressure
for partially saturated for the three soils…………………………. 88
(5.13) Different methods for defining ultimate bearing capacity of shallow

foundation from load test results (after Cerato and Lutenegge, 2007).. 90
(5.14) Stress – settlement curve for a footing (1 m) width over different

types of fully saturated soil…………………………………….. 91
(5.15) Stress – settlement curve for a footing (1 m) width over Rasafa 1 soil
with different conditions of degree of saturation and water table depth
at 2 m……………………………………………………….. 94
(5.16) Stress – settlement curve for a footing (1 m) wide over Rasafa 1 soil
at 4 m………………………………………………………... 94
at 6 m……………………………………………………….. 95
at 2 m………………………………………………………... 95
at 4 m………………………………………………………... 96
at 6…………………………………………………………………….. 96
IX
List of Figures
at 2 m………………………………………………………... 97
at 4 m……………………………………………………….. 97
at 6 m………………………………………………………... 98
with different conditions of water table depth at S = 90 %................. 99
(5.33) Stress – settlement curves for a footing over different types of

partially saturated soil at water table at 2 m depth and S = 90 % .... 104
(5.34) Stress – settlement curve for a footing over different types of partially
saturated soil at water table at 4 m depth and S = 90 %..................... 104
X
List of Figures
(5.42) Variation of the bearing capacity with respect to matric suction of

Rasafa 1……………………………………………………… 107

Rasafa 2……………………………………………………… 108

Rasafa 3……………………………………………………… 108
(5.45) Typical behavior of unsaturated soil.

(a) A typical soil water characteristic curve.
(b) Shear strength behavior of soil as it is related to the soil water
characteristic curve, (from Vanapalli, et al., 1996) ………………... 109
(5.46) Variation of the vertical surface displacement along the distance from
the center line of the footing of Rasafa 1 soil…………………….. 112
(5.49) Variation of the vertical surface displacement with distance from the
center line of the model footing on Rasafa 1 soil when the water table
is at 2 m depth and S = 90 %........................................................ 115
is at 4 m depth and S = 90 %........................................................ 115
XI
List of Figures
is at 6 m depth and S = 90 %........................................................ 116
is at 2 m depth at different degrees of saturation…………………. 116
(5.53) Relation between the excess pore water pressure and time for Rasafa
1 soil at different water table levels……………………………... 118
(5.54) Excess pore water pressure with time (Mandel – Cryer effect) (After
Wong et al., 1988)…………………………………………….. 118
(5.55) Contour lines of vertical displacement (m) for fully saturated soil
and partially saturated condition (Rasafa 1) when loaded to (770
kPa)………………………………………………….......... 120
(5.56) Contour lines of vertical displacement (m) of (Rasafa 1) soil with

different water table conditions when the degree of saturation is (90
%), and loading the model footing to (3000 kPa)…………………. 121
XII
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Page

(2.1) Summary of suction measurement methods (Pan et al., 2010)...... 13
(3.1) Index properties of the soils................................................. 34
(3.2) Results of unconfined compression test for undisturbed samples.. 35
(3.3) Coefficient of permeability for the three soils........................... 36
(3.4) Order-of-magnitude Values for Permeability k, Based on

Description of Soil and by Unified Soil Classification, m/s
(Bowles, 1996).................................................................. 36
(4.1) Elastic – plastic material properties........................................ 60
(4.2) Soil Properties for the plate test problem, (Costa et al., 2003)...... 67
(5.1) Material properties for the soils beneath the footing................... 74
(5.2) Results of unconfined compression test on remolded samples at

different degrees of saturation............................................. 75
(5.3) Values of water table and degree of saturation for bearing

capacity analysis............................................................... 77
(5.4) Values of the slopes predicted from the void ratio versus matric
suction curves of the three soils.......................................... 83
(5.5) Fitting parameter for the three soils…………………………. 86
(5.6) Results of bearing capacity analysis of fully saturated soils……. 91
(5.7) Results of ultimate bearing capacity (kPa) for unsaturated soil

obtained from finite element analysis...................................... 93
(5.8) Results of Bearing Capacity Factor N c ………………………. 93
(5.9) The air – entry value.......................................................... 107
XIII
LIST OF NOTATION
Symbol
A……………. Area along the boundary of an element.
{a}………...... Column vector of nodal incremental displacement.
a………….….. Independent parameters.
B…………….. Width of footing.
[B]…………... Strain-displacement matrix.
B……………. Unit body force intensity.
b…………….. Unit body force.
C (h)………… Correction factor.
c……………. Cohesion.
c'…………… Effective cohesion.
Cu…………... Undrained shear strength.
c v …………….
R R Coefficient of consolidation.
[D]…………... The constitutive matrix.
D f ……………R R Depth of foundation below the ground surface.
de………….... A change in void ratio.
dV s ………….. R R Change in volume of the soil particles.
dV v ………….. R R Change in the volume of voids.
dε v …………… R R Incremental volumetric strain.
E…………….. Young’s modulus.
e……………... Void ratio.
e 1 , e 2 ………….
R R R R Initial and final void ratios, respectively.
F…………….. Yield function.
{F}………….. Nodal force.
{F b }…………. R R Incremental body forces.
{F n }…………. R R Concentrated nodal incremental forces.
{F s }…………. R R Force due to surface boundary incremental pressures.
F (h)…………. Pore size distribution as a function of suction.
G s …………….
R R Specific gravity.
G…………….. Plastic potential function.
H…………….. Unsaturated modulus.
h c …………....
R R Capillary height in the tube.
h t …………….
R R Total suction.
h m …………….
R R Matric suction.
h π …………….
R R Osmotic suction.
h 1 , h 2 …………
R R R R The initial and final matric suctions, respectively.
XIV
List of Notation
j……………... Integration point.
[J]-1………….. The inverse of the Jacobian matrix.
[K] ………….. Element
Definitioncharacteristic (or stiffness) matrix.
K o ……………. Coefficient of lateral stress at rest.
K p ………….... Coefficient of passive earth pressure.
K……………. Fitting parameter used for obtaining a best-fit between
the measured and predicted values.
K B ………....... Bulk modulus.
k…………….. Hydraulic conductivity.
k x , k y………....
R R R R The hydraulic conductivity in x and y directions,
respectively.
L…………….. Length of footing.
[L d ]…………... R R Coupling matrix.
[L f]…………... R R Coupling matrix for flow.
L.L…………... Liquid limit.
m……………. The slope of the void ratio versus the matric suction.
m……............. Independent parameters.
m v …………... R R Coefficient of volume change.
{𝑚𝑚}………….. Unit isotropic tensor.
n…………….. Independent parameters.
N c , N q , N γ …....
R R R R R R Bearing capacity factors.
<N>…………. A vector of interpolating functions at the given point.
n…………….. The porosity of the soil.
P…………….. Partial pressure of pore water vapor.
P o …………….R R Saturation pressure of water vapor.
PI……………. Plasticity index.
P.L…………... Plastic limit.
𝑄𝑄𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢 ………….. Ultimate load per unit length of footing.
q u …………….
R R Ultimate bearing capacity.
q' 0 …………… R R Surcharge load.
R…………….. Universal gas constant.
R s …………….R R Radius of curvature.
r……………... The radius of the capillary tube.
S…………….. Degree of saturation.
T…………….. Absolute temperature.
T s .....................
R R Surface tension of liquid.
t……………… Element thickness.
t……………… Time.
XV
List of Notation
{U}………….. X-displacement at the nodes of the element.
u. w ……………. Pore water pressure.
u……………... X-displacement at the given location.
u a …………….. Pore air pressure.
V…………….. Molecular volume of water.
{V}………….. Y-displacement at the nodes of the element.
v…………….. Y-displacement at the given location.
v o ……………. Volume of an element.
w…………….. Water content.
w (h)……….... Water content as a function of soil suction.
w w …………… Gravimetric water content.
W 1j ,W 2j ………. Weighting factores.
{X} and{Y}…. The global x and y coordinates of the element nodes.
Greek Symbols
U
{δ}……………. Nodal displacement vector.

φ ′ …………….. Effective angle of internal friction.
φ b …………….. The angle of friction with respect to change in suction.
dε…………....... Increment of total strain.
dεe…………….. P P Increment of elastic strain.
dεp……………. P P Increment of plastic strain.
α……………… Constant angle made between the liquid and the tube.
γ………………. Unit weight.
γ t …………........
R R Total unit weight.
γ w ………….......
R R The unit weight of water.
γ xy……………..
R R Shear strain in the x-y plane.
ε………………. Strain.
ε v ……………...
R R Volumetric strain.
ε x …………........
R R Longitudinal strain in the x-direction.
ε y………….......
R R Longitudinal strain in the y-direction.
Θ……………... Normalized (dimensionless) volumetric water content.
θ r …………….. R R Residual water content.
θ s ………….......
R R Saturated water content.
θ w ……………...R R Volumetric water content.
λ......................... Plastic scaling factor.
ν………………. Poisson's ratio.
ρ……………… Mass density.
σ'……………... Effective stress.
XVI
List of Notation
σ……………… Total stress.
σ x , σ y, σ z …....... Stress in x, y, z directions, respectively.
τ ……………... Shear strength.
ψ……………… Fitting parameter.
𝜙𝜙……………… Angle of internal fraction.
XVII
Chapter One
Introduction
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
U
The general field of soil mechanics can be subdivided into that portion
dealing with saturated soils and that portion dealing with unsaturated soils.
The difference between saturated and unsaturated soils becomes necessary
due to basic difference in their nature and engineering behavior. There are
many factors that influence soil types, such as climate which plays an
important role in whether a soil is saturated or unsaturated. Water is
removed from the soil either by evaporation or by evapotranspiration from
a vegetative cover. These processes produce an upward flux of water out of
the soil. On other hand, rainfall and other forms of precipitation provide a
downward flux into the soil. The difference between these two flux
conditions on a local scale largely dictates the pore-water pressure
conditions in the soil (Fredlund and Rahardjo, 1993).
The bearing capacity is one of the key parameters required in the

design of shallow foundations. Several approaches are available in the
literature for determination of the bearing capacity of soils based on the
saturated shear strength parameters. However, in many arid and semi-arid
regions, shallow foundations are usually located above the ground water
table where the soil is typically in a state of unsaturated condition.
Nevertheless, the bearing capacity of soils is commonly determined
assuming fully saturated conditions ignoring the influence of capillary
stresses or the matric suction. Due to this reason, estimation of the bearing
capacity of shallow foundations using the conventional approaches may not
be reliable leading to uneconomical designs (Vanapalli and Mohammed,
2007).
1
Chapter One Introduction
The performance of foundation systems on unsaturated soil deposits is
considerably influenced by variations of the negative pore-water pressure
(i.e., matric suction) distribution within the soil mass due to local
microclimate conditions.
1.2 Summary of Unsaturated Soil Behavior

U
There are many practical situations involving unsaturated soils that

require an understanding of the seepage, volume change, and shear strength
characteristics. In fact, there is often an interaction among, and a simulation
interest in all three of the aspects of unsaturated soil mechanics. Typically,
a flux boundary condition produces an unsteady-state saturated/unsaturated
flow situation which results in volume change and a change in the shear
strength of the soil. The change in shear strength is generally translated into
a change in factor of safety.
The classical one – dimensional theory of consolidation is of central

importance in saturated soil mechanics. The theory of consolidation
predicts the change in pore-water pressure with respect to depth and time in
response to change in total stress. The changes in pore-water pressure are
used to predict the volume change. The application of total stress to
unsaturated soil produces large instantaneous volume changes, but smaller
volume changes with respect to time. The induced pore-water pressure is
considerably smaller than the applied total stress. The more common
boundary condition for unsaturated soil is a change in flux as opposed to a
change in total stress for a saturated soil. Nevertheless, the theory of
consolidation for unsaturated soils plays an important phenomenological
role. It assists the engineer in visualizing complex mechanisms, providing a
qualitative “feel” for the behavior of an unsaturated soil (Fredlund and
Rahardjo, 1993).
2
1.3 Scope of the Thesis
U
Unsaturated soil mechanics has rapidly become a part of geotechnical

engineering practice as a result of solutions that have emerged to a number
of key problems. The solutions have emerged from numerous research
studies focusing on issue that have a complication to the usage of
unsaturated soil mechanics. So, the aims of this research are:
1. Exploring the use of the finite element method for predicting and
studying the behavior of partially saturated soil.
2. Investigating and studying the influence of the degree of saturation,
ground water level and negative pore water pressure (i.e matric
suction) on the bearing capacity of foundations built on unsaturated
soil.
3. Simulating the behavior of unsaturated soils by defining and
formulating the relationship between void ratio and negative pore
water pressure through the soil water characteristic curve.
1.4 Thesis Layout

U U
The contents of this research work and the results are presented in six
chapters as outlined below:
Chapter One: contains an introduction to the subject and the scope of this
research.
Chapter Two: includes review studies of unsaturated soil. The chapter

defines in a brief the fundamental concepts of unsaturated soil taken from
different references. The chapter also presents the work of research that
deals with unsaturated soil behavior in general and bearing capacity in
special.
3
Chapter Three: presents the experimental work for the measurement of
the properties of the soils used in the analysis, and the method which is
used to predict the matric suction.
Chapter Four: this chapter includes governing equations, procedures, and

techniques of the finite element method used in the formulation and
development of the program SIGMA/W. This chapter also describes the
SOILVESION program which is used to apply the fitting on the soil water
characteristic curve, and the finite element computer program SIGMA/W
used for analyzing geotechnical problems. Verification problem is analyzed
to validate the problem modeling and analysis methodology.
Chapter Five: makes a comparison between the results of fully saturated

soil and unsaturated condition behavior through solving bearing capacity
problem. The chapter also includes studying the effect of different
parameters on the behavior of unsaturated soil.
Chapter Six: includes the main conclusions and recommendations for

future work.
4
Chapter Two
Literature
Review
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
An unsaturated soil is commonly defined as having three
phases, namely, solid, water, and air. However, it may be more
correct to recognize the existence of fourth phase, namely, that of
the air-water interface or contractile skin. The presence of even the
smallest amount of air renders a soil unsaturated.
The engineering behavior of saturated soils has long been

investigated by a considerable number of researchers using a
variety of laboratory and field testing techniques. It is now widely
accepted that most problems involving the mechanical behavior of
saturated soils have a counter problem of interest in unsaturated
soils. In order to understand the key features of unsaturated soil
behavior, it is necessary to review the fundamental engineering
properties and physics of this type of soils. This chapter describes
the basic concepts of unsaturated soil mechanics that are relevant to
the present research work. Also, the previous studies about such
soils especially the bearing capacity of shallow foundations on
unsaturated soils are summarized.
2.2 Subsurface Water

This is the term used to define all water found beneath the earth's
surface. The main source of subsurface water is rainfall, which percolates
downwards to fill up the voids and interstices. Water can penetrate to a
considerable depth, estimated to be as much as (12000) metres, but at
depths greater than this, due to the large pressures involved, the interstices
have been closed by plastic flow of the rocks. Simth (1978), and Ng and
Menzies (2007), explained that the subsurface water can be split into
5
Chapter Two Literature Review
distinct zones. Below the water table, the pore water pressures will be
positive and the soil will, in general, be saturated. Above the water table,
the pore water pressure will, in general, be negative with respect to the
atmospheric pressure (i.e. gauge pressure). The entire soil zone above the
water table is called the vadose zone (aeration zone), (Figure 2.1).
Immediately above the water table, there is a zone called the capillary
fringe where the degree of saturation approaches 100 percent. This zone
may range from less than 1 m to approximately 10 m in thickness,
depending on the soil type. Inside this capillary zone, water phase may be
assumed to be continuous whereas air phase is generally discontinuous.
Above this capillary zone, a two fluid phases zone may be identified in
which both the water and air phases may be idealized as continuous. Inside
this zone, the degree of saturation may vary from about 20 to 90 percent,
depending on soil type and soil state. Above this two fluid phases zone, the
soil becomes dryer and the water phase will be discontinuous whereas the
air phase will remain continuous.
Figure (2.1) A visualization of saturated/ unsaturated soil mechanics based

on the nature of the fluid phases (from Ng and Menzies, 2007).
6
2.3 Capillary Effects in Soil
Capillarity is the phenomenon of rising and remains of water
above the line of atmostpheric pressure in very fine pore or
capillary tube. The height of water column in which soil can
support is called capillarity head and is inversely proportional to
size of soil void at air-water interface. The height of water column
which can be supported is dependent on size of void that is effective
(Lambe and Whitman, 1979).
The height of rise, h c , in capillary tube is:
2𝑇𝑇𝑠𝑠
hc= 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝛼𝛼 (2.1)
𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟
where γ = unit weight of the liquid,
T s = surface tension of liquid,
α = constant angle made between the liquid and the tube, and
r = radius of the tube.
Due to capillarity, water is drawn up above the water table into the
interstices of the soil and rock. The region within which this water is
encountered is known as the capillary fringe. A soil mass of course is not a
capillary tube system, but a study of theoretical capillarity enables one to
determine a qualitative view of the behavior of water in the capillary fringe
of soil deposit. The minimum height of the fringe, (h c min ) is governed by
the maximum size of the voids within the soil. Up to this height above the
water table, the soil will be sufficiently close to full saturation to be
considered. The maximum height of the fringe (h c max ) is governed by the
minimum size of the void. Within the range (h c min ) to (h c max ) the soil can
be only partially saturated, as shown in Figure (2.2) (Simth, 1978).
7
Figure (2.2) A diagram of a capillary fringe (Simth, 1978).
2.4 Surface Tension

The air-water interface (i.e., contractile skin) processes
property called surface tension. The phenomenon of surface tension
results from the intermolecular forces acting on molecules in the
contractile skin. These forces are different from those acting on
molecules in the interior of the water. A molecule in the interior
water experiences equal forces in all directions, which means that
there is no unbalanced force. A water molecule within the
contractile skin experiences an unbalanced force towards the
interior of the water. In order for the contractile skin to be in
equilibrium, a tensile pull is generated along the contractile skin.
The property of the contractile skin that allows it to exert a tensile
pull is called its surface tension, Ts. Surface tension is measured as
the tensile force per unit length of the contractile skin (i.e. units of
N/m). Surface tension is tangential to the contractile skin surface.
The surface tension causes the contractile skin to behave like an
elastic membrane (Frendlund and Rahardjo, 1993).
In an unsaturated soil, the contractile skin would be subjected

to an air pressure, u a , which is greater than the water pressure, u w.
8
The pressure difference (u a -u w ), is referred to as matric suction.
The pressure difference causes the contractile sikn curvature:
𝟐𝟐 𝑻𝑻𝒔𝒔
(u a – u w ) = (2.2)
𝑹𝑹𝒔𝒔
where (u a – u w ) = matric suction or the difference between pore-air and

pore- water pressure acting on the contractile skin, and
R s = Radius of curvature.
Equation (2.2) is referred to as Kelvin’s capillary model equation. As

the matric suction increases, the radius of curvature of the contractile skin
is often called a meniscus. When the pressure difference between the pore-
air and pore-water goes to zero, the radius of curvature, R s , goes to infinity.
Therefore, a flat air-water interface exists when the matric suction goes to
zero (Lu and Likos, 2004).
2.5 The State of the Air and the Water Phase in Partially Saturated
Soil
An unsaturated soil can be further subdivided depending on
whether the air phase is continuous or occluded. This subdivision is
primarily a function of the degree of saturation.
Fredlund and Rahardjo (1993), explained that an unsaturated

soil with a continuous air phase generally has a degree of saturation
less than approximately 80% (i.e., S< 80%). Occluded air bubbles
commonly occur in unsaturated soils having a degree of saturation
greater than approximately 90% (i.e., S > 90%). The transition zone
between continuous air phase and occluded air bubbles occurs when
the degree of saturation is between approximately (80 - 90) % (i.e.,
80 %< S< 90%).
Barden (1965), Smith (1978), and Smith and Smith, (1998)

described the state of air and water phases in partially saturated soils
depending on the value of S (degree of saturation) as follows:
9
1– Extremely dry (S < 5 percent).
The air phase is continuous throughout the soil mass and the water is in
the form of highly viscous adsorbed water firmly attached to the skeleton
by capillary forces. As S is so small, the effective stress equation becomes
(σ' = σ – u a ). Water pressure cannot be measured and the suction term (u a -
u w ) is very high.
2– Dry of optimum (5 < S < 90 percent).

As more water is added to a soil, there is a gradual transition from
adsorbed to free water. The water tends to redistribute itself until the
curvatures of the air–water menisci are equal throughout the soil. At this
stage, both air and water pressures can be measured. The suction term (u a -
u w ) can still be large and u w will rarely exceed zero. In this case, Bishop's
effective stress equation applies.
3– At optimum S = 90 percent.
This seems to be a changeover point from a continuous air to a
discontinuous air system.
4– Wet of optimum (S > 90 percent).

Air no longer exists in a free state and is said to be occluded. There is
no way of measuring u a and the air exists in the form of bubbles which can
cause the pore fluid to be highly compressible but has little or no effect on
the pressure of the pore fluid, which is now equal to u w so that the effective
stress equation has become (σ- = σ – u w ).
5– Very wet (S > 95 percent).

It can be assumed that the skeleton traps the small amount of air which
is still present in the soil. Although the pore fluid will still tend to be highly
compressible, any fluid that flows from the soil will be incompressible.
10
2.6 Soil Suction Concept
In general, porous materials have a fundamental ability to attract and
retain water. The existence of this fundamental property in soils is
described in engineering terms as suction or negative stress in the pore
water. In engineering practice, soil suction is composed of two
components: matric and osmotic suction (Fredlund and Rahardjo, 1993).
The sum of matric and osmotic suction is called total suction. Matric
suction comes from the capillarity, texture, and surface adsorptive forces of
the soil. Osmotic suction arises from the dissolved salts contained in the
soil water. This relationship can be formed in an equation as follows:
ht = hm + hπ (2.3)
where h t = total suction (kPa),
h m = matric suction (kPa), and
h π = osmotic suction (kPa).
Total suction can be calculated by using Kelvin’s equation, which is

derived from the ideal gas law using the principles of thermodynamics and
is given as:
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝑃𝑃
ℎ𝑡𝑡 = ln � � (2.4)
𝑉𝑉 𝑃𝑃
°
where R = universal gas constant,

T = absolute temperature,
V = molecular volume of water,
P / P o = relative humidity,
P = partial pressure of pore water vapor, and
P o = saturation pressure of water vapor over a flat surface of pure

water at the same temperature.
11
It should be noted that these two forms of soil suction are completely
independent and have no effect on each other. If the soil is granular and
free of salt, there is no osmotic suction and matric and total suction are
equal. However clays contain salts and these salts cause a reduction in the
vapour pressure. This results in an increase in the total suction, and this
increase is the energy needed to transfer water into the vapour phase (i.e.
the osmotic suction) (Simth and Smith, 1998).
2.7 Soil Suction Measurement

Soil suction can be determined by using various techniques; an
overview of the various methods can be found in: Fredlund and Rahardjo
(1993), Lee and Wray (1995), Bulut and Leong (2008), Pan et al.,
(2010), Murray and Sivakumar, (2010), and others. A wide range of
systems and methods to measure suction are available in the market.
However, in the following section only three methods for matric suction
measurement are presented, namely: filter paper (which is adopted in this
work), axis – translation, and tensiometer.
Magnitudes of suction can vary enormously (between 0 and 1 GPa)

and the instruments and measurement techniques are usable over only
specific suction ranges. Table (2.1) illustrates the general suction ranges
and equilibrium time method of suction measurement.
2.7.1 Filter Paper Method

The filter paper method relies on the principle that when a filter paper
is in contact with soil, it will absorb the moisture until the suction in the
soil is equal to that in the filter paper. The method requires a calibration for
suction versus water content relationship of the filter paper. The method
can be used to measure either the total suction or matric suction depending
on whether the filter paper and the soil are in contact.
12
Table (2.1) Summary of suction measurement methods (Pan et al., 2010).
Type of Suction Technigue (method) Suction Equilibrium

measurement component range time
measured (kPa)
Direct suction Matric suction Axis – transition Hours
measurement technique
Tensiometer 0 - 1500 Hours
Suction probe minutes
Time domain
reflectometry 0 – 1500 Hours
Electrical conductivity
sensor 50 – 1500 6 – 50 hours
Matric suction
Thermal conductivity
sensor 0 – 1500 Hours – days
Indirect suction
measu rement In – contact filter
paper All 7 – 14 days
Osmotic
suction Squeezing technique 0 - 1500 days
Psychometer
technique 100 – 10000 1 hr
Relative humidity
Total suction sensor 100 – 8000 Hours – days
Chilled – mirror
hygrometer 150 – 30000 10 minutes
Non – contact filter

paper All 7 – 14 days
The main advantage of this method is its low cost as compared to

other methods, and its applicability over a wide range of suction (full range
of suction in case of contact filter paper). The filter paper method was
evolved in Europe in the 1920 and came to the United States in 1937 with
Gardner (1937). Since then, the filter paper method has been used and
investigated by numerous researchers (Fawcett and Collis-George 1967;
McQueen and Miller 1968; Al-Khafaf and Hanks 1974; McKeen 1980;
13
Hamblin 1981; Chandler and Guierrez 1986; Houston et al. 1994; and
Swarbrick 1995), who have tackled different aspects of the filter paper
method. The procedure of this method will be explained in Chapter Three.
An accuracy of the filter paper technique is dependent on the

accuracy of the filter paper water content versus suction calibration curve;
the calibration technique of the filter paper method has been investigated by
numerous researchers (e.g. Houston et al., 1994; Bulut et al., 2001;
Leong et al., 2002). Calibration equations should be developed specifically
for the specific filter paper being used. The most commonly used filter
papers are Whatman No.42 and Schleicher and Schuell No.589 WH. The
Schleicher and Schuell No.589 WH filter paper is now called grade 989
WH in the US.
Until Houston et al. (1994), all suction measurements were based on

a single calibration curve. Houston et al. (1994) developed two calibration
curves for Fisher quantitative coarse (9.54 A) filter paper: one for total
suction and one for matric suction and reported that the curves were
different.
Bulut et al. (2001) developed two calibration curves for Schleicher

and Schuell No.589-WH filter papers: one by the process of wetting from
initially dry filter papers through vapor flow using NaCl solutions and
another by the process of drying from initially saturated filter papers
through fluid flow using pressure plates and membranes.
Leong et al., (2002) developed different calibration curves for total

and matric suctions for Whatman No.42 and Schleicher and Schuell
No.589 WH filter papers from initially dry filter papers using NaCl
solutions and pressure plate.
The differences in the filter paper calibration curves in the literature are
attributed to several factors such as the suction source for the calibration,
14
thermodynamic definitions of suction components, and equilibration time,
(Fredlund and Rahardjo, 1993; Houston et al., 1994; Bulut et al., 2001;
Leong et al., 2002; Walker et al., 2005).
Walker et al. (2005) evaluated total suction measurements of a soil

sample using transistor psychrometer and filter paper method. Walker et al.
(2005) adopted the filter paper calibration curve of Hamblin (1981) and
found that total suction measurements from the filter papers were
significantly smaller than the total suction measurements from the
transistor psychrometer. Walker et al. (2005) suggested that the total
suction calibration curves represent a transient condition during the
calibration period and that a unique, single calibration curve should be used
for both total and matric suction measurements. In other words, Walker
et al. (2005) suggested that if sufficient time is allowed for equilibration,
the total suction calibration curve will tend towards the matric suction
calibration curve.
2.7.2 Axis – Translation Technique

Measurements of negative pore-water pressure can be made using the
axis-translation technique. The measurement is performed on either
undisturbed or compacted specimens. This technique was originally
proposed by Hilf (1956), as illustrated in Figure (2.3). An unsaturated soil
specimen was placed in a closed pressure chamber. The pore-water
pressure measuring probe consisted of a needle with a saturated high air
entry ceramic tip. The probe was connected to a null-type pressure
measuring system through a tube filled with deaired water, with a mercury
plug in the middle. As soon as the probe was inserted into the specimen,
the water in the tube tended to go into tension and the Bourdon gauge
began registering a negative pressure. The tendency of the water in the
measuring system to go further into tension was countered by
increasing the air pressure in the chamber. Eventually, an equilibrium
15
condition was achieved when the mercury plug (i.e., the null indicator)
remained stationary. The difference between the air pressure in the
chamber and the measured negative water pressure at equilibrium was
taken to be the matric suction of the soil, (u a – u w ).
Figure (2.3) Original setup for the null-type, axis-translation device for
measuring negative pore-water pressures (after Hilf, 1956).
2.7.3 Tensiometer Technique

A tensiometer is normally used for directly measuring the negative
pore water pressure of soil and can be used in the laboratory and in the
field. The tensiometer consists of a high air entry porous ceramic cup
connected to a pressure measuring device through a small bore tube. The
tube is usually made from plastic due to its low heat conduction and
noncorrosive nature. The tube and the cup are filled with deaired water.
The cup can be inserted into a precored hole until there is good contact
with the soil. Once equilibrium is achieved between the soil and the
measuring system, the water in the tensiometer will have the same negative
pressure as the pore-water in the soil (Fredlund and Rahardjo, 1993).
2.8 Shear Strength of Unsaturated Soil

The independent state variable approach was proposed by Fredlund
and associates in a series of papers (Fredlund and Morgenstern, 1977;
and Fredlund et al., 1978; Fredlund and Rahardjo, 1993). These
16
investigators showed that stress state of an unsaturated soil can be
described by any two of the three possible combinations of stress variables,
namely: total normal stress (σ), pore air pressure (u a ), and pore water
pressure (u w ). Possible combinations are:
1) (σ-u a ) and (u a -u w ),
2) (σ-u w ) and (u a -u w ), and
3) (σ-u a ) and (σ-u w ).
It was shown that (σ-u a ) and (u a -u w ) were the most advantageous

combination because only one stress state variable was affected when pore
water pressure changed.
The accepted shear strength equation of a saturated soil is a linear

function of effective stress and is given as follows:
τ f = c' + (σ - u w ) tan ø' (2.5)
where τ f = the shear stress,

c' = the effective cohesion,
σ = the total stress,
u w = the pore-water pressure, and
ø' = the effective angle of shear resistance.
Unlike saturated soils, the shear strength of unsaturated soils

cannot be described by single stress state variable. Fredlund et al.
(1978) described the shear strength of unsaturated soil in terms of
two stress state variables, net normal stress, (σ n – u a ) and matric
suction (u a – u w ). The equation is:
τ f = c' + (σ n –u a ) ƒ tan ø' + (u a - u w ) tan øb (2.6)
where: (σ n – u a ) = net normal stress,
u aƒ = pore-air pressure on the failure plane at failure, and

17
øb = angle of shear resistance with respect to matric suction.
A comparison of Eqs. (2.5) and (2.6) reveals that the shear

strength equation for an unsaturated soil is an extension of the shear
strength equation for a saturated soil. For an unsaturated soil, two
stress state variables are used to describe its shear strength, while
only one stress state variable [i.e., effective normal stress, (σ – u w )
] is required for a saturated soil. In the case of an unsaturated soil,
the Mohr circles corresponding to failure conditions can be plotted
in a three-dimensional manner, as illustrated in Figure (2.4). The
three-dimensional plot has the shear stress as the ordinate and the
two stress state variables, (σ – u a ) and (u a – u w ), as abscissas. The
frontal plane represents a saturated soil where the matric suction is
zero. On the frontal plane, the (σ – u a ) axis reverts to the (σ – u w )
axis since the pore-air pressure becomes equal to the pore-water
pressure at saturation. The surface tangent to the Mohr circles at
failure is referred to as the extended Mohr-Coulomb failure
envelope for unsaturated soils. Figure (2.4) shows a planar failure
envelope that intersects the shear stress axis, giving a cohesion
intercept, c', the envelope has slope angles of ø' and øb with respect
to the (σ – u a ) and (u a - u w ) axes, respectively. Both angles are
assumed to be constants. The cohesion intercept, c', and the slope
angles, ø' and øb, are the strength parameters used to relate the shear
strength to the stress state variables. The value of øb is consistently
equal to or less than ø' (Fredlund and Rahradjo, 1993).
18
Figure (2.4) Extended Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope for unsaturated

soils (after Fredlund and Rahradjo , 1993).
2.9 Soil Water Characteristic Curve

The soil water characteristic curve (SWCC) defines the
relationship between the amount of water in the soil and soil
suction. The amount of water can be a gravimetric water content, w,
volumetric water content, θ, or degree of saturation, S. The SWCC
is also called the water retention curve, (WTC) or the capillary
pressure curve. The SWCC divides soil behavior into three distinct
stages of desaturation as shown in Figure (2.5). The stages of
desturation are referred to as the "boundary effect stage" at low soil
suction, the "transition stage" at intermediate soil suction, and the
"residual stage" at the high soil suction that extend to 1,000,000 kPa
(Fredlund, 2006).
There are two defining breaks along most SWCC and these are
referred to as the “air entry value” of the soil and the “residual
value” of the soil. These points are illustrated in Figure (2.5), the air
entry value is the point at which the difference between the air and
water pressure becomes sufficiently large such that water can be
19
displaced by air from the largest pore space in the soil. The residual
degree of saturation is the point at which a further increase in
suction fails to displace a significant amount of water (Brooks and
Corey, 1964).
Figure (2.5) Illustration of the in situ zones of desaturation defined by a

soil – water characteristic curve (after Fredlund, 2006).
The general shape of the SWCC for various soils reflects the
dominating influence of material properties including pore size
distribution, gain size distribution, density, organic material
content, clay content, and mineralogy on the pore water retention
behavior (Lu and Likos, 2004).
The SWCC is strongly affected by soil texture. The greater the

clay content, in general, the greater the water content at any
particular suction, and the more gradual the slope of the curve. In a
sandy soil, most of the pores are relatively large, and once these
large pores are emptied at given suction, only a small amount of
water remains. In clayey soil, the pore-size distribution is more
uniform, and more of water is absorbed, so that increasing the
matric suction causes a more gradual decrease in water content
20
Figure (2.6.a). Soil structure also affects the shape of the SWCC,
particularly in the low suction range. The effect of compaction upon
a soil is to decrease the total porosity, and, especially to decrease
the volume of the large interaggregate pores. This means that the
saturation water content and the initial decrease of water content
with application of low suction are reduced. On the other hand, the
volume of intermediate size pores is likely to be somewhat greater
in a compact soil, while the interaggregate micropores remain
unaffected and thus the curves for the compacted and uncompacted
soil may be nearly identical at high suction range Figure (2.6.b)
(Hillel, 1971).
(a) (b)
Figure (2.6) Effect of texture and structure on SWCC.

(a) The effect of texture on SWCC, (b) The effect of structure on SWCC,
(from Hillel, 1971).
Alabdullah (2010) showed that increasing the fine content (i.e.,

kaolin content) significantly affects the shape of the curve. The air entry
value, residual suction, and water-entry value increase by increasing fine
content as shown in Figure (2.7).
21
Figure (2.7) SWCC (drying and wetting) of the materials used, (after
Alabdullah, 2010).
2.10 An Overview of Bearing Capacity Theories

The methods of calculating the ultimate bearing capacity of shallow
strip footings by plastic theory have been developed considerably over the
years since Terzaghi (1943) first proposed a method by taking into account
the weight of soil by the principle of superposition. Terzaghi extended the
theory of Prandtl (1921), who developed an equation based on his study of
the penetration of a long hard metal punch into softer materials for
computing the ultimate bearing capacity. Prandtl assumed the material was
weightless possessing only cohesion and friction. Taylor (1948) extended
the equation of Prandtl by taking into account the surcharge effect of the
overburden soil at the foundation level. No exact analytical solution for
computing bearing capacity of footings is available at present because the
basic system of equations describing the yield problems is nonlinear. On
account of these reasons, Terzaghi (1943) first proposed a semi-empirical
equation for computing the ultimate bearing capacity of strip footings by
taking into account cohesion, friction and weight of soil, and replacing the
overburden pressure with an equivalent surcharge load at the base level of
22
the foundation. This method was for the general shear failure condition and
the principle of superposition was adopted. Subsequent to the work
presented by Terzaghi, many investigators became interested in this
problem and presented their own solutions. However, the form of the
equation presented by all these investigators remained the same as that of
Terzaghi, but their methods of determining the bearing capacity factors
were different. Terzaghi made the following assumptions for developing an
equation for determining q u for a c - ø soil:
(1) The soil is semi-infinite, homogeneous and isotropic,

(2) The problem is two-dimensional,
(3) The base of the footing is rough,
(4) The failure is occurred by general shear,
(5) The load is vertical and symmetrical,
(6) The ground surface is horizontal,
(7) The overburden pressure at foundation level is equivalent to a
surcharge load
q' 0 = γ' D f (2.7)
where γ' = the effective unit weight of soil, and

D f = the depth of foundation less than the width B of the foundation,
(8) The principle of superposition is valid, and

(9) Coulomb's law is strictly valid, that is, (τ = c + σ tan ø), as shown in
Figure (2.8). The bearing capacity equation for strip footings was
developed by analyzing the forces acting on the wedge abc in Figure (2.8).
The equation for the ultimate bearing capacity q u is:
𝑄𝑄𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢 1
qu= = cN c + γ D f N q + γ B N γ (2.8)
𝐵𝐵 2
where Q ult = ultimate load per unit length of footing,

c = unit cohesion,
23
B = width of footing, and
N c , N q and N γ are the bearing capacity factors. They are functions
of the angle of friction, ø.
The bearing capacity factors are expressed by the following equations:
N c = (N q – 1) cot ø
𝑎𝑎 𝜃𝜃2
Nq = ø (2.9)
2𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 2 (45+2 )
where 𝑎𝑎𝜃𝜃 = 𝑒𝑒 𝜂𝜂 tan ø , η = (0.75 𝜋𝜋 − ø/2)
1 𝐾𝐾𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝
N γ = 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 ø -1
2 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 2 ø
where k pγ = passive earth pressure coefficient
Figure (2.8) General shear failure surface as assumed by Terzaghi for a

strip footing (after Terzaghi, 1943).
2.11 The Bearing Capacity of Foundation on Unsaturated Soil

Foundation designs for unsaturated soils are complex and do not only
require the soil-structure interaction but also a fundamental understanding
of soil behavior that comprises the combined role of suction and
cementation. Several researchers carried out investigations on the bearing
capacity of unsaturated soils. Their studies have shown significant
24
contribution of matric suction to the bearing capacity of unsaturated soils.
However, limited theoretical research work is reported in the literature with
respect to the interpretation of the bearing capacity of unsaturated soils. In
most experimental works on shallow footings, the depth of the water table
has been used as a reference parameter for quantifying the foundation
performance with respect to the variation of the degree of saturation within
the soil mass.
Meyerhof (1955) performed load tests on small-scale models using

square and strip footings width B= 25 mm (1 in), over a sand layer. Tests
were carried out considering different positions of the water table. A linear
increase in ultimate bearing capacity with depth was observed up to a
maximum value, beyond which the ultimate bearing capacity remained
unchanged, for depth greater than about 250 mm (10 in).
On account of the small scale of these tests, this increase in bearing

capacity is only partly due to greater effective unit weight, the remaining
large increase in resistance is due to a greater apparent cohesion of the sand
near the base level. This cohesion is caused by capillary stresses or nagtive
pore water pressures, which were measured by piezometers at ground level.
Small-scale tests with footings under constant loading were described

by Agarwal and Rana (1987). The main purpose of the research was to
observe settlement of the footing as the water table raised from a depth of
1.5 B to the surface. When the water table reached a depth of B below the
footing, settlements were 38% higher than those measured by using dry
soil. Settlements were 95 % higher when the water table reached the base
of the footing.
Limited research work has been performed so far on shallow

foundations in which the negative pore-water pressures of the soil were
explicitly accounted for.
25
Rahardjo and Fredlund (1992) presented example demonstrated the
role of matric suction in affecting the value of undrained shear strength
(Cu) and consequently the bearing capacity of the soil. They explained that
the insitu matric suction can increase or decrease in response to change in
the climatic conditions such as evaporation precipitation. As a result, the
undrained shear strength will also change and its change can be expressed
as follows:
∆𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 = ∆ (𝑢𝑢𝑎𝑎 − 𝑢𝑢𝑤𝑤 ) tan ø𝑏𝑏 (2.10)
where ∆𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 = change in undrained shear strength due to matric suction

change, and
∆ (𝑢𝑢𝑎𝑎 − 𝑢𝑢𝑤𝑤 ) = change in matric suction due to wetting and
drying.
Rahardjo and Fredlund (1992) considered a clay with an initially

measured undrained shear strength of (Cu° ) and the initial ultimate bearing
R
capacity q f° (i.e., Nc Cu° ), and the change in ultimate bearing capacity is

R R
∆q f (i.e., Nc ∆Cu). So, the percent change in ultimate bearing capacity is

related as follow:
∆𝑞𝑞 𝑓𝑓 ∆(𝑢𝑢 𝑎𝑎 − 𝑢𝑢 𝑤𝑤 )
= tan ø𝑏𝑏 (2.11)
𝑞𝑞 𝑓𝑓° 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶°
So, the undrained shear strength of the clay was 50 kPa, and the value
of øb was taken as 15°. The initial bearing capacity for the strip and the
square footing was 257 and 309 kPa, respectively. The initial bearing
capacity was observed to increase by 27 % when the matric suction
increased by an amount equals to the undrained shear as shown in Figure
(2.9).
26
Figure (2.9) Variation in the ultimate bearing capacity due to matric

suction change (after Rahardjo and Fredlund, 1992).
Fredlund and Rahardjo (1993) proposed an extension of bearing

capacity formulations to account for the increase in bearing capacity due to
soil suction. The increase in bearing capacity is considered as an additional
cohesive component due to matric suction, which can be estimated as
{(u a – u w ) tanøb}. The angle øb, represents the increase in shear strength
contribution due to matric suction.
Costa et al. (2003), and Mohamed and Vanapalli (2006) showed

that the bearing capacities of unsaturated soil are significantly influenced
by the matric suction from their investigations on model footing tests or in
situ plate load tests. Costa et al. (2003) used plate load test with diameter
(0.8 m) and thickness (25 mm) on clayey sandy soil. The procedure of
testing and the results are presented later in Chapter Four.
27
Mohamed and Vanapalli (2006), used model footings of different
sizes (i.e., 100 mm x 100 mm and 150 mm x 150 mm) on sandy soil
classified using USCS as poorly graded sand (SP) with internal friction
angle of (35.3°) from direct shear test. The bearing capacity of a surface
footing on saturated and unsaturated, compacted coarse-grained soil was
measured using the University of Ottawa Bearing Capacity Equipment
(UOBCE) that was specially designed and built for this research program at
the University of Ottawa student work shop. The test tank dimensions were
(900 mm x 900 mm) in plan and 750 mm in depth. It was shown that the
matric suction values in the range of 2 to 6 kPa contributes to an increase in
the bearing capacity of soil by 4 to 7 times in comparison to bearing
capacity values under saturated condition, as shown in Figure (2.10).
900
6 kPa
e=0.63 4 kPa
800
S=58% e=0.64
S=78%
700
Applied stress, kPa
600 2 kPa
e=0.62
500 S=90%
400
300 Suction=0 kPa

e=0.63
200 S=100%
100
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Settlement, mm
Figure (2.10) Stress versus settlement relationship for (100 mm x 100

mm), (after Mohamed and Vanapalli, 2006).
Vanapalli and Mohamed (2007), suggested an equation to predict

the variation of bearing capacity with respect to matric suction for surface
footings on unsaturated soils using the saturated shear strength parameters
(i.e. c- and ø′ ) and the SWCC as below:
28
q ult = [c′ + (u a -u w ) b (1 - Sψ) tanø′ + (u a -u w ) AVR Sψ tanø′] N c ξ c + 0.5 Bγ N γ ξ γ
(2.12)
where q ult = the ultimate bearing capacity,
ψ = a fitting parameter,
(u a -u w ) b = air entry value,
(u a -u w ) AVR = average (representative) suction value,
B = the width of footing,
L = the length of footing,
γ = soil unit weight,
S = degree of saturation,
N c , N q , Nγ = bearing capacity factors, and
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝐵𝐵 𝐵𝐵
ξ c = [1 + ( ) ( )] , ξγ = [1 - 0.4( )] are shape functions from
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝐿𝐿 𝐿𝐿
Vesic (1973).
Vanapalli and Mohamed (2007) provided a relationship between the

fitting parameters, ψ and plasticity index, PI that can be used for predicting
the bearing capacity of unsaturated soils as given below:
Ψ = - 0.0031(PI)2 + 0.3988 (PI) +1 (2.13)
a fitting parameter ψ = 1 is required for predicting the bearing capacity of

sandy soils with PI = 0.
Oh and Vanapalli (2008), presented two methods for predicting the

stress versus settlement behavior of unsaturated sandy soils. In the first
method (proposed method), the stress versus settlement behavior was
idealized by assuming elastic - perfectly plastic behavior based on
predicted modulus of elasticity (Vanapalli et al., 2008) and bearing
capacity (Vanapalli and Mohamed, 2007). In the second method, finite
element analysis (FEA) was carried out by using SIGMA/W, a software
product of GEO-SLOPE (Krahn, 2004) also assuming elastic - perfectly
29
plastic model with Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion. The analyses were
carried out by using two effective internal friction angle values, namely ø′
(which is 35.3°) and 1.1ø′ (which is 39°), for both computation of bearing
capacity using Eq. (2.12) (which was suggested by Mohamed and
Vanapalli, 2007) and the FEA for comparison purposes, as shown in Figure
(2.11).
The settlements and bearing capacities for unsaturated sandy soils were
estimated from the predicted stress versus settlement behaviors using the
proposed method and the FEA and comparisons were provided with the
measured model footing test results. The results showed a good agreement
between the measured and predicted settlements and bearing capacities
from model footing tests, as shown in Figure (2.12).
Figure (2.11) Comparison of stress versus settlement behaviors obtained

from the model footing tests, the FEA and idealized behavior, (after Oh and
Vanapalli, 2008).
30
a b
Figure (2.12) Comparison between the measured and predicted values,

(a) for bearing capacity, (b) for settlement (after Oh and Vanapalli,
2008).
Alabdullah (2010) performed bearing capacity tests to investigate the

effect of the applied matric suction on the ultimate bearing capacity of strip
footing on unsaturated Hostun sand (dense sand) with the angle of internal
friction equals to (47.1°) and void ratio (0.66). A specially designed box
was used to conduct the bearing capacity tests. The box was 1000 mm long,
500 mm high and 500 mm wide. The applied matric suction was monitored
by using two tensiometer sensors at a depth of 10 and 100 mm from the soil
surface. The model strip footing used in the study was 477 mm long and 80
mm wide. The cross section of the model strip footing is U-shape 49 mm
wide and 45 mm high. The height of the sand in the box in all tests was 350
mm and the loading speed was chosen to be equal to 0.002 mm/sec. Figure
(2.13) shows the relationship between the settlement of the model strip
footing and the applied load for the saturated and unsaturated dense Hostun
sand.
Analysis of these curves has shown that the ultimate bearing capacity
of model strip footing increases by increasing the matric suction and
reaches its maximum value at a value of matric suction (i.e., 2.1 kPa)
slightly higher than the air entry value of the tested sand (AEV = 1.7 kPa).
31
Beyond this value of matric suction, the ultimate bearing capacity of the
model strip footing starts to decrease by increasing the applied matric
suction. So, the ultimate bearing capacity of unsaturated specimen is (1.2-
1.6) times higher in comparison with saturated specimen.
Figure (2.13) Load-settlement relationships of model strip footing on

Hostun sand, (after Alabdullah, 2010).
Alabdullah (2010) made comparison between the measured and

predicted ultimate bearing capacity from the equation proposed by
Vanapalli and Mohamed (2007), (i.e, Eq. 2.12) as shown in Figure (2.14).
Figure (2.14) Measured and predicted ultimate bearing capacity of

unsaturated Hostun sand versus matric suction, (after Alabdullah 2010).
32
Chapter Three
Experimental
Work
CHAPTER THREE
EXPERIMENTAL WORK
3.1 Introduction
U
In this study, the aim of experimental work is to define the soil water
characteristic curve (SWCC) by measuring of the soil suction.
Soil samples were collected from different sites within Baghdad city –
Al-Rusafa region. The physical properties of these soils were studied by
conducting a series of tests in the laboratory, these include: specific gravity,
Atterberg limits, unconfined compression test, grain size distribution by
sieve analysis and hydrometer, and consolidation test. For each sample, the
total and matric suction were measured by the filter paper method
(Whatman No. 42) at different degrees of saturation.
3.2 Experimental Program

U U
A three undisturbed soil samples were collected from three sites within
Baghdad city Al-Rusafa region; namely, Sahat Al – Wathiq from depth (3.5
m), in this study referred to as (Rusafa 1), Bab Al – Muadham from depth
(9.5 m, and 3.5 m) referred to as (Rusafa 2, and Rusafa 3), respectively.
The samples were subjected to testing program which includes the
following tests:
3.2.1 Water Content and Degree of Saturation

The natural water content was determined for each undisturbed
sample according to ASTM D-2216-00. Table (3.1) shows the results of
natural water content and degrees of saturation.
3.2.2 Specific Gravity

Specific gravity for the soils studied was determined according to
ASTM D-854-00. The results are summarized in Table (3.1). For silty and
clayey soils, the specific gravity may be varying from 2.6 to 2.9 (Das,
2002). Therefore, the value in Table (3.1) was expected.
33
Chapter Three Experimental Work
3.2.3 Atterbegr Limits
The liquid and plastic limit tests were carried out on the soil passing
sieve No. 40 according to ASTM D-4318-00. The results are shown in
Table (3.1).
3.2.4 Grain Size Distribution

Wet sieving (by water), and hydrometer tests were carried out in
accordance with ASTM-D-422-00. The grain size distribution of the three
samples is shown in Figure (3.1). The figure shows that all these soils are
classified as silty clay according to "ASTM" classification, designated as
(CL) for Rusafa 1 and Rusafa 2, and (CH) for Rusafa 3 according to the
Unified Soil Classification System, and the percentage of clay is
summarized in Table (3.1).
Table (3.1) Index properties of the soils.

Site Natural Degree of Liquid Plastic Plasticity Specific %
Water Saturation, Limit, LL Limit, PL Index, PI Gravity, Clay
Content, S (%) (%) (%) (%) Gs
W (%)
Rusafa 1 24.32 100 34 19 15 2.74 68.3
Rusafa 2 25.12 95 45 27 18 2.76 66.5
Rusafa 3 31.3 96 54 27 27 2.78 80.3
ASTM D422
Gravel Sand Silt Clay

100
90
80
Percent finer by weight, %
70
60
50
40
30
Rusafa 1
20 Rusafa 2
10 Rusafa 3
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
Diameter in mm
Figure (3.1) Grain size distribution.
34
3.2.5 Unconfined Compression Test
At first, unconfined compression test was carried out on undisturbed
samples in accordance with ASTM-D-2166-00. Unconfined compression
strength (q u ), undrained shear strength of cohesive soil (Cu), and the
R R
relationship between the soil consistency and its unconfined compressive

strength according to Das (2002) are shown in Table (3.2) and Figure (3.2).
Table (3.2) Results of unconfined compression test for undisturbed samples.

Site q u (kPa)
R R C u (kPa)
R R Consistency
Rusafa 1 269 134.5 Very stiff

Rusafa 2 215 107.5 Very stiff
Rasafa 3 132 66 Stiff
300
250
Stress (kPa)
200
150
100
Rusafa 1
50 Rusafa 2
Rusafa 3
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
Strain
Figure (3.2) Stress – strain relationship from unconfined compression test
for undisturbed samples.
Then, the undrained shear strength (Cu) of each soil was measured by
carrying out unconfined compression test through remolding the samples at
different degrees of saturation (100%, 90%, 80%, and 70%). The results are
summarized later in Figures (5.2), to (5.4), and Table (5.2).
35
3.2.6 Consolidation Test
One-dimensional consolidation test was carried out by using the
standard oedometer to determine the soil compressibility characteristics in
accordance with ASTM- D2435-00. The pressure – void ratio relationships
for the samples are drawn in Figure (3.3).
Also, the coefficient of permeability (k) was calculated from

consolidation test according to the equation:
𝑘𝑘 = 𝑐𝑐𝑣𝑣 𝑚𝑚𝑣𝑣 𝛾𝛾𝑤𝑤 (3.1)
where c v = coefficient of consolidation,

R R
m v = coefficient of volume change, and

R R
𝛾𝛾𝑤𝑤 = water unit weight.

The results of the three soils are summarized in Table (3.3).
Table (3.3) Coefficient of permeability for the three soils.

Name of soil k (m/s)
Rusafa 1 2.55 x 10-10 P
Rusafa 2 2.78 x 10-10

P
Rusafa 3 2.85 x 10-10 P
Table (3.4) which is based on the description of soil permeability on

the Unified Soil Classification, as cited by Bowles (1996), emphasizes the
accuracy of the permeability values obtained in this work.
Table (3.4) Order-of-magnitude values for permeability k, based on

description of soil and by Unified Soil Classification, m/s (Bowles, 1996).
36
1.00
Rusafa 1 (e = 0.666)
Rusafa 2 (e = 0.73)
Rusafa 3 (e = 0.903)
0.80
Void Ratio 0.60
0.40
0.20
10 100 1000 10000
Pressure (kPa)
Figure (3.3) Results of oedometer test.
3.2.7 Total and Matric Suction of Soil Measurement by Filter Paper

Method
The filter paper method has long been used in soil science and
engineering practice and it has recently been accepted as an adaptable test
method for soil suction measurements because of its advantages over other
suction measurement devices. Basically, the filter paper comes to
equilibrium with the soil either through vapor (total suction measurement)
or liquid (matric suction measurement) flow. At equilibrium, the suction
value of the filter paper and the soil will be equal. After equilibrium is
established between the filter paper and the soil, the water content of the
filter paper disc is measured. Then, by using filter paper water content
versus suction calibration curve, the corresponding suction value is found
from the curve. This is the basic approach suggested by ASTM Standard
Test Method for Measurement of Soil Potential (Suction) Using Filter
Paper (ASTM D 5298). In other words, ASTM D 5298 employs a single
calibration curve that has been used to infer both total and matric suction
measurements. The ASTM D 5298 calibration curve is a combination of
both wetting and drying curves, as shown in Figure (3.4).
37
Figure (3.4) Calibration suction-water content curves for wetting of filter

paper (from ASTM- 5298-03).
3.2.7.1 Total Suction of Soil Measurements

Glass jars that are between 250 to 500 ml volume sizes are readily
available and can be easily adopted for suction measurements. Glass jars,
especially, with 3.5 to 4 inch (8.89 to 10.16 cm) diameter can contain the 3
inch (7.62 cm) diameter Shelby tube samples very nicely. A testing
procedure for total suction measurements using filter papers can be
outlined as will be described in the following sections (Bulut et al., 2001).
Experimental procedure:
1. At least 75 percent by volume of a glass jar is filled up with the soil; the
smaller the empty space remaining in the glass jar, the smaller the time
period that the filter paper and the soil system requires to come to
equilibrium.
2. A ring type support, which has a diameter smaller than filter paper
diameter and about 1 to 2 cm in height, is put on top of the soil to
provide a non-contact system between the filter paper and the soil. Care
must be taken when selecting the support material; materials that can
38
corrode should be avoided, plastic or glass type materials are much
better for this job.
3. Two filter papers; one on top of the other are inserted on the ring using
tweezers. The filter papers should not touch the soil, the inside wall of
the jar, and underneath the lid in any way.
4. Then, the glass jar lid is sealed very tightly with plastic tape.
5. Steps 1, 2, 3, and 4 are repeated for every soil sample.
6. After that, the glass jars are put into the ice-chests in a controlled
temperature room for equilibrium.
These steps are documented in photographs (3.1) to (3.8).
Researchers suggest a minimum equilibrating period of one week

(ASTM D 5298, Lee, 1991, Houston et al., 1994). After the equilibration
time, the procedure for the filter paper water content measurements can be
as follows (Bulut et al., 2001):
1. Before removing the glass jar containers from the temperature room, all
aluminum cans that are used for moisture content measurements are
weighed to the nearest 0.0001 g. accuracy and recorded.
2. After that, all measurements are carried out by two persons. For
example, while one person is opening the sealed glass jar, the other puts
the filter paper into the aluminum can very quickly (i.e., in a few
seconds) using tweezers.
3. Then, the weights of each can with wet filter paper inside are taken very
quickly.
4. Steps 2 and 3 are followed for every glass jar. Then, all cans are put into
the oven with the lids half-open to allow evaporation. All filter papers
are kept at 105 ±5oC temperature inside the oven for at least 10 hours.
P P
39
5. Before taking measurements on the dried filter papers, the cans are
closed with their lids and allowed to equilibrate for about 5 minutes.
Then, a can is removed from the oven and put on an aluminum block
(i.e., heat sinker) for about 20 seconds to cool down. The aluminum
block functions as a heat sink and expedites the cooling of the can. After
that, the can with the dry filter paper inside is weighed very quickly.
The dry filter paper is taken from the can and the cooled can is weighed
again in a few seconds.
6. Step 5 is repeated for every can.
3.2.7.2 Matric Suction of Soil Measurements

Soil matric suction measurements are similar to the total suction
measurements except instead of inserting filter papers in a non-contact
manner with the soil for total suction testing, a good intimate contact
should be provided between the filter paper and the soil for matric suction
measurements. Both matric and total suction measurements can be
performed on the same soil sample in a glass jar as shown in Figure (3.5).
A testing procedure for matric suction measurements using filter papers can
be outlined as follows (Bulut et al., 2001):
Experimental procedure:
1. A filter paper is sandwiched between two larger size protective filter
papers. The filter papers used in suction measurements are 5.5 cm in
diameter, so either a filter paper is cut to a smaller diameter and
sandwiched between two 5.5 cm papers or bigger diameter (bigger than
5.5 cm) filter papers are used as protective.
2. Then, these sandwiched filter papers are inserted into the soil sample in a
very good contact manner (i.e., as in Figure 3.5). An intimate contact
between the filter paper and the soil is very important.
40
3. After that, the soil sample with embedded filter papers is put into the
glass jar container. The glass container is sealed up very tightly with
plastic tape.
4. Steps 1, 2, and 3 are repeated for every soil sample.
5. The prepared containers are put into ice-chests in a controlled

temperature room for equilibrium. Researchers suggest an equilibration
period of (3 to 5) days for matric suction testing (ASTM D 5298, Lee,
1991, Houston et al., 1994). However, if both matric and total suction
measurements are performed on the same sample in the glass jar, then
the final equilibrating time will be at least 7 days of total suction
equilibrating period. The procedure for the filter paper water content
measurements at the end of the equilibration is exactly same as the one
outlined for the total suction water content measurements. After
obtaining all the filter paper water contents, the appropriate calibration
curve may be employed to get the matric suction values of the soil
samples.
Figure (3.5) Total and matric suction measurement (Bulut et al., 2001).
41
Photograph (3.1) Photograph (3.2)
42
Chapter Four
Finite Element
Formulation,
Computer
Programs and
Verfication
CHAPRT FOUR
FINITE ELEMENT FORMULATION, COMPUTER
PROGRAMS AND VERFICATION
4.1 Introduction
U
A finite element analysis consists of two steps. The first step is to

model the problem, while the second step is to formulate and solve the
associated finite element equations. Modeling involves designing the mesh,
defining the material properties, choosing the appropriate constitutive soil
model, and defining the boundary conditions. The modeling, however,
must be done that is an acceptable mesh must be designed, select the
applicable soil properties, and control the boundary conditions.
In this chapter, the methods, equations, procedures, and techniques of

finite element used in the formulation and development of the program
SIGMA/W are presented. An understanding of these concepts will be of
great benefit in applying the software, resolving difficulties, and judging
the acceptability of the results. Two computer programs are also, explained
in this chapter. The first program (SoilVision) is adopted to find the soil
water characteristic curve. The second one (SIGMA/W) is used to solve
problems of bearing capacity for foundation on unsaturated soils. Then a
problem is reanalyzed by using the program SIGMA/W and the results are
compared with previous analysis results.
4.2 The Finite Element Method

U
The finite element method has been documented by many researchers

(Rockey, et al., 1975, Huebner, 1975, Smith and Griffiths, 1988, and
Zienkiewicz and Taylor, 2000). The finite element method is numerical
solution of matrix method based on discrete – element idealization. With
the finite element displacement method, a complex structure is analyzed by
treating the structure system as set of elements interconnected at a finite
43
Chapter Four Finite Element Formulation, Computer Programs And Verification
number of discrete points (nodes). The basic finite element equation for
elastic analyses can be written as:
[𝐾𝐾] {𝛿𝛿} = {𝐹𝐹} (4.1)
where [𝐾𝐾] = stiffness matrix,

{𝛿𝛿} = vector of unknown nodal displacements, and
{𝐹𝐹} = nodal forces due to external applied traction.
In the following sections, the methods, equations, procedure, and

technique used in the formulation and development of the program
SIGMA/W are presented. The bracket sets ‹ ›, { }, and [ ] are used to
denote a row vector, a column vector and a matrix, respectively. Full
details for finite element equations which are used for formulation of the
program SIGMA/W are given in appendix A.
4.2.1 Finite Element Equations

U
The finite element equation for a given time increment is

(Zienkiewicz and Taylor, 2000),
∫v [𝐵𝐵]𝑇𝑇 [𝐷𝐷][𝐵𝐵]𝑑𝑑v {𝛿𝛿} = 𝑏𝑏 ∫v < 𝑁𝑁 >𝑇𝑇 𝑑𝑑v + 𝑝𝑝 ∫𝐴𝐴 < 𝑁𝑁 >𝑇𝑇 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 + {𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹} (4.2)
where: [B] = strain-displacement matrix,

[D] = constitutive matrix,
{𝛿𝛿} = column vector of nodal incremental x- and y-displacements,
A = area along the boundary of an element,
v = volume of an element,
b = unit body force intensity,
<N> = row vector of interpolating functions,
p = incremental surface pressure, and
{Fn} = concentrated nodal incremental loads.
44
For a two-dimensional plane strain analysis, all elements are

considered to be of unit thickness. For constant element thickness, t,
Equation (4.2) can be written as:
𝑡𝑡 ∫𝐴𝐴[𝐵𝐵]𝑇𝑇 [𝐷𝐷][𝐵𝐵]𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 {𝛿𝛿} = 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 ∫𝐴𝐴 < 𝑁𝑁 >𝑇𝑇 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 + 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 ∫𝐿𝐿 < 𝑁𝑁 >𝑇𝑇 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 + {𝐹𝐹𝑛𝑛 }
(4.3)
In an abbreviated form, the finite element equation is,
[𝐾𝐾]{𝛿𝛿} = {𝐹𝐹} = {𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹} + {𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹} + {𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹} (4.4)
where: [K] = element characteristic (or stiffness) matrix

= 𝑡𝑡 ∫𝐴𝐴([𝐵𝐵]𝑇𝑇 [𝐷𝐷][𝐵𝐵])𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 (plane strain)
{F} = applied nodal incremental force which is made up of the following:

{F b } = incremental body forces,
R R
{F s } = force due to surface boundary incremental pressures,

R R
= 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 ∫𝐿𝐿 (< 𝑁𝑁 >𝑇𝑇 ) 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 (for two – dimensional analysis)
{F n } = concentrated nodal incremental forces.

R R
4.2.2 Plastic Matrix, (Elastic – Plastic Model)

U
Soil plasticity is formulated using the theory of incremental plasticity

(Hill, 1950). Once an elastic-plastic material begins to yield, an
incremental strain can be divided into elastic and a plastic component.
{𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑} = {𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑒𝑒 } + {𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑝𝑝 },

or {𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑒𝑒 } = {𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑} − {𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑝𝑝 } (4.5)
where {𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑} = increment of total strain,

{𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑒𝑒 } = increment of elastic strain, and
{𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑝𝑝 } = increment of plastic strain.
Only elastic strain increments, (dεe), will cause stress changes. As a result,
P P
stress increments can be written as follows:
45
{𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑} = [𝐷𝐷𝑒𝑒 ] {𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑒𝑒 },

or {𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑} = [𝐷𝐷𝑒𝑒 ] ({𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑} − {𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑝𝑝 }) (4.6)
In the elastic – plastic model the yield point, F, depends only on the stress
state. Consequently, the yield function can be written as follows in equation
form.
F = F (σ x , σ y , σ z , τ xy)
R R R R R R R R (4.7)
An incremental change in the yield function is given by:
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕

dF = 𝑑𝑑𝜎𝜎𝑥𝑥 + 𝑑𝑑𝜎𝜎𝑦𝑦 + 𝑑𝑑𝜎𝜎𝑧𝑧 + 𝑑𝑑𝜏𝜏𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 (4.8)
𝜕𝜕𝜎𝜎𝑥𝑥 𝜕𝜕𝜎𝜎𝑦𝑦 𝜕𝜕𝜎𝜎𝑧𝑧 𝜕𝜕𝜏𝜏 𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥
Alternatively, this equation can be written in the following matrix form:
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
dF = 〈 〉 {𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑} (4.9)
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
The theory of incremental plasticity dictates that the yield function, F <
0, and, when the stress state is on the yield surface, dF is zero. This latter
condition is termed the neutral loading condition, and, can be written
mathematically as:
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
dF = 〈 〉 {𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑} = 0 (4.10)
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
The plastic strain is postulated to be (Hill, 1950):
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
{𝑑𝑑𝜀𝜀 𝑝𝑝 } = 𝜆𝜆 � � (4.11)
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
where G = plastic potential function, and

λ = plastic scaling factor
Substituting the plastic strain from Eq.(4.11) into the incremental stress Eq.
(4.6) gives:
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
{𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑} = [𝐷𝐷𝑒𝑒 ] {𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 } − [𝐷𝐷𝑒𝑒 ] 𝜆𝜆 � � (4.12)
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
46
Substituting the stress vector, {dσ}, into the neutral loading condition (Eq.
4.10), the following expression for the plastic scaling factor, λ, can be
derived:
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
dF = 〈 〉 [𝐷𝐷𝑒𝑒 ] {𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 } − 〈 〉 [𝐷𝐷𝑒𝑒 ] 𝜆𝜆 � � = 0
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜎𝜎
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
〈 〉 [𝐷𝐷𝑒𝑒 ]
λ= 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 {𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑} (4.13)
〈 〉 [𝐷𝐷𝑒𝑒 ] � �
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
From the previous two equations, a relationship between stress increments

and strain increments can be obtained.
{𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑} = �[𝐷𝐷𝑒𝑒 ] − �𝐷𝐷𝑝𝑝 �� {𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑} (4.14)
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
[𝐷𝐷𝑒𝑒 ] � � 〈 〉 [𝐷𝐷𝑒𝑒 ]
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
where: �𝐷𝐷𝑝𝑝 � = 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 (4.15)
〈 〉 [𝐷𝐷𝑒𝑒 ] � �
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
To evaluate the plastic matrix, [D p], the yield function, F, and the plastic
R R
potential function, G need to be specified.
4.2.3 Finite Element Formulation for Coupled Consolidation Analysis

U
The incremental stress – strain relationship for an unsaturated soil

element can be written in matrix form as:
{∆𝜎𝜎} = [𝐷𝐷]{∆𝜀𝜀} − [𝐷𝐷]{𝑚𝑚𝐻𝐻 } (𝑢𝑢𝑎𝑎 − 𝑢𝑢𝑤𝑤 ) + {∆𝑢𝑢𝑎𝑎 } (4.16)
where [𝐷𝐷] = drained constitutive matrix, and
1 1 1
{𝑚𝑚𝐻𝐻 }𝑇𝑇 = 〈 0〉
𝐻𝐻 𝐻𝐻 𝐻𝐻
If it can be further assumed that air pressure remains atmospheric at all

times, Eq. (A.16) becomes:
{∆𝜎𝜎} = [𝐷𝐷]{∆𝜀𝜀} + [𝐷𝐷]{𝑚𝑚𝐻𝐻 } 𝑢𝑢𝑤𝑤 (4.17)
47
On the other hand, for a soil element which is fully saturated, the total
stress on the soil structure is given by:
{∆𝜎𝜎} = [𝐷𝐷]{∆𝜀𝜀} + {𝑚𝑚} ∆𝑢𝑢𝑤𝑤 (4.18)
where {𝑚𝑚}𝑇𝑇 = unit isotropic tensor, 〈1 1 1 0〉.
By comparing Eqs. (4.17) and (4.18), the following relationship must hold
when the soil is fully saturated:
[𝐷𝐷]{𝑚𝑚𝐻𝐻 } = {𝑚𝑚} (4.19)
For a linearly elastic material, this condition is satisfied when:
𝐸𝐸
H= (4.20)
1−2𝜈𝜈
The two – dimensional flow of pore water through an elemental volume of

soil is given by Darcy's equation:
𝑘𝑘 𝑥𝑥 𝜕𝜕 2 𝑢𝑢 𝑤𝑤 𝑘𝑘 𝑦𝑦 𝜕𝜕 2 𝑢𝑢 𝑤𝑤 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝑤𝑤
+ + =0 (4.21)
𝛾𝛾𝑤𝑤 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 2 𝛾𝛾𝑤𝑤 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 2 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
where k x , k y = the hydraulic conductivity in x and y direction, respectively,

R R R R
u w = seepage velocity,
R R
γ w = the unit weight of water,

R R
θ w = the volumetric water content, and

R R
t = time.
R R
The volumetric water content for an elastic material is given by the

following expressions (Dakshanamurthy et al., 1984):
θ w = 𝛽𝛽 𝜀𝜀𝑣𝑣 − 𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔𝑤𝑤
R R (4.22)
48
𝐸𝐸 1 3𝐾𝐾𝐵𝐵
where β = (1−2𝜈𝜈)
=
𝐻𝐻 𝐻𝐻
1 3𝛽𝛽
ω= − (4.23)
𝑅𝑅 𝐻𝐻
𝐸𝐸
where K B = bulk modulus = ,
3(1−2𝜈𝜈)
R R
ε v = the volumetric strain,

R R
R = a modulus relating the change in volumetric water content with

change in matric suction, and
H = elastic modulus of soil structure with respect to matric suction.
Since a soil water characteristic curve is a graph showing the change

of volumetric water content corresponding a change in matric suction, (u a – R R
u w ), the parameter R can be obtained from the inverse of the slope of the
R R
SWCC.
Assuming material properties remain unchanged during an

increment, Eq. (4.22), can be written in following incremental form.
∆𝜃𝜃𝑤𝑤 = 𝛽𝛽∆𝜀𝜀𝑣𝑣 − 𝜔𝜔∆𝑢𝑢𝑤𝑤 (4.24)
At fully saturation condition the change in volumetric water content

is equal to change in volumetric strain. This condition is satisfied when ω =
0, and β = 1.
In a coupled consolidation analysis, both equilibrium and flow
equations are solved simultaneously. In computer code, the finite element
equilibrium equations are formulated using the principle of virtual work,
which states that for a system in equilibrium, the total internal virtual work
is equal to the external virtual work. In the simple case when only external
point loads {𝐹𝐹} are applied, the virtual work equation can be written as:
∫{𝜀𝜀 ∗ }𝑇𝑇 {∆𝜎𝜎} 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 = ∫{𝛿𝛿 ∗ }𝑇𝑇 {𝐹𝐹} 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 (4.25)
where {𝛿𝛿 ∗ } = virtual displacements,

49
{𝜀𝜀 ∗ } = virtual strains, and

{𝜎𝜎} = internal stresses.
Substituting Eq. (4.16) into Eq. (4.25), and applying numerical integration,
it can be shown that the finite element equations in the stress analysis code,
satisfies the following form:
∑[𝐵𝐵]𝑇𝑇 [𝐷𝐷][𝐵𝐵]{∆𝛿𝛿} + ∑[𝐵𝐵]𝑇𝑇 [𝐷𝐷]{𝑚𝑚𝐻𝐻 }〈𝑁𝑁〉{∆𝑢𝑢𝑤𝑤 } = ∑ 𝐹𝐹 (4.26)
[𝐾𝐾] = [𝐵𝐵]𝑇𝑇 [𝐷𝐷][𝐵𝐵],
[𝐿𝐿𝑑𝑑 ] = [𝐵𝐵]𝑇𝑇 {𝐷𝐷}{𝑚𝑚𝐻𝐻 }〈𝑁𝑁〉, and
1 1 1
{𝑚𝑚𝐻𝐻 }𝑇𝑇 = 〈 0〉
𝐻𝐻 𝐻𝐻 𝐻𝐻
where [𝐵𝐵] = gradient matrix, (also called the strain matrix),

[𝐷𝐷] = drained constitiutive matrix,
[𝐾𝐾] = stiffness matrix,
[𝐿𝐿𝑑𝑑 ] = coupling matrix,
{∆𝛿𝛿} = incremental displacement vector, and
∆𝑢𝑢𝑤𝑤 = incremental pore water pressure vector.
For a fully saturated soil, the coupling matrix, [𝐿𝐿𝑑𝑑 ], can be written as:
[𝐿𝐿𝑑𝑑 ] = [𝐵𝐵]𝑇𝑇 {𝑚𝑚} 〈𝑁𝑁〉, with {𝑚𝑚}𝑇𝑇 = 〈1 1 1 0〉 (4.27)
The flow equation can similarly be formulated for finite element analysis
using the principle of virtual work in terms of pore water pressure and
volumetric strains. If virtual pore water pressures, 𝑢𝑢𝑤𝑤∗ , are applied to the
flow equation and integrated over the volume, the following virtual work
equation can be obtained.
𝑘𝑘 𝑥𝑥 𝜕𝜕 2 𝑢𝑢 𝑤𝑤 𝑘𝑘 𝑦𝑦 𝜕𝜕 2 𝑢𝑢 𝑤𝑤 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝑤𝑤
∫ 𝑢𝑢𝑤𝑤∗ � 𝛾𝛾𝑤𝑤 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 2
+
𝛾𝛾𝑤𝑤 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 2
+
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
� 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 = 0 (4.28)
Applying integration by parts to this equation gives:
50
∗ 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
𝑘𝑘 𝑥𝑥 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝑤𝑤 ∗ 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
𝑘𝑘 𝑦𝑦 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝑤𝑤 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝑤𝑤
−∫� 𝑤𝑤
+ 𝑤𝑤
� 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 + ∫ 𝑢𝑢𝑤𝑤∗ 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 = ∫ 𝑢𝑢𝑤𝑤∗ 𝑣𝑣𝑛𝑛 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 (4.29)
𝛾𝛾𝑤𝑤 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝛾𝛾𝑤𝑤 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
where V n = boundary flux.

R R
Substituting in the expression for the volumetric water content, θ w , (i.e Eq.
R R R R
4.22) gives:
∗ 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
𝑘𝑘 𝑥𝑥 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝑤𝑤 ∗ 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
𝑘𝑘 𝑦𝑦 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝑤𝑤 𝜕𝜕(𝛽𝛽𝛽𝛽 𝑣𝑣 − 𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔 𝑤𝑤 )
−∫� 𝑤𝑤
+ 𝑤𝑤
� 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 + ∫ 𝑢𝑢𝑤𝑤∗ 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 = ∫ 𝑢𝑢𝑤𝑤∗ 𝑣𝑣𝑛𝑛 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
𝛾𝛾𝑤𝑤 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝛾𝛾𝑤𝑤 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
(4.30)
Using finite element approximations, Eq. (4.30) can be written as:
1 𝜕𝜕(𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔 𝑤𝑤 )
−∫ [𝐵𝐵]𝑇𝑇 [𝐾𝐾𝑤𝑤 ][𝐵𝐵]{𝑢𝑢𝑤𝑤 } 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 − ∫〈𝑁𝑁〉𝑇𝑇 〈𝑁𝑁〉 � �+
𝛾𝛾𝑤𝑤 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
𝜕𝜕(𝛽𝛽𝛽𝛽
∫〈𝑁𝑁〉𝑇𝑇 {𝑚𝑚}𝑇𝑇 [𝐵𝐵] � 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
� 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 = ∫〈𝑁𝑁〉𝑇𝑇 𝑣𝑣𝑛𝑛 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 (4.31)
where �𝐾𝐾𝑓𝑓 � = ∫[𝐵𝐵]𝑇𝑇 [𝑘𝑘𝑤𝑤 ][𝐵𝐵] 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑,
[𝑀𝑀𝑁𝑁 ] = 〈𝑁𝑁〉𝑇𝑇 〈𝑁𝑁〉, and
�𝐿𝐿𝑓𝑓 � = ∫〈𝑁𝑁〉𝑇𝑇 {𝑚𝑚}𝑇𝑇 [𝐵𝐵] 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
with: [𝑘𝑘𝑤𝑤 ] = hydraulic conductivity matrix,

�𝐾𝐾𝑓𝑓 � = element stiffness matrix,
〈𝑁𝑁〉 = row vector of shape functions,
[𝑀𝑀𝑁𝑁 ] = mass matrix,
�𝐿𝐿𝑓𝑓 � = coupling matrix for flow, and

𝛿𝛿 = nodal displacement.
Integrated this Eq. (4.31) from time, t, to time, t + ∆𝑡𝑡 gives:
𝑡𝑡+∆𝑡𝑡 1
− ∫𝑡𝑡
𝛾𝛾𝑤𝑤
�𝐾𝐾𝑓𝑓 � {𝑢𝑢𝑤𝑤 } 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 −
𝑡𝑡+∆𝑡𝑡 𝜕𝜕(𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔 𝑤𝑤 𝑡𝑡+∆𝑡𝑡 𝜕𝜕(𝛽𝛽𝛽𝛽 ) 𝑡𝑡+∆𝑡𝑡
∫𝑡𝑡 [𝑀𝑀𝑁𝑁 ] � � 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 + ∫𝑡𝑡 �𝐿𝐿𝑓𝑓 � � � 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 = ∫𝑡𝑡 〈𝑁𝑁〉𝑇𝑇 𝑣𝑣𝑛𝑛 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
(4.32)
51
Applying the time difference technique using θ as the time stepping factor
to the equation (4.32), the following finite element equation is obtained.
∆𝑡𝑡 𝑡𝑡 + ∆𝑡𝑡
− (𝜃𝜃�𝐾𝐾𝑓𝑓 �{𝑢𝑢𝑤𝑤 } t +∆t + (1 − 𝜃𝜃)�𝐾𝐾𝑓𝑓 �{𝑢𝑢𝑤𝑤 } t ) − [𝑀𝑀𝑁𝑁 ](𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔𝑤𝑤 ) 𝑡𝑡
+
𝛾𝛾𝑤𝑤
R R R R
𝑡𝑡 + ∆𝑡𝑡
�𝐿𝐿𝑓𝑓 �{𝛽𝛽𝛽𝛽} 𝑡𝑡
= ∆𝑡𝑡 ∫〈𝑁𝑁〉𝑇𝑇 (𝜃𝜃𝜃𝜃𝑛𝑛 R
t + ∆t R + (1 − 𝜃𝜃)𝑣𝑣𝑛𝑛 R
t R ) dA (4.33)
When the backward (fully implicit) time – stepping scheme is used (by
setting θ = 1) and assuming that ω and β remain constant within a time
increment, the Eq. (4.33) becomes:
∆𝑡𝑡
−
𝛾𝛾𝑤𝑤
�𝐾𝐾𝑓𝑓 �{𝑢𝑢𝑤𝑤 } R
t + ∆t R − 𝜔𝜔[𝑀𝑀𝑁𝑁 ]{∆𝑢𝑢𝑤𝑤 } + 𝛽𝛽 �𝐿𝐿𝑓𝑓 �{∆𝛿𝛿} = ∆𝑡𝑡{𝑄𝑄} R
t + ∆t R (4.34)
where Q = the flow at boundary nodes.
In order to obtain an equation involving an incremental pore water pressure

∆𝑡𝑡
only, the first term,
𝛾𝛾𝑤𝑤
�𝐾𝐾𝑓𝑓 �{𝑢𝑢𝑤𝑤 } t , is added to both sides of the Eq. (4.34).
R R
The resultant equation describing the flow of pore water is:
∆𝑡𝑡 1
𝛽𝛽�𝐿𝐿𝑓𝑓 �{∆𝛿𝛿} − � �𝐾𝐾𝑓𝑓 � + 𝜔𝜔[𝑀𝑀𝑁𝑁 ]� {∆𝑢𝑢𝑤𝑤 } = ∆𝑡𝑡({𝑄𝑄} t + ∆t + �𝐾𝐾𝑓𝑓 �{𝑢𝑢𝑤𝑤 } t )
𝛾𝛾𝑤𝑤 𝛾𝛾𝑤𝑤
R R R R
(4.35)
A coupled consolidation analysis for saturated/ unsaturated soils is thus

formulated using incremental displacement and incremental pore water
pressure as field variables (Wong et al., 1998).
In summary, the coupled equations for finite element analysis are

rewritten in the following form:
[𝐾𝐾]{∆𝛿𝛿} + [𝐿𝐿𝑑𝑑 ]{∆𝑢𝑢𝑤𝑤 } = {∆𝐹𝐹}, and
∆𝑡𝑡 1
𝛽𝛽�𝐿𝐿𝑓𝑓 �{∆𝛿𝛿} − � �𝐾𝐾𝑓𝑓 � + 𝜔𝜔[𝑀𝑀𝑁𝑁 ]� {∆𝑢𝑢𝑤𝑤 } = ∆𝑡𝑡({𝑄𝑄} t + ∆t + �𝐾𝐾𝑓𝑓 �{𝑢𝑢𝑤𝑤 } t )
𝛾𝛾 𝛾𝛾𝑤𝑤
R R R R
𝑤𝑤
52
4.3 Computer Programs

U
Two computer programs are dealt with in this chapter. The first
program (Soil Vision) is used to find the soil water characteristic curve.
The second one (SIGMA/W) is used to solve problems of bearing capacity
for foundation on unsaturated soils.
4.3.1 The Program (Soil Vision)

U
The Soil Vision software is unique among soil database applications

in that it provides tools to estimate unsaturated soil properties as well as
mathematically model soil behavior.
Mathematical representation of soil behavior is provided with the

fitting of mathematical equations to soil data. Standard equations used to
represent soil behavior may be fit to laboratory data. This fitting process
provides significant benefits in a database system. Firstly, soil properties
may be searched and grouped based on the parameters of the equation. An
example of this is that groups of grain-size distributions within a certain
band may be displayed. Secondly, smooth mathematical representations of
soil property functions may be output to modeling software packages to
allow modeling of soil properties. Convergence problems on most
modeling packages may be greatly reduced if the input soil properties are
smooth mathematical functions. Soil Vision allows the assumption that
certain soil property functions may be described by equations. The
parameters of these equations are first optimized to fit laboratory data and
then stored in the database. The behavior of the soil may then be quantified
by the equation parameters. The second method involves identifying
physically significant points on the soil property function.
Soil Vision provides fitting of mathematical equations to laboratory

data for the following soil properties, (User's Guide Manual of Soil
Vision, 2001):
53
• Grain-Size Distribution
• Soil-Water Characteristic Curve
• Permeability
• Compression (Consolidation)
• Compaction
• Shrinkage
• Thermal Conductivity
• Unfrozen
• Diffusion
• Constitutive Surfaces
4.3.1.1 Soil Water Characteristic Measurement Techniques

U
Additional to experimental methods for determining the soil water

characteristic curve, there is mathematical models used to model the soil
water characteristic curve. A summary of the two most common
mathematical models (Van Genuchten, 1980; Fredlund and Xing. 1994)
is presented. These models are introduced to the software (Soil Vision)
database.
1.Van Genuchent (1980) Method

Based on Mualem’s theory in 1976, Van Genuchten developed an
equation for the soil water content-pressure head curve that when fit to
experimental data resulted in three independent parameters that could be
used to determine the hydraulic conductivity based on models proposed by
Burdine and Mualem. Mualem’s model, given below, showed that the
permeability could be determined based on information obtained from the
soil water characteristic curve.
𝛩𝛩 1 2
∫0 𝑖𝑖(𝑥𝑥 ) 𝑑𝑑(𝑥𝑥)
K r = Θ1/2 � 1 1 � (4.36)
∫0 𝑖𝑖(𝑥𝑥 ) 𝑑𝑑(𝑥𝑥)
R R P P P
54
where i is the pressure head, that's a function of the dimensionless water

content, Θ.
𝜃𝜃− 𝜃𝜃𝑟𝑟
Θ= (4. 37)
𝜃𝜃𝑠𝑠 − 𝜃𝜃𝑟𝑟
where r and s represent the residual and saturated water content,

respectively.
Van Genuchent used the following relationship to relate the

dimensionless water content to the soil water retention curve.
1 𝑚𝑚
Θ= � 𝑛𝑛 � (4. 38)
1+ (𝛼𝛼ℎ)
where h is the suction, and α, m, and n are parameters determined from the
soil water retention curve.
Combining equations (4.37) and (4.38), the following model was proposed.
(𝜃𝜃 −𝜃𝜃𝑟𝑟 )
θ = θ r + [1+ 𝑠𝑠 (4.39)
(𝛼𝛼ℎ)𝑛𝑛 ]𝑚𝑚
R R
Four independent parameters (α, n, θ s , and θ r ) were estimated from the

R R R R
soil water retention curve. Values of saturated water content (θ s ) were R R
obtained by determining water content of soil specimens in their saturated

conditions. Residual water contents (θ r ) were either determined from the
R R
soil water retention curve or determined by measuring water content of dry

soil samples (no distinction between air and oven dry was provided). A
parameter S that was evaluated at the midway point of the curve (Θ = ½)
was selected and used to describe the slope of the moisture retention curve.
The subscript P, in Equation (4.40) was used to denote the halfway location
on moisture retention curve and the location in which each equation was
evaluated. The parameter m was determined from evaluating S p using the R R
following:
55
m = 1 - 𝑒𝑒 (−0.8𝑠𝑠𝑝𝑝 ) (0< 𝑠𝑠𝑝𝑝 ≤ 1) (4.40)
0.5755 0.1 0.25

m=1– + + (𝑠𝑠𝑝𝑝 > 1) (4.41)
𝑠𝑠𝑝𝑝 𝑠𝑠𝑝𝑝2 𝑠𝑠𝑝𝑝3
The parameters n and α were determined from the following relationship:

1
m=1- (4.42)
𝑛𝑛
1�
1 −1 𝑛𝑛
α=
ℎ
�𝜃𝜃 �𝑚𝑚 − 1� (4.43)
2. Fredlund and Xing (1994)

Fredlund and Xing proposed a new model for estimating the soil
water characteristic curve based on the shape of the soil water characteristic
curve being a function of the material’s pore size distribution. They
initially started with an integrated form of a frequency distribution
(Equation 4.44) with the ability of modeling the soil water characteristic
curve over the entire suction range (0 to 106 kPa).
∞
θ(h) = θ s ∫ℎ 𝑓𝑓(ℎ)𝑑𝑑(ℎ)
R R (4.44)
where f(h) represents the pore size distribution of the material as a function
of suction.
Fredlund and Xing modified the Van Genuchten (1980) (Eq. 4.39)
model to account for the pore size distribution of the material (Eq. 4.45).
𝑚𝑚 𝑛𝑛 𝛼𝛼 (𝛼𝛼 ℎ)𝑛𝑛 −1
f(h) = [1+(𝛼𝛼 ℎ)𝑛𝑛 ]𝑚𝑚 +1
(4.45)
where m, n, and α are independent curve fitting parameters.
It was found that the modified model decreased to zero over a small
range of suction and deemed it inappropriate for use over the entire suction
range.
56
A new model was proposed that could be used to fit experimental data
over the entire suction range (Eq. 4.46).
𝑛𝑛 −1
𝑚𝑚 𝑛𝑛 �ℎ�𝑎𝑎 �
f(h) = 𝑛𝑛 𝑛𝑛 𝑚𝑚 +1 (4.46)
𝑎𝑎 �𝑒𝑒+ �ℎ�𝑎𝑎 � � �log �𝑒𝑒+ �ℎ�𝑎𝑎 � ��
where a=1/α, n, m are independent parameters.
Fredlund and Xing proposed a second model for estimating the soil
water characteristic curve by integration Eq. (4.46) using Eq. (4.44) giving
the following relationship between volumetric water content and suction:
𝑚𝑚
1
θ= θs � 𝑛𝑛 � (4.47)
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 �𝑒𝑒+ �ℎ�𝑎𝑎 � �
R
Then Fredlund and Xing introduced a correction factor C(h) and the
equation (4.47) becomes:
𝜃𝜃𝑠𝑠
θ (h, a, n, m) = C(h) 𝑛𝑛 𝑚𝑚 (4.48)
�ln �𝑒𝑒+ �ℎ�𝑎𝑎 � ��
where C(h) is a correction function defined as:
− ln �1+ ℎ�ℎ �
𝑟𝑟
C(h) = +1 (4.49)
ln �1+ �1,000,000�ℎ ��
𝑟𝑟
where h r = suction corresponding to the residual water content, (θ r ).

R R R R
4.3.2 The Program (SIGMA/W)

U
SIGMA/W is a finite element software product that can be used to

perform stress and deformation analyses of earth structures. Its
comprehensive formulation makes it possible to analyze both simple and
highly complex problems. For example, one can perform a simple linear
elastic deformation analysis or a highly sophisticated nonlinear elastic-
plastic effective stress analysis. When coupled with SEEP/W, another
57
GEO-SLOPE software product, it can also model the pore-water pressure

generation and dissipation in a soil structure in response to external loads.
SIGMA/W has applications in the analysis and design for geotechnical,
civil, and mining engineering projects (Krahn, 2004).
4.3.2.1 Program Applications

U
SIGMA/W can be used to compute stress – deformation with or

without the changes in pore – water pressures that arise from stress state
changes. In addition, it is possible to model soil structure interaction using
beam or bar element. The following are some typical features of
SIGMA/W.
(a) Deformation Analysis

The most common application of SIGMA/W is to compute
deformations caused by earthworks such as foundations, embankments,
excavations and tunnels.
(b) Excess Pore-Water Pressures

The effect of excess pore-water pressures generated during loading
or construction. SIGMA/W can be used to estimate these types of pore-
water pressures.
(c) Consolidation Analyses

SIGMA/W can be used together with SEEP/W to perform a fully-
coupled consolidation analysis. When these two integrated products are run
simultaneously, SIGMA/W calculates the deformations resulting from
pore-water pressure changes while SEEP/W calculates transient pore-water
pressure changes. This procedure is used to simulate the consolidation
process in both saturated and unsaturated soils. A fully-coupled analysis is
required to correctly model the pore-water pressure response to an applied
load. In certain cases, the pore-water pressure increase under an applied
58
load can be greater than the applied load. This phenomenon is known as the
Mandel-Cryer effect.
4.3.2.2 Constitutive Models

U
SIGMA/W includes eight different soil constitutive models. It may

be difficult to decide which model to select for a particular application, but
the model which is selected must be consistent with the soil conditions and
the objective of the analysis. SIGMA/W is formulated for several elastic
and elastic-plastic constitutive soil models. All models may be applied to
two-dimensional plane strain and axisymmetric problems.
Two constitutive models are used to study the bearing capacity of the
unsaturated soils:
1. Linear elastic model

The simplest SIGMA/W soil model is the linear elastic model for
which stresses are directly proportional to the strains. The proportionally
constants are Young's Modulus, (E), and Poisson's Ratio, (𝜈𝜈). The stress
and strain are related by the equation:
σx R R 1-ν ν ν 0 εx R
σy R R ν 1-ν ν 0 εy
R
𝐸𝐸
σz R R = (1−𝜈𝜈)(1−2𝜈𝜈) ν ν 1-ν 0 εz R R (4.50)
1−2𝜈𝜈
τ xy 0 0 0 γ xy
2
R R R
For two – dimensional plane strain analysis, (ε z ) is zero. R R
2. Elastic – plastic model

The elastic – plastic model in SIGMA/W describes an elastic
perfectly – plastic relationship. A typical stress – strain curve for this model
is shown in Figure (4.1) where stresses are directly proportional to strains
until the yield point is reached. Beyond the yield point, the stress – strain
59
curve is perfectly horizontal. The material properties required for this

model are given in Table (4.1).
Table (4.1) Elastic – plastic material properties.

Property Definition
Elastic Modulus, E Initial linear – elastic stiffness of the soil
Poisson's Ratio, ν Constant value
Cohesion, c Cohesive strength of the soil
𝜙𝜙 Soil internal friction in degree
Dilation Angle, ψ Soil dilation angle in degree (0 ≤ ψ ≤ ø)
øb
P a value used to make the cohesive strength a
function of soil suction (negative pore – water
pressure)
Figure (4.1) Elastic – perfectly plastic constitutive relationship (from

Krahn, 2004).
4.3.2.3 Coupled Consolidation

U
A fully coupled analysis requires that both the stress – deformation

and seepage dissipation equations be solved simultaneously. SIGMA/W
computes displacements and stresses while SEEP/W computes the changes
in pore-water pressure with time. Running these two software products in a
coupled manner makes it possible to do a consolidation analysis. When
coupled, both SIGMA/W and SEEP/W contribute to forming a common
global characteristic (stiffness) matrix. Three equations are created for each
node in the finite element mesh. Two are equilibrium (displacement)
60
equations formed by SIGMA/W and the third is a continuity (flow)

equation formed by SEEP/W. Solving all the three equations
simultaneously gives both displacement and pore-water pressure changes.
When doing a coupled analysis, it is essential to recognize that all
equilibrium (force and displacement) conditions are defined in SIGMA/W
and all hydraulic (flow) conditions are specified in SEEP/W. In SIGMA/W,
the usual force and displacement boundary conditions have to be specified
together with soil properties. In SEEP/W, the head and flow boundary
conditions have to be specified together with hydraulic conductivity and
volumetric water content functions.
4.3.2.4 Additional Material Properties for Unsaturated Coupled

U
Analysis (H-Modulus Function)

H is the unsaturated modulus that relates the volumetric strain of the
soil to a change in negative pore-water pressure or change in suction. The
H modulus may be defined as a function of negative pore-water pressure.
At saturation, H is related to the elastic constants E and ν by the equation:
𝐸𝐸
H=( ) (4.51)
1−2𝜈𝜈
Therefore, H must be set to E/(1-2ν) at zero pore-water pressure

when defining an H-Modulus versus pore-water pressure function. As a soil
dries and the pore-water pressure becomes highly negative, the soil
becomes very stiff. This increase in stiffness can be represented by an
increase in H.
Figure (4.2) illustrates a potential increase in H as a function of the

negative pore-water pressure. The H modulus cannot be specified less than
E/(1-2ν) . If an H modulus function is defined with an H value less than
E/(1-2ν), SIGMA/W will automatically set H to E/(1-2ν) during the
analysis. Consequently, when an H modulus function is defined, the lowest
61
H value should be E/(1-2ν) at the point where the pore-water pressure is

zero.
Figure (4.2) H-modulus as a function of pore-water pressure, (from Krahn,

2004).
For a coupled analysis involving unsaturated soils, two additional
material properties H and R need to be defined. H is a modulus relating to
the change of volumetric strain in the soil structure to a change in suction.
R is another modulus relating the change in volumetric water content to
suction; therefore, it is given by the inverse of the slope of the soil water
characteristic curve.
In this section, a procedure to obtain the H modulus parameter from

the slope of a void ratio (e) versus matric suction (u a – u w ) curve is R R R R
described. For a soil element, a change in its volume can be decomposed

into two parts:
dV = dV s + dV v R R R R (4.52)
where dV s = the change in volume of the soil particles, and

R R
dV v = the change in the volume of voids.

R R
If the volume change of the soil particles, dV s , is small and thus neglected,
R R
the volumetric strain can be approximated as follows:
62
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑣𝑣
εv = ≈ (4.53)
𝑉𝑉 𝑉𝑉
R R
From the definition of void ratio, e, a change in void ratio, de, is given by:
𝑉𝑉 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑣𝑣 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑣𝑣

de = d � 𝑣𝑣 � = 𝑣𝑣
= (1−𝑛𝑛)𝑉𝑉 = (4.54)
𝑉𝑉𝑠𝑠 𝑉𝑉𝑠𝑠 (1−𝑛𝑛)
where: n = the porosity of the soil.
The slope of a void ratio versus matrix suction curve can be written as:
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑣𝑣
= (1−𝑛𝑛)𝑑𝑑 (𝑢𝑢 𝑎𝑎 − 𝑢𝑢 𝑤𝑤 )
(4.55)
𝑑𝑑(𝑢𝑢 𝑎𝑎 − 𝑢𝑢 𝑤𝑤 )
In an unsaturated soil element, when only a change in matric suction

occurs, the incremental volumetric strain, dε v , can be written as: R R
3𝑑𝑑(𝑢𝑢 𝑎𝑎 − 𝑢𝑢 𝑤𝑤 )
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑣𝑣 = 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑥𝑥 + 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑦𝑦 + 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑧𝑧 = (4.56)
𝐻𝐻
𝑑𝑑𝜀𝜀 𝑣𝑣 3
or: = (4.57)
𝑑𝑑(𝑢𝑢 𝑎𝑎 − 𝑢𝑢 𝑤𝑤 ) 𝐻𝐻
After substituting Eq. (4.57) into Eq. (4.55), it can be seen that the slope of
a void ratio versus matric suction curve is: (Wong, et al., 1998, and
Krahn, 2004).
3
Slope = (4.58)
(1−𝑛𝑛 )𝐻𝐻
4.3.2.5 Initial Water Table

U
An initial water table is specified in two stages. First, the maximum

pressure head (i.e. the capillary rise) allowed in the initial condition is
specified. Secondly, the initial water table is drawn by clicking at each
point in the initial water table. When defining an initial water table, the
initial pore water pressure at each node is computed proportionally to the
vertical distance between the node and the defined water table.
63
The program SEEP/W can also be used to model the dissipation of

excess pore water pressure. The capability of modeling the dissipation of
excess pore water pressure also makes it possible to perform consolidation
analyses.
The effect is that the pore water pressure varies hydrostatically with
distance above and below the water table. Above the water table, the
negative pore water pressure can be set to a limit to produce a pressure
distribution such as shown in Figure (4.3). The calculation of pressure at
each point in the figure is given by:
u a = (y w – y a ) γ w ,
R R R R R R R R
u b = (y w – y b ) γ w , and
R R R R R R R R (4.59)
u c = (y w – y c ) γ w
R R R R R R R
Figure (4.3) Calculation of initial pore – water pressure, (Krahn, 2004).
4.3.2.6 Definition of Hydraulic Conductivity

U
A conductivity function defines the relationship between pore water

pressure and hydraulic conductivity. Figure (4.4) shows a typical
conductivity function.
As soil desaturates and the water content decreases when the pore
water pressure becomes negative; the ability of the soil to conduct water
64
decreases as the water content decreases. The soil hydraulic conductivity

consequently decreases as the pore water pressure becomes increasingly
negative.
Figure (4.4) A Conductivity function, kw(h), (Lu and Likos, 2004).
A conductivity function is defined by specifying a series of discrete

data points and fitting a weighted spline curve to the data points in order to
create a continuous function.
Conductivity functions can be defined in the program SEEP/W in any

of the following ways:
• Specifying each data point in the function by typing the coordinates or

by clicking on the function graph.
• Estimating the function from an existing volumetric water content
function.
• Importing an existing conductivity function from the SEEP/W
function database or from another SEEP/W problem and modify it.
65
4.4 Verification Problem

U
In this section, the features of the programs SIGMA/W and SEEP/W

are checked and the capability of the programs in modeling unsaturated soil
behavior is investigated.
4.4.1 Problem of Influence of Partially Saturated Soil on the Behavior

U
of Footing
An example from the work of Costa et al., (2003) is chosen. Ten
plate load tests were performed using a rigid circular steel bearing plate,
placed on the ground at a depth of 1.5 m. The plate was 0.8 m in diameter
and 25 mm in thickness. Two loading procedures were used: slow
maintained load (SML) and quick maintained load (QML).
The tests were conducted in two distinct series. In the first series,
five tests were carried out after inundating the pit for a period of (24) hr
prior to the beginning of the test (inundated tests). In the second series, the
tests were performed preserving in situ water content of the soil (moist
tests). A new test pit was excavated for each plate load test. All tests were
carried out following Brazilian Standards for Load Tests on Shallow
Foundations (NBR 6489-84) and for Static Loading Tests (MB 3472-91),
which are consistent with ASTM Standard Test Method for Bearing
Capacity of Soils for Static Load and Spread Footings (ASTM-D1194-72).
In the (QML) test (which is dependent in this verification), each load

increment was held constant for a period of 15 minutes as recommended,
and settlement readings were taken at 0, 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15 min.
Matric suction was monitored during the load tests by using four
tensiometers installed at the bottom of the pit besides the loading plate at
depths of 100, 300, 600, and 800 mm.
This test is simulated here by the finite element method. Figure (4.5)
shows the problem geometry. The problem consists of a circular steel
66
bearing plate resting on an unsaturated soil layer, which is classified as

clayey sand (SC) according to the Unified Soil Classification System. The
properties of the soil are summarizing in Table (4.2). The modulus of
elasticity (E) was calculated according to Gunaratne (2006) depending on
the cone tip resistance, q c for which the profile is given by Costa et al.
R R
(2003), and depending on the type of soil, the hydraulic conductivity was
also approximated according to Carter and Bently (1991).
Plate load
1.5 m
0.8 m
6m
12.8 m
Figure(4.5) Problem geometry, (Costa et al., 2003).
Table (4.2) Soil Properties for the plate loading test problem,
(after Costa et al., 2003).
Parameter Value Units
Modulus of elasticity, (E) 10000 kN/m2P
Poisson's ratio, (ν) 0.3 —

Void ratio, (e) 1 —
Total unit weight, (γ t ) R R
15 kN/m3P
Dry unit weight, (γ d ) R R

13 kN/m3P
-8
Hydraulic conductivity, (k s ) R R
1x10 P
m/sec
Cohesion (c) 0 kN/m2P
Angle of internal friction (φ) 20.3 degree

Angle of shear resistance with 10.8 degree
respect to matric suction, (φb) P P
67
The programs SIGMA/W and SEEP/W are used to analyze the

problem, only one half of the axisymmetric problem is modeled. The
dimensions of the problem are (6m) in depth and (6.4 m) width of soil and
(0.4m) width of loading plate. The finite element mesh is shown in Figure
(4.6) which consists of 348 eight nodded isoparaimetric soil elements with
two- way drainage condition. The right and left hand edges of the mesh are
restricted in horizontal and the bottom of the mesh is restricted in both
horizontal and vertical directions. The top and bottom edges are free for
drainage.
4860728496108120 132 144 156 168 180 192 204 216 228 240 252 264 276 288 300 312 324 336 348
1.5 m
4759718395107119 131 143 155 167 179 191 203 215 227 239 251 263 275 287 299 311 323 335 347
0.4 m
4658708294106118 130 142 154 166 178 190 202 214 226 238 250 262 274 286 298 310 322 334 346
9 1827364557698193105117 129 141 153 165 177 189 201 213 225 237 249 261 273 285 297 309 321 333 345
8 1726354456688092104116 128 140 152 164 176 188 200 212 224 236 248 260 272 284 296 308 320 332 344
6m
7 1625344355677991103115 127 139 151 163 175 187 199 211 223 235 247 259 271 283 295 307 319 331 343
6 1524334254667890102114 126 138 150 162 174 186 198 210 222 234 246 258 270 282 294 306 318 330 342
5 1423324153657789101113 125 137 149 161 173 185 197 209 221 233 245 257 269 281 293 305 317 329 341
4 1322314052647688100112 124 136 148 160 172 184 196 208 220 232 244 256 268 280 292 304 316 328 340
3 122130395163758799 111 123 135 147 159 171 183 195 207 219 231 243 255 267 279 291 303 315 327 339
2 112029385062748698 110 122 134 146 158 170 182 194 206 218 230 242 254 266 278 290 302 314 326 338
1 101928374961738597 109 121 133 145 157 169 181 193 205 217 229 241 253 265 277 289 301 313 325 337
6.4 m
Figure (4.6) Finite element mesh of the plate loading test verification
problem.
The H-modulus function can be calculated from the relation between

the volumetric water content and the matric suction. Figure (4.7) shows the
dry portion of the soil water characteristic curve at the experimental site at
depth of (2 m). The experimental results obtained using a pressure plate
apparatus, relate the water content in the soil sample to the applied matric
suction. The experimental data were fitted using the function proposed by
68
Fredlund and Xing (1994). It can be observed that the air entry value for
the soil is comparatively small (less than 1 kPa). Figure (4.8) shows the H -
modulus function as calculated in this work.
Figure (4.7) Soil water characteristic curve for lateritic soil

specimen, (after Costa et al, 2003).
160000
H - Modulus function (kPa)
140000
120000
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
-400 -300 -200 -100 0
Pore water pressure (kPa)
Figure (4.8) H-modulus function as calculated from the soil water
69
A conductivity function can be defined in the program SEEP/W by

estimating it from an existing volumetric water content function (i.e. Figure
4.7).
Figure (4.9) shows the relation between hydraulic conductivity and

negative pore water pressure as estimated by the program SEEP/W.
1E-6 1E-6
Conductivity (m/min)
1E-7 1E-7
1E-8 1E-8
1E-9 1E-9
1E-10 1E-10
1E-11 1E-11
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0
Pore Water Pressure (kPa)
Figure (4.9) Relation between the hydraulic conductivity and pore
water pressure for partially saturated Costa's soil.
The relationship between the applied stress and settlement of typical

experimental result on (0.8 m) diameter plate at different values of matric
suction (0, 15, 22, 31) kPa is shown in Figure (4.10 a). The finite element
results are presented in Figure (4.10 b).
These relationships demonstrate that there is a significant increase in
bearing capacity of the plate due to the contribution of matric suction.
Figure (4.10) shows that good agreement was obtained between the finite
element results obtained by the program Geostudio (SGMA/W) and
experimental results of Costa et al., (2003). This means that the finite
element modeling adopted in the present work is well accepted.
70
(a)
Stress (kPa)
0 40 80 120 160 200
0
10
Settlement (mm)
20
30
40
50
Matric suction = 0 kPa
60 Matric Suction = 15 kPa
Matric Suction = 22 kPa
70 (b) Matric Suction = 31 kPa
80
Figure (4.10) The applied stress versus settlement relationships for plate
load test, (a) Results of experimental work, (after Costa et al., 2003)
(b) Results of the finite element method.
71
Chapter Five
Results and
Discussion
CHAPTER FIVE
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
5.1 Introduction
In chapter Four, the finite element formulations and soil water
characteristic curve relations for unsaturated soils are described.
In this chapter, these relations are applied to problems related to
geotechnical engineering by using the programs SIGMA/W and SEEP/W.
The aim of this chapter is to make a comparison between the results of
fully saturated soil behavior and unsaturated condition behavior through
carrying out analysis on a problem of shallow foundation (strip footing)
constructed on saturated and unsaturated soil. The research will focus on
bearing capacity of the foundation on different soils.
5.2 Description of the Problem

A shallow foundation (strip footing) with width equals to 1 m is
constructed on saturated and unsaturated soils. The strip footing is
constructed on soil with dimensions (20 m) in width and (10 m) in height,
to take into account the effect of the stress distribution below the footing.
The problem was analyzed as partially saturated soil at different degrees
of saturation (90, 80, and 70) %, where the soil has two fluid phases
according to Ng and Menszies, (2007) (i.e. Figure 2.1) who classified the
unsaturated soils to their degree of saturation.
5.2.1 Finite Element Description and Constitutive Models

The finite element mesh is illustrated in Figure (5.1). Due to
symmetry, 260 elements are used for modeling half of the footing and the
soil beneath it. Eight nodded quadrilateral isoparametric elements are used
for modeling the soil skeleton. The right and left hand edges of the mesh
are restricted to move horizontally and the bottom of the mesh is restricted
in both horizontal and vertical directions. The top edge is free in both
72
Chapter Five Results and Discussion
directions. In addition, the side boundaries are assumed to be impermeable
(i.e. no flow is allowed through these sides), and the top and bottom edges
are assumed to be permeable.
In this work, two constitutive models are used to characterize the
stress – strain behavior of the soil. Linear elastic model is used for the soil
existing above the water table, while elastic – plastic model with Mohr-
Coulomb failure criterion is used for modeling the soil existing below the
water table.
0.5 m
4 3 6 8
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260
9 19 29 39 49 59 69 79 89 99 109 119 129 139 149 159 169 179 189 199 209 219 229 239 249 259
8 18 28 38 48 58 68 78 88 98 108 118 128 138 148 158 168 178 188 198 208 218 228 238 248 258
7 17 27 37 47 57 67 77 87 97 107 117 127 137 147 157 167 177 187 197 207 217 227 237 247 257
Impermeable
Impermeable
A
10 m
6 16 26 36 46 56 66 76 86 96 106 116 126 136 146 156 166 176 186 196 206 216 226 236 246 256
1 2 3
5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95 105 115 125 135 145 155 165 175 185 195 205 215 225 235 245 255
4 14 24 34 44 54 64 74 84 94 104 114 124 134 144 154 164 174 184 194 204 214 224 234 244 254
3 13 23 33 43 53 63 73 83 93 103 113 123 133 143 153 163 173 183 193 203 213 223 233 243 253
2 12 22 32 42 52 62 72 82 92 102 112 122 132 142 152 162 172 182 192 202 212 222 232 242 252
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 101 111 121 131 141 151 161 171 181 191 201 211 221 231 241 251
1 2 5 7
10 m
permeable
Figure (5.1) Typical finite element mesh of the soil beneath the
footing.
5.2.2 Material Properties
The soil beneath the footing has the properties shown in Table (5.1),
which were calculated from laboratory tests carried out on undisturbed
samples. The particle size distribution of the soil is illustrated in Figure
(3.1). From this figure, the soil contains silt and clay and hence the soil is
classified as silty clay according to the ASTM classification.
73
Table (5.1) Material properties for the soils beneath the footing.
Type of Soil Parameter Value Unit
Total unit weight, (γt) 20.21 kN/m3 P
Dry unit weight, (γd) 16.25 kN/m3 P
Angle of internal friction, (ø) 0 Degree

Rusafa 1 Poisson's ratio, (ν)‫ ٭‬for saturated soil 0.45 ―
Poisson's ratio, (ν)‫ ٭‬for unsaturated soil 0.3 ―
Hydraulic conductivity, (ks) 2.55×10-10 m/sec
Void ratio, (e) 0.666 ―
Coefficient of volume change (mv) 0.646 m2/MN
Total unit weight, (γt) 19.57 kN/m3
Dry unit weight, (γd) 15.64 kN/m3

Rusafa 2 Poisson's ratio, (ν)‫ ٭‬for saturated soil 0.45 ―
Total unit weight, (γt) 18.82 kN/m3
Dry unit weight, (γd) 14.33 kN/m3

Rusafa 3
Poisson's ratio, (ν)‫ ٭‬for saturated soil 0.45 ―
∗ Assumed values (according to Bowles, 1996)
74
The undrained shear strength (Cu) of each soil was measured by
carrying out unconfined compression test through remolding the samples at
different degrees of saturation (100%, 90%, 80%, and 70%). The results
demonstrate that the unconfined compressive strength (qu) increases with
the decrease of saturation (S), and consequently increase of undrained shear
strength (Cu), while the angle of internal friction (ø) remained constant (i.e.
equal to zero). This finding is compatible with Fredlund and Rahradjo,
(1993) (i.e Figure 2.4) and Oh and Vanapalli, (2008). The results of
unconfined compression test are shown in Table (5.2) and Figures (5.2) to
(5.4) for the three sites.
The initial tangent modulus of elasticity (E) was evaluated with the aid
of Bowles (1996), as given in Table (5.2).
Table (5.2) Results of unconfined compression test on remolded samples at

different degrees of saturation.
Type of Soil S (%) qu (kPa) Cu (kPa) E (kPa)
100% 270 135 108000
Rusafa 1 90% 287 143.5 114800
80% 311 155.5 124400
70% 329 164.5 131600
100% 205 102.5 82000
Rusafa 2 90% 227 113.5 90800
80% 238 119 95200
70% 252 126 100800
100% 130 65 52000
Rusafa 3 90% 151 75.5 60400
80% 164 82 65600
70% 176 88 70400
75
350
300
250
Stress (kPa)
200
150
100 S= 100 %
S= 90 %
S= 80 %
50 S= 70 %
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
Strain
Figure (5.2) Results of unconfined compression test on remolded samples
from (Rusafa 1) site at different degrees of saturation.
300
250
Stress (kPa)
200
150
100 S = 100 %
S = 90 %
50 S = 80 %
S = 70 %
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Strain
76
200
150
Stress (kPa)
100
S = 100 %
50 S = 90 %
S = 80 %
S = 70 %
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
Strain
5.2.3 Variables Used for Unsaturated Soil Analysis.

There are a number of variables used in this work for the analysis of
unsaturated soil such as: type of soil (Rasafa1, Rasafa 2, and Rasafa 3),
degree of saturation, and depth of water table below the ground surface, as
given in Table (5.3).
Table (5.3) Values of water table and degree of saturation for bearing
capacity analysis.
Depth of water table under the ground Degree of saturation (%)
surface (m)
0 100 %
2 90 %
4 90 %
6 90 %
2 80 %
4 80 %
6 80 %
2 70 %
4 70 %
6 70 %
77
5.2.4 Required Relationships for Unsaturated Soils
There are some relationships that are required in dealing with partially
saturated soil characteristics, which are:-
5.2.4.1 Suction Versus Degree of Saturation

Total and matric suction of each soil sample were measured by
remolding the samples at different degrees of saturation (90%, 80%, 70%,
and 20%) using the filter paper method (Whatman No. 42). Figures (5.5)
and (5.6) show the relationship between the total and matric suction and the
degree of saturation, respectively.
100
Degree of Saturation (%)
80
60
Rusafa 1
40 Rusafa 2
Rusafa 3
20
2 3 4 5
Total Suction (log kPa)
Figure (5.5) Relationship between the total suction and degree of saturation.
100
Degree of Saturation (%)
80
60
Rusafa 1
40
Rusafa 2
Rusafa 3
20
1 2 3 4
Matric Suction (log kPa)
Figure (5.6) Relationship between the matric suction and degree of
saturation.
78
From these figures, it can be shown that the suction of the soil
decreases with increase of degree of saturation and the rate of decreasing in
matric suction is not equal to the rate of increase of the degree of
saturation. It is also noticed that the suction values for Rusafa 1 soil are
higher than the suction values for Rusafa (2 & 3) soils at the same degree
of saturation. This is due to the ability of the soil from Rusafa 1 to keep
water which is more than the soil from Rusafa (2 &3) because the void
ratio for Rusafa 1 is smaller than that for Rusafa (2 & 3).
5.2.4.2 H-Modulus Function

There are sets of steps considered to find the H-modulus function.
These steps are proposed in this work in order to characterize the behavior
of unsaturated soils:
1. From the program (Soil Vision), and after inputting all the required
properties of the soils used in this analysis, (i.e., total unit weight,
dry unit weight, liquid limit, plasticity index, void ratio, porosity,
matric suction value, degree of saturation, and grain size
distribution). The soil water characteristic curve is predicted (relation
between the gravitation water content and the matric suction)
through applying fitting methods, such as the method proposed by
Fredlund and Xing (1994) and Van Genuchten (1980) for fitting
the soil water characteristic curve (Figure 5.7).
2. The previous relations are converted to relations correlating the void
ratio and the matric suction based on the relation:
𝑊𝑊𝑤𝑤 𝐺𝐺𝑠𝑠
e= (5.1)
𝑆𝑆
where ww = gravitation water content,

Gs = specific gravity, and
S = degree of saturation.
79
Then, the slope of the void ratio versus the matric suction, m is
predicted:
∆𝑒𝑒
m= (5.2)
∆ℎ 𝑚𝑚
where: Δe = (e2 – e1), and Δhm = (hm1 - hm2)

hm1, hm2 are the initial and final matric suctions, respectively.
e1, e2 are the initial and final void ratios, respectively.
Hence, five to seven values of the slope are predicted from these
curves as show in Table (5.4).
Figure (5.8) shows the steps followed to find the slope of the void
ratio versus the matric suction relation for different soil types.
3. After finding the slope of the void ratio versus the matric suction of
different types of the soil, it can be seen that the slope, m is equal to
3
(1−𝑛𝑛)𝐻𝐻
(Krahn, 2004):
Hence, the H-modulus function becomes:
3
𝐻𝐻 = (1−n)m
(5.3)
where: n = porosity of soil,

m = the slope of the void ratio versus the matric suction.
In addition, the H must be set to E/ (1-2ν) at zero pore water pressure
when defining it (Krahn, 2004).
Figure (5.9) shows the relations between the H-modulus and the
matric suction calculated for different types of soil.
80
(a) Using Fredlund and Xing (1994) fitting (b) Using Van Genuchten (1980) fitting
for Rusafa 1 for Rusafa 1
(c) Using Fredlund and Xing (1994) fitting (d) Using Van Genuchten (1980) fittiing
(e) Using Fredlund and Xing (1994) fitting (f) Using Van Genuchten (1980) fitting
Figure (5.7) Relationships between the gravitational water content and the
matric suction for the three soils obtained by the program Soil Vision.
81
0.7
0.6
0.5
Void Ratio (e)

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000
Matric Suction (kPa)
(a) From Fredlund and Xing (1994) fitting for Rusafa 1
0.8
0.7
0.6
Void Ratio (e)
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000
(b) From Fredlund and Xing (1994) fitting for Rusafa 2
1.0
0.9
0.8
Void Ratio (e)
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000
(c) From Fredlund and Xing (1994) fitting for Rusafa 3
Figure (5.8) Relationships between the void ratio and the matric suction
for the three soils.
82
Table (5.4) Values of the slopes predicted from the void ratio versus matric
suction curves of the three soils.
Soil site Slope e1 e2 hm1 hm2
m1 0.143 0.096 20000 40000
Rusafa 1 m2 0.096 0.07 40000 60000
m3 0.07 0.06 60000 80000
m4 0.06 0.051 80000 100000
m1 0.14 0.098 20000 40000
Rusafa 2 m2 0.098 0.075 40000 60000
m3 0.075 0.06 60000 80000
m4 0.06 0.046 80000 100000
m1 0.145 0.075 20000 40000
Rusafa 3 m2 0.075 0.05 40000 60000
m3 0.05 0.032 60000 80000
m4 0.032 0.015 80000 100000
83
12
H - Modulus (x 10^6) kPa

10
0
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0
Negative Pore Water Pressure (x 10^3) kPa
(a) Rusafa 1
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0
(b) Rusafa 2
7
0
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0
(c) Rusafa 3
Figure (5.9) Relations between the H-modulus and the matric suction for
the three soils.
84
5.2.4.3 Volumetric Water Content (θw)
In soil science, volumetric water content is most commonly used. In
geotechnical engineering practice, gravimetric water content, w, which is
the ratio of the mass of water to the mass of solids, is most commonly used.
Frendlund and Rahardjo (1993), defined the volumetric water content as
the ratio of volume of water, Vw, to the total volume of the soil,
𝑉𝑉𝑤𝑤
θw = (5.4)
𝑉𝑉
The volumetric water content can also be expressed in terms of specific
gravity, Gs, void ratio, e, and water content as a function of the soil suction:
𝑤𝑤 (ℎ)𝐺𝐺𝑠𝑠
θw = (5.5)
1+𝑒𝑒
where w(h) = gravimetric water content as a function of matric suction of
soil.
One of required input data in SEEP/W program is relationship
between volumetric water content and pore water pressure. SEEP/W can
estimate this relationship from input data such as, volumetric water content
at saturated condition, θs, and coefficient of volume change, mv, and from
closed form solution of Van Genuchten (1980), or closed form of
Fredlund and Xing (1994). The four parameters a, n, m and hr, in Eqs.
(4.48) and (4.49) can be obtained from a semilog plot of the soil water
First, the suction corresponding to the residual water content, hr, is
determined by locating a point where the curve starts to drop linearly in the
high suction range (Figure 5.10). Next, the inflection point (hi, θi) is located
on the semilog plot and a tangent line is drawn through this point. Then the
fitting parameters a, n, and m can be determined as follows:
a = hi (5.6)
𝜃𝜃𝑠𝑠 𝐶𝐶(ℎ 𝑖𝑖 )
m = 3.67 ln � � (5.7)
𝜃𝜃 𝑖𝑖
85
1.31𝑚𝑚 +1
n= 3.72 𝑆𝑆 ∗ (5.8)
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 (ℎ 𝑖𝑖 )
where θs = volumetric water content at saturated condition, and

hi = the suction corresponding to inflection point.
𝑆𝑆 ℎ 𝑖𝑖
𝑆𝑆 ∗ = −
𝜃𝜃𝑠𝑠 1.31𝑚𝑚 (ℎ 𝑖𝑖 +ℎ 𝑟𝑟 ) ln �1+ �1,000,0000�ℎ ��
𝑟𝑟
The slope, s, of the tangent line can be calculated as follows:

𝜃𝜃 𝑖𝑖
s= (5.9)
ℎ
ln � 𝑝𝑝�ℎ �
𝑖𝑖
where hp = intercept of the tangent line on the semilog plot and matric
suction axis, (Figure 5.10). In this Figure ψi, and ψp means hi, and hp
respectively.
Figure (5.10) A sample plot for the graphical solution of the four
parameters (a, n, m, and h) (Fredlund and Xing 1994).
The fitting parameter for the three soils are summarizes in Table (5.5).
Figure (5.11) shows the estimated relation between the volumetric water
content and matric suction (negative pore water pressure) for the soils.
Table (5.5) Fitting parameter for the three soils.

Fitting parameter Rusafa 1 Rusafa 2 Rusafa 3
a 2499 2499 2499
n 0.93 0.8623 0.79
m 1.71 1.97 2.6
86
0.4
Volumetric Water Content

0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1E-3 1E-2 0.1 1 1E+1 1E+2 1E+3 1E+4 1E+5 1E+6
(a) For Rusafa 1
0.5
Volumatric Water Content
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
1E-3 1E-2 0.1 1 1E+1 1E+2 1E+3 1E+4 1E+5 1E+6
(b) For Rusafa 2
0.5
Volumetric Water Content
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1E-3 1E-2 0.1 1 1E+1 1E+2 1E+3 1E+4 1E+5 1E+6
(c) For Rusafa 3
Figure (5.11) Relationships between volumetric water content
and matric suction for the three soils.
After estimating the relation between the volumetric water content

and pore water pressure, a relationship between the hydraulic conductivity
and pore water pressure can be estimated as explained in Chapter Four.
This relation is shown in Figure (5.12) for the three soils.
87
1E-7 1E-7
1E-8 1E-8
1E-9 1E-9
1E-10 1E-10
-1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0
Pressure x 1000 (kPa)
(a) Rusafa 1
1E-7 1E-7
1E-8 1E-8
1E-9 1E-9
1E-10 1E-10
-1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0
(b) Rusafa 2
1E-7 1E-7
1E-8 1E-8
1E-9 1E-9
1E-10 1E-10
-1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0
(c) Rusafa 3
Figure (5.12) Relation between the hydraulic conductivity and pore water
pressure for partially saturated soils from three sites.
88
5.3 Defining the Ultimate Bearing Capacity from Load Tests
Choosing a single value of qult to define failure of a shallow
foundation, is difficult as different locations along a stress-settlement curve
will result in different values of qult. Cerato and Lutenegger (2007)
discussed four currently published methods for evaluating the ultimate
bearing capacity from a footing load test, which include the following:
1. Choosing the footing stress corresponding to a distinctive marked

change in settlement (Trautmann and Kulhawy, 1988). This
method is referred to as “the Tangent Intersection Method”, Figure
(5.13 A).
2. Manipulating the footing stress vs. settlement data on log scale and
then selecting the footing stress corresponding to an intersection
point (De Beer, 1970). This method is referred to as “the log-log
Method”, Figure (5.13 B).
3. Choosing a reasonable model to fit the stress vs. settlement data and
extrapolating to the asymptotic value corresponding to an upper limit
of stress. This method is referred to as “the Hyperbolic Method”,
Figure (5.13 C).
4. Choosing the footing stress corresponding to a limiting relative
settlement value (Briaud and Jeanjean, 1994). This method is
called “the 0.1B Method”, Figure (5.13 D).
In this work, the failure point is considered at settlement equals to
10% of the width of footing (B). Using the 0.1B method is more suitable in
this work because it treats the displacement of all footing sizes the same.
5.4 Results of Finite Element Analysis and Discussion.

At first, each type of soil was analyzed as fully saturated soil by the
programs SIGMA/W and SEEP/W. The results as shown in Figure (5.14)
and Table (5.6) which demonstrate that the failure mechanism is close to
the general shear failure mode and the ultimate bearing capacity according
89
to criterion of the load corresponding to settlement equals to (10%) of the
width of footing is in a good agreement with Trezaghi's bearing capacity
equation for a surface strip footing:
qu = Nc Cu (5.10)
where qu = ultimate bearing capacity,
Cu = undrained shear strength, and
Nc = bearing capacity factor, which is equal to (5.7) when ø equals

to zero.
Then, each type of soil was analyzed as partially saturated soil with
different water table levels (2 m, 4 m, and 6 m) below the ground surface
with the same degree of saturation. Later, each problem is re-analyzed with
another degree of saturation.
Figure (5.13) Different methods for defining ultimate bearing capacity of

shallow foundation from load test results (after Cerato and Lutenegge, 2007).
90
This means that for each case, the degree of saturation is changed
from (90%) to (80%) and (70%) keeping the other parameters constant, and
for each degree of saturation, the problem was re-analyzed with the same
water table level.
In unsaturated soil (i.e. soil located above the water table),
practically, the water content of this soil is varying with depth from the
ground surface reaching to the water table level, and consequently the
matric suction value is varied with depth above the water table level. In
SIGMA/W program, it is difficult to measure the variation of matric
suction with depth, therefore; in this work the matric suction is assumed
constant with depth above the water table level.
Table (5.6) Results of bearing capacity analysis of fully saturated soils for
remolded samples.
Soil name qu according to qu by the finite
Trezaghi's equation element analysis
(kPa) (kPa)
Rusafa 1 770 760
Rusafa 2 584 580
Rusafa 3 371 380
Stress (kPa)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
0
50
Settlement (mm)
100
150
200
Rusafa 1
Rusafa 2
250
Rusafa 3
300
Figure (5.14) Stress – settlement curve for a footing (1 m) wide over
different types of fully saturated soil.
91
5.4.1 Effect of Degree of Saturation
Figures (5.15) to (5.23) show the relationship between the applied
stress and settlement of each type of soil with different conditions of degree
of saturation and different water table levels.
Figure (5.15) illustrates that when the soil becomes partially saturated,
the ultimate bearing capacity of Rusafa 1 soil increases from (760 kPa)
when it is fully saturated (S= 100%) to (3200 kPa) when it is partially
saturated at S = 90%. This increase is due to contribution of matric suction
(i.e negative pore water pressure) and overburden pressure due to dropping
of water. But when moving to S = 80% and S = 70% at the same water
table level, the increase in bearing capacity becomes small due to small
contribution of matric suction only.
The same trend is shown in Figures (5.16) and (5.17) for the water
table at 4 m, and 6 m depth, and also, in Figures (5.18) to (5.23) for Rusafa
2, and 3 soils.
The values of the ultimate bearing capacity which were obtained from
these figures according to the criterion of a load corresponding to a
settlement equal to (10 %) of the width of the footing are summarized in
Table (5.7). From the table, it can be noticed that the ultimate bearing
capacity of partially saturated soil is higher than for fully saturated by
about (4 to 7) times. This result is attributed to increasing in matric suction
and overburden pressure as a result of dropping of water table. These
results are consistent with the observation of Mohammed and Vanapalli
(2007) who reported that the bearing capacity of coarse grained unsaturated
soil to be (5 to 7) times higher than the bearing capacity of the same soil
under saturated conditions.
92
From Table (5.7) it can also be noticed that at the same water table
level, the increase in bearing capacity due to matric suction is only about
(50 – 100) kPa.
Based on Eq. (5.10), the values of Nc are calculated for each soil at
different degrees of saturation. The results are summarized in Table (5.8).
In order to get a widely accepted correlation between Nc and matric
suction, further studies either numerical or experimental are required.
Table (5.7) Results of ultimate bearing capacity (kPa) for unsaturated soil
obtained from finite element analysis.
W.T depth Degree of Rusafa 1 Rusafa 2 Rusafa 3
saturation
0m 100 % 760 580 380
2m 90 % 3200 2400 1550
80 % 3250 2450 1600
70 % 3300 2500 1650
4m 90 % 4700 3600 2250
80 % 4750 3650 2300
70 % 4800 3700 2350
6m 90 % 5400 4400 2700
80 % 5500 4500 2750
70 % 5600 4600 2800
Table (5.8) Results of bearing capacity factor Nc.

W.T depth Degree of Rusafa 1 Rusafa 2 Rusafa 3 Average
saturation
0m S = 100 % 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.7
2m S = 90% 22.3 21.1 20.5 21.3
S = 80 % 20.9 20.6 19.5 20.3
S = 70 % 20.1 19.8 19 19.6
4m S = 90% 32.8 31.7 30 31.5
S = 80 % 30.5 30.7 28 29.7
S = 70 % 29.2 29.4 26.7 28.4
6m S = 90% 37.6 38.8 35.8 37.4
S = 80 % 35.4 37.8 33.5 35.6
S = 70 % 34 36.5 31.8 34.1
93
Stress (kPa)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
0
50
100
Settlement (mm) 150
200
250
300
350
400
450 S = 100 %
S = 90 %
500
S = 80 %
550 S = 70 %
600
650
Rusafa 1 soil with different conditions of degree of saturation and water
table depth at 2 m.
Stress (kPa)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
0
50
100
Settlement (mm)
150
200
250
300
350 S = 100 %
S = 90 %
400 S = 80 %
450 S = 70 %
500
table depth at 4 m.
94
Stress (kPa)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
0
50
Settlement (mm)
100
150
200 S = 100 %
S = 90 %
250 S = 80 %
S = 70 %
300

table depth at 6 m.
Stress (kPa)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
0
50
100
150
Settlement (mm)
200
250
300
350
400
S = 100 %
450
S = 90 %
500
S = 80 %
550
S = 70 %
600
650

table depth at 2 m.
95
Stress (kPa)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
0
50
Settlement (mm) 100
150
200
250 S = 100 %
S = 90 %
300 S = 80 %
S = 70 %
350

table depth at 4 m.
Stress (kPa)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
0
50
Settlement (mm)
100
150
200 S = 100 %
S = 90 %
250 S = 80 %
S = 70 %
300

table depth at 6 m.
96
Stress (kPa)
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
0
50
100
150
Settlement (mm) 200
250
300
350
400
450
S = 100 %
500
S = 90 %
550 S = 80 %
600 S = 70 %
650
700

table depth at 2 m.
Stress (kPa)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
0
50
100
Settlement (mm)
150
200
250
300
350 S = 100 %
S = 90 %
400 S = 80 %
450 S = 70 %
500

table depth at 4 m.
97
Stress (kPa)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
0
50
Settlement (mm)
100
150
200
S = 100 %
S = 90 %
250 S = 80 %
S = 70 %
300

table depth at 6 m.
5.4.2 Effect of Water Table Level

Figures (5.24) to (5.32) show the effect of dropping water table level
on the behavior of unsaturated soil.
Figure (5.24) illustrates that the dropping of water table to depth of

(2 m) leads to increasing the bearing capacity of the soil, and this increase
continues when dropping the water table to 4 m, and 6 m depth. This can be
attributed to increasing in matric suction value as a result of increasing of
unsaturated zone and also increasing of overburden pressure.
The same trend is shown in Figures (5.25) to (5.32) for other types of soil.
98
Stress (kPa)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
0
50
100
Settlement (mm) 150
200
250
300
350
400
W.T at Surface
450
W.T at 2 m
500
W.T at 4 m
550 W.T at 6 m
600
650
Rusafa 1 soil with different conditions of water table depth at S = 90 %.
Stress (kPa)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
0
50
100
Settlement (mm)
150
200
250
300
350
400 W.T at Surface
450 W.T at 2 m
W.T at 4 m
500
W.T at 6 m
550
600

99
Stress (kPa)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
0
50
100
Settlement (mm) 150
200
250
300
350
400 W.T at Surface
450 W.T at 2 m
500 W.T at 4 m
550 W.T at 6 m
600

Stress (kPa)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
0
50
100
150
Settlement (mm)
200
250
300
350
400
450 W.T at Surface
500 W.T at 2 m
W.T at 4 m
550
W.T at 6 m
600
650

100
Stress (kPa)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
0
50
100
Settlement (mm) 150
200
250
300
350
400 W.T at Surface
450 W.T at 2 m
500 W.T at 4 m
550 W.T at 6 m
600
650

Stress (kPa)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
0
50
100
Settlement (mm)
150
200
250
300
350
400 W.T at Surface
450 W.T at 2 m
W.T at 4 m
500
W.T at 6 m
550
600

101
Stress (kPa)
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
0
50
100
150
Settlement (mm) 200
250
300
350
400
450 W.T at Surface
500 W.T at 2 m
550 W.T at 4 m
600 W.T at 6 m
650
700

Stress (kPa)
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
0
50
100
150
Settlement (mm)
200
250
300
350
400
450 W.T at Surface
500 W.T at 2 m
W.T at 4 m
550
W.T at 6 m
600
650

102
Stress (kPa)
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
0
50
100
Settlement (mm)
150
200
250
300
350
W.T at Surface
400
W.T at 2 m
450
W.T at 4 m
500 W.T at 6 m
550
600

5.4.3 Effect of Soil Type

Figure (5.14) shows the stress – settlement curve for different soil
types (fully saturated). The figure demonstrates that the bearing capacity
decreases with decrease of the soil stiffness, and the undrained shear
strength, Cu.
The same trend is shown in Figures (5.33) to (5.41) when the soil
becomes partially saturated with different conditions of water table level
and degree of saturation.
From these figures, it can be noticed that the behavior of partially

saturated soils is similar to that of fully saturated but different values of
settlement are encountered.
103
Stress (kPa)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
0
50 Rasafa 1
100 Rasafa 2
150
Settlement (mm)
Rasafa 3
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
Figure (5.33) Stress – settlement curves for a footing over different
types of partially saturated soil at water table at 2 m depth and S = 90 %.
Stress (kPa)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
0
50
100
Settlement (mm)
150
200
250
300
350 Rasafa 1
400 Rasafa 2
Rasafa 3
450
500
Figure (5.34) Stress – settlement curve for a footing over different types
of partially saturated soil at water table at 4 m depth and S = 90 %.
Stress (kPa)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
0
50
Settlement (mm)
100
150
200
Rasafa 1
250 Rasafa 2
Rasafa 3
300
104
Stress (kPa)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
0
50
100
150
Settlement (mm)
200
250
300
350
400
450
500 Rasafa 1
550 Rasafa 2
600 Rasafa 3
650
Stress (kPa)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
0
50
100
Settlement (mm)
150
200
250
300
Rasafa 1
350 Rasafa 2
Rasafa 3
400
450
Stress (kPa)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
0
50
Settlement (mm)
100
150
200
Rasafa 1
Rasafa 2
250
Rasafa 3
300
105
Stress (kPa)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
0
50
100
Settlement (mm)
150
200
250
300
350
400
450 Rasafa 1
500 Rasafa 2
550 Rasafa 3
600
Stress (kPa)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
0
50
100
Settlement (mm)
150
200
250
300
Rasafa 1
350 Rasafa 2
400 Rasafa 3
450
Stress (kPa)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
0
50
Settlement (mm)
100
150
200
Rasafa 1
250 Rasafa 2
Rasafa 3
300
106
5.4.4 Variation of Bearing Capacity with Matric Suction
Figures (5.42) to (5.44) show the variation of the bearing capacity with
respect to matric suction for the model footing of each type of soil.
These relationships demonstrate that there is significant increase in the
bearing capacity of the model footing due to the contribution of suction.
The results also suggest that the bearing capacity approximately increases
linearly with matric suction up to the air – entry value and there is a non –
linear increase in the bearing capacity with respect to matric suction
beyond the air – entry value.
From the SWCC (Figure 5.7) fitting curve proposed by Fredlund and
Xing (1994), the air – entry values of each type of soil are summarized in
Table (5.9). The trends of the results of the bearing capacity of unsaturated
soil are similar to the shear strength behavior of unsaturated soils which
were reported by Vanapalli et al. (1996) who found that there is a linear
increase in shear strength up to the air – entry value.
Table (5.9) The air – entry values.

Type of soil Air – entry value (ua – uw)b (kPa)
Rusafa 1 350
Rusafa 2 250
Rusafa 3 150
7000
6000
Bearing Capacity (kPa)
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
W.T at 2 m
0
W.T at 4 m
1 10 100 1000 10000
W.T at 6 m Matric Suction (kPa)
Figure (5.42) Variation of the bearing capacity with respect to matric

suction of Rusafa 1.
107
5000
4500

4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
W.T at 2 m 0
W.T at 4 m 1 10 100 1000 10000

3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
W.T at 2 m
0
W.T at 4 m 1 10 100 1000 10000

Vanapalli et al. (1996), demonstrated the typical relationship

between the shear strength and the SWCC by comparing Figure (5.45 a),
and (5.45 b). There is a linear increase in shear strength up to the air – entry
value. The rate of desaturation with respect to an increase in matric suction
is greatest between the air – entry value and the suction corresponding to
residual water content condition. There is a nonlinear increase in shear
strength in this region. Beyond the residual suction condition, the shear
108
strength of an unsaturated soil may increase, decrease, or remain relatively
constant during further desaturation depending on the type of soil. In the
clayey soil, the residual state may not be well defined that even at high
value of suction; it could still be considerable water available to transmit
suction along the soil particle or aggregate contents, which contributes
towards increases in the shear strength. This phenomenon can occur for a
large range of suction value for clay soil.
Figure (5.45) Typical behavior of unsaturated soil.

(a) A typical soil water characteristic curve.
(b) Shear strength behavior of soil as it is related to the soil water
characteristic curve, (from Vanapalli, et al., 1996).
109
5.4.5 Vertical Displacement
Figures (5.46), (5.47) and (5.48) show the relation between the
vertical surface displacement and distance from the center line of the model
footing for soils from Rusafa 1, Rusafa 2, and Rusafa 3, respectively. The
figures represent the soil in fully saturated and partially saturated
conditions, and loaded to the same maximum value of footing stress.
Figure (5.46 a) illustrates that when the applied stress is equal to zero,
the vertical displacement is zero along the distance from the center line,
and this value is changed as the footing stress is increased. It can be noticed
that with progress of applying stress, the vertical displacement starts to
change, and heave at the footing end takes place.
It is also noticed that the vertical displacements near the center line of
the footing are negative (downward movement), while at a distance far
from the center line of the footing, they are positive (upward movement).
The maximum value of vertical displacement occurs at the center line of
the footing. The displacement increases with increase of the applied stress
and reaches a value of (154 mm). This is due to concentration of stresses of
the footing in this region. The small vertical displacement, observed under
the far end away from the center line of the footing, is due to upward
movement of the soil under the footing which reduces the downward
movement.
In Figure (5.46 b), the vertical displacement is traced when the soil is
partially saturated and the water table is dropping to depth 2 m and the
degree of saturation is 90 %. It is noticed that the distribution of vertical
displacement is similar to that in condition of fully saturation state but with
less values when compared at a certain value of loading. For example,
when the value of stress reaches the maximum value (770 kPa), the
maximum vertical displacement is (154 mm), and the maximum heave is
(49 mm), when the soil is fully saturated, but the maximum vertical
displacement is only (9.8 mm), and the maximum heave is (2.1 mm) when
110
the soil is partially saturated. This is due to existing of negative pore water
pressure which increases the shear strength of the soil and consequently
reduces the settlement.
It is also, noticed in Figure (5.46) that the heave continues to the end
of the problem mesh, another run was carried out in which the mesh was
extended to a distance of 20 m, the heave was noticed to decrease gradually
at about 15 m from the foundation center.
The same trend is shown in Figures (5.47 a and b) for the soil from
Rusafa 2, and Figures (5.48 a and b) for the soil from Rusafa 3. It is found
that the maximum value of the vertical displacements at the center line
under the footing when the soil is loaded to the maximum value of footing
stress decreases when the soil becomes partially saturated. For the soil from
Rusafa 2, the maximum settlement is (121 mm) when the soil is fully
saturated and becomes (10 mm) for partially saturated at water table 2 m
depth, when the soil was loaded to the maximum value of stress of footing
(585 kPa). For Rusafa 3 soil, the maximum value of settlement is about
(102 mm) when the soil is fully saturated, and loaded to the maximum
stress of the footing (380 kPa), and becomes (9 mm) when it becomes
partially saturated at the same value of stress.
The percentage of reduction in settlement can be defined as:
𝑺𝑺𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔 − 𝑺𝑺𝒖𝒖𝒖𝒖𝒖𝒖𝒖𝒖𝒖𝒖
Reduction in settlement (%) = 𝐱𝐱 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏% (5.11)
𝑺𝑺𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔
where Ssat = settlement for fully saturated soil, and

Sunsat = settlement for partially saturated soil.
It is found that the settlement decreases when the water table drops to
depth 2 m depth (i.e. 2 B) about (94 %, 92 %, 91%) for the soil from
Rusafa 1, Rusafa 2, and Rusafa 3, respectively.
These results approximately agree with those of Agarwal and Rana
(1987), who reported that when the water table is at surface, the settlement
is 95 % higher than when the water table is at depth (1.5 B).
111
Applied Stress
50 0 kPa
10 kPa
Y - displacement (mm)
0 20 kPa
40 kPa
-50 80 kPa
160 kPa
320 kPa
-100
430 kPa
530 kPa
-150
630 kPa
770 kPa
-200
0 2 4 6 8 10
Distance (m)
(a) Fully saturated soil.
Applied Stress
4 0 kPa
10 kPa
2
20 kPa
0 40 kPa
80 kPa
-2
160 kPa
-4 320 kPa
430 kPa
-6
530 kPa
-8 630 kPa
770 kPa
-10
0 2 4 6 8 10
Distance (m)
(b) Partially saturated soil, water table at depth 2 m (S = 90%).
Figure (5.46) Variation of the vertical surface displacement along the

distance from the center line of the footing of Rusafa 1 soil.
112
Applied Stress
50
0 kPa
10 kPa
0 20 kPa
40 kPa
80 kPa
-50 160 kPa
320 kPa
430 kPa
-100
530 kPa
585 kPa
-150
0 2 4 6 8 10
Distance (m)
Applied Stress
5
0 kPa
10 kPa
20 kPa
0 40 kPa
80 kPa
160 kPa
320 kPa
-5
430 kPa
530 KPa
585 kPa
-10
0 2 4 6 8 10
Distance (m)
(b) Partially saturated soil, water table at depth 2 m (S = 90 %).

113
40
Applied Stress
0 kPa
0 10 kPa
20 kPa
40 kPa
-40 80 kPa
160 kPa
280 kPa
-80
320 kPa
380 kPa
-120
0 2 4 6 8 10
Distance (m)
5
Applied Stress
0 kPa
10 kPa
0 20 kPa
40 kPa
80 kPa
160 kPa
-5 280 kPa
320 kPa
380 kPa
-10
0 2 4 6 8 10
Distance (m)
(b) Partially saturated soil water table at depth 2 m (S = 90 %).
Figures (5.49), (5.50), and (5.51), show the variation of the vertical
displacement along distance from the center line of the model footing at the
surface of the partially saturated soil when loaded to the maximum value of
stress (1800 kPa). In these figures, the water table level is changed to 2 m,
4 m, and 6 m, respectively at the same degree of saturation (S = 90 %).
114
From these figures, it can be noticed that the maximum vertical
displacement at the center of footing decreases with increase of the depth
of water table (2 m, 4 m, and 6 m), at a certain value of stress. This
decrease is due to increasing in unsaturated zone.
Applied Stress
10
0 kPa
5
Y - Diseplacement (mm)
10 kPa
0 20 kPa
40 kPa
-5
80 kPa
-10 160 kPa
-15 320 kPa
640 kPa
-20
1280 kPa
-25 1800 kPa
-30
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Distance (m)
Figure (5.49) Variation of the vertical surface displacement with distance
from the center line of the model footing on Rusafa 1 soil when the water
table is at 2 m depth and S = 90 %.
Applied Stress
5
0 kPa
Y - Displacement (mm)
0 10 kPa
20 kPa
-5 40 kPa
80 kPa
-10 160 kPa
320 kPa
-15
640 kPa
1280 kPa
-20
1800 kPa
-25
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Distance (m)
115
Applied Stress
5
0 kPa
10 kPa
0
20 kPa
40 kPa
-5 80 kPa
160 kPa
-10 320 kPa
640 kPa
-15 1280 kPa
1800 kPa
-20
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Distance (m)
Figure (5.52) shows variation of the vertical surface displacement

with distance from the center of model footing on Rusafa 1 soil and water
table at 2 m depth for different degrees of saturation (i.e different matric
suction values) and stress equal to 3000 kPa. It can be seen that the vertical
displacement decreases with decrease of the degree of saturation (increase
of matric suction). This effect is limited only within few meters from the
foundation center (about 5 m).
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
S = 90 %
-70
S = 80 %
-80 S = 70 %
-90
-100
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Distance (m)
table is at 2 m depth at different degrees of saturation.
116
5.4.6 Mandel – Cryer Effect
The Mandel – Cryer effect is the phenomenon in which the induced
pore – water pressure may become higher than the applied pressure in
saturated soil. It was first described by Mandel (1953) for a triaxial soil
sample and by Cryer (1963) for a spherical soil sample. The Mandel –
Cryer effect is dependent on the Poisson's ratio. It is more significant when
the Poisson's ratio is low and it becomes negligible when the Poisson's ratio
approaches 0.5 (Sun et al., 1994).
In order to capture this effect mathematically, a three – dimensional

consolidation theory is required. A short time after loading, the surface
elements will have substantially drained. Meanwhile, the inner elements
have not yet begun to drain. These cause a transfer of total stress from the
surface elements to the inner elements causing an increase over the initial
stress in the inner element at early times (Supangkat, 1994).
In this section, the Mandel – Cryer effect will be inspected through

the behavior of unsaturated soils. A pressure of (10 kPa) is applied over all
the surface of the region modeled in Figure (5.1).
Figure (5.53) shows the variation of the excess pore water pressure
with time at node A 5 m deep (shown in Figure 5.1) from Rusafa 1 soil.
From the figure, it can be seen that the excess pore water pressure increases
to a value greater than the applied stress before dissipation (i.e. Mandel –
Cryer effect). When the applied stress is 10 kPa, the excess pore water
pressure reaches about 11 kPa for fully saturated soil, so the normalized of
pore water pressure (excess pore water pressure / total applied pressure) is
about (1.1), and this agrees with Wong et al., (1998) who found similar
behavior as shown in Figure (5.54). But this value decreases with increase
of the depth of water table due to development of negative pore water
pressure; the pore water pressure is about 10.57 kPa when the water table is
2 m deep, and the normalized pore water pressure is about (1.057), and the
117
excess pore water pressure becomes 10.193 kPa, when the water table
reaches to depths of 4 m.
Excess Pore Water Pressure (kPa)

12
W.T at Surface
10 W.T at 2 m
W.T at 4 m
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Time (minute)
Figure (5.53) Relation between the excess pore water pressure and time for
Rusafa 1 soil at different water table levels (S = 90 %).
Figure (5.54) Excess pore water pressure with time (Mandel – Cryer
effect) (After Wong et al., 1988).
118
5.4.7 Contour Lines of Vertical Displacement
Figures (5.55) and (5.56) show the contour lines of vertical
displacement of the soil beneath the model footing under different
conditions of water table and at the same degree of saturation.
From figures (5.55 a and b), it is noticed that the vertical displacement
becomes maximum at top near the centre line of the model footing. It is
also noticed that the vertical displacements near the centre line of the
footing are negative (downward movements), while the vertical
displacements are positive (upward movements) at the region away from
the centre. This means that there are two phenomena governing the
behavior of footing represented by settlement and heave. This behavior can
be explained as follows; an increase of load on the foundation will increase
the settlement and the failure surface will gradually extend outward from
the foundation in heave behavior. Therefore, it can be noticed that the
maximum settlement when the footing is loaded to the maximum value
(770 kPa) will reach about (- 0.14 m) at top near the centre of footing,
while the maximum heave is about (0.04 m) at side away from the centre of
footing in fully saturated condition. On the other hand, the maximum
settlement reaches about (- 0.008 m), and the maximum heave reaches
about (0.002 m), in partially saturated condition at the same value of
loading. This is due to the existing of negative pore water pressure which
increases the shear strength of the soil and decreases the settlement and the
heave.
Figure (5.56 a) shows the contour lines when the water table is
dropping to depth (2 m), and the soil becomes partially saturated
(S = 90 %). The maximum settlement will reach about (- 0.09 m) at top
near the centre, and the maximum heave is about (0.01 m) at side away
from the centre when the footing is loaded to a load of (3000 kPa).
119
Figures (5.56 b, and c) illustrate that the maximum settlement
decreases when dropping the water table to depth (4 m, and 6 m)
respectively, under a value of loading equal to (3000 kPa).
From these figures, it can be seen that the difference between the
values of vertical displacement would be low as compared with the
condition of the fully saturated state. This means that in condition of partial
saturation, as the depth of water table is increased, the problem of
settlement decreases and the soil tends to behave as if it were dry.
-0.14
-0.12 04
0.
-0.1
-0.08
0.02
-0.06
0
04
-0.
02
-0.
(a) Fully saturated condition.
0.0
8
00
02
-0.
06
.0
-0
-0.002
004
0
-0.
(b) Partially saturated condition (S = 90 %) at water table (2 m) depth.
Figure (5.55) Contour lines of vertical displacement (m) for fully

saturated soil and partially saturated condition (Rusafa 1) when loaded to
(770 kPa).
120
08 .09
-0. -0
6
-0.0
7
-0.0
4
05
-0.0
-0. 0.0
1
03
-0.
0
02
-0.
-0.01
(a) Partially saturated soil with water table (2 m) depth.
-0.05
5
-0.04
04
-0. 5
03
-0.
03
-0.
5
02
-0.
02
-0.
15
0.0
-0.0
05
0
-0.01
-0.005
(b) Partially saturated soil with water table (4 m) depth.
4
-0.0
.035
-0 3
-0.0
5
02
-0.
02
-0.
0.005
15
-0.0
0
-0.0
5
-0.00
(c) Partially saturated soil with water table (6 m) depth.
Figure (5.56) Contour lines of vertical displacement (m) of (Rusafa 1) soil

with different water table conditions when the degree of saturation is (90 %),
and the model footing is loaded to (3000 kPa).
121
Chapter Six
Conclusions and
Recommendations
CHAPTER SIX
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Conclusions
U
Based on the experimental results obtained from this research work

and the analysis of the behavior of partially saturated soil beneath a strip
footing by the finite element method, the following conclusions can be
made:
1) From the soil water characteristic curve (SWCC) which was

determined by experimental method (i.e. filter paper method) for the
three soils (Rasafa 1, Rasafa 2, and Rasafa 3), the matric suction
value was found to increase with decrease of the degree of
saturation, and the rate of increase is not equal to rate of decrease in
degree of saturation. The values of matric suction also increase with
decrease of the void ratio at the same degree of saturation.
2) The procedure of analysis of the bearing capacity of shallow
foundation on partially saturated soil required a proposed procedure
to define the H – modulus function (H is a modulus relating the
change of volumetric strain in the soil structure to change in
suction). The procedure is found to be successful.
3) The water table level and the degree of saturation have the great
effect on the behavior of partially saturated soil. In this work, it is
found that due to dropping of water table and contribution of matric
suction (i.e. negative pore water pressure), the bearing capacity of
partially saturated soil increases by about (4 – 7) times higher than
the bearing capacity of the same soil under saturated conditions.
But, at the same water table depth, the bearing capacity increases in
a small value due to contribution of matric suction only. The bearing
122
Chapter Six Conclusion and Recommendation
capacity factor; Nc, was found to be dependent on degree of
saturation and water table level.
4) There are two phenomena governing the behavior of footing
represented by settlement (negative vertical displacement) and
heave (positive vertical displacement). This behavior can be
explained as follows; an increase of load on the foundation will
increase the settlement and the failure surface will gradually extend
outward from the foundation in heave behavior. The vertical
displacement of fully saturated soil is greater than that of
partially saturated soil. The vertical displacement reaches a
maximum value near the center line of the footing due to
concentration of stress.
5) The settlement reduces when the water table drops to a depth of 2 m
(i.e. 2 B) by about (94 %, 92 %, and 91 %) for the soils from Rusafa
1, Rusafa 2, and Rusafa 3, respectively.
6) There is significant increase in the bearing capacity of the model
footing due to the contribution of suction. The bearing capacity
approximately increases linearly with matric suction up to the air –
entry value and there is a non – linear increase in the bearing
capacity with respect to matric suction beyond the air – entry value.
7) The phenomenon of Mandel-Cryer leads to increase in the value of
initial pore water pressure. This phenomenon reduces with the depth
of water table due to development of negative pore water pressure.
123
Chapter Six Conclusion and Recommendation
6.2 Recommendations
U U
The following recommendations can be suggested for further research:

1) Using other types of clayey soils (i.e. medium to soft clay) to study
their behavior when they become partially saturated.
2) Reanalyzing the problem by using other constitutive models for the
soil such as (non linear elastic, Cam clay model, etc…..).
3) Reanalyzing the problem by experimental model and compare the
results with the results of the finite element model of this work.
4) Using another technique for measuring the matric suction values and
obtaining the SWCC.
124
References
References
1. Al-Khafaf, S. and Hanks, R. J. (1974), “Evaluation of the Filter

Paper Method for Estimating Soil Water Potential,” Soil Science,
Vol. 117, No. 4, pp. 194-199.
2. Alabdullah, J., (2010), " Testing Unsaturated Soil for Plane Strain
Conditions: A New Double-Wall Biaxial Device", Ph.D.
Dissertation, at the Faculty of Civil Engineering, Bauhaus-University
Weimar, Germany.
3. Agarwal, K. B. and Rana, M. K., (1987), “Effect of Ground Water
on Settlement of Footings in Sand,” Proceedings, Ninth European
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, E. T.
Hanrahann, T. L. L. Orr, and T. F. Widdis, Eds., Vol. 2, A.
A.Balkema, Dublin, pp. 751–754.
4. ASTM-D-422-00, "Standard Test Method for Particle – Size
Analysis of Soils", Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.08,
Soil and Rock, pp. 1 – 8.
5. ASTM-D854-00, "Standard Test Method for Specific Gravity of Soil
Solids by Pycnometer", Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol.
04.08, Soil and Rock, pp. 1 – 7.
6. ASTM -D1194-72: "Standard Test Method for Bearing Capacity of
Soil for Static Load and Spread Footings". (Cited by Costa et al.,
2003).
7. ASTM-D-2166-00,"Standard Test Method for Unconfined
Compressive Strength of Cohesive Soil", Annual Book of ASTM
Standards, Vol. 04.08, Soil and Rock, pp. 1 – 6.
8. ASTM-D-2216-00, "Standard Test Method for Laboratory
Determination of water content for Soil and Rock by Mass", Annual
Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.08, Soil and Rock, pp. 1 – 5.
125
References
9. ASTM- D2435-00, "Standard Test Methods for One Dimensional

Consolidation Properties of Soils Using Incremental Loading",
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.08, Soil and Rock, pp. 1
– 10.
10.ASTM-D-4318-00, "Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic
Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils", Annual Book of ASTM
11. ASTM-D-5298-03, "Standard Test Method for Measurement of Soil
Potential (Suction) Using Filter Paper", Annual Book of ASTM
12. Barden, L., (1965), "Consolidation of Compacted and Unsaturated
Clays". Geotechnique, Vol. 15, pp. 267-286.
13. Bowles, J.E., (1996), "Foundation Analysis and Design" McGraw –
Hill Book Company. Inc. New York, pp. 127.
14. Briaud, J. and Jeanjean, P. (1994), "Load Settlement Curve
Method for Spread Footings on Sand. Vertical and Horizontal
Deformations of Foundations and Embankments". ASCE, Vol.2, pp.
1774-1804, (Cited by Cerato, A. and Lutenegger, A., 2007).
15. Brooks, R.H., and Corey, A.T., (1964), "Hydraulic Properties of
Porous Media", Colorado State University, Hydrology paper No.3,
March.
16. Bulut, R., Lytton, R. L., and Wray, W. K., (2001), “Soil Suction
Measurements by Filter Paper”, Geotechnical Special Publication
Number 115, Proceedings of Geo-Institute Shallow Foundation and
Soil Properties Committee Sessions at the ASCE 2001 Civil
Engineering Conference, pp. 243-261.
17. Bulut, R., Leong, E. C., (2008), "Indirect Measurement of
Suction", Geotechnical Geological Engineering, V0l. 26, pp. 633-
644.
126
References
18. Carter, M., and Bently, S.P., (1991), "Correlations of Soil

Properties" Publishers, London, pp. 53.
19. Cerato, A. B. and Lutenegger, A. J. (2007), "Scale Effects of
Shallow Foundation Bearing Capacity on Granular Material",
Journal of Geotechnical and Environment Engineering, ASCE, Vol.
133, No.10, October, pp. 1192-1202.
20. Chandler, R. J. and Gutierrz, C. I. (1986), “The Filter Paper
Method of Suction Measurements" Geotechnique, Vol. 36, No. 2 pp.
265-268.
21. Costa, Y.D., Cintra, J.C. and Zornberg, J.C., (2003), "Influnce of
Matric Suction on the Results of Plate Load Tests Performed on a
Lateritic Soild Deposit", Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 26, No.
2, pp. 219-226.
22. Cryer, C. W., (1963), "A Comparison of the Three – dimensional
Consolidation of Biot and Terzaghi", Quarterly Journal of Mechanics
and Applied Mathematical, Vol. 16, pp.401-412, (Cited by Wong
et al., 1998).
23. Dakshanamurthy, V., Fredlund, D.G., and Rahardjo, H., (1984),
"Coupled Three – Dimensional Consolidation Theory of Unsaturated
Porous Media", In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on
P P
Expansive Soils, Adelaide, Australia, pp. 99-103, (Cited by Wong, et

al., 1998).
24. Das, B.M., (2002), "Principles of Geotechnical Engineering", Fifth
edition, Wadsworth Group, pp. 340.
25. De Beer, E. E. (1970), "Experimental Determination of the Shape
Factors and the Bearing Capacity Factors of Sand", Geotechnique
Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 387-411, (Cited by Cerato, A. and Lutenegger,
A., 2007).
127
References
26. Fawcett, R. G. and Collis-George, N. (1967), “A Filter-Paper

Method for Determining the Moisture Characteristics of Soil,”
Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal
Husbandry, Vol. 7, pp. 162-167.
27.Fredlund, D.G., and Morgenstrern, N.R. (1977), "Stress State
Variables for Unsaturated Soils". Geotechnical Engineering Journal.
Division, ASCE, Vol. 103, No. 4, pp. 447-466.
28. Fredlund, D.G., Morgenstern, N.R., and Wider, R.A., (1978),
"The Shear Strength of Unsaturated Soil", Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, Vol. 15, pp. 313-321.
29. Fredlund , D.G., and Rahardjo, H. (1993), "Soil Mechanics for
Unsaturated Soils" John Wiley & Sone Inc. New York, United States
of America.
30. Fredlund, D.G., Xing, A., (1994), "Equation for the Soil Water
Characteristic Curve", Canadian Geotechnical Journal Vol. 31, No.
3, pp. 521 – 532.
31. Fredlund, D. G., (2006), "Unsaturated Soil Mechanics in
Engineering Practice", Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 132, No. 3, pp. 286 –
321.
32. Gardner, R. (1937), “A Method of Measuring the Capillary
Tension of Soil Moisture over a Wide Moisture Range,” Soil
Science, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 277-283, (Cited by Bulut, et al., 2001).
33. Gunaratane, M., (2006), "The Foundation Engineering HandBook"
Taylar & Francis Group, Boca Rtan London, New Your pp.20.
34. Hamblin, A. P. (1981), “Filter Paper Method for Routine
Measurement of Field Water Potential,” Journal of Hydrology, Vol.
53, No. 3/4, pp. 355-360.
128
References
35. Hilf, J. W., (1956), “An Investigation of Pore-Water Pressure in

Compacted Cohesive Soils,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Tech. Memo. No.
654, U.S. Dep. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Design and
Construction Div., Denver, CO, pp. 654. (Cited by Fredlund and
Rahrardjo, 1993).
36. Hillel, D., (1971), "Soil and Water", Academic Press, Inc.
37. Hill, R., (1950), "The Mathematical Theory of Plasticity", McGraw
– Hill Book Company. (Cited by Krahn, 2004).
38. Houston, S. L., Houston, W. N., and Wagner, A. M. (1994),
“Laboratory Filter Paper Measurements,” Geotechnical Testing
Journal, ASTM, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 185-194.
39. Huebner, K.H., (1975), "The Finite Element Method for
Engineers" John Wiley & Sons.
40. Krahn, J., (2004), "Stress and Deformation Modeling With
SIGMA/W", GEO-SLOPE International, Ltd.
41. Lambe, T. W. and Whitman, R. V., (1979), “Soil Mechanics", SI.
Version John Wiley & Sons, NewYork.
42.Lee, H.C., and Wray, W.K., (1995), "Evaluation of Soil Suction in
Struments". Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on
Expansive Soils, Dallas, TX, Vol.1, pp. 307–312.
43.Leong E.C, He L, Rahardjo H. (2002), "Factors Affecting the
Filter Paper Method for Total and Matric Suction Measurements".
Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 25, No.3, pp. 322 – 333.
44. Lu, N., and Likos, W. J., (2004), “Unsaturated Soil Mechanics”,
John Wiley & Sons, New York.
45. Mandel, J., (1953), "Consolidation des sols" Geotechnique, Vol. 3,
pp.287-299, (Cited by Wong, et al., 1998)
129
References
46. McKeen, R. G. (1980), “Field Studies of Airport Pavement on

Expansive Clay,” Proceedings 4th International Conference on
Expansive Soils, Vol. 1, pp. 242-261, ASCE, Denver, Colorado.
47. McQueen, I. S. and Miller, R. F. (1968), “Calibration and

Evaluation of a Wide-Range Gravimetric Method for Measuring
Moisture Stress,” Soil Science, Vol. 106, No. 3, pp. 225-231.
48. Meyerhof, G.G., (1955), "Influnce of Roughness of Base and
Ground Water Condition on the Ultimate Bearing Capacity of
Foundations ", Geotechnique, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 227-242.
49. Mohamed, F. M. O. and Vanapalli, S. K., (2006), "Laboratory
Investigations for the Measurement of the Bearing Capacity of an
Unsaturated Coarse-Grained Soil", Proceedings of the 59th Canadian
Geotechnical Conference, Vancouver 1-4 October, pp. 219-226.
50. Murthy, V. N. S., (2003), "Geotechnical Engineering- Principle and
Practices of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering", Marcel
Dekker, Inc., Madison Avenue, New York.
51. Murray, E. J., Sivakumar, V., (2010), “Unsaturated Soils – A
Fundamental Interpretation of Soil Behavior”, John Wiley & Sons,
Ltd., Publication.
52. Ng, C. W. W. and Menzies, B., (2007), "Advanced Unsaturated
Soil Mechanics and Engineering" published in the USA and Canada
by Taylor & Francis.
53. Oh, W. T., and Vanapalli, S. K., (2008), "Modeling the Stress
Versus Settlement Behavior of Model Footings in Saturated and
Unsaturated Sandy Soils". The 12th International Conference of
P P
International Association for Computer Methods and Advance in

Geomechanics (IACMAG), pp. 2126 – 2137.
130
References
54. Pan, H., Qing, Y., and Pie-yong, L., (2010), "Direct and Indirect
Measurement of Soil Suction in the Laboratory", Electronic Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering (EJGE), Vol. 15, Bund. A, pp. 1 – 14.
55. Prandtl, L. (1921), "Uber die Eindringungsflstigkeit plastischer
Baustoffe und die Festigkeit von Schneiden," Zeit. angew. Math., 1,
No.1, (Cited by Murthy, 2003).
56. Rahardjo, H. and Fredlund, D. G., (1992), “Mechanics of Soil
with Matric Suction,” Proceedings, International Conference in
Geotechnical Engineering—Geotropika 92, Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia, Johor Bahru, Malaysia.
57. Rockey, K.C., Evans, H.R., Griffiths, D.W and Nethercot, D.A.,
(1975), "The Finite Element Method" Corsby Lock Wood Staples
London.
58. Smith, G. N., (1978), “Elements of Soil Mechanics for Civil and
Mining Engineers”, First edition, Crosby Lockwood Staples.
59. Smith, G.N., and Smith, Ian, G.N., (1998), "Elements of Soil
Mechanics", Seventh edition, published by Blackwell Seience.
60. Smith, I.M., and Griffiths, D.V., (1988), "Programming the Finite
Element Methods", 2nd edition, John Wiley & Sons.
P P
61. Sun, J., Rahardjo, H., and Fredlund, D., (1994), "A Technique to
Perform Coupled Consolidation Analysis Using Two Independent
Softwares", Proceeding of the First Congress on Computing in Civil
Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineering, Washington,
June, Vol. 1 pp. 849-856.
62. Supangkat, H., (1994), "On Finite Element Analysis of Nonlinear
Consolidation", M.SC. Thesis, Department of Mechanical
Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
63. Swarbrick, G. E. (1995), “Measurement of Soil Suction Using the

Filter Paper Method,” First International Conference on Unsaturated
131
References
Soils, Eds.: E. E. Alonso and P. Delage, Vol. 2, Paris, 6-8

September, ENDPC, pp. 701-708.
64. Taylor, D.W. (1948), "Fundamentals of Soil Mechanics", John
Wiley and Sons, New York.
65. Terzaghi, K. (1943), "Theoretical Soil Mechanics", Wiley & Sons,
New York.
66. Trautmann, C. and Kulhawy, F. (1988), "Uplift Load-
displacement Behavior of Speared Foundation". ASCE, Vol.114,
No.2, pp.168-183, (Cited by Cerato, A. and Lutenegger, A., 2007).
67. Usre's Guide Manual of Soil Vision, (2001), SoilVision Systems
Ltd. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
68. Vanapalli, S. K., Fredlund, D. G., Pufahl, D.E., and Clifton,
A.W., (1996), " Model for the Prediction of Shear Strength with
Respect to Soil Suction" , Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 33,
No. 3, pp. 379-392.
69. Vanapalli, S. K. and Mohamed, F. M. O., (2007), "Bearing
Capacity of Model Footings in Unsaturated Soils", In Experimental
Unsaturated Soil Mechanics, Springer Proceedings in Physics,
Springer -Verlag Berlin Geidelberg, Vol. 112, pp. 483-493.
70. Vanapalli, S. K., Oh, W. T., and Puppala, A. J., (2008), "A
Simple Method for the Prediction of Modulus of Elasticity for
1st
Unsaturated Soils", Proc. P P international European Conference on
Unsaturated Soils. (Cited by Oh and Vanapalli 2008).
71. Van Genuchent, M. T., (1980), "A Closed Form Equation for
Prediction of the Hydraulic Conductivity of Unsaturated Soils", Soil
Science Sosiety America Journal, 44, pp. 892 – 898.
72. Vesic, A. C., (1973), "Analysis of Ultimate Loads of Shallow
Foundations", Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations
132
References
Division, ASCE, Vol. 99, pp. 45-73. (Cited by Vanapalli and

Mohamed 2007).
73. Walker. SC., Gallipoli, D., Toll, D.G., (2005), "The Effect of
Structure on the Water Retension of Soil Tested Using Different
Methods of Suction Measurement", International Symposium on
Advanced Experimental Unsaturated Soil Mechanics, Trento, 27 -29
June.
74. Wong, T.T., Ferdlund, D.G., and Krahn, J., (1998), "A
Numerical Study of Coupled Consolidation in Unsaturated Soils",
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 35, pp. 926 – 937.
75. Zienkiewicz O.C., and Taylor, R.L. (2000), "The Finite Element
Method", Vol. 1, McGraw – Hill Book Company.
133
APPENDIX A
FINITE ELEMENT EQUATIONS
A.1 Element Shape

The quadrilateral and triangular elements available in GeoStudio can
almost have any shape. The performance of the element, however,
deteriorates if they deviate too far from the ideal. Quadrilateral elements
provide the optimum performance when they are square and triangular
elements when they are equilateral triangles or isosceles right triangles. The
elements can deviate from these ideal shapes and still obtain entirely
acceptable performance. When an element has secondary nodes at the mid
– points between the corner nodes, the element is known as a "higher
order" (Krahn, 2004).
A.2 Coordinate Systems

The global coordinate system is the conventional Cartesian x, y
system. The finite element grid lies in the first quadrant, with the positive y
axis coinciding with the vertically upward direction. The local and global
coordinate systems are related to each other by a set of interpolation
functions for both types of elements. SIGMA/W applies the same set of
interpolating functions to a finite element when modeling the geometry
(relating local to global coordinates) as when describing the variation of the
field variable (displacement).
The x and y coordinates within a finite element are related to the
coordinates of its nodes through the following equations:
𝑥𝑥 = 〈𝑁𝑁〉{𝑋𝑋} (A.1)
𝑦𝑦 = 〈𝑁𝑁〉{𝑌𝑌} (A.2)
where <N> = <N1 N2 N3 N4 N5 N6 N7 N8> is a vector of interpolating

functions, and {X} and{Y} are the global x y coordinates of the element
a
Appendix A
nodes. These interpolating functions are expressed in terms of local
coordinates. Once a set of local coordinates (r, s) has been specified, the
corresponding global coordinates can be determined by using the above
equations.
A.3 Jacobian Matrix

The fundamental constitutive relationship used here relates stress, σ,
to strain, ε, using the stiffness, E, of the material. In equation form
σ=Eε (A.3)
In a two-dimensional plane strain problem, there are three basic strain

components: longitudinal strain in the x-direction,( ε x ), longitudinal strain
in the y-direction, (ε y ), and shear strain in the x-yplane, (γ xy ). The strain
components are related to x- and y displacements, u and v, as follows:
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
𝜀𝜀𝑥𝑥 =
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
𝜀𝜀𝑦𝑦 = (A.4)
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
𝛾𝛾𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 = +
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
At any point within a finite element, displacements u and v are related to

the nodal displacement vectors {U} and {V} by:
𝑢𝑢 = 〈𝑁𝑁〉{𝑈𝑈} (A.5)
𝑣𝑣 = 〈𝑁𝑁〉{𝑉𝑉}
where u = x-displacement at the given location,

v = y-displacement at the given location,
{U} = x-displacement at the nodes of the element,
{V} = y-displacement at the nodes of the element, and
<N>= a vector of interpolating functions evaluated at the given point.
b
Appendix A
Strains, when expressed in terms of nodal displacements, can be written as
follows:
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
𝜀𝜀𝑥𝑥 = =〈 〉 {𝑈𝑈}
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
𝜀𝜀𝑦𝑦 = =〈 〉 {𝑉𝑉} (A.6)
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕

𝛾𝛾𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 = + =〈 〉 {𝑈𝑈} + 〈 〉 {𝑉𝑉}
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
Equation (A.6) shows that, in order to calculate strains, it is necessary

to differentiate the interpolating functions with respect to x and y. The
derivatives of the interpolating functions in the local and global coordinate
systems are given by the chain rule:
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕

〈 〉 〈 〉
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
� 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
�= �𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
� � 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 � (A.7)
〈 〉 〈 〉
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
in which :
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
�𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
� = [ J ], the Jacobian matrix (A.8)
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
Thus, the derivative of the interpolation functions with respect to x and

y can be determined by inverting Equation (A.7):
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
〈 〉 〈 〉
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 −1 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
� 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 �=[J] � 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
� (A.9)
〈 〉 〈 〉
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
where [J]-1 is the inverse of the Jacobian matrix.
c
Appendix A
The Jacobian matrix can be obtained by substituting Equations (A.1)
and (A.2) into Equation (A.8), (Smith and Griffiths 1988):
𝜕𝜕𝑁𝑁1 𝜕𝜕𝑁𝑁2 𝜕𝜕𝑁𝑁8𝑋𝑋1 𝑌𝑌1

… 𝑋𝑋2 𝑌𝑌2
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
[ J ] = �𝜕𝜕𝑁𝑁 � � � (A.10)
1 𝜕𝜕𝑁𝑁2
…
𝜕𝜕𝑁𝑁8 ⋮ ⋮
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝑋𝑋8 𝑌𝑌8
A.4 Strain – Displacement Matrix

Engineering shear strain is used in defining the strain vector:
𝜀𝜀𝑥𝑥
𝜀𝜀𝑦𝑦
{𝜀𝜀} = � 𝜀𝜀 � (A.11)
𝑧𝑧
𝛾𝛾𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥
The field variable of a stress/deformation problem is displacement

which is related to the strain vector through:
𝑢𝑢
{𝜀𝜀} = [𝐵𝐵] � � (A.12)
v
where: u, v = nodal displacement in x- and y-directions, respectively.
For a two-dimensional plane strain problem, ε Z is zero and the strain -

displacement matrix is defined as (Zienkiewicz and Taylor, 2000).
𝜕𝜕𝑁𝑁1
⎡ 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 0 … 0 ⎤
⎢ 𝜕𝜕𝑁𝑁1 𝜕𝜕𝑁𝑁8 ⎥
0 …
[𝐵𝐵] = ⎢ 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 ⎥ (A.13)
⎢0 0 … 0 ⎥
⎢𝜕𝜕𝑁𝑁1 𝜕𝜕𝑁𝑁1 𝜕𝜕𝑁𝑁8 ⎥
⎣ 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 …
𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 ⎦
A.5 Elastic Constitutive Relationship

Stresses are related to strains as follows, within the theory of elasticity
(Rockey et al., 1975).
{σ} = [D] {ε} (A.14)
d
Appendix A
where [D] is the constitutive (element property) matrix and is given by (for
plan strain problem):
𝜈𝜈
⎡ 1 1− 𝜈𝜈
0 ⎤
𝐸𝐸 (1− 𝜈𝜈 ) ⎢ 𝜈𝜈
[𝐷𝐷] = 1 0 ⎥ (A.15)
(1+ 𝜈𝜈)(1−2𝜈𝜈) ⎢1− 𝜈𝜈 ⎥
⎢ 0 0
1−2 𝜈𝜈 ⎥
⎣ 2 (1− 𝜈𝜈)⎦
where: E = Young’s modulus, and

ν = Poisson's ratio.
A.6 Element Stresses

The stresses and strains are computed at each integration point
within each element once the nodal displacements have been obtained.
Strains are computed from nodal displacements using Equation (A.14).
Stresses are computed at each Gauss point using the constitutive matrix [D]
in the following manner:
𝜎𝜎𝑥𝑥 𝜀𝜀𝑥𝑥
𝜎𝜎𝑦𝑦 𝜀𝜀𝑦𝑦
� 𝜎𝜎 � = [𝐷𝐷] � 𝜀𝜀 � (A.16)
𝑧𝑧 𝑧𝑧
𝜏𝜏𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 𝜏𝜏𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥
A.7 Numerical Integration

To carry out numerical integration, the following integral from
Equation (4.3), ∫𝐴𝐴 [𝐵𝐵]T [𝐷𝐷][𝐵𝐵] 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 is replaced with the following equations:
(Simth and Griffiths, 1988).
𝑇𝑇
∑𝑛𝑛𝑗𝑗=1 �𝐵𝐵𝑗𝑗 � �𝐷𝐷𝑗𝑗 ��𝐵𝐵𝑗𝑗 � det� J𝑗𝑗 � 𝑊𝑊1𝑗𝑗 𝑊𝑊2𝑗𝑗 (A.17)
where j = integration point

n = total number of integration point or integration order,
det � J𝑗𝑗 � = determinant of the Jacobian matrix, and
W1j ,W 2j = weighting factors,
This procedure is called Gauss integration.

e
‫ﺍﻟﺨﻼﺻﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺼﺮﻑ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﻜﺎﻧﻴﻜﻲ ﻟﻠﺘﺮﺏ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺒﻌﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﺎء ﺟﺰﺋﻴﺎ ﻳﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﻛﺜﻴﺮﺍ ﻋﻦ ﺗﺼﺮﻑ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺏ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺒﻌﺔ‬
‫ﻛﻠﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ٳﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻟﻚ ﻣﺸﺎﻛﻞ ﻫﻨﺪﺳﻴﺔ ﺷﺎﺋﻌﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺗﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺘﺸﻴﻴﺪ ﺍﻷﺳﺲ ﺍﻟﺴﻄﺤﻴﺔ ﻓﻮﻕ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻯ‬
‫ﻣﻨﺴﻮﺏ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﺠﻮﻓﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻏﻠﺐ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻻﺕ ﻓﺎﻥ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻷﺳﺲ ﻳﻬﻤﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻄﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺒﻌﺔ ﺟﺰﺋﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ‬
‫ﺗﻘﻊ ﻓﻮﻕ ﻣﻨﺴﻮﺏ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﺠﻮﻓﻴﺔ ﻭﻳﻌﺘﺒﺮﻫﺎ ﺟﺎﻓﺔ ﺑﺎﻷﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ‪.‬‬
‫‪ ١‬ﻡ( ﺃﻧﺸﺎء ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﻓﻲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﺎﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﻢ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺃﺳﺎﺱ ﺳﻄﺤﻲ )ﺃﺳﺎﺱ ﺷﺮﻳﻄﻲ ﺑﻌﺮﺽ‬
‫ٳﻥ‬ ‫ﻋﺮﺍﻗﻴﺔ ﻣﺸﺒﻌﺔ ﻛﻠﻴﺎ ﻣﺮﺓ ﻭ ﻣﺸﺒﻌﺔ ﺟﺰﺋﻴﺎ ﻣﺮﺓ ﺍﺧﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺪﺩﺓ‪ .‬ﺣﻴﺚ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺍﻓﺘﺮﺿﺖ ٳﻳﺠﺎﺩ ﺩﺍﻟﺔ ) ‪ (H – Modulus‬ﻣﻦ ﻣﻨﺤﻨﻲ ﺧﺼﺎﺋﺺ ﺍﻟﺮﻃﻮﺑﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﻭﺟﺪ‬
‫‪ (Soil Vision‬ﻭﺑﻌﺪ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﺍﻟﺨﻮﺍﺹ‬ ‫ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻭﺭﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺷﻴﺢ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ )‬
‫ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺮﺑﺔ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺣﺪﻭﺩ ﺃﺗﺮﻳﺒﻚ‪ ،‬ﺗﻮﺯﻳﻊ ﺣﺠﻢ ﺍﻟﺤﺒﻴﺒﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻮﺯﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻋﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺎﻣﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺜﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺯﻧﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﻃﺒﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺠﺎﻓﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺗﺤﻮﻳﻞ ﻣﻨﺤﻨﻲ ﺧﺼﺎﺋﺺ ﺍﻟﺮﻃﻮﺑﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻰ ﻣﻨﺤﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻧﺴﺒﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺠﻮﺍﺕ ﻭﻣﻘﺪﺍﺭ ﺍﻻﻣﺘﺼﺎﺹ ﻟﻠﺘﺮﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﻣﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻷﺧﻴﺮﻩ ﺗﻢ ٳﻳﺠﺎﺩ ﺩﺍﻟﺔ )‪.(H – Modulus‬‬
‫ﺃﺳﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺪﺩﻩ ) ‪ (SIGMA/W‬ﻭ) ‪ (SEEP/W‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﺗﻢ‬

‫ٳﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺭﺑﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﺑﺜﻤﺎﻧﻲ ﻋﻘﺪ ﻟﺘﻤﺜﻴﻞ ﻫﻴﻜﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ ﻭ ﺿﻐﻂ ﻣﺎء ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺎﻡ‪ .‬ﻭﺗﻢ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮ ﻗﻴﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻣﻼﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ ]ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﺒﻊ ) ‪ ،(S‬ﻋﻤﻖ ﻣﻨﺴﻮﺏ ﺍﻟﻤﺎء‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺺ ﻟﻠﺘﺮﺑﺔ ﻭ ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ‬
‫ﻏﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺒﻌﺔ )‪ ،[(H‬ﻭﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮﻫﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﻠﻮﻙ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ ﻏﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺒﻌﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﺑﻴﻨﺖ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ٳﻥ ﺍﻧﺨﻔﺎﺽ ﻣﻨﺴﻮﺏ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﺠﻮﻓﻴﺔ ٳﻟﻰ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻕ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻭﺑﺪﺭﺟﺎﺕ ﺗﺸﺒﻊ‬
‫ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻳﺰﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺎﺑﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻤﻞ ﻟﻸﺳﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﺴﻄﺤﻲ ﺑﺤﻮﺍﻟﻲ ) ‪ (٧ – ٤‬ﻣﺮﺍﺕ ﻋﻦ ﻗﺎﺑﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻤﻞ ﻟﻨﻔﺲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﺒﻊ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻲ ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﻴﺠﻪ ﺗﻨﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺿﻐﻂ ﺍﻟﻤﺎء ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺎﻣﻲ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻟﺐ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻮﻟﺪ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺎﺑﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺺ ﻟﻠﺘﺮﺑﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﻢ ٳﺳﺘﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺼﺮﻑ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ ﻏﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺒﻌﺔ ﻳﺸﺒﻪ ﺗﺼﺮﻑ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺒﻌﺔ ﻟﻜﻦ ﺑﻘﻴﻢ ﺃﻗﻞ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻬﺒﻮﻁ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﻗﻮﻟﻲ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻭﺟﺪ ٳﻥ ﺍﻟﻬﺒﻮﻁ ﻳﻘﻞ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻧﺨﻔﺎﺽ ﻣﻨﺴﻮﺏ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﺎﻩ ﺃﺳﻔﻞ ﺍﻻﺳﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻰ ﻋﻤﻖ ‪٢‬ﻡ‬
‫)ﻣﺮﺗﻴﻦ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺮﺽ ﺍﻻﺳﺎﺱ( ﺑﻤﻌﺪﻝ )‪.(%٩٢‬‬
‫ﺑﺎﻷﺿﺎﻓﻪ ٳﻟﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺗﻢ ٳﺳﺘﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﺃﻥ ﻇﺎﻫﺮﺓ )‪ (Mandel – Cryer‬ﺗﻘﻞ ﻣﻊ ﺯﻳﺎﺩﺓ ﻋﻤﻖ ﻣﻨﺴﻮﺏ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻴﺎﻩ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﺗﻮﻟﺪ ﺿﻐﻂ ﻣﺎء ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻟﺐ‪.‬‬
‫‪View publication stats‬‬

Thises MScHadeel

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thises MScHadeel

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

BEHAVIOR OF PARTIALLY SATURATED SOILS UNDER STRIP FOOTINGS IN

Thesis · April 2012

Creep Behavior of Iraqi Gypsiferous soil View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

BEHAVIOR OF PARTIALLY SATURATED

Jmad Alawal 1433 April 2012

All praises and thanks be to Allah for grace and mercy.

I would like to express deep gratitude to my supervisors Prof. Dr.

I wish to express sincere appreciation and gratitude to the Assistant

The mechanical behavior of partially saturated soils is different from

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER TWO: LITRATURE REVIEW

CHAPTER THREE: EXPERIMENTAL WORK

CHAPTER FOUR: FINITE ELEMENT FORMULAION, COMPUTER

CHAPTER FIVE: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

(2.1) A visualization of saturated/ unsaturated soil mechanics based on the

(2.2) A diagram of a capillary fringe (after Simth, 1978)………………. 8

(2.4) Extended Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope for unsaturated soils (after

(2.5) Illustration of the in situ zones of desaturationﬁned

(2.6) Effect of texture and structure on SWCC (from Hillel,1971)………. 21

(2.8) General shear failure surface as assumed by Terzaghi for a strip

(2.11) Comparison of stress versus settlement behaviors obtained from the

(2.13) Load-settlement relationships of model strip footing on Hostun sand,

(2.14) Measured and predicted ultimate bearing capacity of unsaturated

(3.1) Grain size distribution…………………………………………. 34

(3.2) Stress – strain relationship from unconfined compression test for

(3.3) Results of oedometer test………………………………………. 37

(3.4) Calibration suction-water content curves for Wetting of wetting filter

(3.5) Total and matric suction measurement (Bulut et al., 2001)………… 41

(4.1) Elastic – perfectly plastic constitutive relationship (Krahn, 2004)…... 60

(4.2) H-Modulus as a function of pore-water pressure, (Krahn, 2004)……. 62

(4.3) Calculation of initial pore – water pressure, (Krahn, 2004)………… 64

(4.4) A Conductivity function, (Krahn, 2004)…………………………. 65

(4.5) Problem geometry, (Costa et al., 2003). ………………………… 67

(5.2) Results of unconfined compression test on remolded samples from

(5.3) Results of unconfined compression test on remolded samples from

(5.4) Results of unconfined compression test on remolded samples from

(5.5) Relationship between the total suction and degree of saturation……. 78

(5.6) Relationship between the matric suction and degree of saturation…… 78

(5.11) Relationships between volumetric water content and matric suction

(5.13) Different methods for defining ultimate bearing capacity of shallow

(5.14) Stress – settlement curve for a footing (1 m) width over different

(5.33) Stress – settlement curves for a footing over different types of

(5.42) Variation of the bearing capacity with respect to matric suction of

(5.43) Variation of the bearing capacity with respect to matric suction of

(5.44) Variation of the bearing capacity with respect to matric suction of

(5.45) Typical behavior of unsaturated soil.

(5.56) Contour lines of vertical displacement (m) of (Rasafa 1) soil with

Table No. Page

(3.2) Results of unconfined compression test for undisturbed samples.. 35

(3.3) Coefficient of permeability for the three soils........................... 36

(3.4) Order-of-magnitude Values for Permeability k, Based on

(5.1) Material properties for the soils beneath the footing................... 74

(5.2) Results of unconfined compression test on remolded samples at

(5.3) Values of water table and degree of saturation for bearing

(5.6) Results of bearing capacity analysis of fully saturated soils……. 91

(5.7) Results of ultimate bearing capacity (kPa) for unsaturated soil

{δ}……………. Nodal displacement vector.

The bearing capacity is one of the key parameters required in the

1.2 Summary of Unsaturated Soil Behavior

There are many practical situations involving unsaturated soils that