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

net/publication/286450059

Suction and storage characteristics of unsaturated soils

Conference Paper · March 2002

CITATIONS READS
6 1,940

4 authors, including:

Sai K. Vanapalli
University of Ottawa
313 PUBLICATIONS   6,920 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Characterization of the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide Input Parameters for the Resilient Modulus of Ontario Subgrade Soils View project

Expansive soils: hydraulic and volumetric behaviour View project

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

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Suction and storage characteristics of unsaturated soils
S.K. Vanapalli
Civil Engineering Department, University of Ottawa, Canada
L.M. Salinas & D. Avila
Laboratorio de Geotecnia, Universidad Mayor de San Simón, Bolivia
D. Karube
Department of Architecture & Civil Engineering, Kobe University, Japan

ABSTRACT: In recent years, significant advancements were made in the geotechnical and geo-
environmental fields towards the implementation of the principles of unsaturated soil mechanics into engi-
neering practice. Some of the key advances can be attributed to the developments achieved in our present un-
derstanding with respect to the soil water storage characteristics and the measurement of soil suction. Info r-
mation related to the water storage characteristics of unsaturated soils can be derived from the soil- water
characteristic curve (SWCC). This paper provides a brief summary of the SWCC and the various parameters
that influence the SWCC behavior. Details about the commonly used direct and indirect methods for the
measurement of suction both in the laboratory and field and the recent developments in this area are also pre-
sented. Finally, case study details of in situ matric suction measurements are presented and discussed.
The focus of the paper is to highlight the key research findings and advances presented on the topic related
to suction and storage characteristics of unsaturated soils in the 3rd International Conference of Unsaturated
Soils held in Recife, Brazil, 2002.

1 INTRODUCTION in the shear strength of the soil. Due to this reason,

The engineering properties of unsaturated soils such
as the shear strength, the coefficient of permeability,
and the volume change behavior are significantly in-
fluenced by the storage characteristics of soils. The
storage characteristics (i.e., water holding capacity)
of soils provide valuable information related to the
stability of slopes, the bearing capacity of highways
and airport runways, the performance of soil covers
and liners, flow through mechanism in tailings and
waste rock, residual soils behaviour, groundwater
flow and movement of contaminants in soils in un-
saturated cond itions.
As an example, the influence of storage charac-
teristics of soils on the engineering performance of
soil slopes is presented. Landslides are common in
many parts of the world and most of them occur in
the wet season triggered by heavy rainstorms. The
influence of rainfall on the slope stability has been
widely recognized by several investigators (for exa m-
ple , Brand 1984). Many slopes with a factor of safety
value less than one, determined using the conve n-
tional methods of stability analyzes extending the
principles of saturated soil mechanics, do not fail.
The stability of such slopes is mainly attributed to
the role of suction, which contributes to the increase
the stability of slopes that are in a state of unsatu-
rated condition should be analyzed using the princi-
ples of unsaturated soil mechanics. A rational ap-
proach to understand the stability of slopes is
possible with the aid of saturated- unsaturated seep-
age models through the use of water-storage capac-
ity functions (Lam and Fredlund, 1984). Several investi-
gators have extended this approach to better
understand the slope stability behavior in saturated
and unsaturated conditions ( Rahardjo et al. 2001, Ferreira
et al. 2001, Toll 2001, Tsaparas et al. 2002, Avila et al. 2003a )
The soil- water characteristic curve can be de-
scribed as storage capacity (i.e., a measure of water
holding capacity) of the soil as the water content
changes when subjected to various values of suction.
More conventionally, the soil- water characteristic
curve (SWCC) defines the relationship between the
soil suction and gravimetric water content, w, or the
volumetric water content, θ, or the degree of satura-
tion, S.
Several investigators have provided frameworks
to interpret the engineering behavior of unsaturated
soils using suction as a key stress state variable
based on experimental studies (Bishop 1959, Blight
1967, Fredlund & Morgenstern 1977, Karube & Kato 1989,
Alonso et al. 1990, Wheeler & Sivakumar 1995). Experi-
mental studies related to the determination of un-
saturated soil properties requires elaborate testing
equipment and highly qualified technical personnel.
Due to these reasons, there is a growing interest to-
wards the prediction of engineering properties of un-
saturated soils using the SWCC and the saturated
properties of the soil, as it is simple and less expen-
sive (Fredlund et al. 1994, Aubertin et al. 1995, Vanapalli et
al. 1996, Oberg & Sallfors 1997, Leong & Rahardjo 1997,
Barbour 1998, Khallili & Khabbaz 1998, Bao et al. 1998).
This paper provides a brief summary of the
SWCC and the various parameters that influence the
SWCC behavior. Details about the commonly used
direct and indirect methods for the measurement of
suction both in the laboratory and field and the re-
cent developments in this area are also presented.
Finally, some case study details of in situ matric suc-
tion measurements are presented and discussed.
The focus of this paper is to summarize the re-
search presented in the Third International Confer-
ence of Unsaturated Soils, Brazil 2002, on the re-
search topic of experimental studies related to
suction and storage characteristics of unsaturated
soils. A total of 19 papers were presented, of which
12 were oral presentation papers and the remainder
were poster presentation papers.
100
Degree of saturation, S (%)
80
60
Botking Silt
Sand
40
20
0 several pores which could be filled with air and wa-
1 100
Soil suction, (kPa)
Figure 1. Typical soil –water characteristic curves for a sand,
silt, till and clay (from Vanapalli et al. 1999).
2 SOIL-WATER CHARACTERISTIC CURVE
Figure 1 presents SWCC as the variation of degree
of saturation versus suction for four different types
of soils commonly encountered in engineering prac-
tice: sand, silt, till and clay (with increasing percent-
age of fines respectively). At any given value of suc-
tion, the soil with a higher percentage of fines has a
higher water storage capacity. In other words,
coarser soils such as sand, desaturates at a faster rate
in comparison to other finer soils (namely: silt, till
and clay).
2.1 Definition of suction
The soil suction is defined as the free energy of the
soil water, which can be measured in terms of the
partial vapor pressure of the soil water ( Richards
1965).
The total suction of a soil, ψ, is made up of two
components, namely, matric suction, (u a − u w ) and
osmotic suction, π (Eq. 1).
ψ = (u a − u w ) + π (1)
The changes in suction due to the movement of
the water in the liquid phase is termed as matric suc-
tion, (u a − u w ) , while the osmotic suction, π , is re-
lated to the changes in water content that arises due
to movement of water in the vapor phase. More
comprehensive details of these definitions are avail-
able in Fredlund & Rahardjo (1993) and Ridley &
Wray (1995).
From a practical perspective, the changes in water
content that arises in unsaturated soils with higher
suction values can be associated predominantly with
total suction. In other words, at high suctions (i.e.
typically greater than 1,500 kPa), the changes in wa-
ter content due to matric suction can be neglected
(Krahn & Fredlund 1972). There also appears to be a
common total suction value, which is equal to
1,000,000 kPa for all soils when the water content,
w, or the degree of saturation, S, approaches a value
which is equal to or close to zero (Fig. 1). A soil is
dry or close to dry conditions at suction value of
1,000,000 kPa. More details related to the experi-
mental determination of the SWCC for the ent ire
Regina Clay
range of suction of 0 to 1,000,000 kPa (i.e., from a
fully saturated cond ition to a total dry condition) are
available in a later section.
Indian Head Till
2.2 Physical representation of the matric suction
The structure of an unsaturated soil is formed by
10000 1000000
ter. Inside the soil pore structure, at air-water inter-
face, a meniscus is formed in a similar manner to
water in a capillary tube.
Consider a small glass tube inserted into water
under atmospheric conditions ( Fig. 2). The water
rises up as a result of the surface tension and the
tendency of water to wet the surface of the glass
tube (i.e., hygroscopic properties).
Ts α α Ts
Rs Rs
Meniscus
hc
ρw
Glass tube
Water
2r
r = Radius of r
R s = cos
the tube α
Figure 2. Capillary phenomenon.
 Figure 2 presents a sketch of the capillary phe-
nomenon. The downward forces must be equal to the
upward forces at the air-water interface to achieve
equilibrium conditions. A mathematical relationship
that satisfies the criteria is given below:
2π ⋅ r ⋅ Ts cos α = π ⋅ r 2 ⋅ hc ⋅ ρ w ⋅ g
where r = radius of the capillary tube; Ts = surface
tension of water; α = contact angle; hc = capillary
height; ρw = density of water and g = acceleration
due to gravity.
Equation 2 can be rearranged to determine the
a) Boundary effect stage. In this stage, the soil is in
a fully saturated condition. However, due to the ac-
tion of capillary forces, the pore-water pressure is in
tension. The water menisci in contact with the soil
particles are continuous in this stage (Fig. 4(a)). The
limit of this stage, named air-entry value, (u a − u w ) b ,
(2) is one of the key features of the SWCC. It identifies
the point at which air enters the largest pores of the
soil.
Water
Soil particles

maximum height of water in the capillary tube:

2Ts
hc = (3)
ρ w ⋅ g ⋅ Rs
a) Bounday stage effect b) Primary transition stage

where Rs = radius of curvature of meniscus (i.e.,

r / cos α ). Air
Air
The air pressure is atmospheric at the air-water
interface (i.e., ua = 0) and the water pressure is nega-
tive (i.e., - ρ w ⋅ g ⋅ hc ). Equation 4 shows that the ma-
tric suction is a function of the surface tension and
the capillary tube (i.e., soil pore radius).
c) Secondary transition stage d) Residual stage of unsaturation
2Ts
(u a − u w ) = (4) Figure 4. Probable variation of water area in different stages of
Rs a soil-water characteristic curve (from Vanapalli 1996).

where ua = pore-air pressure; uw = pore-water pres- b) Transition stage or desaturation zone. The soil
sure; and Rs = radius of curvature of meniscus. starts to desaturate in this stage (i.e., beyond air-
entry value). There are two sub-stages called pri-
0.60 mary transition stage and secondary transition stage.
The water content reduces significantly with increas-
Air-entry value, ψb
0.50 Saturated water content, θs ing suction values and the water menisci in contact
with the soil particles are not continuous (Fig. 4(c)).
0.40
The transition stages ends at the residual water con-
tent, θr which is the boundary of the transition stage
Boundary
and the residual stage of unsaturation (Fig. 3 ).
0.30
effect stage
Residual suction c) Residual stage. Large increases in suction lead to
Residual water content,θr a relatively small change in water content in this
0.20
stage. The residual stage ends at a water content
value equal to zero. The movement of water in this
0.10 stage is predominantly in the vapor phase. The suc-
Transition
stage Residual stage of unsaturation tion value at a water content equal to zero corre-
0.10 sponds to a soil suction of approximately 1,000,000
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10 000 100 000 1 000 000 kPa (Croney & Coleman 1961, Fredlund 1964, Wilson et al.
Soil suction (kPa) 1994, Vanapalli et al. 1998 ). This value is also supported
Figure 3. Soil-water characteristic curve illustrating the regions by thermodynamic considerations (Richards 1965).
of desaturation. As the soil moves from a saturated state to drier
conditions (i.e., as the stages change as described
above), the distribution of soil, water, and air phases
2.3 Various stages in the SWCC changes due to the stress state changes (Fig. 3). The
A typical SWCC exhibits three identifiable stages of relationships between these phases take on different
desaturation ( Vanapalli et al. 1996): the boundary effect forms and influence the engineering behaviour of
stage or capillary saturation zone, the trans ition unsaturated soils. For example, in some cases the
stage or desaturation zone (i.e., primary and secon- behaviour may be primarily related to the volume of
dary transition stage), and the residual stage of un- the separate phases (e.g., water content), or the con-
saturation. Figure 3 shows these distinct stages. tinuity and tortuosity of the liquid phase (e.g., coef-
ficient of permeability, molecular diffusion) or the urement system starts to cavitate. This is one of the
air phase (e.g., coefficient of vapor or oxygen diffu- major problems associated with some of the suction
sion). In other cases, it is the nature of the interphase measurement devices.
contact area controlling stress transfers (e.g., shear
strength, volume change) or interphase mass trans-
fers (e.g., chemical adsorption, volatilization) which 3.1 Instruments for Suction Measurement
controls the behaviour (Barbour 1998). Table 1 presents some of the instruments often used
The air-entry value, (u a − u w ) b , and the residual in the field or in the laboratory for the measurement
water content, θr, can be determined by a procedure of suction. This table is a modification of Ridley &
presented by Vanapalli et al. (1998). Wray (1995) including the recent advances in re-
search studies.
2.4 Estimation of air-entry value and the residual Table 1. Different techniques for measuring suction (modified
water content. after Ridley & Wray 1995)
_________________________________________________
1) Determine the point of maximum slope on the Device Suction Principal Range Equilibrium
Value use (kPa) time
best fit-curve of the SWCC and draw a tangent _________________________________________________
line through that point (i.e., transition line). Thermocouple Total Field 100-7500 Minutes psy-
chrometer
2) Draw a horizontal line through the maximum
volumetric water content. The intersection be- Transistor Total Field 100-84000 Minutes
psychrometer
tween the tangent line and the horizontal line
Filter paper Matric Lab 30-30000 7 days (in
indicates the air-entry values (Fig. 3). contact)
3) Determine the point of maximum change of
Filter paper Total Field 400-30000 7 to 14 days
slope (i.e., inflection point) between the point of (not in contact)
maximum slope and 1,000,000 kPa and move it Thermal Matric Field 0-400 Weeks con-
one logarithmic cycle through the best-fit curve. ductivity sensors
4) Draw a line between the last point determined Pressure plate Matric Lab 0-1500 Hours
and the point corresponding to 1,000,000 kPa of Standard Matric Field 0-70 Minutes ten-
suction (i.e., residual line). The intersection be- siometer
tween the residual line and the transition line Osmotic Matric Field 0-1500 Hours ten-
indicates the residual state condition (i.e., resid- siometer
ual water content and residual suction of the High capacity Matric Lab and 0-1200 Minutes
soil) (Fig. 3). tensiometer field
_________________________________________________
From a conventional engineering practice point of
view geotechnical and geo-environmental engineers
are interested with the performance of soil structures 3.2 Psychrometers
in the relative low suction range, which is typically
in the range of 0 to 500 k Pa. Psychrometers can be used to measure the total suc-
tion of the soil by measuring the relative humidity in
the air phase of the soil pores or the region near the
soil when the equilibrium cond itions are attained.
3 SUCTION MEASUREMENT
The psychrometers operate on the basis of tempera-
ture difference measurement between a non-
Two different types of suction measurement devices
evaporating surface (i.e., dry bulb) and an evaporat-
are available: direct and indirect. In the direct meas-
ing surface (i.e., wet bulb).
urement devices, the pore-water energy is deter-
The total suction is related to relative humidity in
mined. In the indirect measurement devices, suction
accordance with the thermodynamics relationship
is measured using correlation techniques with other
presented in the Equation 5 for 20ºC of temperature
properties or parameters (for example, suction is es-
(Richards 1965).
timated based on measured relative humidity values
using psychrometers). ψ = −135022 ⋅ ln( RH ) (5)
The soil suction measuring devices can be used to
determine either absolute or gauge pressure, depend- where ψ = total suction, and RH = relative humidity.
ing on the calibration technique. However, it is Equilibrium at relative humidity approaching
common to measure the suction as gauge pressure 100% values is difficult to measure due to condensa-
(i.e., assuming atmospheric pressure is equal to tion of water vapor that may arise due to small
zero). Therefore, the pore-water pressure in the soil changes in temperature (Fredlund & Rahardjo 1988). A
will be under tension only when the suction values controlled temperature environment of ±0.001 ºC is
are higher than the atmo spheric pressure (i.e., 101.3 required in order to measure total suction to an accu-
kPa) (Marinho 1997). At this value, water in the meas- racy of 10 kPa ( Edil & Motan 1984 ).
 Two types of psychrometers, namely, the thermo- men having a specific value of suction by water ex-
couple psychrometer and the transistor psychrometer change between the soil and the filter paper in a liq-
are available. While the thermocouple psychrome- uid or vapor form.
ters are commonly used to measure suction in the Container
range of 100-7,500 kPa, the transistor psychrometers Filter paper
(non contact)
are capable of measuring a larger range of soil suc-
tions (i.e., 100-71,500 kPa) ( Ridley & Wray 1995).
Brass cylinder
Mata et al. (2002) performed a careful calibration of
a transis tor psychrometer, using three different salts
(i.e., NaCl, NaNO2 and Mg(NO3 )2 6H2 O) and meas-
ured suction values in the range of 500 and 84,000 Soil
kPa (Fig. 5 ).
5000
Measured values Paper towel
42.1 Ψ r²= 0.998
4000 Filter paper
(contact)
20 Min
Output (mV)

3000 Polyethylene
Figure 7. Contact and non-contact filter paper method for
30 Min measuring matric suction and total suction (modified after Al-
2000
Khafaf & Hanks 1974)
60 Min
1000
100,000

0 10,000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Log (Suction )=5,056-0,0688¬
Total suction (MPa)
Suction (kPa)

Figure 5. Calibration of the transistor psychrometer for the total 1,000

suction value from 0 to 84, 000 kPa. (Mata et al. 2002)
100
Figure 6 shows the details of the thermocouple
psychrometer.
10
Copper + Chromel Log (Suction )=1,882-0,0102 ¬
Copper - (0.025 mm) 1
Measuring 0 20 40 60 80 100
junction Water Content of Filter Paper, ¬%

Figure 8. A typical calibration curve for filter paper (from

Constantan Reference
junction
Figure 6 Thermocouple psychrometer details (modified after
Fredlund & Rahardjo 1988).
Polymer capacitance sensors can be used to
measure very high suctions in environments with
relatively low soil gas relative humidities (Albrecht et
al. 2003 ). Measurement of high suctions (>8,000 kPa)
is necessary when monitoring hazardous and radio-
active waste containment facilities, alternative cov-
ers for waste containment (Stormant et al. 1998, Albrecht
& Benson 2002). This instrument is useful to measure
high suction values rapidly and reliably (Gee et al.
1992)
3.3 Filter paper
The filter paper method can be used to measure ei-
ther the total or matric suction of a soil. The method
is based on the assumption that the filter paper can
come to equilibrium with the unsaturated soil speci-
Stainless steel
screen McQueen & Miller 1968)
The soil suction is determined by placing the fil-
Constantan ter paper in contact (i.e., in order to measure the ma-
(0.025 mm)
tric suction) or not in contact (i.e., in order to meas-
ure the total suction) with the soil sample (Fig. 7).
When the equilibrium is attained, the water content
of the filter paper is measured using a typical cali-
bration curve to determine the soil suction (Fig. 8).
Filter paper technique is a convenient and economi-
cal method to measure the soil suction both in the
laboratory and in the field with a reasonable degree
of accuracy.
The “non-contact” procedure is a reliable tech-
nique to measure total suction. However, the direct
“contact” procedure may measure either total or ma-
tric suction, depending on the degree of contact be-
tween the soil and the filter paper (Fredlund & Rahardjo
1993).
Melgarejo et al. (2002) introduced some modifi-
cations to the conventional filter paper technique for
the measurement of suction. The method allows re-
cording water content, soil suction and volume si-
multaneously. However, there are limitations in the
measurement of water content as only a very small
quantity of water is removed from the sample. Sev-
eral measurements are necessary in order to recog-
nize errors associated with the proposed technique
and to reliably measure matric suction va lues.
Wang & Lao (2002) studies show that the suction
values measured using filter paper method were
typically lower than the suction values measured us-
ing other suction measurement devices. This is
attributed to the removal of soil particles on the wet
filter paper during the process of filter paper drying
to measure the water content.
Most of the researchers who presented papers in
the Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference
on Unsaturated Soils are in agreement with the re-
producibility and reliability of results using the filter
paper method in the measurement of suction. Ho w-
ever, these measurements must be performed with
great care.
3.4 Thermal conductivity sensors
Thermal conductivity sensors are useful to continu-
ously measure in situ suction with the aid of data ac-
quisition systems. The sensor consists of a porous
ceramic block containing a temperature sensing ele-
ment and a miniature heater (Fig. 9). The change in
the temperature at the centre of the ceramic block is
closely related to the change in matric suction of the
surrounding soil.
Cable
insulation
4 Lead wires
Epoxy Epoxy cap
seal
Plastic jacket
Temperature
sensing Heater resistor
integrated
circuit
Ceramic porous
media
Figure 9. Cross-section diagram of the AGWA-II thermal con-
ductivity sensor.
The thermal conductivity of the porous block va ries
in accordance with the water content of the porous
block, which is dependent on the matric suction of
the soil that surrounds the porous block. Therefore,
∆ V out (mV)
the thermal conductivity of the porous block should
be calibrated with respect to different values of ma-
tric suction before using for measurement of suction
values ( Fredlund 1992 ).
Thermal conductivity measurements are taken by
measuring heat dissipation within the porous block.
The heater at the center generates a controlled
amount of heat and the amount of heat dissipated
through the block is controlled by the presence of
water within the porous block. The change in the
thermal conductivity of the sensor is directly related
to the change in the water content. Therefore, more
heat will be dissipated as the water content in the
block increases.
The measurement of the soil suction using ther-
mal conductivity sensors could be performed in one
of two ways: using either an initially “dry sensor” or
an initially “saturated sensor”. Studies show that a
sensor which is in an initially saturated condition
measures a lower matric suction value in comparison
to an initially dry sensor using “identical” soil
specimens or testing conditions in-situ (Fred lund &
Rahardjo 1993). Studies show that sensors which are
initially dry measure close to the actual matric suc-
tion values.
The influence of environmental changes associ-
ated with temperature fluctuation, pH value changes,
freeze-thaw cycles and wetting-drying cycles are of
interest to the practicing engineers to understand the
limitations of using the sensors in the field. Shuai et
al. (2002) observed that changes in the temperature
have a significant influence on the measurement of
matric suction values. In order to eliminate the effect
of thermal influence, a temperature correction was
suggested as follows:
0.0014 ⋅ t + 0.5743
∆V23º C = ∆Vt (6)
0.6065
where t = the soil temperature; ∆V23°C = the output
voltage at 23ºC; and ∆Vt = the output voltage at
temperature, t.
Figure 10 shows the output voltage with and
without temperature correction technique over a
wide range of temperature.
Shuai et al. (2002) studies also show that thermal
conductivity values drop rapidly when the tempera-
ture is below zero degrees centigrade. However,
with an increase in temperature values, the output
voltages from the sensor increase rapidly and attain
their original readings. Therefore, the quality and the
calibration properties of the sensor do not appear to
be affected by freeze-thaw cycles.
26
Temp. (degree)
25
24
23
22
916
914
912
910
908 Without temperature correction
906
With temperature correction
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (h)
30 35 40 45
Figure 10. The output voltage with and without temperature
correction s (from Shuai et al. 2002).
Shuai et al. (2002) also performed a study to
evaluate the influence of the pH values and found
that it has a negligible influence.
Thermal conductivity sensors appear to be prom-
ising devices for measuring matric suction both in
the laboratory and field in the suction range of 0 to
400 kPa. However, proper calibration is necessary
for each sensor prior to its use to measure reliable
matric suction values.
3.5 Null pressure plate
Null pressure plate apparatus can be used to measure
the matric suction of an unsaturated soil specimen
directly using the axis translation technique. The
axis-translation technique allows the pore-water
pressure, uw, in an unsaturated soil to be measured
(or controlled) using a ceramic disk with fine pores
(i.e., a high air-entry disk). These disks are used in
unsaturated soil testing in place of conventional po-
rous disks used in saturated soil testing. The high
air-entry disk acts as a semi-permeable membrane
that separates the air and water phases. The separa-
tion of the water and air phases can be achieved only
when the air-entry value of the disk is greater than
the matric suction of the soil. The air-entry value re-
fers to the maximum matric suction to which the
high air-entry disk can be subjected before free air
passes through the disk.
Line to air ressure supply
Stainless
steel High air entry
ceramic disk
chamber
Flushing Port
Valve
Line to
water supply
Pressure transducer
Figure 11(a). Null-type pressure plate apparatus (University of
Saskatchewan design) (modified after Fredlund and Rahardjo,
1993).
Figure 11(b). Set up of null-type pressure plate device for
measuring matric suction.
A typical null- type pressure plate assembly is
shown below in Fig. 11(a) and the set up of null-type
pressure plate device for measuring matric suction is
shown in Fig. 11(b).
The matric suction value in unsaturated soil
specimens is the difference between pore-air pres-
sure, ua , and the pore-water pressure, uw. Typically,
in an unsaturated soil, the pore-air pressure is at-
mospheric (i.e., ua = 0) and the pore water pressure
is negative with respect to atmospheric pressure. The
axis-translation technique is used to avoid problems
associated with cavitation (Hilf 1956 ). This technique
translates the origin of reference for the pore-water
pressure from standard atmospheric conditions to the
final air pressure in the chamber.
The soil specimen is placed in the stainless pres-
sure chamber (Fig. 11(a)) on top of the high-air entry
disk, which is previously saturated. Several tech-
niques are discussed with respect to the procedures
that can be used for saturating the high-air entry disk
(Fredlund & Rahardjo 1993, Fredlund & Vanapalli 2002). A
good contact should be assured between the soil and
the high-air entry disk. As soon as the soil specimen
is placed on the high-air entry disk, the water in the
tube goes into tension, which is measured using a
pressure gauge ( Fig. 11(b)). The tendency of the water
to go into tension is resisted by increasing the air
Sealing bolts pressure in the chamber. A condition of equilibrium
O-ring is attained when water in the specimen does not go
into tension (i.e., attains “null” condition). The ap-
plied pore-air pressure, ua , is the matric suction as
the pore-water pressure, uw, is zero (i.e., open to at-
mospheric pressure conditions). However, the
equilibration time is dependent of the type of soil,
Epoxy
sealant size of specimen and air-entry value of the disk. In
Spiral many cases, the equilibration occurs in 3 to 6 hours
grooves
in 20 mm thick compacted specimens.
3.6 Standard tensiometer
The standard tensiometers are devices commonly
used to determine the in-situ matric suction of the
soil. This instrument is useful to measure the nega-
tive pore-water pressure of the soil in the range of 0
to 90 kPa. The standard tensiometer consists of a 1
bar (i.e., 101.3 kPa) high-air entry porous ceramic
cup connected to a vacuum gauge through a small
bore tube. The mechanism of Jet-Fill tensiometer is
similar to that of a va cuum pump (Fig. 12).
The tube and the ceramic cup of the standard ten-
siometer are filled with de-aired distilled water prior
to its placement in the soil. A good contact between
the ceramic cup and soil is important in order to al-
low free flow of water. Once equilibrium conditions
are attained between the soil and the measuring sys-
tem, the water in the tensiometer will have the same
negative pressure (i.e., matric suction value with re-
spect to atmospheric conditions). The reading regis-
tered on the vacuum gauge of the tensiometer after
 with the osmotic tensiometers inability to maintain a
constant reference pressure with time as the internal
reference pressure changes with respect to the ambi-
ent temperature (Peck & Rabbidge 1969, Bocking & Fred-
lund 1979).

120
100
80
60
40
20
0

0 PPL
LOOTT BB
15 cm
15 cm
-20

-40

-60

-80
Figure 12. Jet-Fill Tensiometer.
-100
equilibrium conditions are attained is the matric suc- Tensiômetro
TENSIOMETER
GMMSS
tion value of the soil. -120 G

From a theoretical stand point, a standard ten- 0 PPLLO

OT T DD
15 cm
siometer should be capable of measuring suction 15 cm
-20
value equal to atmospheric pressure (i.e., 101.3 kPa).
At this value of suction, the pore-water pressure is -40

equal to the atmospheric pressure and hence cavita- -60

tion should initiate. However, several investigators
noticed cavitation effects at suction va lues of lower -80

than atmospheric pressure (i.e., around 90 kPa) ( Fred-

-100
lund & Rahardjo 1993).
Bertolino et al. (2002) compared the matric suc- -120
18-3-01 7:00:00

15-4-01 7:00:00

29-4-01 7:00:00
4-3-01 7:00:00

tion values measured using granular matrix sensor
(GMS) and tensiometer readings and suggested both
instruments have a similar response up to suction
value of 70 kPa (Fig. 13 ). However, tensiometer val-
ues differ from GMS values for suction values
greater than 70 kPa. This variation may be associ-
ated with the cavitation effects. More studies are
necessary to understand the reliability of using stan-
dard tensiometers in the suction range of 70 to 100
kPa to improve its performance.
3.7 Osmotic tensiometer
Peck & Rabbidge (1969) developed a tensiometer
based on the axis-translation technique in order to
alleviate the problems associated with the cavitation
for measuring suction values greater than 90 kPa.
The osmotic tensiometer uses an aqueous solution
that has been internally prestressed to produce a
positive gauge pressure. The positive water pressure
of the aqueous solution is then reduced by the nega-
tive pore water pressure in an unsaturated soil when
the osmotic tensiometer comes to equilibrium. This
reduction is measured by a pressure transducer to
determine the negative pore-water pressure.
The proposed technique is useful to avoid cavita-
tion effects. However, major difficulties were ob-
served with the use of osmotic tensiometers in engi-
neering practice. These difficulties are associated
1-4-01 7:00:00
Time (d-m-y h:m:s)
Figure 13. Matric suction response to rainfall events measured
using tensiometers and granular matrix sensors (GMS) (from
Bertolino et al. 2002).
3.8 High capacity tensiometer (HCT)
A High Capacity Tensiometer (HCT) capable of
measuring suction of 1,200 kPa was developed by
the Imperial College (Ridley 1993, Ridley & Burland
1993). Guan & Fredlund (1997) and Meilani et al.
(2002) extended similar techniques and designed
suction probes to measure matric suction. The de-
sign focus of these instruments was to avoid cavita-
tion and measure high suction values rapidly. These
instruments consist of a pressure transducer with a
high-air entry ceramic disk mounted at the tip of the
transducer. The device is designed such that a small
reservoir constituting of a very small volume is pro-
vided between the ceramic disk and diaphragm and
is filled with water to give a continuous water phase.
The principle of suction measurements is based on
achieving equilibrium cond itions between the pore-
water pressure in the soil and pore-water pressure in
the water compartment.
 Ridley & Burland (1995) studies show HCT
needs a time period of 3 hours for reaching the full
equilibrium cond itions to measure the suction.
However, the device is capable of measuring 95% of
suction value within a few minutes.
cap
7.6
strain gauge
0.4
0.1
diaphragm
tensiometer
body
porous water
ceramic reservoir
Figure 14. Schematic layout of the tensiometer (drawing is not
to scale) (from Tarantino & Mongiovì 2002).
Tarantino & Mongiovì (2002) designed, con-
structed and tested a high capacity tensiometer
which is similar to the Imperial College HCT with
some modifications ( Fig. 14). Preliminary studies
show that the instrument performance is satisfa ctory
and precision performance of suction measurement
is similar to Imperial College HCT. Besides, this
new instrument was able to measure a water tension
of 1,000 kPa for more than 16 days and attain a
maximum sustainable tension of 2,000 kPa.
Mahler et al. (2002) also developed a new ten-
siometer tha t costs $ 300 (US) to measure soil suc-
tion extending the design concepts of Imperial Col-
lege HCT. Test results show that suction values of
350 kPa can be measured using this new tensiome-
ter. There is good comparison between the results
measured using the new tensiometer and other
commercial tensiometers.
3.9 Measurement of water content
Time Domain Reflectometry (TDR) technique is
used to determine the moisture content based on the
dielectric constant values. TDR unit with a cable
tester is shown below (Fig. 15 ). The dielectric con-
stant values vary between 2.5 to 7 in dry soils. Ho w-
ever, in water dielectric constant value reaches up to
80. A calibration curve, which is the variation of
moisture content and dielectric constant, is devel-
oped prior to the use of TDR unit in the field. The
in situ moisture content is estimated from the meas-
urement of dielectric constant value, using the
calibration curve. Over the past 30 years TDR has
been used to measure water content at many scales
and under a broad range of cond itions (Topp & Rey-
nolds 1998). It has become a standard method of water
content measurement second only to gravimetric
tent measurement second only to gravimetric
method.
Figure 15. TDR unit with a cable tester for determining the
moisture dielectric constant and estimating the moisture con-
tent (from Triches and Pedroso, 2002).
Neutron
Probe
Sphere of Access
influence Tube
Dry
Probe
(Source and
Detector)
Wet
Figure 16. Schematic of a neutron gauge (from Li et al. 2002).
The neutron method of measuring soil water con-
tent uses the principle of neutron thermalization. The
neutron probe has proven to be an effective means
for long-term monitoring of in situ moisture contents
(Li et al. 2002).
A neutron probe moisture gauge consists of a
probe containing a source of fast, high energy ne u-
trons that move radially outward from the source
and a thermal neutron detector, together with the as-
sociated electronic equipment necessary to supply
power and to count ne utrons (Fig. 16 ).
3.10 Field instrumentation and case studies
In the last 10 years, several investigators used de-
vices discussed in the earlier section to measure or
monitor suctions and water content in the field. The
field performance data provides a better understand-
ing of the advantages and the limitations of the
above equipment. There are several field studies re-
ported in the literature which discuss the results us-
ing some of the above equipment (for example, Yanful
et al. 1993, Woyshner et al. 1995, Aubertin et al. 1995, O’Kane
et al. 1998, Khire et al. 2000, Swanson et al. 2003).
4 EXPERIMENTAL METHODS FOR
DETERMINING THE SOIL-WATER
CHARACTERISTIC CURVE
The SWCC is measured using several methods that
include pressure plate apparatus, centrifuge methods,
filter paper technique. This section provides a sum-
mary of different methods used for determining the
SWCC.
4.1 Conventional Procedure (Determination for
SWCC using pressure plate apparatus and
osmotic desiccators)
The SWCC are conventionally measured using a
pressure plate, typically in the suction range of 0 to
1,500 kPa for fine- grained soils and 0 to 500 kPa or
lower for coarse-grained soils. The suction change
occurs in the initially saturated soil specimens fo l-
lowing a drying path due to the movement of water
in the liquid phase. Soil specimens of 50 to 75 mm
diameter and 20 mm thickness are commonly used
to determine the soil- water characteristics.
Figure 17(a). Pressure plate apparatus set up (Courtesy Soil-
Moisture Corporation)
air high-air
pressure entry disk Sample Water
supply
water
(atm)
Figure 17(b). A cross section of the pressure plate apparatus
showing the details (from Côté et al. 2002)
Figures 17 (a) and (b) show the pressure plate test
set up and the cross section of apparatus. Soil-water
characteristics of several specimens can be measured
simultaneously using this set up. A saturated soil
specimen(s) is placed on the saturated high-air entry
disk in the pressure chamber. The air pressure in the
chamber is raised to a prescribed value above at-
mospheric pressure (i.e., above zero gauge pressure).
The pore-water pressure connection at the bottom of
the cell is open to atmosphere (i.e., pore-water pres-
sure, uw = 0). The matric suction of the soil is equal
to the the gauge air pressure in the chamber since the
pore-water pressure is maintained at atmospheric
conditions. At equilibrium conditions, the soil
specimen(s) has a water content that corresponds to
a specific matric suction value applied. The mass of
the soil specimen(s) is determined after the equili-
bration. Approximately, 1 or 2 days of time is re-
quired to achieve equilibration conditions for coarse
grained soil specimens and 3 to 7 days of time for
fine-grained soil specimens. Equilibration condition
is assumed when no water is discharged from the
pressure plate. The equilibration time is dependent
on the type of soil, thickness of soil specimen, ap-
plied suction and the coefficient of permeability of
the soil specimen and the high-air entry disk.
Several values of matric suction that are increas-
ing from low to high values are applied to obtain the
SWCC relationship. Typically, 6 to 8 data points are
collected such that the key features of the SWCC
(i.e., the air-entry value and the different zones of
unsaturation) are determined. The gravimetric water
content of the soil specimen(s) is determined at the
end of the test (i.e., highest suction range tested).
The information related to the other data points of
the SWCC are determined from back calculations
based on the vo lume- mass properties of the soil. The
SWCC is plotted as the variation of water content, w
or volumetric water content, θ, or degree of satura-
tion, S, with respect to suction.
There are other equipment such as Tempe cell for
measuring the SWCC using a single soil specimen.
The procedure for determining the SWCC using this
apparatus is similar to the pressure plate apparatus.
The operating and testing instructions for using this
equipment are available in manuals supplied by Soil
Moisture Equipment Corporation, Santa Barbara,
California. More details of measuring the SWCC are
available in Fredlund and Rahardjo (1993), ASTM
D 2325 (2003).
Osmotic desiccators with different salt solutions
can be used to measure the SWCC portion of the soil
specimen for suction va lues greater than 1,500 kPa.
A small sub-specimen, which is taken from the pres-
sure plate apparatus (after the completion of the test
in the pressure plate apparatus, which is 4 to 6 g
mass) is placed in the glass desiccators. The salt so-
lutions with different concentrations used in desicca-
tors relate to different relative humidity environ-
ments. The corresponding values of total suction in
relation to the relative humidity conditions in the
osmotic desiccators can be determined based on the
salt concentration (CRC Handbook of Chemistry 2003).
Table 2 provides a summary of five different salt so-
lutions used in a study to determine the SWCC por-
tion in the high suction range (Vanapalli et al. 1999).
Table 2. Summary of salt solutions, humidities and equivalent
total suction values
_________________________________________________
Salt Relative Equivalent
Humdity total suction
_________________________________________________
Lithium chloride 11.3 297.6
LiCl.H2 O
Magnesium chloride 32.9 151.7
MgCl2 .6H2 O
Magnesium nitrate 53.4 85.6
Mg(NO3 )2.6H2 O
Sodium Chloride 75.7 38
NaCl
Potassium sulphate 96.8 4.4
K2 SO4
_________________________________________________
Figure 18 shows a schematic drawing of an os-
motic desiccator. Typically, five or six desiccators
with different salt solutions relate to varying relative
humidity conditions which translate to total suction
values in the range of 3,500 to 300,000 are used.
Several investigators used this technique to deter-
mine the SWCC portion in the high suction range
(Vanapalli et al 1999, Agus et al. 2001, Leong & Rahardjo
2002). Several weeks may be necessary for the soil
specimens to attain equilibrium conditions with re-
spect to the relative humidity conditions in the des-
iccators (i.e., to attain a constant mass). Other in-
struments such as polymer activity sensors meter can
also be used to measured high total suction values
( Gee et al. 1992, Albrecht et al. 2003 ). The SWCC portion
in the high suction range can be measured in a rela-
tively short time using this instrument.
Desiccator
Porcelain Soil
crucibles specimens
Salt solution
Figure 18. Osmotic desiccator (Leong & Rahardjo 2002).
While the pressure plate apparatus measures matric
suction only, the osmotic desiccator or polymer ac-
tivity sensors measure total suction. Since the os-
motic component of suction should only be weakly
dependent on water content, and since the matric
suction component increases exponentially with de-
creasing water content, the difference between total
suction and matric suction should become increas-
ingly small ( Vanapalli et al. 1999 ). The data of pressure
plate and osmotic desiccator apparatus can be com-
bined to determine the entire SWCC (i.e., covering a
suction range of 0 to 1,000,000 kPa).
Some investigators expressed concerns about de-
termining the SWCC defined over the entire range
of suctions based on pressure plate and desiccator
tests, since these techniques are based on different
modes of water movement (i.e., liquid flow in pres-
sure plate versus vapour migration in osmotic desic-
cators) (Luckner et al. 1991). However, if the SWCC is
viewed from a phenomenological point of view, the
total suctio n represents the total energy deficiency in
the water phase. Whether equilibrium with the ap-
plied energy state is obtained by liquid flow or by
equilibrium with the vapour phase is not of concern
for the definition of the SWCC (Vanapalli et al. 1999).
4.2 Hysteresis of the SWCC
Conventionally, the SWCC is measured following
the drying path. However, SWCC can also be meas-
ured following wetting path. The SWCC in drying
and wetting paths can be significantly different (Fig.
19 ). The non-uniform pore-size distrib ution in a soil
can result in hysteresis in the measurement of
SWCC in the drying and wetting paths.
0.50
0.40
Volumetric watre content,θ
Drying curve
0.30
0.20
Wetting curve
0.10
0.10
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10 000 100 000 1 000 000
Matric suction, (ua - u w) [kPa]
Figure 19. Effect of the hysteresis on the soil-water characteris-
tic curve.
In order to determine hysteresis of the soil, first
the drying portion of the SWCC is determined. In
the drying process, low matric suction is applied to a
previously saturated soil and then the suction is in-
creased until the soil- water characteristic is deter-
mined up to a desired suction value. In the wetting
process, the soil specimen is initially dry due to a
high suction applied in the drying procedure for de-
termining the SWCC. The matric suction is progres-
sively decreased during the wetting process until
suction value is equal to zero. It is possible to have
an infinite number of intermediate SWCC or scan-
ning curves between the boundaries of drying and
wetting curves. Dane & Hopmans (2002) provide
comprehensive details with respect to SWCC hyster-
isis behavior.
In most routine engineering and agric ulture appli-
cation only the drying SWCC curve is used (Fredlund
et al. 2003). However, SWCC hysterisis should be
taken into account in the design of several soil struc-
tures. For example, wetting SWCC information is
necessary to study or model the effects of rainfall on
the stability of slopes.
4.3 Centrifuge technique
Several investigators have used centrifuge tech-
niques to measure the SWCC of both coarse-grained
soils and fine-grained soils (Gardner 1937, Russell &
Richards 1938, Croney et al. 1952, Skibinsky 1996 ). Kha n-
zode et al. (2002) used a commercially available,
small-scale medical centrifuge to measure the soil-
water characteristics of fine-grained soils in the suc-
tion range of 0 to 600 kPa.
A high gravity field is applied to an initially satu-
rated soil specimen in the centrifuge. The soil
specimen is supported on a saturated, porous ce-
ramic column. The base of the ceramic stone rests in
a water reservoir that is at atmospheric cond itions.
The water content profile in the soil specimen after
attaining equilibrium is similar to water draining un-
der in situ conditions to a groundwater table where
gravity is increased several times.
Center of rotation
r1 r2
Specimen holder
Soil specimen
Ceramic
Water table
Figure 20. Suction measurement principle of the centrifuge
(Khanzode et al. 2002).
Figure 20 demonstrates the above principle used
in the centrifuge method for measuring the soil suc-
tion. The suction in a soil specimen can be calc u-
lated using the following equation proposed by
Gardner (1937):
ρω
(r )
2 Pressure plate
ψ = − r12
2 4
2 (7)
2
where ψ = suction in the soil specimen; ρ = density
of the pore fluid; ω = angular velocity; and r1 = ra-
dial distance to the midpoint of the specimen; r2 =
radial distance to the free water surface.
Different values of suction can be induced in a
soil specimen by varying the radial distance to the
midpoint of the soil specimen, r1 . In other words, ce-
ramic cylinders of different heights can be used to
achieve different suction values to the soil speci-
mens placed in the medical centrifuge at a single
speed of rotation. Higher values of soil suction can
be subsequently induced into the soil specimens by
increasing the test speed (i.e., angular velocity, ω).
Suction values in the range of 0 to 2,000 kPa can be
achieved using small-scale medical centrifuge.
Figure 21. J6-HC small-scale medical centrifuge.
Figure 21 shows a J6-HC small-scale medical
centrifuge with JS-4.2 rotor assembly, which con-
sists of six swinging type buckets capable of holding
six test specimens in one test run. Khanzode et al.
(2002) used this centrifuge and measured SWCC for
three different types of fine-grained soils. The
SWCC of these three soils were measured in 0.5, 1,
and 2 days respectively using the medical centrifuge
in comparison to 2, 4-6 and 16 weeks for the same
soils using a conventional pressure plate apparatus.
4.4 Other methods for determining the SWCC
The SWCC were measured by several investiga-
tors using different techniques and reported in this
conference. In these methods, the suction is meas-
ured using instruments such as sensors, tensiometers
or filter papers and the water content or volumetric
water content was measured using instruments such
as the TDR or neutron probe.
2
ψ ab =
Ψ 1.2kPa
= 1.2 kPa
15.8
12.1
10 1
9
θ [%]
χ = 0.22
8
7
6
5 Tensiometer - TDR
3
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Matriz suction, (ua -uw) [kPa]
Figure 22. Soil-water characteristic curve measured with ten-
siometers-TDR and the pressure plate apparatus (from Côté et
al. 2002)
Côté et al. (2002) determined the SWCC of some
coarse-grained soils (i.e., granular materials) using
tensiometer and Time Deflection Reflectometry
(TDR) probes on soil. While tensiometers provided
suction measurement data, TDR probes were used
for measuring volumetric water contents (Fig.15).
The soil- water characteristics measured using the
tensiometer and TDR are compared with the SWCC
measured using the conventional pressure plate.
There is good comparison between the SWCC
measured using both methods (Fig. 22). The time re-
quired for the measurement of SWCC by pressure
plate was 30 days. However, with the aid of TDR
and tensiometers the SWCC was measured in 14
days.
Melgarejo et al. (2002) measured SWCC for a
large suction range with the aid of filter paper tech-
nique on reconsitituted and undisturbed samples of
collivium from Rio de Janerio. This method is easy
to conduct and also economical; however, several
months are required for measuring the SWCC. The
authors suggest a technique to shorten the time re-
quired for measuring the SWCC by allowing the
specimen to dry between each phase.
Vertammatti & Araujo (2002) measured SWCC
using Richards Suction chamber, which uses ce-
ramic porous plates and membranes of cellulose us-
ing drying path in the suction range of 0 to 500 kPa.
This equipment is a proprietary product of Soil
Moisture Corporation (1985). More details about the
procedure for measuring the SWCC using this tech-
nique are available in Soil Moisture Corporation
handouts.
250
Gravimetric water content (%)
200
150
100
50
0 The model proposed by Brooks & Corey (1964) is
0 1 10 100 1000
Total and matric suction (kPa)
tensiometers and measured moisture content
filter paper in contact with the soil
suction probe
tensiometers and calculated moisture content
filter paper not in contact with the soil
osmotic desiccators
points considered as total suction
points considered as matric suction
Figure 23. Suction and gravimetric water content relationship
from the different techniques used. (Villar & de Ca mpos 2002)
Bicalho et al. (2002) provide data for SWCC in
quasi-saturated soils. Quasi-saturated soil is defined
as the soil with entrapped air which is discontinuous
at high degrees of saturation. The SWCC for this
suction range is measured using a modified triaxial
cell connected to flow pump.
Mata et al. (2002) used transistor psychrometers
(at a temperature of 22o C (+/-1o C and relative hu-
midity of 47%) and determined SWCC for different
bentonite-sand mixtures
Villar & de Campos (2002) measured SWCC for
highly compressible waste (red mud: mixture of
caustic soda and sulphuric acid) using four different
techniques that include filter paper method, ten-
siometers, suction probe and osmotic desiccators
(Fig. 23). The focus of this work was to study the ad-
vantages and disadvantages of measuring SWCC of
compressible materials. The researchers suggest that
the combined use of all the data (obtained from dif-
ferent techniques) is valuable for rational interpreta-
tion of the SWCC of a highly compressible waste
with a pore fluid other than water.
There are also other methods of estimating the
SWCC using mercury intrusion methods. More de-
tails of these methods are available in other sources
(Prapaharan et al 1985 and Bartoli et al. 1991).
5 MATHEMATICAL MODELS FOR FITTING
THE SOIL-WATER CHARACTERISTIC
CURVE
Several mathematical models are available in the lit-
erature to fit the SWCC data. Sillers et al. (2001)
provided a comprehensive summary of the different
models available to fit the SWCC data. Of the many
formulations available in the literature, Brooks and
Corey (1964), van Genuc hten (1980) and Fredlund
and Xing (1994) equations are commonly used to fit
the SWCC data. The models used are described in
the following sections.
5.1 Brooks & Corey (1964) model
10000 100000 one of the early equations proposed for fitting the
SWCC. For suction values less than the air-entry
value, the normalized water content, Θ is equal to 1.
The SWCC function exponentially decreases for
suction values greater than the air-entry value (Eq.8).
λ
ψ 
Θ =  b  (8)
ψ 
where: Θ = normalized water content (i.e.,
Θ = (θ − θ r ) /(θ s − θ r ) ); θ = volumetric water con-
tent; θs = saturated volumetric water content; θ r =
residual volumetric water content; ψ = soil suction;
ψb = air-entry value; and λ = pore size index.
 This model has two fitting parameters: ψ b related disadvantage of the Maulem (1976) two-parameter
with the air-entry value and λ related with the pore model is its flexibility restriction with respect to fit-
size index. ting the SWCC of different shapes.
The Brooks & Corey (1964) model does not pro-
vide a continuous mathematical function for the 5.4 Fredlund & Xing (1994)
tested suction range of the SWCC. The abrupt
change in the curve at the air-entry value can give a Fredlund & Xing (1994) proposed an equation that
rise to numerical instability when modeling unsatu- can be used to fit the SWCC laboratory data over the
rated soil behavior. This equation is useful to fit the entire soil suction range (i.e., 0 to 1,000,000 kPa). It
SWCC data of coarse-grained soils such as sand and has the form of an integrated frequency distrib ution
gravel, which typically have low air-entry values. curve and is determined an equation with three fit-
ting parameters, a, n, and m:
5.2 van Genuchten (1980) model θs
θ = C (ψ ) m
(12)
The van Genuchten (1980) equation can be used to   ψ  n  
model the SWCC behavior of soils in the suction ln e +    
range of 0 to 1,500 kPa (Eq. 9). This equation is    a   
widely used by investigators in various fields such The correction factor, C(ψ) is:
as agriculture, soil science including geotechnical
and geo-environmental engineering fields.  ψ 
ln 1 + 
 
m
 ψ r 
1 C (ψ ) = 1 − (13)
Θ= n
(9)  1000000 
 1 + ( aψ )  ln 1 + 
 ψr 
where a, m and n are three different fitting parame-
ters. where C (ψ ) = correction function (Eq. 13) and a, m
The parameter a is related with the inverse of the and n are the three different fitting parameters.
air-entry value; the n parameter is related with the The correction function, C (ψ ) , is useful to force
pore-size distribution of the soil and the m parameter the limited experimental data in the low suction re-
is related with the asymmetry of the model. gion to tend to zero at a suction value equal to
van Genuchten (1980) model is a closed form 1,000,000 kPa.
equation which is flexible and fits the SWCC data of The Fredlund & Xing (1994) model provides a
a variety of soil types. Besides, model parameters rational approach to fit the SWCC data based on
have physical meaning and the effect of one soil pa- pore-size distribution of the soil.
rameter can be distinguished from the effect of the
other two parameters. However, the magnitude of 5.5 Gardner (1956) model
the n and m best-fit values may vary somewhat de-
pending on the convergence procedure. Gardner (1956) originally proposed the first two pa-
rameter model to fit the SWCC data (Eq. 14). It is a
simple, flexible and continuous function that uses
5.3 Maulem (1976) model two fitting parameters, namely a and n. The parame-
The Maulem (1976) soil- water characteristic model ter a is related to the inverse of the air-entry value,
is of a similar character to the van Genuc hten (1980) and the n parameter is related to the pore-size
one. It reduces the number of fitting parameters distribution.
through a relationship between the parameter n and 1
m, given by Equation 10. Θ= (14)
1 + aψ n
1
m =1− (10)
n 2
Gardner
The Maulem (1976) model can be mathematically van Genuchten
represented as below: Fredlund & Xing
 2 1
1− 
 1   n
Θ= n 
(11)
1 + ( aψ ) 
0
This model provides a reasonably accurate repre- 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
sentation of data for a variety of soils. The effect of Test Number
one parameter can be distinguished from the effect Figure 24. Computed errors from three selected equations
of the other parameter (Sillers et al. 2001 ). The main (from Gerscovich & Sayão 2002).
5.6 Comparison of different SWCC models
Gerscovich & Sayão (2002) performed an evaluation
of fitting the SWCC data of several soils from Bra-
zil, and concluded that Gardner (1956), van Genuc h-
ten (1980) and Fredlund & Xing (1994) equations fit
well. The computed error associated with the fitting
of SWCC data is minimal using Gardner (1956)
model for the Brazilian soils (Fig. 24). This is a sim-
pler model in comparison to other two or three pa-
rameter models.
5.7 New equations for fitting SWCC data
Côté et al. (2002) presented an equation for SWCC
by relating the slope of the SWCC and specific sur-
face of fine-fraction. The key objective of this re-
search study was to rapidly characterize the drainage
capacity of the pavement materials using the pro-
posed equation. Mata et al. (2002) proposed an
equation to determine osmotic suction value in ac-
tive clays. The proposed equation provides better es-
timates of osmotic suction in active clays in com-
parison to van’t Hoffs equation. Bicalho et al. 2002
also presented a closed form mathematical equation
for SWCC for quasi-saturated soils extending
Schuurman (1966) theory.
5.8 Some comments on the SWCC models
Models based on SWCC that were developed for
limited range of suction may not be suitable for the
prediction of unsaturated flow properties at low wa-
ter contents and high suctions. For example, in the
prediction of the performance of soil covers for
waste disposal sites, estimates of actual evaporation
are required. These predictions require SWCC be
defined at suction values exceeding 3,000 kPa.
While the matric suction component largely governs
the engineering behavior of unsaturated soils which
are in excess of a meter or so below the ground sur-
face, the surface phenomenon of evaporation is con-
trolled by total suction (Wilson et al. 1994).
Leong and Rahardjo (1997) studies have shown
that the Fredlund and Xing (1994) equation provides
better simulation of experimental data of various
soils. This equation is useful to model SWCC data
of a variety of soils including coarse and fine-
grained soils for the entire suction range of 0 to
1,000,000 kPa.
6 ESTIMATION OF THE SOIL-WATER
CHARACTERISTIC CURVE
There are several simple techniques for estimating
the SWCC using the grain size distribution data.
Such estimation procedures are termed Pedo-
Transfer Functions (PTF) by the soil science com-
munity.
Gupta & Larson (1979) suggested a method
which uses statistical regression to estimate the
SWCC between 4 and 1,500 kPa suction ranges
based on percent sand, silt, clay, organic matter and
bulk density.
Arya & Paris (1981) presented a PTF to estimate
the SWCC us ing the grain-size distribution, void ra-
tio and total density of the soil. Tyler & Wheatcraft
(1989) presented an analysis to correlate the fitting
parameter, α, originally proposed in the Arya &
Paris (1981) method to physical properties of the
soil such as the fractal dimension of the pore trace to
provide better estimates of the SWCC.
Rawls & Brakensiek (1985) suggested a method
which uses a multiple linear regression to estimate
the parameters of the Brooks & Corey (1964) equa-
tion. This equation is based on the information de-
rived from the grain size analysis data using sand
and clay fraction and the porosity of the soil.
Vereecken et al. (1989) and Scheinost et al.
(1996) presented methods to estimate the SWCC
based on the van Genuchten (1980) model.
Vereecken et al. (1989) PTF uses a multiple linear
regression to estimate the parameters of van
Genuc hten (1980) equation. Scheinost et al. (1996)
PTF assumes a relationship between the parameters
of van Genuchten function and the parameters of
particle-size distribution.
Fredlund et al. (2002) presented a method of es-
timating the SWCC from the grain-size distrib ution
curve and volume- mass properties using the Fred-
lund and Xing (1994) equation formulation. The
grain-size distribution is divided into small groups of
uniformly- size particles. A packing porosity and
SWCC are then assumed for each group of particles.
The incremental SWCC is then summed to produce
a final SWCC.
Prediction of SWCC from grain-size distribution
provides an inexpensive and encouraging tool to im-
plement the principles of unsaturated soil mechanics
into engineering practice. SoilVision Ltd (2001)
provides different algorithms for estimation of the
SWCC through the methods previously presented.
7 FACTORS AFFECTING THE SOIL-WATER
CHARACTERISTIC CURVE
Many studies are reported in the literature that dis-
cuss the influence of soil structure or fabric on the
engineering properties of unsaturated soils (Alonso et
al. 1987, Delage & Graham 1995, Al-Mukhtar et al. 1996,
Leroueil et al. 2000, Blatz et al. 2002). The parameters that
influence the engineering behavior of unsaturated
soils also influence the SWCC beha vior. In recent
years, several studies are reported in the literature to
understand the influence of various parameters that
influence the SWCC behavior (Vanapalli et al. 1999, Ng
& Pang 2000, Leong & Rahardjo 2002 ). The distinguishing
features of SWCC such as the air-entry value and
different zo nes or stages of the SWCC that include
residual conditions depend on several factors. Some
of these factors include initial moulding water con-
tent used for compaction, soil structure, void ratio,
type of soil, texture, stress history, mineralogy and
method of compaction. Of the factors stated above,
the soil structure and stress history have the most in-
fluence on the SWCC behavior of fine- grained soils.
Degree of Saturation, S, (%)
80
Optimum
e = 0.52
w = 16.3 %
60
Dry of optimum
e = 0.6, w = 13%
40
Pressure plate tests
20
0
1 10 100
Suction (kPa)
Figure 25. Soil-water characteristic curves for specimens com-
pacted at different initial water content (from Vanapalli et al.
1999).
Soil- water characteristics of a glacial till com-
pacted with different initial water contents and den-
sities are shown in Figure 25. The SWCC’s of the
same soil can vary significantly in the suction range
of 0 to 1,500 kPa when the soil is compacted at dif-
ferent initial water contents representing dry of op-
timum, optimum and wet of optimum cond itions
( Vanapalli et al. 1999). Fine-grained soils, such as this
glacial till, typically have two levels of structure: a
macro- level structure and micro-level structure. The
soil microstructure is described as the elementary
particle associations within the soil, whereas the ar-
rangement of the soil aggregates is referred to as
macrostructure (Mitchell 1976). Typically, both the
macro- and micro- levels of structure are present in
natural and compacted clayey soils. The resulting
macrostructure of specimens prepared at different
initial water contents is different in spite of their
identical mineralogy, texture and method of prepara-
tion. The resistance to water discharge (i.e., desatu-
ration) is relatively low in the dry of optimum
specimens in comparison to optimum and wet of op-
timum specimens (Fig. 26 and 27).
The specimens with initial water content equal to
dry of optimum contain relatively large pore spaces
which are located between the clods of soil as com-
pared to the pore spaces within the clods. The rela-
tively low suction values associated with removing
water from the large pores are significantly different
from the large suctions required to remove water
from the microscopic pore spaces between soil parti-
cles within the clods of clay. As a result, the macro-
structure controls the initial desaturation of com-
pacted clayey specimens with initial water contents,
which are dry of optimum.
DRY OF OPTIMUM
Degree of Saturation, S, (%)
INITIAL WATER CONTENT
90 SPECIMENS
Equivalent pressure = 0 kPa
80
Initial void ratio, e = 0.60 200 kPa, e = 0.438
(Air-entry value = 3.5 kPa)
70
(36 kPa)
60
25 kPa
e = 0.59 100 kPa
50 (6 kPa) e = 0.543
(15 kPa)
Wet of optimum 40
Void ratio, e = 0.545
Initial water content, w = 19.2 % 1 10 100 1000 10000
Suction (kPa)
Figure 26. Soil-water characteristic curves for specimens com-
Desiccator
tests
pacted dry of optimum water content (from Vanapalli et al.
1999).
The pore spaces in a clayey soil compacted at an
1000 10000 100000 1000000
initial water content wet of optimum are not gener-
ally interconnected or are in an occluded state.
These soils are more homogeneous and have a
higher storage capacity due to their different struc-
ture. They have no visible interclod pores and offer
more resistance to desaturation under an applied suc-
tion in comparison to those specimens compacted
dry of optimum. In contrast to the specimens com-
pacted dry of optimum, the micro-structure in the
specimens compacted wet of optimum controls and
resists the desaturation (drying) characteristics of the
soil. Hence, the slope of the SWCC is relatively flat-
ter for the wet of optimum specimen in comparison
to the dry of optimum initial water content specimen
in the lower suction range, where the desaturation
was attained by the liquid-phase drainage (i.e., 0 to
1,500 kPa). The boundary between occluded pore
space and the open pore conditions occurs at water
contents approximately equal to the optimum water
content (Marshall, 1979 ), and hence, the specimen pre-
pared at optimum water content condition lies be-
tween these two.
The SWCC developed for the specimens com-
pacted dry of optimum and with equivalent pressures
of 0, 25, 100, and 200 kPa are shown in Figure 26.
Equivalent pressures were achieved in the specimens
by loading and unloading the specimens in a con-
ventional consolidation testing apparatus. More de-
tails of the procedure used for attaining different
equivalent pressures in the soil specimens are dis-
cussed in Vanapalli et al. (1999). It is apparent that
the air-entry value of the specimens increases with
increasing equivalent pressure. In general, beyond
the air-entry value of the suction, the specimens sub-
jected to higher equivalent pressures have higher de-
grees of saturation. The macrostructure appears to
dominate the SWCC features of the specimens pre-
pared dry of optimum in spite of the increase in the
equivalent pressure.
 Figure 27 shows the SWCC of wet of optimum 7.1 Influence of the fine fraction
specimens subjected to different equivalent pres- Côté et al. (2002) present a comprehensive experi-
sures. In spite of the different, equivalent pressures, mental study to provide a simple relationship be-
the SWCC of wet of optimum initial water content tween the air entry value, ψ b , and the overall poros-
conditions appear to be the same (i.e., the soil-water ity of the soil ( Fig. 28). The study suggests the
characteristics appear to be independent of stress maximum pore size (i.e., which is related to matric
history). The SWCC compacted at optimum water suction) is controlled by the fine rather than the
content condition lies between those of specimens coarse fraction of the material.
tested with dry and wet of optimum initial cond i-
tions.
7.2 Influence of the genetic component
WET OF OPTIMUM
INITIAL WATER Vertamatti & Araújo (2002) presented a methodol-
CONTENT
Equivalent pressure = 0 kPa ogy to differentiate lateritic, transitional and non-
Degree of Saturation, S, ( %)

90
Initial void ratio, e = 0.545 lateritic soils using a parameter called differential
(Air-entry value = 80 kPa)
200 kPa, e = 0.43 factor, D, which is derived from the SWCC. The dif-
80 100 kPa, e = 0.47
(100 kPa) ferential factor D, is defined as the product of the
(90 kPa) angles formed between the horizontal axis and the
secant line of five varying suction intervals (Fig. 29).
70
80

Moisture Content (%)

70

60 60 θ 1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Suction (kPa) 50
θ2 . . .θ 5
Figure 27. Soil-water characteristic curves for specimens 40
compacted wet of optimum water content (from Vanapalli et al.
1999). 30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Vanapalli et al. (1999) studies show for all initial
Suction (kPa)
conditions of water content (i.e., dry of optimum,
optimum and wet of optimum) and stresss history, Figure 29. Representative angles of the soil-water characteristic
the SWCC behaviour appears to be similar at higher curve (from Vertamatti & Araújo 2002).
suctions (i.e., 20,000 to 300,000). In other words, the
700
inter-aggregate structure appears to be the same for
600
the specimens at these higher suctions. Presumably,
the water films at these suctions are so thin that all 500
Factor D

the water is within the range of influence of the os- 400

motic and adsorptive fields. 300

There are several research papers presented at the 200
3rd International Conference on Unsaturated Soils 100
that discuss the factors affecting the SWCC. Some 0
6-TA'G'
1-LA

2-LA'

3-LG'

4-LG'

5-TA'

10-NS'G'

of the key findings of these papers are summarized

7-NS'G'

8-NS'G'

9-NS'G'

in this section.
14
14 42in4genetic
Samples 43and 1424
grain 3 composition
size 1442order 443
Lateriticsoils Transitional soils Non - Lateriticsoils
Fine fraction
F.C. = Granite c. r. (G)
12 Figure 30. Factor D affected by the genesis of the samples
Air entry value, ψ b [kPa ]

12 to 13% Schist c. g. (S)

Limestone c. r. (La)
(from Ve rtamatti & Araújo 2002).
10 Limestone c. r. (Lb)
Figure 30 shows that differential factor, D, is very
8 low for Lateritic soil and very high for Non-Lateritic
6 and clayey soils.
4 Fine fraction
F.C. =
8%
7.3 Free and linked water
2
3.5% Guillot et al. (2002) present details of Thermogra-
0 vimetric Analysis (TGA), a technique to measure the
0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20
water content of a fine-grained clay in the high suc-
Porosity, n
tion range (i.e., between 0.2 and 155 MPa). Figure
Figure 28. Influence of the overall porosity, n, and fine content
on the air entry value, ψb (from Côté et al. 2002).
31 presents the water loss weight measured using
TGA. The results of this study demo nstrate that the
free water is expelled between room temperature and
150 ºC, whereas the linked water release occurs at tion effort is not very distinct. Second, as the com-
temperatures between 150 and 600 ºC. paction effort increases, there is a general increase in
A comparison between TGA (i.e., device with a the air-entry value. Third, the band of the SWCC
non-constant temperature) and kinetic experiments tends to narrow as compaction effort increases.
(i.e., at a constant temperature of 105 ºC) was per- 2
formed (Fig. 32). The test results demonstrate that Standard Proctor
the kinetic test allows release of only the free water, Enhanced Proctor
Modified Proctor
whereas the TGA test releases not only the free wa- 1.9

Dry Density (Mg/m 3)

ter but also the linked water. Therefore, subjecting
the soil samples to a temperature of 105 ºC to meas- 1.8
ure the water content of the soil may be not satisfac-
tory practice due to the presence of linked water in S = 100%

the soil. 1.7

0,3 S = 89%
loss weight (g/100g of

0,25 1.6
calcined clay)

0,2 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

FoCa clay powder Water Content
0,15

0,1
Figure 33. Compaction curves of Jurong formation mudstone
residual soil (from Leong & Rahardjo 2002).
0,05
0.25
0 MSP113

w
0 200 400 600 800 1000 MSP155
0.2
Temperature (°C) Volumetric water content, MSP177
Figure 31. TGA measurements of a FoCa clay powder (from MSP186
0.15
Guillot et al. 2002).
suction of 79,4 MPa 0.1
0,3
loss weight (g/g of dry

kinetics
0,25 0.05
ATG
TGA
0,2
0
clay)

0,15 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000

0,1 Suction (kPa)

0,05
(a) Standard Proctor compacted soil specimens
0.25
0 MEP096
w

0 50 100 150 MEP130

0.2
Volumetric water content,

3c MEP134
Time (min)
MEP149
Figure 32. Comparison between TGA and kinetics tests for a 0.15
powder compacted clay (from Gillot et al. 2002).
0.1

0.05
7.4 Compaction effort
0
Leong & Rahardjo (2002) studied the influence of 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
compaction effort on the SWCC of a mudstone re- Suction (kPa)
sidual soil. Three different energies were applied to (b) Enhanced Proctor compacted soil specimens
the soil samples: Standard Proctor effort (i.e., 598 0.25
kJ/m3 ), Modified Proctor effort (i.e., 2693 kJ/m3 ) MMP083
w

MMP130
and a variation of Modified Proctor, termed as En- 0.2
Volumetric water content,

hanced Proctor effort (i.e., 1619 kJ/m3 ) (Fig. 33). MMP146

MMP153
0.15
Typically, the soil pore size decreases with an in-
crease in the compaction effort for fine-grained 0.1
soils. Due to this reason, it is likely there will be
some differences in the storage characteristics (i.e., 0.05

SWCC) of the same soil when it is compacted with 0

different ene rgies. 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
The SWCC of the compacted mudstone residual Suction (kPa)
soil specimens at different compacted efforts are (c) Modified Proctor compacted soil specimens
shown in Figure 34. Several observations can be
made from this study. First, the difference between Figure 34. Soil-water characteristic curves of soil specimens
the SWCC of compacted soils at the same compac- compacted at different compaction efforts (from Leong & Ra-
hardjo 2002).
 In a different study, Sugii et al. (2003) presented
the influence of compaction effort on the SWCC be-
havior of a sandy soil. Figure 35 shows the SWCC is
unique for the different compaction energies beyond
the transition stage for the tested sandy soil (i.e., 2
kPa suction value in Fig. 35).
7.5 Specimen height and saturation techniques
Barbosa et al. (2002) studied the influence of soil
specimen height and saturation techniques on the
SWCC behavior of a Brazilian soil. The two differ-
ent techniques used for saturating the compacted soil
specimen were: (i) vacuum application followed by
submersion and (ii) submersion fo llowed by vacuum
application. The water content of specimens was
higher in specimens which were saturated by vac-
uum application after immersion (Fig. 36). Also,
these specimens desaturated at a faster rate in the
low suction range in comparison to specimens that
were submerged followed by vacuum application.
Similar desaturation characteristics were observed at
higher suction range (greater than 50 kPa) irrespec-
tive of saturation technique. However, similar soil-
water characteristics were observed for specimens of
different heights (20 to 40 mm).
45
40

Water content (%)

35
30
25
20
15 vacumm after
imersion
10
Imersion after
5 vacumm
0
1 10 100
Suction (kPa)
Figure 36. Effect of saturation technique on soil-water charac-
teristic curve behavior of a compacted soil (from Barbosa et al.
2002).

7.6 Shear strength and hysteresis effects

Figure 35. Compaction curve and soil-water characteristic
curve (from Sugii et al. 2003).
The results presented by Leong & Rahardjo
(2002) and Sugii et al. (2003) are interesting and
valuable. It should be noted that the resulting pore
size distribution in a fine- grained soil is significantly
influenced by the compaction energy and the initial
water content used for compacting fine-grained
Nishimura & Fredlund (2002) studied the changes
on the shear strength due to the drying and wetting
process of compacted kaolin subjected to a high total
suction. The relationship between unconfined com-
pressive strength and total suction for the kaolin is
presented in Figure 37. The results show that the
compressive strength during wetting process is
slightly less than that during the drying process.
2500

soils. The SWCC behavior of fine-grained soils is

Compressive strength kPa

2000 Drying Wetting

sensitive to those parameters and others such as the 1500
Drying

stress history and clay mineralogy. However, the

pore-size distribution in a coarse-grained soil is not 1000

predominantly influenced by all the above parame- 500 Wetting

ters. Due to this reason, it is likely coarse-grained 0

soils exhibit a relatively “unique” SWCC. Several 0 25000 50000 75000 100000 125000 150000
investigators have used this characteristic behavior Total suction kPa
of coarse-grained soils to predict the SWCC using Figure 37. Relationship between compressive strength and total
the grain-size analysis data. suction for a kaolin (from Nishimura & Fredlund 2002).
8 IN-SITU SUCTION PROFILE 0

The in-situ soil moisture and soil suction are de- 1

pendent on several environmental factors that in-
clude: wet-dry and freeze-thaw cycles, temperatures,

Depth (m)
solar radiation, wind, evaporation, and evapotranspi- 2
Jan 5, 02
ration. The storage characteristics of a soil also have
Jan 6, 02
a predominant influence on the in-situ suction pro- 3 Jan 9, 02
file.
Figure 38 shows the variation of the suction pro- Jan 12, 02
file with respect to depth. The two zones; namely, 4 Jan 15, 02
vadose zone and saturated or phreatic zone are sepa- Jan 18, 02
rated by the water table. The soil in the vadose zone Jan 20, 02
5
is mainly in a state of unsaturated condition with -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10
negative pore-water pressures, while the zone below Pore water pressure (kPa)
is in a state of saturated condition with positive wa-
Figure 39. Profiles of pore water pressure of a clayey gravel in
ter pressures. The water table is the boundary be- Bolivia (from Avila et al. 2003b).
tween these two zones. The pore-water pressure at Matric suction (kPa)
this point is equal to zero (i.e., under atmospheric 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
conditions). 0
Canvas over grass

Depth (m)
Ground level Equilibrium with water table 0.5
(-) Pressure (+) P1R2 1.0

1.5
Excessive Flooding of
evaporation desiccated soil 0
Grassed surface

Depth (m)
0.5
Water table
P2R2 1.0

1.5

Hydrostatic 0
pressure Bare surface

Depth (m)
Depth

0.5

Figure 38. Extreme states of the pore water pressure distribu- P3R2 1.0
tion with depth (from Fredlund & Rahardjo 1993).
1.5
The pore water pressure distribution with respect
to depth can take on a wide variety of shapes as a re- 27 Jan 1 Feb 4 Feb
6 Feb 18 Feb
sult of the influence of environmental factors (Fig.
40
38 ) (Fredlund & Rahardjo 1993). Typically, three states 1994
are possible (i) equilibrium conditions with respect
Rainfall (mm)

30
to water table (i.e., hydrostatic condi tion), (ii) ex-
cessive evaporation, and (iii) flooding of desiccated 20
soil. 10

0
27 1 4 6 18
January February

Figure 40. Changes of in-situ matric suction profiles in re -

sponse to rainfall under three different conditions from (from
Lim et al. 1996).

Results from some earlier published case studies

are summarized in this section. Figure 39 summa-
rizes case study results from Bolivia (Avila at al.
2003b ). The suction values were measured in the
field using tensiometers placed at 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5m
of depth. The natural ground water level was situ-
ated at a depth of 5 m below ground level. The aim
of the study was to measure the resulting suction
changes in a residual soil slope in a clayey gravel
deposit. The results show that rainfall events pro-
duced different matric suction changes in the soil
profile. It is of interest to note that the matric suction
profile can pass from the excessive evaporation con-
dition to the flooding of desiccated soil condition.
Lim et al. (1996) studied the variation of suction
with respect to depth using different covers on the
natural ground surface and compared the results with
bare surface (Fig. 40). The studies show that the ma-
tric suction variation was significant in the top 0.5 m
depth in the grass-covered area. However, signifi-
cant variations in matric suction were observed in
the top 1 m of depth of soil layer with bare surface.
The matric suction profile is less significant under
canvas-covered area.
Paronuzzi et al. (2002) determined water content
profile of unsaturated colluvial slopes in alpine re-
gions (Fig. 41 ). The variation of the suction profile
with respect to depth was estimated from the SWCC
data. In other words, the field suction values were
not measured but estimated from the SWCC and
plotted against the water content values determined
in the field (Fig. 42). This is a simple technique for
estimating the variation of suction with respect to
depth. The study suggests to determine the volumet-
ric water contents along with in-situ water contents
at several depths to reestablish suction profile.
0.0
26/05/2000
1.0
2.0
3.0
Depth (m)
4.0
15 samples
5.0 Sm = 91%
6.0
Exponential trendline
7.0
8.0
70 80 90 100
Saturation degree (%)
Figure 41. Saturation profile recorded on 26 May 2000 at the
colluvial cover of the Sedilis slope (from Paronuzzi et al.
2002).
Soil suction (ua -u w) [kPa] a w
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
0
1
2 st
1 suction peak
3
Depth (m)
exponential trendline
4
nd
2 suction peak
5
6
7
mean:13 kPa
8
Figure 42. Inferred suction profile for the Sedilis colluvial
slope using the soil-water characteristic curve (from Paronuzzi
et al. 2002).
9 SUMMARY
This paper provides background information on the
SWCC behavior and provides details about some
common devices used in engineering practice for the
measurement of suction. The research findings and
advances presented in the Parallel Session 2.1 of the
3rd Internatio nal Conference of Unsaturated Soils,
Brazil: Experimental Unsaturated Soil Mechanics
are summarized. The key research topics presented
in this session were related to the SWCC behavior
and measurement of suction.
In the last 50 years several investigators have
contributed to our present understanding of unsatu-
rated soils (Bishop 1959, Blight 1967, Matyas & Rad-
hakrishna 1968, Fredlund & Morgenstern 1977, Karube &
Kato 1989, Alonso et al. 1990, Toll 1990, Kohgo et al. 1993,
Cui et al. 1995, Wheeler & Sivakumar 1995, Maatouk et al.
1995, Wheeler & Karube 1996, Barbour 1998, Fredlund 2000,
Tang & Graham 2002). However, some limitations in
extending our present understanding of the princi-
ples of unsaturated soil mechanics into engineering
practice can be attributed to difficulties associated
with the measurement of suction. There are several
devices available for the measurement of suction
both in the laboratory and in the field. These de-
vices have one or more following problems: bulky
construction, long time to reach equilibration suction
values, slow responses to changes in suction, low to
high sensitivity to temperature, and inability to pro-
duce continuous output that can reliably measured
using data acquisition systems in all environments
(Muraleetharan and Granger, 1999).
In the last 10 years several investigators have
used SWCC as a tool in the prediction of engineer-
ing properties of unsaturated soils. These studies are
simple and encouraging to practicing engineers (Fred-
lund et al. 1994, Aubertin et al. 1995, Vanapalli et al. 1996,
Oberg & Sallfors 1997, Khallili & Khabbaz 1998, Leong &
Rahardjo 1997, Bao et al. 1998).
 Researchers and practitioners dealing with un-
saturated soils however need to recognize and ac-
knowledge that we are still in the learning process of
measuring both the soil suction and the SWCC with
precision both in the laboratory and field (Zapata et al.
2000).
Research advancements in recent years have
shown considerable promise with respect to alleviat-
ing some of the major problems associated with the
measurement of suction. Several recent research
studies and those presented in this conference to un-
derstand the influence of various parameters on the
SWCC are of value. These studies are useful as they
better our present understanding of the SWCC and
its use in the prediction of engineering properties of
unsaturated soils.
Many studies have proposed alternative tech-
niques for the measurement or estimation of the
SWCC (for example, Fourie et al. 1995, Aubertin et al. 1998,
Khanzode et al. 2002, Fredlund et al. 2002, Côté et al. 2002,
Simms & Yanful, 2002). These alternative techniques
will be helpful in providing simple and economical
tools for the implementation of the principles of un-
saturated soil mechanics in to engineering practice.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge the assistance of
Kenton Power in the preparation of some of the fig-
ures and providing comments on the paper
REFERENCES
Agus, S.S., Leong, E.C. & Rahardjo, H. 2001. Soil-water char-
acteristic curve of Singapore residual soil. In Geotechnical
and Geological Engineering 19: 285-309. Netherlands:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Albrecht, B. & Benson, C. 2002. Predicting airflow rates in the
coarse layer of passive dry barrier, J. of Geotech. and
Geoenvironmental Engg, 128(4):338-346.
Albrecht, B.A., Benson, C.H., & Beurmann. 2003. Polymer ca-
pacitance sensors for measuring soil gas humidity in drier
soils. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 26(1):1-9.
Al-Khafaf, S. & Hanks, R.J. 1974. Evaluation of the filter pa-
per method for estimating soil water potential. In Soil Sci-
ence 114(4): 194-199.
Al-Mukhtar, M., Belanteur, N., Tessier, D., & Vanapalli, S.K.
1996. The fabric of clay soil under controlled mechanical
and hydraulic stresses. Applied Clay Science, 11:185-197.
Alonso, E.E., Gens, A. & Hight, D.W. 1987. Special problem
soils. General Report, Proc. 9th European Conf. Soil Mech.
Found. Engg. Dublin, 3: 1087-1146.
Alonso, E.E., Gens, A., & Josa, A.1990. A constitutive mole
for partially saturated soils. Geotechnique. 40(3):5045-430.
ASTM. 2003. American Society for Testing and Materials
2003. D 2325-68 Standard test method for capillary-
moisture relationship for coarse- and medium-texture soils
by porous-plate apparatus. Annual book of ASTM standards
2003, vol. 04.08.
Arya, L.M. & Paris, J.F. 1981. A physicoempirical model to
predict the soil moisture characteristic from particle -size
distribution and bulk density data. In Soil Science Society
American Journal, 45:1023-1030.
Aubertin, M., Ricard, J.-F., & Chappius, R.P. 1995. A study of
capillary properties of mine tailings: measurement and
modelling. In Proceedings of the 48th Canadian Geotechni-
cal Conference: 17-24.
Aubertin, M., Ricard, F.-F., and Chapius, R.P.1998. A predic-
tive model for the water retention curve: application to tail-
ings from hard-rock mines. Canadian Geotechnical Jour-
nal, 35:55-69.
Avila, D., Rojas, J.C. & Salinas, L.M. 2003a. Effect of the
rainfall on the stability of slope. In Proc. 2nd Asian Confer-
ence on Unsaturated Soils: 475-480. Osaka, Japan.
Avila, D., Rojas, J.C. & Salinas, L.M. 2003b. Matric suction
interpretation as a function of rainfall precipitation. In Proc.
2 nd Asian Conference on Unsaturated Soils: 123-126.
Osaka, Japan.
Barbour, S.L. 1998. Nineteenth Canadian Geotechnical Collo-
quium; the soil-water characteristic curve; a historical per-
spective. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 35(5): 873-894.
Barbosa. P.S.A., Silva, C.H.C., de Lima D.C., de Lima, L.C. &
Paiva, J.A.C. 2002. A study of some factors influencing the
soil-water retention curve. In Proc. 3rd International Con-
ference on Unsaturated Soils: Recife: Balkema.
Bao, C.G., Gong, B. & Zhan, L. 1998. Properties of unsatu-
rated soils and slope stability of expansive soil. Keynote
Lecture. UNSAT 98, 2 nd International Conference on Un-
saturated Soils, Beijing.
Bartoli, F., Phillippy, R., Doirisse, M., Niquet, S., & Dubuit,
M. 1991. Structure and self-similarity in silty and sandy
soils: The fractal approach. J. Soil Science. 42:167-185.
Bertolino, A.V.F.A., Souza, A.P., Fernandes, N.F., Rangel,
A.M., de Campos, T.M.P. & Shock, C.C. 2002. Monitoring
the filed soil matrix potential using mercury tesiometer and
granular matrix sensors. In Proc. 3rd International Confer-
ence on Unsaturated Soils 1: 335-338. Recife: Balkema.
Bicalho, K.V., Znidarcic, & Ko, U.-Y. 2002 Soil – water char-
acteristic curve of a quasi-saturated compacted soil. In
Proc. 3rd Intern ational Conference on Unsaturated Soils 1:
277-281. Recife: Balkema.
Bishop, A.W. 1959. The principle of effective stress. Teknisk
Ukeblad, 106(39): 859-863.
Blatz, J.A., Graham, J. & Chandler, N.A. 2002. Influence of
suction on the strength and stiffness of compacted sand-
bentonite. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. 39(5):1005-
1015.
Blight, G.E. 1967. Effective stress evaluation for unsaturated
soils. ASCE J. Soil Mech. Found. Engg. Div. 93:125-148.
Bocking, K.A. & Fredlund, D.G. 1979. Use of the osmotic ten-
siometer to measure negative pore water pressure. In Geo-
tech. Testing. J., GTJODJ, 2(1):3-10.
Brand, E.W. 1984 Relationship between rainfall and landslides
in Hong Kong. In Proc. 4th International Symposium on
Landslides, Toronto, Canada, 1: 377- 384.
Brooks, R. & Corey, A. 1964. Hydraulic properties of porous
media. In Hydrology paper No. 3. Colorado State Univer-
sity, Fort Collins, CO.
Camapum de Carvalho, J., Cabral, R. & Feitosa, J.H. 2002
Coubes de retention d’eau d’un profil d’alteration. In Proc.
3 rd International Conference on Unsaturated Soils 1: 289-
294. Recife: Balkema
Côté J., Konrad, J.-M. & Roy M. 2002. Influence of grain size
distribution and mineralogy of unbound aggregates on soil-
water characteristic curves. In Proc. 3rd International Con-
ference on Unsaturated Soils 1: 255-260. Recife: Balkema.
CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. 1998. Section 150
Practical laboratory data. 78th edn. (ed) D. Lide. CRC Press
New York.
Croney, D. & Coleman, J.D. 1961. Pore Pressure and Suction
in Soils. In Proceeding of the Conference of Pressure and
Suction in Soils: 31-37. London: Butterworths.
Croney, D., Coleman, J.D.& Bridge, P.M. 1952. The suction of
moisture held in soil and other porous materials. In Road
Research Technical Paper no. 24. London.
Cui, Y.J., Delage, P. & Sultan, N. 1995. An elasto-plastic
model for compacted soils. In Proc. 1st Int. Conf. Unsatu-
rated Soils. Balkema. 2:703-709.
Dane, J.H. & Hopmans, J.W. 2002. Water retention and stor-
age, Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 4-Physical methods,
Soil Science Society of America, Book Series 5, ed. Dane
J.H. and Topp, G.C:671-717.
Delage, P., & Graham, J. 1995. Understanding the behavior of
unsaturated soils requires reliable conceptual model. State
of the art report. In Proceedings of the 1st International
Conference on Unsaturated Soils, Paris, Edied by E.E.
Alonso and P. Delage. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam. 1233-
1256.
Edil, T.B. & Motan, E.S. 1984. Laboratory evaluation of soil
suction components. In Geot. Test. J., Vol. 7, No. 4: 173-
181.
Ferreira, N.J., Blatz, J.A., Graham, J., & Kenyon, R.M. 2001.
Examination of instability in an unsaturated highway cut.
The International Association of Hydrogeologists, The Ca-
nadian Geotechnical Society, pp 894-901.
Fourie, A.B., Papageorgiou, G. & Blight, G.E. 1995. The rapid
determination of the moisture retention curve. Geotechnical
Testing Journal, GTJODJ, 18(2): 276-285.
Fredlund, D.G. & Morgenstern, N.R. 1977. Stress state vari-
ables for unsaturated soils . J. Geotech. Engg. ASCE,
103(GT5): 447-466.
Fredlund, D.G. & Rahardjo, H. 1988. State-of-development in
the measurement soil suction. In Proceeding of the Interna-
tional Conference on Engineering Problems of Regional
Soils: 582-588.
Fredlund, D.G. 1992. Background, theory, and research related
to the use of thermal conductivity sensors for matric suction
measurement. In Advances in Measurement of Soil Physical
Properties: Bringing Theory into Practice. SSSA special
publication No.3, Soil Science Society of America: 249-
626.
Fredlund, D.G. & Rahardjo H. 1993. Soil Mechanics for Un-
saturated Soils. New York: A Wiley-Interscience Publica-
tion.
Fredlund, D.G. & Xing, A. 1994. Equation for the soil-water
characteristic curve. In Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
31(3): 521-532.
Fredlund, D.G., Xing, A., & Huang, S. 1994. Predicting the
permeability function for unsaturated sols using the soil-
water characteristic. In Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
31(3): 533-546.
Fredlund, D.G. 2000. The 1999 R.M. Hardy Lecture: The im-
plementation of unsaturated soil mechanics into geotechni-
cal engineering. Can. Geotech. J. 37: 963-986.
Fredlund, D.G. & Vanapalli, S.K. 2002. Shear strength of un-
saturated soils. Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 4-Physical
methods, Soil Science Society of America, Book Series 5,
ed. Dane J.H. and Topp, G.C:324-360.
Fredlund, D.G., Barbour, S.L. & Phan, H.Q. 2003. Evaluation
of hysteresis models for predicting the boundary wetting. In
Proceeding of the 2nd Asian Conference on Unsaturated
Soils: 407-412. Osaka, Japan.
Fredllund, M.D., Wilson, G.W., & Fredlund. 2002. Use of the
grain-size distribution for estimation of the soil-water char-
acteristic curve. Canadian Geotechnical Journal.
39(5):1103-1117.
Gardner, R. A. 1937. The method of measuring the capillary
tension of soil moisture over a wide moisture range. In Soil.
Science 43: 277-283.
Gardner, W. 1956. Mathematics of isothermal water conduc-
tion in unsaturated soils. In Highway Research Board Spe-
cial Report 40, International Symposium on Physico-
Chemical Phenomenon in soils:78-87.
Gee, G., Campbell, M., Campbell, G. & Campbell, J. 1992.
Rapid Measurement of low soil potentials using a water ac-
tivity meter. Soil Science Society of America Journal,
56:1068-1070.
Gerscovich, D.M.S. & Sayão, A.S.F.J. 2002. Evaluation of the
soil- water characteristic curve equations for soils from
Brazil. In Proc. 3rd International Conference on Unsatu-
rated Soils 1: 295-300. Recife: Balkema.
Guan, Y., & Fredlund, D.G. 1997. Use of the tensile strength
of water for the direct measurement of high soil suction.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 34:604-614.
Gupta, S.C. & Larson, W.E. 1979. A model for predicting
packing density of soils using particle size distribution. Soil
Sci. Soc. Am. J. 43:738-764.
Guillot, X., Fleureau, J.-M., Al-Mukhtar, M. & Bergaya, F.
2002. Free and linked water in compacted clay using ther-
mogravimetric analysis. In Proc. 3rd International Confer-
ence on Unsaturated Soils 1: 265-268. Recife: Balkema.
Hilf, J.W. 1956. An investigation of pore-water pressure in
compacted cohesive soils. Ph.D. dissertation, Tech. Memo.
No. 654, U.D. Dep. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation,
Design and Construction Div. Denver, CO.
Karube, D. and Kato,S. 1989. Yield functions of unsaturated
soils. In 12 th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found Engg, 1:615-618.
Khallili, N. & Khabbaz, M.H. 1998. A unique relationship for
the determination of the shear strength of unsaturated soils.
Geotechnique, 48(5); 681-687.
Khanzode, R.M., Vanapalli, S.K. &Fredlund, D.G. 2002.
Measurement of soil-water characteristic curves using
small-scale centrifuge. In Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
3(5): 1209-1217.
Khire, M.V., Benson, C.H., and Boscher, P.J. 2000. Field data
from a capillary barrier and model predictions with UN-
SAT-H. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenviro nmental
Engineering. 125: 518-527.
Kohgo, Y., Nakano, M. and Miyazaki, T. 1993. Theoretical as-
pects of constitutive modeling for unsaturated soils. Soils
and Foundations, 33(4):49-63.
Krahn, J. & Fredlund, D.G. 1972. On total, matric and suction.
In Soil Science 114(5): 339-348.
Lam, L. & Fredlund, D.G. 1984. Saturated-unsaturated tran-
sient finite element seepage model for geotechnical engi-
neering. In Adv. Water Resources, 7: 132-136.
Lim, T.T., Rahardjo, H., Chang, H. & Fredlund, D.G. 1996. Ef-
fect of rainfall on matrix suction in a residual soil slope. In
A geotechnical engineering approach. Canadian Geotech-
nical Journal, 24(4): 565-580.
Leong, E.C. & Rahadjo, H. 1997. A review of soil-water char-
acteristic curve equation. In Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 123(12):1106-1117.
Leong, E.C. & Rahardjo, H. Permeability functions for unsatu-
rated soils. In Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenviron-
mental Engineering, 123(12):1118-1126.
Leong, E.C. & Rahardjo, H. 2002. Soil-water characteristic
curve of compacted residual soils. In Proc. 3 rd International
Conference on Unsaturated Soils 1: 271-276. Recife:
Balkema.
Leroueil, S. & de A Barbosa, P.S. Combined effect of fabric,
bonding and partical saturation on yielding of soils. In Pro-
ceedings of the Asian Conference on Unsaturated Soils,
UNSAT-Asia 2000. editors. Rahardjo et al., Balkema, 527-
532.
Li, J., Smith, D.W., Fityus, S.F. & Sheng, D.C. 2002. Quantita-
tive analysis of moisture content determination in expansive
soils using neutron probes. Presented at the Proc. 3rd Inter-
 national Conference on Unsaturated Soils 1: 363-368. Re-
cife: Balkema.
Luckner, L., van Gnuchten, M.Th., & Nielson, D.R. 1991. Re-
ply to Nimmo, J.R. Comment on the treatment of residual
water content in “A consistent set of parametric models for
the two-phase flow of immiscible fluids in the subsurface”.
Water Resources: 661-622.
Maatouk. A., Leroueil, S. & La Rochelle, P. 1995. Yielding
and critical state of a collapsible unsaturated silty soil. Geo-
technique, 45(3): 465-477.
Mahler, C.F., Mendes, C.A.R., Souza, A.P., & Fernandes.
(2002). Measuring the matric potential of water in the soil
through instrumentation installed in mini-lysimeters. In
Proc. 3rd International Conference on Unsaturated Soils 1:
331-334. Recife: Balkema.
Mahler, C.F., Pacheco, A.C., & Goncalves. (2002). Develop-
ment of an automatic tensiometer in laboratory using a
mini-lysimeter. In Proc. 3rd International Conference on
Unsaturated Soils 1: -. Recife: Balkema.
Marinho, F.A.M. 1997. Medição de sucção em solos. In Anais
do 3º Simpósio Brasileiro de Solos Nao Saturados 2: 373-
397. Rio de Janeiro: Freitas Bastos Editora.
Marshall, R.J. 1979. Analysis of fundamentals of compacted
soils. General Report, Main Session, IV. In Proc. Sixth
Pan-American Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Engg. Lima, Peru,
3, 328-438.
Mata, C., Romero, E. & Ledesma, A. 2002. Hydro-chemical
effects on water retention in bentonite-sand mixtures. In
Proc. 3rd International Conference on Unsaturated Soils 1:
283-288. Recife: Balkema.
Maulem, Y. 1976. A new model for predicting the hydraulic
conductivity of unsaturated porous media. In Water Re-
source Research, 12:593-622.
Matyas, E.L. & Radhakrishna, H.S. 1968. Volume change
characteristics of patically saturated soils. Geotechnique.
18(4):432-448.
McQueen, I.S. & Miller, R.F. 1968. Calibration and evaluation
of a wide range method of measuring moisture stress. In
Journal of Science Soil, 106(3): 225-231.
Melgarejo, M.L., Ridley, A.M. & Dineen, K. 2002. A compari-
son of the soil water characteristic curves for reconstituted
and undisturbed samples of a colluvium from Rio de Ja-
neiro. In Proc. 3 rd International Conference on Unsaturated
Soils 1: 313-316. Recife: Balkema.
Meilani, I., Rahardjo, H., Leong, E-C., & Fredlund, D.G. 2002.
Mini suction probe for matric measurements. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal. 39(6):1427-1432.
Mitchell, J.K. 1976. Fundamentals of soil behaviour. New
York: Wiley
Muraleetharan, K.K. & Granger, K.K. 1999. The use of minia-
ture pore-pressure transducer in measuring matric suction in
unsaturated soils. Geotechnical Testing Journa, GTJODJ,
22(3):226-234.
Ng, C.W.W. & Pang, Y.W. 2000. Influence of stress state on
soil-water characteristics and slope stability, Journal of
Geotechnical and Geo-environmental Engineering,
ASCE. , 126(2):157-166
Nishimura, T. & Fredlund, D.G. 2002. Hysteresis effects re-
sulting from drying and wetting under relatively dry condi-
tions. In Proc. 3 rd International Conference on Unsaturated
Soils 1: 301-305. Recife: Balkema.
Oberg, A. & Sallfors, G. 1997 Determination of shear strength
parameters of unsaturated silts and sands based on the water
retention curve, Geotechnical Testing Journal, GTJODJ,
20(1): 40-48.
O’Kane, M., Wilson, G.W., & Barbour, S.L. 1998. Instrumen-
tation and monitoring of an engineered soil cover system
for mine waste rock. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
35:828-846.
Peck, A.J. & Rabbidge, R.M. 1969. Design and performance of
an osmotic tensiometer foe measuring capillarity potential.
In Proc. Soil. Sci. Soc. Amer., 33(2):169-202.
Paronuzzi, P., Del Fabbro, M. & Maddaleni, P. 2002. Soil
moisture profiles of unsaturated colluvial slopes in alpine
regions – North-Eastern Italy. In Proc. 3rd International
Conference on Unsaturated Soils 1: 307-312. Recife:
Balkema.
Phani Kumar, B.R., Sharma, R.S., & Garg, S. 2002. A review
of in situ properties unsaturated soils with reference to suc-
tion. In Proc. 3rd International Conference on Unsaturated
Soils 1: 351-355. Recife: Balkema.
Prapharan, S., Altschaeffl, A.G. & Dempsey, B.J. 1985. Mois-
ture curve of compacted clay: Mercury instrusion method.
J. of Geotech. Engg., 111(9): 1139-1142.
Rahardjo, H., Li, X.W., Toll, D.G. & Leong, E.C. 2001. The
effect of the rainfall on slope stability. In Geotechnical and
Geological Engineering 19: 371-399. Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Rawls, W.J. & Brakensiek, D.L. 1985. Prediction of soil water
properties for hydrologic modelling. In Jones, E.B. &
Ward, T.J. (Eds.) watershed Management in the Eighties.
Proc. of Symp. Sponsored by Comm. on Watershed Man-
agement, I & D Division, ASCE: 293-299.
Richards, B.G. 1965. Measurement of the free energy of soil
moisture by the psychrometric technique using thermistors.
In G.D. Aitchison (ed) Moisture equilibria and moisture
changes in soils beneath covered areas: 39-46. Sydney:
Butterworth & Co. Ltd.
Ridley, A.M.1993. The measurement of the soil moisture suc-
tion. In Ph.D. Thesis, University of London – Imperial Col-
lege – Civil Engineering Department.
Ridley, A.M. & Burland, J.B. 1993. A new instrument for
measurement soil moisture suctions. In Technical note –
Geotechnique, 43(2):321-324.
Ridley, A.M. & Burland, J.B. 1995. A pore pressure probe for
the in-situ measurement of the soil suction. In Proceeding
of the Conference on Advanced in Site Investigation Prac-
tice:510-520.
Ridley, A.M. & Wray, W.K. 1995. Suction measurement: a re-
view of current theory and practice. In Proceeding of the 1st
International Conference on Unsaturated Soils 3: 1293-
1322.
Russell, M.B. & Richards, L.A. 1938. The determination of
soil moisture energy relations by centrifugation. In Soil Sci.
Soc. America. Proceedings, 3: 65-69.
Scheinost, A.C., Sinowski, W. & Auerswald, K. 1996. Region-
alization of soil water retention curves in a highly variable
soilscape, I. Developing a new pedo-transfer function. In
Geoderma 78: 129-143.
Schuurman, E. 1966. The compressibility of an air/water mix-
ture. Geotechnique, 16(4):449-477.
Shuai, F., Clements, C., Ryland, L. & Fredlund, D.G. 2002.
Some factors that influence soil suction measurements us-
ing thermal conductivity sensor. In Proc. 3rd International
Conference on Unsaturated Soils 1: 325-329. Recife:
Balkema.
Sillers, W.S., Fredlund, D.G., & Zakerzadeh, N. 2001. Mathe-
matical attributes of some soil-water characteristic curve
models. In Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 19:
243-245. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Simms, P.H., & Yanful, E.K. 2002. Predicting soil-water char-
acteristic curves of compacted plastic soils from measured
pore-size distributions. Geotechnique. 52(4): 269-278.
Skibinsky, D.N. 1996. A centrifuge method to obtain the soil-
water characteristic curve. M.Sc. thesis, University of Sas-
katchewan.
Soil Moisture Equipment Corporation. 1985. A full range of
soil moisture extractors. Santa Barbara. U.S.A.
SoilVision, 2001. Software Package for Modelling the Engi- Wheeler, S.J. & Sivakumar, V. 1995. An elaso-pastic critical
neering Behavior of Unsaturated Soils. Version, 2.04. Soil state framework for unsaturated soils. Geotechnique.
Vision Systems Ltd. 45(1):35-53.
Sugii, T., Yamada, K. & Condou, H. 2003. Evaluation of soil Wheeler, S.J. & Karube, D. 1996. Constitutive modeling. Un-
water characteristic curve of sandy soil using compaction saturated Soils. In Proc. 1st Int. Conf. on Unsaturated Soils.
energy. In Proc. 2nd Asian Conference on Unsaturated (eds) E.E. Alonso & P. Delage, P. Balkema. 1323-1356.
Soils: 445-450. Osaka, Japan. Wilson, G.W., Fredlund, D.G. & Barbour, S.L. 1994. Coupled
Stormant, J., Ankeny, M. & Kelsey, J. 1998. Airflow as Moni- soil-atmosphere modeling for soil evaporation. In Canadian
toring Technique for Landfill Liners. Journal of Environ- Geotechnical Journal, 31: 151-161.
mental Engineering: 539-544. Woyshner, M.R. & Yanful. E.K. 1995. Modelling and field
Swanson, D.A., Barbour, S.L., Wilson, G.W. & O’Kane, M.O. measurements of water percolation through an experimental
2003. Soil-atmosphere modeling of an engineering soil soil cover on mine tailings. Canadian Geotechnical Jour-
cover for acid generating mine waste in a humid, alpine nal. 32: 601-609.
climate. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. 40(2):276-292. Yanful. E.K., Bell, A.V., & Woyshner, M.R. 1993. Construc-
Tang, G.X. & Graham, J. 2002. A possible elastic-plastic tion and monitoring of a composite soil cover on an ex-
framework for unsaturated soils with high plasticity. Can. perimental waste-rock pile near Newcastle, New Bruns-
Geotech. J. 39:894-907. wick, Canada. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 30:588-
Tarantino, A. & Mongiovì, L. 2002. Design and construction of 599.
a tensiometer for direct measurement of matric suction. In Zapata, C.E., Houston, W.N., Houston, S.L., & Walsh, K.D.
Proc. 3rd International Conference on Unsaturated Soils 1: 2000. Soil-water characteristic variability. Advances in
319-324. Recife: Balkema. Unsaturated Geotechnics, ed. C.D. Shackelford et al. ASCE
Toll, D.G. 1990. A framework for unsaturated soil behaviour. Geotechnical Special Publication. Advances in Unsaturated
Geotechnique. 40(1): 31-44. Geotechnics, 99:84:124.
Toll, D.G. 2001. Rainfall-induced landslides in Singapore. In
Proceeding of the Institutions of Civil Engineering, Geo-
technical Engineering, 149: 211-216.
Toll, D.G. & Tsaparas, I. 2001. The influence of rainfall on the
negative pore-water pressur within slopes. Proc. Of 15th Int.
Conf. on Soil Mech. & Geotechnical Eng:1269-1272.
Topp, G.C. & Reynolds. 1998. Time domain Reflectometry: A
seminal technique for measuring mass and energy in soil.
Soil Tillage Research. 47:125-132.
Trichês, G. & Pedroso. 2002. Using the time domain reflecto-
metry to determine moisute contents in unsaturated soils.
Resented at the Proc. 3 rd International Conference on Un-
saturated Soils. Recife: Balkema.
Tsaparas, I. Rahardjo, H. Toll, D.G. & Leong, E.C. 2002. Con-
trolling parameters for rainfall-induced landslides. In Com-
puters and Geotechnics 29: 1-27. Kluwer Academic Pub-
lishers.
Tyler, S.W. & Wheatcraft, S.W. 1989. Application of fractal
mathematics to soil water retention estimation. In Soil Sci-
ence Society American Journal, 53(4):987-996.
van Genuchten, M. Th. 1980. A closed form equation predict-
ing the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils. In Soil
Science Society of American Journal, 44: 892-898.
Vanapalli, S.K., Fredlund, D.G., Pufahl, D.E. & Clifton, A.W.
1996. Model for the prediction of shear strength with re-
spect to soil suction. In Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
33(3): 379-392.
Vanapalli, S.K., Sillers, W.S & Fredlund, M.D. 1998. The
meaning and relevance of residual state to unsaturated soils.
In 51 st Canadian Geotechnical Conference. Alberta.
Vanapalli, S.K., Fredlund, D.G. & Pufahl, D.E., 1999. Influ-
ence of soil structure and stress history on the soil-water
characteristics of a compacted till. Geotechnique, 49: 2, pp.
143-159.
Vereecken, H., Maes, J., Feyen, J. & Darius, P. 1989. Estimat-
ing the soil moisture retention characteristic from texture,
bulk density, and carbon content. In Soil Science, 148(6).
Vertamatti, E. & Araújo, F.A.R. 2002. Association of soil-
water characteristic curve with genesis and grain-size com-
position of tropical soils. In Proc. 3rd International Confer-
ence on Unsaturated Soils 1: 261-264. Recife: Balkema.
Villar, L.F.S & de Campos, T.M.P. 2002. Obtaining the soil
moisture characteristic curve of a highly compressible
waste submitted to drying. In Proc. 3rd International Con-
ference on Unsaturated Soils 1: 339-345. Recife: Balkema.
Wang, Z. & Lao, Y.D. 2002. Measurement of matric suction of
loess in Shanxi Province. In Proc. 3rd International Confer-
ence on Unsaturated Soils 1: 347-350. Recife: Balkema.

View publication stats