Engineering Geology 106 (2009) 26–39

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Geology
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / e n g g e o

Unsaturated soil mechanics

Critical review of physical foundations
Rafael Baker ⁎, Sam Frydman
Faculty of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, 32000, Israel

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

Article history: Most constitutive models for unsaturated soils are based on identification of soil-water suction with the capillary
Received 12 May 2008 component of the matrix potential, ignoring the contribution of adsorption to this potential. Identification of
Received in revised form 15 February 2009 potential (energy per unit volume) with stress (or suction), is questioned, since these quantities have different
Accepted 18 February 2009
physical significance despite their common dimensions. It is suggested that the identification of matrix potential
Available online 6 March 2009
with (ua −uw) results from neglecting the adsorption potential, and adopting an unrealistic pore space model. This
identification was probably motivated by the laboratory axis translation technique, but it is not valid under normal
Keywords:
Unsaturated soil mechanics field conditions where the air pressure is usually atmospheric, and soil water cannot develop high tension without
Soil physics cavitating. Axis translation alters soil behavior by preventing cavitation, thus casting doubt on the relevance of
Matrix potential laboratory results obtained from these tests to actual field conditions. Specifically, in soils having large specific
Suction surface areas, there is a range of conditions, relevant to geotechnical engineering, in which capillary potential
Cavitation appears to account for only a small part of matrix potential, the major contribution resulting from water adsorption
onto the soil particles. Consideration of a double porosity model and cavitation of water under the tension
generated by capillary mechanism appear indispensable for the interpretation of unsaturated soil behavior.
© 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Since the 1950's, there has been growing interest in the mechanical
behavior of unsaturated soils. This interest has accelerated during the
last 15 years, and has been accompanied by the development of
extensive experimental laboratory testing programs leading to the
formulation of various constitutive models for such soils. It has been
generally accepted that the mechanical behavior of unsaturated soils
is influenced by the pore-water suction, or negative potential.
Research in the 1950's centered on attempts to develop an effective
stress expression for unsaturated soils. Croney et al. (1958) suggested
that effective normal stress, σ ′, could be expressed as:
σ V= σ − βuw
where σ = total normal stress, β = a factor and uw = pore-water
pressure.
Aitchison (1961) and Jennings (1961), considering field conditions
in which the air pressure in the voids is normally atmospheric,
suggested expressions of the following form:
σ V= σ − ψpW
where ψ is a parameter, and p″ was defined by Aitchison as the pore-
water pressure deficiency, and by Jennings as the absolute value of the
negative pore-water pressure.
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 972 4 8292323.
E-mail address: Baker@Technion.ac.il (R. Baker).
Bishop (1959) was the first to suggest an expression for effective
normal stress in terms of both pore air pressure, ua, and pore-water
pressure, uw, as follows:
σ V= ðσ − ua Þ + χ ðua − uw Þ ð3Þ
where χ is a parameter between 0 and 1, related to the degree of
saturation of the soil.
These attempts to develop effective stress expressions came under
criticism in the 1960's (e.g. Jennings and Burland, 1962), following
which their development effectively stopped, but there has been a
significant renewal of activity in this direction over the last 10 years.
For example, Khalili and Khabbaz (1998), and Khalili et al. (2004)
ð1Þ responded to the previous criticisms and demonstrated supporting
evidence for the applicability of Bishop's effective stress expression
(3), by relating χ to the “suction ratio” defined as the ratio of soil
matrix1 potential, to the air entry value of the soil.
Since the 1960's, considerable research has been devoted to the
development of constitutive models for the mechanical behavior of
unsaturated soils. The experimental foundation of the majority of
ð2Þ suggested constitutive models has been based on the axis translation
procedure (ATP). The conceptual basis of this technique is related to a
simple “bunch of cylindrical capillaries” model of the soil pore structure
1
In most publications matrix potential, as referred to here, is termed matric
potential. We find the term matrix potential natural, describing the water potential
generated by the soil matrix, while the term matric potential does not appear to have
an obvious linguistic source. We thank Prof. John Burland for pointing this out to us.

0013-7952/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2009.02.010
 R. Baker, S. Frydman / Engineering Geology 106 (2009) 26–39
(see discussion in Tuller et al., 1999). The ATP identifies negative matrix
potential, or suction, with the capillary suction, which is equal to the
difference between pore air pressure, ua, and the mechanical stress in the
soil water, uw, i.e. (ua −uw). Under field conditions, where ua is normally
atmospheric, the negative matrix potential or suction would then be
equal to the tensile stress in the pore water, −uw. Attempts to study the
influence of suction on the behavior of unsaturated soils, under
conditions of ua = 0 (i.e. atmospheric) have been limited by the technical
difficulty of measuring water tensions of greater than 100 kPa due to
cavitation of water in the measuring device. In order to solve this
problem, tests are commonly performed utilizing the ATP introduced by
Hilf (1956), and involving application of an elevated ua value, which
“translates” uw to the positive pressure range. As a result of the
translation of uw to the positive range, the ATP prevents cavitation of
the pore water, and allows development of the desired value of (ua −uw)
which is considered to be a manifestation of the soil matrix negative
potential. In the engineering literature this potential is usually called
suction. The pressure plate technique for determination of soil-water
characteristic curves constitutes an early and classical example of this
experimental approach.
The paper questions the conceptual validity of identifying water
potential with water tension (called “suction” in the geotechnical
literature) as is done in most developments of a constitutive character-
ization for unsaturated soils. In particular, the validity of identifying
matrix potential with −(ua −uw) under normal field conditions is
questioned. The physical basis for questioning this identification includes
two elements:
a) The phenomenon of cavitation, which prevents development of
high tension in the soil water.
b) The existence of water potential associated with adsorption of
water onto the mineral skeleton, unaffected by the application of
elevated air pressure.
2. Cavitation and the Imperial College tensiometer
The problem associated with equating soil suction (mechanical
water tension) with negative water potential becomes immediately
apparent when note is taken of technical difficulties associated with
recent developments of advanced, high capacity tensiometers which
can measure “suctions” up to 1500–2000 kPa (e g. Ridley and Burland,
1993; Guan and Fredlund, 1997; Tarantino and Mongiovì, 2003; Take
and Bolton, 2003). The technical difficulties associated with operation
of these probes are related to the occurrence of cavitation in the probe
if it is not satisfactorily prepared and de aired prior to use.
The basic elements of these tensiometers include a small water
reservoir connected on one side to a high air entry value porous stone
which is in contact with the soil, and on the second side to a membrane
instrumented by strain gages.
The common interpretation of data obtained with these tensiometers
is to identify the measured tension of water in the chamber with water
tension in the soil. However, at equilibrium, it is the water potential,
rather than the water pressure, which is equal at all points of the system.
In other words, these, (and in fact all other devices for measuring soil
“suction”), actually measure soil-water energy (potential), rather than
mechanical stress in the soil water.
In their discussion of the paper by Guan and Fredlund (1997),
Ridley and Burland (1999) listed the following requirements for
proper functioning of their tensiometer:
a) The water and all surfaces within the measurement system must
be pure and clean.
b) The surfaces in contact with the water system must be as smooth
as possible to reduce the number and size of crevices which may
contain cavitation nuclei.
c) The system should be evacuated by vacuum application in order to
remove the maximum amount of air entrapped in the crevices.
27
d) The system should be pre-pressurized to high pressure in order to
dissolve all remaining free air.
They noted that failure to remove all the air from the measuring
device results in cavitation and consequent reduction of the
maximum measured water tension in the chamber to approximately
100 kPa, (which is the classical cavitation pressure of water).
An extensive series of calibrations of the Imperial College tensiometer
was presented by Tarantino and Mongiovi (2001). They concluded that
cavitation usually occurs in the porous stone, not in the chamber, and
found that pre-pressurization of the stone for a year was not sufficient in
order to completely saturate it. They suggested that the porous stone
should be subjected to cycles of pressurization and cavitation in order to
remove all the air from it, and discussed the physical mechanisms
justifying this preconditioning procedure, which is aimed at preventing
cavitation in the porous stone. Following this procedure, it has been
found possible to measure water tensions in the probe chamber up to the
air entry value of the stone (commonly 1500 kPa.).
It is noted that a negative soil-water potential of 106 kPa (i.e.
103 MPa) is generally accepted as the upper limit occurring at zero
degree of saturation (e.g. Vanapalli et al., 1997). Experimental evidence
supporting this value has been provided by several investigators (e.g.
Croney and Coleman, 1961), while thermodynamic support for this
limiting value was presented by Richards (1965). In view of the
elaborate procedures required for preventing cavitation in the high air
entry value porous stone discussed above, one is faced with the
question: how is it possible for the tension in the pore water of
unsaturated soil to reach 103 MPa without cavitating? (after all, real
soils do not satisfy requirements (a) to (d) above, specified by Ridley
and Burland (1999), or undergo the elaborate conditioning process
described by Tarantino and Mongiovi, 2001). The same question
applies to all values of suction exceeding the water tension at which
cavitation occurs.
The difficulties associated with proper application of advanced
tensiometers are due to cavitation of water in the porous stone of the
probe. Similarly, considerable experimental evidence of cavitation in
saturated soils has appeared in the literature. For example, McManus
and Davis (1997) and Mokni and Desrues (1998) showed results of
undrained shear tests on saturated sandy soils. They found that during
dilation, pore pressure tended towards a final value of approximately
−80 kPa, which is the order of the classical cavitation pressure of
−100 kPa, and remained at that level as the test continued. Following
cavitation, there were gas bubbles in the soil water, and the sample was,
in fact, unsaturated. Mokni and Desrues (1998) noted that under such
conditions, the isochoric constraint, εv = 0, characterizing undrained
conditions, is no longer binding, and the test becomes, effectively,
(internally), drained. Results reported by McManus and Davis (1997),
similarly showed the transition from undrained to drained behavior
following cavitation and desaturation. Brandon et al. (2006), demon-
strated the difficulties of performing undrained tests on saturated silt at
low confining pressures, and they attributed this difficulty to the
cavitation phenomenon. Bishop et al. (1975) showed that cavitation also
occurs in saturated clays during the development of negative pore-water
pressure, resulting in a marked change in stress–strain behavior and
shear strength.
In order to reconcile the inconsistency between the lower limit on
measured potential values (potential of −103 MPa), and the experience
in porous stones and sand, (maximum tension of 100 kPa), it is instructive
to review some elements of soil physics.
3. Elements of soil physics
3.1. Tensile strength of water
Based on molecular considerations (hydrogen bonding), it has been
concluded (Speedy, 1982) that tension in pure, deaired water cannot
28 R. Baker, S. Frydman / Engineering Geology 106 (2009) 26–39
exceed 160 MPa; this value was confirmed experimentally by Zheng et al.
(1991). Two points are particularly relevant with respect to this
observation:
a) The tensile strength of 160 MPa is a result of homogeneous cavitation
occurring in cases when the water does not contain cavitation nuclei.
Homogeneous cavitation is usually identified with the tensile
strength of pure, deaired water. This type of cavitation is obviously
not relevant to unsaturated soils which are mixtures of solids, water,
air and vapor, and therefore always contain cavitation nuclei.
b) As was pointed out above, the maximum theoretical and experi-
mental value of negative potential in soil is of the order of 1000 MPa,
which is almost an order of magnitude greater than the tensile
strength of pure water. It is clear, therefore, that the negative potential
in soils cannot be identified with mechanical tensile stress in the soil
water.
Skepticism with respect to the reality of high tensile stress in soil
water is hardly new. Blight (1967) noted that the extremely large
negative water potentials indicated by psychometric theory are
incompatible with the tensile strength of water. He pointed out that
“suction, as measured, must be considered merely as a convenient index
of the affinity of the soil for free water” (rather than as a real mechanical
tension). Koorevaar et al. (1983), stated that negative absolute water
pressures (less than −100 kPa.), do not exist in soils. Iwata et al. (1995)
were of the opinion that “soil water pressure below −1 bar does not
have physical significance”. For the present purpose, the following
conclusion of Gray and Hassanizadeh (1991) is particularly relevant:
“Although water, under certain conditions exhibits appreciable tensile
strength, it does not do so in contact with air. When the (absolute) water
pressure approaches the vapor pressure, the water will begin to
evaporate.” i.e. a cavitation process will be initiated, implying that the
mechanical tension in the soil water is reduced to 80 to 100 kPa.
All experimental methods for the determination of “suction” in soil
are based on the principle that, at equilibrium, the water potential in the
soil and the measuring device are equal. Consequently suction, in the
sense of tension in the soil water, is not a measurable quantity, and
the actual measured quantity is water potential. Realizing this we use the
terminology water potential when referring to experimental results in
which the original term used was “suction”, which implies water tension.
The soil-water characteristic curve (SWCC), is a relationship
between water potential and the amount of water in the soil. This
amount can be characterized by the gravimetric or volumetric water
content (ω or θ) respectively, or by the degree of saturation, S. The
SWCC is one of the main constitutive characteristic of unsaturated
soils. Fig. 1 is a schematic soil-water characteristic curve presented by
Fig. 1. Schematic physical characteristic of SWCC (after Lu and Likos, 2004, reproduced
by permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.).
Lu and Likos (2004), (adopted from McQueen and Miller, 1974). Note
that in this figure, the capillary regime (in which water can be in
tension) extends from a suction of zero to 100 kPa. At lower potentials,
the water is characterized as adsorbed. The potential in adsorbed
water does not have stress characteristics; in fact it is doubtful if it is
even possible to define the macroscopic variable, “pressure”, in the
thin adsorbed water films.
The above review indicates that several authors in soil mechanics
and physics (e.g. Koorevaar et al., 1983; Gray and Hassanizadeh, 1991;
Iwata et al., 1995; Lu and Likos, 2004) suggested that water tension
larger then 100 kPa does not exist in soils. Various authors justify their
doubts on different bases. It seems reasonable to assume that
heterogeneous and cavitation nuclei rich materials like unsaturated
soils can cavitate under the water tension associated with the capillary
potential. At the same time, it appears that the cavitation tension in
fine grained soils may be higher than the classical value of 100 kPa,
and it is not necessarily equal in all soils. These higher cavitation
tensions in clays are probably the result of geometrical constraints
imposed by the clay network, and various physical–chemical forces
which become important only in materials having large specific
surface areas. However, while the cavitation tension may be different
in clays than in other materials, there is no doubt that it exists even in
clays (e.g. Bishop et al., 1975). The exact value of the cavitation tension
is not essential for the main physical arguments discussed here,
although it will have an effect on the range of validity of the concepts
presented.
3.2. Soil-water potentials
Buckingham (1907) introduced the notions of total, gravitational
and capillary potentials as well as the representation of the SWCC. A
formal, modern definition and discussion of the soil-water total
potential density (i.e. energy per unit quantity of water), φT, at a point
X in a porous medium is given by many authors (e.g. Edlefsen and
Anderson, 1943; Bolt, 1976). This definition may be stated as: “φT at
point X is the amount of work that must be done per unit quantity of
pure water in order to transport, reversibly and isothermally, an
infinitesimal quantity of water from a pool of pure water at a specific
elevation and atmospheric pressure to the soil water at the point X
under consideration”.
Arbitrarily assigning the value φT = 0 to the reference pool, φT(X)
represents a potential energy density of soil water at point X. If the “unit
quantity of water” in the above definition is taken as unit mass, φT is the
chemical potential μT which has units of [J/kg]. Considering energy per
unit weight of water, results in φT being expressed as the total head, hT,
which has units of length [m]. Reference to energy per unit volume of
water yields a measure ψT, which has units of pressure [Pa]. It is noted,
however, that the fact that ψT has pressure dimensions does not
automatically make it a mechanical stress as implied by the geotechnical
term, suction, (just as the head, hT, is not a physical length). The relation
between the three different forms of φT is ψT =ρwμT, μT =gρwhT where:
ρw is the mass density of water, and g is the acceleration of gravity. {ρw, g}
are constants, and the three different forms {μT, ψT, hT} of φT are
physically equivalent.
It is convenient to separate the total potential into a number of
components:
ψT = ψm + ψos + ψgr + N ð4Þ
where ψm is the matrix potential, representing the interaction of soil
water with both the mineral soil skeleton and the gas phase; ψos is the
osmotic potential which depends on the salt concentration in the bulk
water; and ψgr = ρgz is the gravitational potential, with z representing
the elevation relative to an arbitrary reference datum. It is convenient
to introduce the term internal potential ψint = ψm + ψos which
represents all potential components associated with sources which
 R. Baker, S. Frydman / Engineering Geology 106 (2009) 26–39
Fig. 2. Mechanical model illustrating mechanism of desaturation in soils (after Or and Tuller,
2002, reproduced by the permission of the American Geophysical Union). (a) Desaturation
by application of external air pressure. (b) Desaturation due to cavitation.
are internal to the soil element. Some devices for measuring water
potential, (e.g. tensiometers), measure matrix potential, while others
(e.g. psychrometers) measure internal potential. The only component
not included in ψint is the gravitational potential ψgr which is not
relevant to constitutive characterization of the soil. In this paper it is
assumed that |ψos|≪|ψm|, which is a reasonable assumption for many,
non-saline soils.
3.3. Measurements of water potential with particular reference to the
axis translation procedure and its limitations
As stated previously, all methods for measuring water “suction” in
soils actually measure the matrix or internal potentials. Consequently,
all these methods establish the energy state of water in the soil, and
suctions (in the sense of tensile stress in the soil water), are never
actually measured. In some cases (e.g. tension plate, tensiometers),
the potential of the water in the measuring device is lowered by
applying tension to it until this energy is equal to the energy of the soil
water. However, there is no reason to assume that similar tension
exists in the soil water, as it is the potentials, not the tensions, which
are equal at equilibrium in the sample and the measuring device.
Consequently even tensiometers do not measure the tension in the
soil water, but rather it's potential.
In other devices (e.g. osmotic tensiometers and osmotic cells), the
energy of the fluid in the measuring device is lowered by using salt
solutions (e.g. Peck and Rabbidge, 1969; Kassiff and Ben Shalom,
1971). In the filter paper method (Fawcett and Collis-George, 1967;
Mahler, 1998) the energy of water in the filter paper is changed as a
function of its water content, until it equals the soil-water energy.
Psychrometers measure the energy of water vapor in thermodynamic
equilibrium with the soil water (Richards, 1965). In the last three
cases, there is even less obvious relationship between the quantity
being measured and mechanical tension in the soil water; i.e. all these
devices measure water potential rather than water tension.
The axis translation procedure (ATP), and its particular case, the
pressure plate device, are fundamentally different from the above
mentioned procedures. In this experimental approach the energy
state of the soil water is changed by application of external air
pressure to the soil, until this energy is equal to the fixed energy of the
water in the measuring device. Application of external air pressure to
an unsaturated soil may, and probably does, change its state, thus
changing its behavior compared with field conditions in which the air
pressure is usually atmospheric.
The basic limitation of the ATP is that it prevents cavitation of the
soil water (by transferring uw to the positive range), thus modifying
the behavior of the soil. A vivid mechanistic model illustrating this
effect was presented by Or and Tuller (2002), who studied mechan-
29
isms of liquid drainage in a double porosity medium with large and
small pores (r1 and r2 respectively), as shown in Fig. 2. They identified
two basic mechanisms of drainage in such media, namely, air entering
the system under the action of an external elevated air pressure, and
cavitation of water in the pore space associated with high mechanical
tension in the soil water. The main result of their work is presented in
Fig. 3 as a conceptual SWCC, expressed in terms of matrix chemical
potential, μw, versus degree of saturation, S. The dashed line in this
figure represents the situation existing in a pressure plate apparatus
where the external air pressure is increased until the pore section with
the larger radius (r1) is drained, and the equilibrium potential is
controlled by r2. The solid line corresponds to the result of a tension
plate test (or tensiometer) in which pores are drained by the
application of mechanical tension to the soil water. In this case,
water in the large pore cavitates at a certain water tension. Fig. 3
shows that pressure and tension plate tests yield different SWCC's, due
to suppression of cavitation in the pressure plate device, and this
effect has been observed experimentally (e.g. Chahal and Yong, 1965;
Iwata et al., 1995).
Furthermore, as noted by Marinho et al. (2005), fixing the value of
(ua − uw) in the soil by ATP is justified only if both the water and the
capillary are rigid (Fig. 4). In this case, application of an increased air
pressure does not change the curvature of the air–water meniscus,
resulting, therefore, with the required value of (ua − uw). However, if
the capillary contains a mixture of both water and air, as described in
Section 4 of the paper, the water–air mixture can be considered as a
deformable liquid. In this case the application of external air pressure
increases the curvature of the water meniscus, thus also changing the
magnitude of (ua − uw). This illustrates how the external air pressure
used in the ATP can change the behavior of unsaturated soil even prior
to cavitation, implying that the ATP is valid only in saturated soils (the
back pressure technique).
The pressure plate apparatus is a particular case of the ATP, which
prevents cavitation by increasing the external air pressure acting
on the soil. The SWCC is one of the basic constitutive elements
characterizing the behavior of unsaturated soils. Fig. 3 illustrates,
clearly, that preventing cavitation by the use of the ATP modifies soil
behavior, compared to field conditions in which cavitation is possible.
The results of McManus and Davis (1997), Mokni and Desrues (1998),
and Bishop et al. (1975) show clearly that allowing the cavitation
process to develop also changes the stress–strain behavior and
strength of the soil (from undrained to drained conditions). Following
cavitation, water tension remains approximately constant, equal to
the cavitation tension which in the case of sand is close to the classical
value of 100 kPa.
Fig. 3. Effect of cavitation on soil-water characteristic curve (after Or and Tuller, 2002,
reproduced by the permission of the American Geophysical Union).
30 R. Baker, S. Frydman / Engineering Geology 106 (2009) 26–39
Fig. 4. The conceptual justification for the axis translation procedure (after Mahrinho et al., 2005).
Reservations with respect to the validity of the ATP technique have
been expressed previously, e.g. Burland and Ridley (1966), who stated
that “… caution should be exercised in making use of this technique
because changing the absolute water pressure may affect air coming
into and out of solution. Therefore this technique may not be valid…”
In the present work it is suggested that the main limitation of this
technique is that it prevents cavitation and therefore changes soil
behavior compared to field conditions where the air pressure is not
artificially elevated.
3.4. Components of the matrix potential
The basic work concerning liquid adsorption on solid surfaces was
summarized in the fundamental study of Derjaguin et al. (1987). It can
be shown (e.g. Philip, 1977; Tuller et al., 1999), that Derjaguin et al.'s
work implies that matrix potential results from the combined effects
of capillary and adsorptive potentials within the soil matrix, and it can
be expressed as the following, augmented Young–Laplace equation:
ψm = ψad ðhÞ + ψcp ðκ Þ ð5Þ
where ψad is the contribution of adsorption to the matrix potential, h is
the thickness of the adsorbed layer, and ψcp is the capillary contribution
to ψm with κ representing the curvature of the water gas interface. It is
noted in passing that the capillary potential, is always equal to:
ψcp = −ðua − uw Þ ð6Þ
i.e. Eq. (6) is valid for all capillary shapes, and the function, ψcp(κ), relates
this potential to the shape and size of the capillaries. Note that when
ua = 0, ψcp =uw (both being negative quantities). At a certain tension
the water cavitates, resulting in ψcp-cv =uw-cv. We will use the termi-
nology cavitation tension (cvtn) to designate the capillary potential
associated with cavitation of water in the macropores, i.e. ψcp-cv = −cvtn
(cvtn is by definition a positive quantity).
Philip (1977) used Eq. (5) in order to establish the shape of the air–
water interface in the presence of an adsorptive field. A simplified
form of Philip's analysis was presented by Tuller et al. (1999). Their
simplification consists, essentially, in superimposing the conventional,
circular air–water interface on a constant thickness h of the adsorbed
water layer (see Fig. 5b).
Eqs. (5) and (6), show, clearly, that when interpreting measurements
of matrix potential, the geotechnical literature generally ignores the
adsorptive component of ψm, assuming that matrix potential is
generated only by capillarity. For example, in the classic book by
Fredlund and Rahardjo (1993), the term, −(ua −uw), (which, according
to Eq. (6), represents the capillary potential) is frequently referred to as
the matric suction. This practice is not restricted to the geotechnical
literature, being common in most branches of science dealing with fine
grained, porous media. For example, according to Tuller et al. (1999):
“recent reviews (e.g. Nitao and Bear, 1996; …) identified the lack of
consideration of adsorptive surface forces and liquid films as primary
shortcomings of present theories for flow and transport in unsaturated
porous media, particularly at low saturation. Nitao and Bear (1996)
suggested that part of the problem lies in the vague definition of the soil
matric potential where capillary and adsorptive forces are lumped
together without distinguishing individual contributions. In practice, the
matric potential is attributed to capillary forces only, as evidenced from
the derivation of media pore size distribution from SWC measurements,
assuming liquid is held by capillary forces only in “surfaceless” cylindrical
pores of various sizes.”
The authors agree with Tuller et al.'s interpretation of Nitao and Bear's
analysis, particularly if the water potential is to be used in mechanical
constitutive equations. Identifying the matrix (or internal) potential, ψm,
with the capillary potential assigns stress attributes to ψm so that it can be
combined directly with stresses in mechanical constitutive equations. In
reality, the adsorption component of ψm does not have such attributes as
discussed previously in relation to Fig. 1. The present work attempts to
resolve Nitao and Bear's criticism by including two elements not con-
sidered by them:
1) Taking account of a physical mechanism (cavitation) which limits
the capillary potential to the range ψcp N −cvtn under field conditions
where ua is atmospheric.
2) Incorporating into the analysis a more realistic pore space geometry,
thus avoiding the notion of “surfaceless cylindrical pores” mentioned
by Tuller et al. (1999).
The practice of ignoring the adsorptive components of the matrix
potential in the interpretation of test results may be related to the
belief that the short range of adsorptive forces makes the adsorption
term significant only at very low water contents, often not of interest
in engineering applications. In reality, the physical situation is much
more complicated, and the relative importance of the adsorption and
capillary terms depends on both the effective specific surface area
(SSA) of the minerals forming the solid skeleton, and the assumed
geometry of the pore space, as discussed in the following section.
4. Pore models
Three simplified models for the geometry of the pore space are
considered here:
a) It is common to consider soil pores as a bunch of cylindrical capillaries
of different radii. A schematic representation of such models is shown
in Fig. 5a (modified from Tuller and Or, 2004). The characteristic
feature of this model is that any cross section of a capillary must be
 R. Baker, S. Frydman / Engineering Geology 106 (2009) 26–39 31

Fig. 5. Models of pore space. a) The bunch of capillaries model (modified from Or and Tuller, 2002, by the permission of Elsevier Ltd.). b) Structure of unsaturated angular macropore.
c) The double porosity model (modified from Hueckel et. al., 2001).

either full of water or full of air, i.e. this model excludes double
occupancy of water and air in the same pore cross section, with the
result that part of the solid surface area is not covered with adsorbed
water.
b) Tuller et al. (1999) and Or and Tuller (1999) presented evidence
refuting the above model, and developed an alternative framework
of capillarity in an angular pore space. A simplified cross section of
such a capillary is shown in Fig. 5b. The characteristic feature of
such a model is that the total surface of the pore is covered with
adsorbed water, with capillary water concentrated at the corners,
and air occupying the central portion of the pore. Tuller et al.
(1999) developed expressions for ψcp(κ), for angular pores of
various simple shapes. However information with respect to actual
pore shape is usually not available, so these expressions have only
limited utility.
c) Double-porosity models — This class of models is a generalization of
the angular pore space model, in which the large aggregates (Fig. 5c,
modified from Hueckel et al., 2001) are considered to be pods
containing clay platelets and water. The pore space within the pods is
considered as micro-porosity, while the pore space between the pods
represents the macro porosity (e.g. Tovey et al., 1973; Frydman and
Weisberg, 1991). It is usually assumed that at common engineering
32 R. Baker, S. Frydman / Engineering Geology 106 (2009) 26–39

water contents, the pods are saturated and all the water in them is
adsorbed. The macropores may be unsaturated, but all the surfaces of
the clay plates forming the boundary of the non circular capillary in
Fig. 5c are covered with adsorbed water, as shown in Fig. 5b.
It is seen that in the simple, bunch of cylindrical capillaries model,
the effective surface area on which water is adsorbed is smaller than
that suggested by the other models, resulting in a downgrading of the
adsorption term in Eq. (5).
5. Adsorbed and capillary water
A basic element of the present approach is that the cavitation tension,
cvtn, which limits water tension to be smaller then some limiting value,
provides a lower bound on the capillary potential. As a result, matrix
potential significantly lower than −cvtn must have a significant
adsorption component. The schematic SWCC in Fig. 1 provides an
illustration of the relative importance of the adsorption term in Eq. (5),
based on the assumption that the cvtn =100 kPa. According to this figure,
water is adsorbed at all potential values lower than −cvtn, and the
capillary term is significant only in the range ψcp N −cvtn. This figure
supports the argument that the process of cavitation does not allow the
capillary potential to drop below its cavitation value, and it is consistent
with the conclusion of Or and Tuller (1999) that “the contribution of
liquid films often surpasses the capillary contribution (curved menisci)
by several orders of magnitude”.
In the following, the notations (⁎)pd and (⁎)mp are used for quantities
(⁎) associated with the pods and macropores respectively. Since, within
the framework of the presently used double porosity model, the pods
are always saturated, the capillary potential of water in the pods is equal
to zero, and (ψm)pd =ψad. The external surfaces of the pods constitute
the internal surface of the macropores, so it is convenient to consider the
adsorbed water in the macropores as part of the pods water. Adopting
this convention, (ψad)mp = 0 and (ψm)mp = ψcp. Thus, as a result of the
assumed nature of the double porosity model the augmented Young–
Laplace Eq. (5) is decoupled, and it can be written as:
ðψm Þpod = ψad ð7:1Þ
ðψm Þmp = ψcp : ð7:2Þ
It is noted that these relations do not contradict the augmented
Young–Laplace equation (Eq. (5)), since they are relevant to different
water “phases”, located in the pods and the macropores respectively.
At equilibrium the water in the pods and macropores must be
at the same energy state, i.e. (ψm)pod = (ψm)mp or equivalently ψm =
ψad = ψcp. Failure to satisfy this requirement must result in the migra-
tion of water from the macropores to the pods or vice versa, until
potential equality is reestablished. These relations are valid only if the
macropores are not empty of water.
Several researchers have reported measured potential in soil
during laboratory compaction procedures (e.g. Gens et al., 1995;
Dineen et al., 1999; Romero, 1999; Tarantino and De Col, 2008). In
some cases the measurements were of internal potential, and in
others of matrix potential. Results of these investigations were plotted
on the background of standard dry density versus moisture content
diagram, and are shown in Fig. 6. A characteristic feature of these
results is the existence of a range of water contents in which contours
of potential are practically vertical, depending on the gravimetric
water content, but not on the dry density or degree of saturation.
In order to explain this observation, consider an initial equilibrium
condition in which ψm =ψad =ψcp N −cvtn, so there is water in both the
pods and the macropores. This system is now subjected to drying by
exposing it to an external water potential, ψext, lower than −cvtn. At the
first stage of the drying process both the adsorption potential of the
water in the pods, and the capillary potential of the water in the
macropores will be reduced. This process will continue until ψcp =
−cvtn. At this stage, cavitation of the capillary water in the macropores
occurs, and the potential of the capillary water remains at the cavitation
value −cvtn (see results of McManus and Davis, 1997 and Mokni and
Desrues, 1998, presented previously). The adsorption potential of the
water in the pods will continue to decrease until it reaches equilibrium
with the external potential, i.e. ψad =ψext. If the external water potential
is lower than −cvtn then there will be a constant potential difference
(ψad =ψext) − (ψcp = −cvtn) between the water in the pods and the
macropores. Assuming that the osmotic potential is insignificant, this
constant potential difference will cause all the water to migrate from the
capillaries to the pods, and the capillaries will become effectively empty.
As a result, ψm =ψad, and ω =ωad (where ω is the water content of the
adsorbed water in the pods) and the capillary potential in the
macropores simply does not exist. Now consider the effect of an external
mechanical stress (compaction), applied to the system. Compaction
decreases only the volume of the empty macropores, but does not affect
the volume, and therefore also not the potential, of the water in the
micropores, which are saturated and therefore rigid. As a result, the
water potential is not affected by density changes, and some of the equi-
potential lines in Fig. 6 are vertical. The results in this figure show that
this is the situation for a significant range of water contents of
engineering interest. Vertical equi-potential lines indicate that effectively
all the water is in the pods, and adsorption potential is the dominant
mechanism controlling ψm. This situation is a consequence of the
limitation imposed on the capillary potential by the cavitation tension,
cvtn. Fig 6 indicates that contrary to common belief, adsorption potential
may be significant at relatively high water content. It is noted that the
vertical equi-potential line associated with the highest potential, defines
the cavitation tension, cvtn. At potentials higher than −cvtn, the equi-
potential lines are inclined, and the SWCC depends on two variables
which may be taken as {ω, γd}, {ω, S} or {S, e} where e is the void ratio.
Such a situation indicates that the macropores are not empty, and
capillarity contributes to the matrix potential.
The above mechanism was broadly suggested by Romero (1999),
Romero and Vautat (2000) and Delage (2002); the present contribu-
tion to their arguments is only the addition of the criterion that this
phenomenon occurs when ψm = − cvtn. The above discussion implies
that the SWCC has the following representation:


ψm ðω; γd Þ If ψm = ψad = ψcp N − cvtn
ψm = : ð8Þ
ψm ðωÞ If ψm = ψad b − cvtn and ψcp = 0
This representation illustrates the important role played by the
cavitation tension on the structure of the SWCC. At high values of ψm, the
SWCC is a 2 dimensional function, degenerating into a 1 dimensional
function at low values of ψm. −cvtn is the boundary between these two
representations of the SWCC.
When all the water is adsorbed in the pods ψm =ψad and ω =ωad.
The water content, corresponding to complete coverage of all the surface
area in and on the boundaries of the pods, can be evaluated from the
expression:
ω = 100 Sa hðψm = ψad Þρw ð9Þ
where Sa [m2/kg] is the specific surface area (SSA) of the minerals, h
(ψm) [m] is the thickness of the adsorbed layers in the pods, and
ρw = 103[kg/m3] is the mass density of water. Eq. (9) shows that the
adsorbed water content is directly proportional to the SSA, so that
adsorption is expected to be significant mainly in clays which have
large values of SSA.
Fig. 6a shows the results of Tarantino and De Col (2008), who tested
speswhite kaolin. In this figure the potential contours are all practically
vertical; the potentials corresponding to full line contours were measured
by Imperial College tensiometers (matrix potential) while those shown
as dashed contours were measured by psychrometers (internal
 R. Baker, S. Frydman / Engineering Geology 106 (2009) 26–39 33

potential). Based on these results, it appears that all the water is adsorbed
in the pods at least up to a water content of 32% (which was the wettest
soil tested). Lack of data at larger water contents (where the equi-
potential lines are expected to be inclined) makes it impossible to estimate
the cavitation tension cvtn. However based on this figure it appears that
400 kPa is an upper bound on the cavitation tension and ω=32% is a
lower bound on the adsorbed water content. It is noted that the matrix
and internal equi-potential lines in this figure are consistent, suggesting
that in this particular soil, the osmotic potential is not significant.
In Romero's tests on Boom clay (Fig. 6b), potentials higher than
−0.45 MPa (water content of up to 20 to 21%) were measured using
pressure plate equipment, which was criticized earlier in the paper, so
these contours are not considered here. However, the contours at lower
potentials were measured using vapor pressure equilibration (internal
potential). These contours are, again, effectively vertical, indicating that
all the water is adsorbed in the pods at least up to a water content of
about 15%. The figure implies that an upper bound on cavitation tension
and a lower bound on adsorbed water content are 3 MPa and 15%
respectively. The high value of the upper bound on cavitation tension is a
consequence of the fact that measurements based on vapor pressure
equilibrium were performed only at potentials lower than −3 MPa.
However the actual value of the cavitation tension may well be

Fig. 6. Compaction data for clays showing equi-suction lines (a) Kaolin (after Tarantino and De Col, 2008); (b) Boom clay (after Romero,1999); (c) Barcelona silt (after Gens et al.,1995); (d)
bentonite enriched sand (after Dineen et al., 1999).
34 R. Baker, S. Frydman / Engineering Geology 106 (2009) 26–39
Fig. 6 (continued).
significantly lower than 3 MPa and the actual value of adsorbed water
content may, similarly, be larger than 15%.
Gens et al. (1995) (Fig. 6c) tested Barcelona silt using psychrometer
measurements (internal potential). Vertical equi- potential contours
were obtained at potentials lower than about − 2 MPa, at water
contents below about 11.5%. The contour corresponding to −1 MPa is
already inclined, and it scans water contents of 14 to 15%. Based on this
figure it appears that the cavitation tension of Barcelona silt is between
1 and 2 MPa and the adsorbed water content is between 11 to 15%.
Dineen et al (1999) (Fig 6d) tested bentonite enriched sand using the
Imperial College tensiometer, and filter paper (matrix potentials).
Samples were compacted using both static and dynamic compaction.
Approximately vertical contours of potential were obtained at degrees
of saturation less than about 80%, and water contents up to 14% (the
highest water content considered), independent of compaction
method. In this case an upper bound on cavitation tension appears to
be 110 kPa. This is consistent with the cavitation tension for sand
discussed previously.
The above results, showing a unique dependence of suction on
gravimetric water content, independent of dry density, support the
suggested predominance of adsorption potential, not only at very low
water contents. A dependence of potential on both water content and
dry density (or void ratio) would indicate a significant contribution of
the capillary component. The fact that the contours of Gens et al.
(1995) become vertical only at a relatively large suction (between 1
and 2 MPa) implies that there is water in the macropores even at these
low potentials; this may be a result of either an exceptionally high
value of cavitation tension or of the existence of a very high osmotic
component in the internal potential, or a combination of the two.
Ridley and Perez-Romero (1998) suggested that the microfabric
of compacted and reconstituted clays are similar, and therefore it
would be expected that, in the range where adsorption is dominant,
matrix potential should be dependent only on gravimetric moisture
content also in reconstituted (and possibly undisturbed) clays, i.e. the
dominant role of adsorption potential may not be restricted only to
compacted clays.
 R. Baker, S. Frydman / Engineering Geology 106 (2009) 26–39
Keissar et al. (1990) tested compacted Israeli clays using an osmotic
cell. They chose to present their results as a system of SWCC in the
coordinates ψm =ψm(S|e), where the vertical line “|” means that their
test were done at constant void ratio. They found that their system of
SWCC's tended to merge together (becoming independent of e) at a
degree of saturation below 40% and matrix potential of about −200 kPa,
implying a cavitation tension of about 200 kPa.
Additional data showing unique relationships between ψm and
gravimetric moisture content of soils have been reported in the
literature, from cases in which the potential was applied or measured
by methods other than the ATP (e.g. (Krahn and Fredlund, 1972; Ridley
and Perez-Romero, 1998; Monroy, 2005; Delage, 2007). A characteristic
feature of all these data is that they show a unique relationship between
potential and gravimetric water content (independent of density), up to
the highest water contents tested. This data may be used to estimate
bounds on cavitation tension and adsorbed water content.
Krahn and Fredlund (1972) measured potential in samples of highly
plastic Regina clay, and low plasticity Saskatchewan till, compacted to
different dry densities and moisture contents. Internal potential was
measured using a thermocouple psychrometer. Their results imply
that the cavitation tension of the Regina clay is less than about 400 kPa
and that of the Seskatchawan till is less than about 300 kPa, while the
adsorbed water contents are at least 30% and 17% respectively.
Ridley and Perez-Romero (1998), tested compacted, speswhite
kaolin using the Imperial College tensiometer. Their results suggest an
upper bound on cavitation tension of 300 kPa, and an adsorbed water
content of at least 30%.
Monroy (2005) measured potentials in samples of London Clay,
compacted to different dry densities, using the Imperial College ten-
siometer. His results imply an upper bound of 400 kPa on the cavitation
tension which occurred at a water content of about 30%.
Delage (2007) showed water retention properties of compacted and
powder FoCa7 bentonite, in which the potential was applied by vapor
equilibrium. A unique relation was found between potential and water
content, up to water content of about 40%, and down to a potential of
between −100 and −300 kPa, indicating an upper bound on cavitation
tension of this order. Both soil conditions followed the same relation,
indicating negligible influence of sample density.
All the above investigations found unique relationships between
potentials and gravimetric water content, supporting the concept that
even at moderate matrix potentials, the macropores are effectively
empty, and the soil water is restricted to the pods, under adsorption
rather than capillary potential. This result indicates that adsorption is
significant at water contents relevant to geotechnical engineering.
The values of these upper bounds on the cavitation tension are, in
general, consistent with the results shown in Fig. 6, i.e. an upper
bound on cvtn in the range of 100 to 400 kPa. The experimental results
also imply a lower bound on adsorbed water contents in the range of
13 to 40%. The air pressures applied in most pressure plate devices is
up to 1.5 to 2.0 MPa. These pressures are significantly larger than the
implied cavitation tensions reported above, implying that there is a
significant pressure range in which the ATP prevents cavitation and
modifies soil behavior.
6. Geotechnical implications
6.1. Independent stress variables
Constitutive modeling of unsaturated soils is presently widely done
in terms of the variables (ua −uw) and (σ −ua), defined by Fredlund and
Morgenstern (1977) as the independent stress state variables for
unsaturated soils. Fredlund and Rahardjo (1993) also identified the
variable (ua −uw) as the matrix suction, equivalent to the negative
matrix potential. For example, many SWCC's are plotted as relations
between (ua −uw) and some measure of the amount of water in the soil.
However, except when using the ATP (the fundamental limitations of
35
which have been discussed previously), the actually measured quantity
is the matrix or internal potential rather than the term (ua −uw), and in
fact, in general the pressures {ua, uw} are not, and cannot be measured or
controlled. Plotting, (and using), the SWCC in this way suggests that
matrix potential is equal to capillary suction, the latter being expressed
by Eq. (6). Moreover, most of the data surveyed in the present work
suggest that over a significant range of water contents, the matrix
potential, ψm, is dominated by its adsorptive component, ψad, which
does not have a mechanical interpretation, and that the capillary
potential ψcp = −(ua −uw) is limited to the range ψcp N −cvtn, due to
the phenomenon of cavitation.
It may be legitimate to use {ψm, (σ − ua)} as constitutive variables,
but ψm should not be confused and combined directly with stress, as is
done in most mechanical constitutive equations for unsaturated soils.
The following section illustrates some conceptual inconsistencies
resulting from violating this requirement.
6.2. Constitutive models for unsaturated soils
A large number of constitutive models for partially saturated soils
have been formulated in the last 15 years. Many of these models
constitute elaboration on, and modifications of, the classical Barcelona
Basic Model (BBM) introduced by Alonso et al. (1987, 1990), and
Navarro and Alonso (2000). The BBM, in all its variants, describes the
stress–strain behavior of partially saturated soils by extending the
modified Cam–Clay model using Fredlund and Morgenstern's (1977)
independent stress variables discussed above. This class of theories
interprets measured or applied potentials as “suction” i.e. tensile
water stresses. The BBMs provide a logical framework, explaining
various characteristic features of unsaturated soil behavior. However,
in view of the dependence of these models on concepts related to the
ATP, which suppresses the cavitation process, they may not be
relevant to field conditions in which the air pressure is atmospheric
and cavitation is possible. Although this class of models may well
describe the behavior of laboratory samples where the ATP is applied,
its applicability to actual field conditions is questionable.
A conceptual difficulty introduced by the BBM framework is
illustrated by the notion of a “neutral line” (Alonso, 1998) which
represents the boundary between conditions resulting in collapse or
swelling of the soil (Fig. 7). This line is expressed as s+p =Const, where
s = suction and p = mean principle stress. Since “suction” (in the sense
of negative water pressure) is not a measurable or controlled quantity,
it is clear that s actually stands for the internal or matrix potential, so the
equation of the neutral line should actually be written as: ψm +p =Const.
The validity of adding two physically different quantities like ψm — energy
per unit volume, and p — mean stress is questionable. The source of the
difficulty is that the ψm includes a significant adsorption component
which does not have stress attributes, so ψm itself does not have stress
attributes, and it should not be added to the stress term p.
The ATP is not the only experimental technique allowing a study of
unsaturated soils. Graham and his coworkers (Tang and Graham 2002;
Fig. 7. The neutral line concept (after Alonso 1998).
36 R. Baker, S. Frydman / Engineering Geology 106 (2009) 26–39

Tang et al. 2002; Blatz and Graham 2003), developed a variant of the
BBM which is free of some of the above mentioned difficulties. They used
the internal potential, ψin =ψm +ψos, in the modified Cam–Clay model,
and in their experiments this variable was either controlled by a vapor
equilibrium system (using ionic solution) where vapor with a given
potential was provided around the specimen boundary, or was
measured using psychrometers. As a result they did not use the notion
of independent stress variables or the ATP, and their results are free of
the limitations discussed above. They did not use the terminology of
internal potential, calling this variable suction, but their experimental
techniques imply that their “suction” is actually ψin. However, one of the
basic assumptions employed in their model isqthat ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
the equivalent
preconsolidation pressure pe, is given by pe = ψ2in + σ 2. As ψin is
energy per unit volume, while σ represents the average normal stress, it
is doubtful that these physically different variables can be added directly
as if they are two components of the same physical vector.
Khalili and Khabbaz (1998) and Khalili et al. (2004) provided
corroborative evidence for the applicability of Bishop's effective stress
Eq. (3) on the basis of triaxial data obtained using ATP. This effective stress
expression was then incorporated into an elasto-plastic constitutive
model for unsaturated soils (Loret and Khalili, 2000). If it can be
demonstrated that Eq. (3) is valid using Khalili's definition of χ, when the
ATP term (ua −uw) is replaced by ψm, then this approach may represent
an extremely important development in unsaturated soil mechanics.

6.3. Strength of unsaturated soils

Ng at al. (2007) carried out comparative sets of triaxial tests on

unsaturated soils, using osmotic solutions and ATP to develop suctions
in the soil. Although similar effective friction angles were obtained
from the different sets, higher values of apparent cohesion resulted
from the ATP. The potential ranges applied in this investigation were
small — down to − 100 kPa in the ATP tests, and to − 150 kPa using the
osmotic technique. Further testing, over a larger range of potential,
would contribute, significantly, to this comparison.
An alternative approach to studying the strength of unsaturated
soils may be to formulate the model without explicit dependence on
water potential. An example of such a formulation is the work of Tuffour
(1984), who performed slow, direct shear tests on 3 unsaturated Israeli
clays, at different degrees of saturation. Elements of this work were
reviewed by Juca and Frydman (1995). The clays (Soil1: wL = 38%,
IP = 20%; Soil2: wL = 70%, IP = 38%; and Soil3: wL = 49%, IP = 31%) are Fig. 8. Strength of unsaturated soils (reanalyzed data of Tuffour, 1984). (a), Friction
all soils in which the predominant clay mineral is calcium montmor- angle independent of degree of saturation. (b), Cohesion as a function of gravimetric
moisture content for two compacted clays. (c), Cohesion of three soils as a function of
illonite. The samples of Soil 1 were undisturbed samples taken from the
degree of saturation.
remains of a failed water reservoir, while the samples of Soil 2 and Soil 3
were each compacted in the laboratory to a dry density, γd, close to the
maximum Proctor value, at degrees of saturation ranging from 50% to
100%. Frydman (2000) found that most saturated Israeli clays have an The results in Fig. 8a can be summarized by an equation of the
effective frictional angle of approximately 26° and cohesion of approxi- form:
mately 10 kPa, despite a wide range of consistency limits. In Fig. 8a,
Tuffour's strength envelopes for soil 2 have been drawn for different τff = cðωÞ + σ ff tanð/ VÞ ð10Þ
water contents, using an assumed ϕ = 26°. It is noted that the water
contents specified in Fig. 8a are initial values, but measures were taken where the double subscript, ff, indicates failure stresses on the failure
to minimize water evaporation loss during the tests. It is seen that the plane. In principle, the cohesion is probably a function of the matrix
envelopes reasonably fit the test results, indicating that the friction potential, but for conditions in which this potential is dominated by its
angle is practically independent of water content, and therefore also of adsorption component, it is a function only of the gravimetric water
ψm. It appears that Tuffour (1984) was the first to make this content, and it possible to write c(ψm) = c(ψm(ω)) = c(ω), resulting in
observation, but similar results have since been presented by a number Eq. (10).
of authors (e.g. Rahardjo et al., 2004; Lee et al., 2005; Lu and Likos, Fig. 8b shows the functions c(ω) obtained on the basis of Tuffour's
2006). The fact that the ϕ value obtained from slow shear tests on (1984) results for the two compacted clays tested by him. The important
unsaturated soils is independent of ω, and compatible with the effective characteristics of these functions are that they are practically linear and
friction angle, ϕ′, of the saturated soil, is consistent with the proposition parallel to each other. Lu and Likos (2004) showed c as a function of
that unsaturated soils are internally drained during shearing, as degree of saturation, S, and called their function, c(S), a “capillary
suggested earlier when discussing the results of Mokni and Desrues cohesion”. They suggested that it represents the same physical
(1998). information as the conventional SWCC, expressed in a more useful
 R. Baker, S. Frydman / Engineering Geology 106 (2009) 26–39
form. The same terminology can be applied to Tuffour's c(ω). A linear
c(S) function was also found by Miao et al. (2007).
In addition, Tuffour (1984) found that when the cohesion values
obtained from all three clays tested by him were plotted against S, a
unique, almost linear function, c(S) was obtained, as shown in Fig. 8c.
It is not suggested that this function, c(S), is a universal relation valid
for all clays; the source of its uniqueness is not clear, but it may be
related to the fact that, as mentioned previously, all Israeli clays have
practically the same effective stress parameters.
Lu (2008) introduced the notion of state variables which he defined as
follows: “In general, a state variable may be considered as any variable
that has a profound effect on a state of interest.” Such a definition is
legitimate, not suffering from the inconsistencies discussed in Section 6.2.
In fact the water content ω in the term c(ω) of Eq. (10) is a state variable
in the sense of Lu (2008). It is important to realize however that Lu's
(2008) state variables and Fredlund and Morgenstern's (1977) indepen-
dent stress state variables are entirely different concepts.
It is interesting to compare Eq. (10) with the representation developed
by Fredlund et al. (1978, 1995), Vanapalli and Fredlund (1997), and used
by many investigators, who expressed the shear strength of unsaturated
clays as follows:
 
τff = c V+ ðσ ff −ua Þf tanð/VÞ + ðua −uw Þf tan /
b
ð11Þ
where the single subscript, f, indicates failure conditions, and ϕb is a
friction angle defining the strength increase with increasing (ua −uw)f.
As (ua −uw) is not a measurable quantity unless one uses the ATP, and all
other “suction” measuring techniques actually measure the matrix or
internal potential, (see Section 3.3), (ua −uw)f, which appears in Eq. (11),
should be replaced by the matrix potential −(ψm(ω))f, and ϕb is a
friction angle defining strength increase with respect to matrix potential.
Considering field conditions, in which ua = 0, it is then possible to write
Eq. (11) as:
   limits the magnitude of the capillary potential to ψcp N − cvtn.
b
τff = c V+ σ ff tanð/ VÞ − ψm ðωÞ tan / ðψm ðωÞÞ : ð12Þ
f
The minus sign in front of the 3rd term is a consequence of the fact
that ψm is a negative quantity.
Escario and Saez (1986) found that ϕb is not constant, depending
on both σff and (ψm(ω))f making the use of Eq. (12) problematic.
Since ψm is a potential (which, according to the discussion presented
previously, may be dominated by its adsorption component), not a
stress, it cannot contribute to the strength by a frictional mechanism,
and consequently the physical significance of the friction angle, ϕb, is not
clear. Referring to ϕb, Lu and Likos (2006) wrote: “… conceptual
difficulties associated with determining necessary material variables
such as ϕb and uncertainties in their uniqueness over a wide range of
saturation have limited the practical applicability of the independent
stress variable approach.”
Comparing Eqs. (10) and (12), it is noted that Eq. (10) does not
depend explicitly on ψm. However the dependence of c on ω reflects an
indirect dependence on the matrix potential. One of the important
differences between Eqs. (10) and (12) is in the choice of independent
variables (ω versus ψm) used to define the strength of unsaturated soils.
A major physical difference between Eqs. (10) and (12) is that whereas
Eq. (12) requires interpretation of the matrix potential as a stress, Eq.
(10) relates the matrix potential contribution to the cohesive component
of the strength, and therefore it does not necessitate such an identi-
fication. Furthermore, Eq. (10) is simpler than Eq. (12) requiring deter-
mination of a single constitutive function c(ω), while Eq. (12) requires
the determination of two such functions, ψm(ω) and the two dimen-
sional function ϕb( ψm, σff ) (see results of Escario and Saez, 1986). This
simplification is a direct consequence of the physical approach adopted
here, which makes a clear distinction between matrix potential and
tensile stresses in the pore water.
37
The above discussion indicates that for certain problems it may be
more convenient not to include water potentials explicitly in the
constitutive model. Instead, the use of certain volume–weight relations
as the basic constitutive variables may lead to simpler results (e.g. Juca
and Frydman 1995). Such an approach may represent a possible
alternative to conventional constitutive modeling of certain problems in
unsaturated soil mechanics.
7. Summary and conclusions
The purpose of the present paper was to examine the basic elements
of geotechnical constitutive theory for unsaturated soils against the
background of modern developments in soil physics. The main physical
elements considered in this work may be summarized as follows:
a) All devices for measuring soil “suction” actually measure soil-water
potential (internal or matrix) rather than the state of pressure
(tension) in the soil water. In fact the actual water tension in
unsaturated soil cannot be measured or controlled. The matrix
potential consists of two major components; adsorption and
capillary. Only the capillary component admits interpretation in
terms of mechanical pressure (tension).
b) A basic element of the present approach is that the tensile stresses
generated by the capillary potential can cause cavitation of the
capillary water in the macropore of the proposed double porosity
model. This cavitation process limits water tension (capillary
potential under field conditions, when ua = 0) to a certain limiting
value, cvtn. As a result of the complex nature of clay soils, this value
may be higher than the classical value of 100 kPa. The current
experimental information does not allow exact determination of the
cavitation tensions in soils, allowing only the estimation of upper
bounds on this quantity. Most data sets considered in this review
imply that the upper bound on cavitation tension in soils is in the
range of 100 to 400 kPa. These data imply that cavitation severely
Consequently under a significant range of conditions relevant to
geotechnical engineering, adsorption may be the main component of
the matrix potential. This is particularly significant in soil having high
specific surface area.
c) The geotechnical literature generally ignores the adsorption poten-
tial when interpreting “suction” measurements, identifying the
matrix potential with its capillary component. This practice implies
identification of matrix potential with soil-water tension and results
in prediction of unrealistically large water tensions which cannot be
realized (due to cavitation) under field conditions, when the air
pressure is normally atmospheric.
d) The axis translation technique “transfers” water pressures in soil to
the positive range, thus eliminating the possibility of cavitation and
modifying soil behavior.
e) The experimental foundation of most constitutive models for
unsaturated soils is based on the axis translation technique. As a
result, these constitutive models may well describe the behavior of
laboratory samples in which this technique is utilized, but their
relevance to field condition, with atmospheric air pressure, requires
further validation.
f) Most versions of constitutive laws for unsaturated soils do not
distinguish between matrix potential (energy per unit volume)
which is the actually measured or controlled variable and water
tension (suction) which cannot be measured. When the identifica-
tion of matrix potential with water tension is incorporated into
mechanical constitutive equations, and they are added directly,
conceptual inconsistencies result. Such combinations are, in
principle, illegitimate, having no physical significance.
g) Experimental results for compacted clays indicate that the matrix
potential depends only on the gravimetric water content over a range
of water contents significant in geotechnical engineering. Since the
38 R. Baker, S. Frydman / Engineering Geology 106 (2009) 26–39
double porosity model adopted in this paper implies that adsorption
potential depends only on gravimetric water content, this observa-
tion suggests that in this water content range, adsorption dominates
the matrix potential. The capillary potential, on the other hand,
depends on two independent variables; volumetric or gravimetric
water content (or degree of saturation) and void ratio (or dry unit
weight), but this potential is significant only in the matrix potential
range down to the cavitation tension. Consequently, combinations of
cavitation, adsorption, and a double porosity model consisting of
saturated soil pods appear to indicate that the adsorption potential
frequently dominates matrix potential in fine grained soils.
h) A major inconsistency in conventional representation of unsaturated
soil mechanics is that it assigns two different and incompatible
meanings to the term (ua −uw). On one hand, this term is considered
to represent the matrix potential, but the same term is considered
also as a stress variable. Neither of these interpretations appears
acceptable. The term −(ua −uw) can be identified with the matrix
potential only if one ignores adsorption. Furthermore, by definition,
matrix potential is energy per unit volume, and it cannot be
considered as a stress (suction) because its adsorption component
does not have stress attributes. This confusion appears to be a
consequence of using the axis translation procedure as the main
experimental technique when studying the behavior of unsaturated
soils.
i) For certain purposes (e.g. soil strength), it may be useful to consider
volume–weight relations instead of potentials as basic constitutive
variables.
Based on the above arguments, it is concluded that existing consti-
tutive models for unsaturated soils, in their present format, are not
consistent with the basic physical elements of the system. Although no
viable alternative to the conventional approach is suggested in the
present paper, (except, maybe in the discussion of soil strength, and the
general structure of the SWCC), it is felt that eliminating physical
inconsistencies is a necessary first step towards formulation of realistic
constitutive models for unsaturated soils.
References
Aitchison, G.D., 1961. Relationships of moisture and effective stress functions in
unsaturated soils. Proc., Conf. on Pore Pressures and Suctions in Soils. ICE,
Butterworths, Lond., pp. 47–52.
Alonso, E.E., Gens, A., Hight, D.W., 1987. Special problem soils — general report. Proc. 9th
European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Balkema,
Dublin, Ireland, pp. 1087–1146.
Alonso, E.E., Gens, A., Josa, A., 1990. A constitutive model for partially saturated soils.
Geotechnique 40, 405–430.
Alonso, E.E., 1998. Modeling expansive soil behavior. Proc. 2nd Inter. Conf. on
Unsaturated soils, Beijing, China, 2. Inter. Academic Pub, pp. 37–71.
Bishop, A.W., 1959. The principle of effective stress. Teknisk Ukeblad 106, 859–863.
Bishop, A.W., Kumapley, N.K., El-Ruwayih, A., 1975. The influence of pore water tension
on the strength of clay. Trans., Royal Society of London, Series A 278, 511–555.
Blatz, J.A., Graham, J., 2003. Elastic–plastic modeling of unsaturated soil using results
from a new triaxial test with controlled suction. Geotechnique 53, 113–122.
Blight, G.E., 1967. Effective stress evaluation for unsaturated soils. J. Soil Mechanics and
Foundations Division, ASCE 93, 125–148.
Bolt, G.H., 1976. Soil physics terminology. International Society of Soil Science, Bulletin
49, 16–22.
Brandon, T.L., Rose, A.T., Duncan, J.M., 2006. Drained and undrained strength interpreta-
tion for low plasticity silt. J. Geotech. and Geoenvironmental. Eng., ASCE 132 (2),
250–257.
Buckingham, E., 1907. Studies on the movement of soil moisture. United States Division
of Agriculture. . Bulletin, vol. 38. Bureau of Soils, Washington, DC.
Burland, J.B., Ridley, A.M., 1966. The importance of suction in soil mechanics. State of the art
lecture. Twelfth Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference. Kuala Lumpur, pp. 27–49.
Chahal, R.S., Yong, R.N., 1965. Validity of the soil water characteristics determined with
the pressure apparatus. Soil Science 99, 98–103.
Crony, D., Coleman, J.D., Black, W.P.M., 1958. Studies of the movement and distribution
of water in soil in relation to highway design and performance. HRB Spec. Rep.
No. 40, Washington, D.C.
Croney, D., Coleman, J.D., 1961. Pore pressure and suction in soils. Proc. Conference on
Pore Pressure and Suction in Soils. ICE, Butterworths, Lond., pp. 31–37.
Delage, P., 2002. State of-the-art-report: experimental unsaturated soil mechanics.
Proc., 3rd Int. Conf. on Unsat. Soils, Recife, Brazil.
Delage, P., 2007. Microstructure features in the behavior of engineered barriers for
nuclear waste disposal. Experimental unsaturated soil mechanics. Proceedings in
Physics, Springer 112, 11–32.
Derjaguin, B.V., Churaev, N.V., Muller, V.M., 1987. Surface Forces. Plenum, New York.
Dineen, K., Colmenares, J.E., Ridley, A.M., Burland, J.B., 1999. Suction and volume
changes of a bentonite-enriched sand. Geotechnical Engineering 137, 197–201.⁎⁎
Edlefsen, N.E., Anderson, A.B.C., 1943. Thermodynamics of soil moisture. Hilgardia 15,
31–298.
Escario, V., Saez, J., 1986. The shear strength of partly saturated soils. Geotechnique 36,
453–456.
Fawcett, R.G., Collis-George, N., 1967. A filter paper method for determining the
moisture characteristic of soil. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and
Animal Husbandry 7, 162–167.
Fredlund, D.G., Morgenstern, N.R., 1977. Stress state variables for unsaturated soils.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE 103, 444–466.
Fredlund, D.G., Rahardjo, H., 1993. Soil Mechanics for Unsaturated Soils. John Wiley and
Sons, New-York.
Fredlund, D.G., Morgenstern, N.R., Widger, R.A., 1978. The shear strength of unsaturated
soils. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 15, 313–321.
Fredlund, D.G., Xing, A., Fredlund, M.D., Barbour, S.L., 1995. The relationship of
unsaturated soil shear strength to the soil–water characteristic curve. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 32, 440–448.
Frydman, S., 2000. The shear strength of Israeli soils. Israel Journal of Earth Sciences 49, 55–64.
Frydman, S., Weisberg, E., 1991. A study of centrifuge modeling of swelling clay. In: Ko,
H.-Y., McLean, F. (Eds.), Proc., International Conference — Centrifuge ‘91: Boulder,
Colorado. Balkema publishers, pp. 113–120.
Gens, A., Alonso, E.E., Suriol, J., Lloret, A., 1995. Effect of structure on the volumetric
behavior of a compacted soil. Proc., 1st Int. Conf. on Unsaturated Soils, pp. 83–88.
Gray, W.G., Hassanizadeh, S.M., 1991. Paradoxes and realities in unsaturated flow theory.
Water Resources Research 27, 1847–1854.
Guan, Y., Fredlund, D.G., 1997. Use of tensile strength of water for the direct
measurement of high soil suction. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 34, 604–614.
Hilf, J.W., 1956. An investigation of pore water pressure in compacted cohesive soils.
Technical memorandum 654. United State Department of the Interior. Bureau of
Reclamation, Denver Colorado.
Hueckel, T., Loret, B., Gajo, A., 2001. Expansive clays as two-phase, deformable reacting
continua: concepts and modeling options. In: Maio, C.Di., Hueckel, T., Loret, B.
(Eds.), Proc. of the Workshop on Chemo-mechanical Coupling in Clays: From Nano-
scale to Engineering Applications. Balkema Pub., pp. 105–120.
Iwata, S., Tabuchi, T., Warkentin, B.P., 1995. Soil–water Interaction: Mechanisms and
applications, 2nd Edition. Lavoisier Pub, France.
Jennings, J.E., 1961. A revised effective stress law for use in the prediction of the behavior
of unsaturated soils. Proc., Conf. on Pore Pressures and Suctions in Soils. ICE,
Butterworths, Lond., pp. 26–30.
Jennings, J.E., Burland, J.B., 1962. Limitation to the use of effective stresses in partly
saturated soils. Geotechnique 12 (2), 125–144.
Juca, J.F.T., Frydman, S., 1995. State of the art report — experimental techniques. Proc.,1st
Int. Conf. on Unsaturated Soils. Paris, pp. 1–21.
Kassiff, G., Ben Shalom, A., 1971. Experimental relationship between swell pressure and
suction. Geotechnique 21, 245–255.
Keissar, I., Uzan, J., Baker, R., 1990. On the characterization of suction in swelling clay.
Transportation Research Record. No. 1277 — Modern Geotechnical Methods:
Instrumentation and Vibratory Hammers, pp. 1–7.
Khalili, N., Khabbaz, M.H., 1998. A unique relationship for χ for the determination of the
shear strength of unsaturated soils. Geotechnique 48, 681–687.
Khalili, N., Geiser, F., Blight, G.E., 2004. Effective stress in unsaturated soils: review with
new evidence. International Journal of Geomechanics 4, 115–126.
Koorevaar, P., Menelik, G., Dirksen, C., 1983. Elements of Soil Physics. New York, Elsevier.
Krahn, J., Fredlund, D.G., 1972. On total matric and osmotic suction. Soil Science 114 (5),
339–348.
Lee, I.-M., Sung, S.-G., Cho, G.-C., 2005. Effect of stress state on the unsaturated shear
strength of a weathered granite. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 42, 624–631.
Loret, B., Khalili, N., 2000. A three phase model for unsaturated soils. Int. J. Numer. &
Analytical Methods in Geomech 24 (11), 893–927.
Lu, N., Likos, W.J., 2004. Unsaturated Soil Mechanics. John Wiley and Sons Inc.
Lu, N., Likos, W.J., 2006. Suction stress characteristic curve for unsaturated soils. Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 132 (2), 131–142.
Lu, N., 2008. Is matric suction a stress variable? J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 134 (7),
899–905.
Mahler, C.F., 1998. Measurement of matrix and total in situ suction of porous soils of
San-Paulo using the filter paper method. Proceedings of the 2nd International
Conference on Unsaturated Soils, Beijing, China, pp. 402–409.
Marinho, F.A.M., Take, W.A., Tarantino, A., 2005. State of the art presentation on
tensiometers and axis-translation technique. International Symposium on Advanced
Experimental Unsaturated Soil Mechanics. Trento. Italy. http://www.experus2005.
ing.unitn.it/1_Marinho_Take_Tarantino.pdf.
McManus, K.J., Davis, R.O., 1997. Dilation induced pore fluid cavitation in sands.
Geotechnique 47, 173–177.
McQueen, I.S., Miller, R.F., 1974. Approximating soil moisture characteristics from
limited data: empirical evidence and tentative model. Water Resources Research
10, 521–526.
Miao, L., Houston, S.L., Cui, Y., Yuan, J., 2007. Relationship between soil structure and
mechanical behavior for an expansive unsaturated clay. Can. Geotech. J. 44, 126–137.
Mokni, M., Desrues, J., 1998. Strain localization measurements in undrained plane-strain
biaxial tests on Hostun RF sand. Mechanics of Cohesive-Frictional Materials 4,
419–441.
 R. Baker, S. Frydman / Engineering Geology 106 (2009) 26–39
Monroy, R. (2005). The influence of load and suction changes on the volumetric behavior
of compacted London clay. PhD. Thesis, Imperial College, London University.
Ng, G.W.W., Cui, Y., Chen, R., Delage, P., 2007. The axis-translation and osmotic techniques
in shear testing of unsaturated soils: a comparison. Soils and Foundations 47 (4),
675–684.
Navarro, V., Alonso, E.E., 2000. Modeling swelling soils for disposal barriers. Computers
and Geotechnics 27, 19–43.
Nitao, J.J., Bear, J., 1996. Potentials and their role in transport in porous media. Water
Resources Research 32, 225–250.
Or, D., Tuller, M., 1999. Liquid retention and interfacial area in variably saturated porous
media: upscaling from single-pore to sample-scale model. Water Resources Re-
search 35, 3591–3605.
Or, D., Tuller, M., 2002. Cavitation during desaturation of porous media under tension.
Water Resources Research 38, (19–1)–(19-4).
Peck, A.J., Rabbidge, R.M., 1969. Design and performance of an osmotic tensiometer for
measuring capillary potential. Soil Science Society of America Journal 33, 196–202.
Philip, J.R., 1977. Unitary approach to capillary condensation and adsorption. Journal of
Chemical Physics 66, 5069–5075.
Rahardjo, H., Heng, O.B., Choon, L.E., 2004. Shear strength of a compacted residual soil
from consolidated drained and constant water content triaxial tests. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 41, 421–436.
Richards, B.G., 1965. Measurement of the free energy of soil moisture by the psy-
chrometric technique using thermistors. In: Aitchison, G.D. (Ed.), Moisture
Equilibria and Moisture Changes in Soils Beneath Covered Areas. A Symposium in
Print. Butterworths &Co. Ltd., Sydney, Australia, pp. 35–46.
Ridley, A.M., Burland, J.B., 1993. A new instrument for the measurement of soil moisture
suction. Geotechnique 43, 321–324.
Ridley, A.M., Perez-Romero, J., 1998. Suction–water content relationships for a range of
compacted clays. Proc., 2nd International Conference on Unsaturated Soils. Beijing,
China, 1. International Academic Publishers, pp. 114–118.
Ridley, A.M., Burland, J.B., 1999. In: Guan, Y., Fredlund, D.J. (Eds.), Discussion of: Use of
Tensile Strength of Water for the Direct Measurement of High Soil Suction.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, vol. 36, pp. 178–180.
Romero, E.M. (1999). Characterization and thermo-hydro mechanical behavior of
unsaturated Boom clay: An experimental study. PhD thesis. Departament
39
D'Enginyeria del Terreny I Cartografica, Escola Tecnica Superior D'Enginyers de
Camins Canals I Ports, Universsitat Politecnica de Catalonia. Barcelona, Spania.
Romero, E.M., Vaunat, J., 2000. Retention curves of deformable clays. In: Tarantino,
Mancuso (Eds.), Conf. on Experimental Evidence and Theoretical Approach in
Unsaturated Soils. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 91–106.
Speedy, R.J., 1982. Stability-limit conjecture: an interpretation of the properties of
water. Journal of Physical Chemistry 86, 982–991.
Take, W.A., Bolton, M.D., 2003. Tensiometer saturation and the reliable measurement of
matric suction. Geotechnique 53 (2), 159–172.
Tang, G.X., Graham, J., 2002. A possible elastic–plastic framework for unsaturated soils
with high-plasticity. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 39, 894–907.
Tang, G.X., Graham, J., Blatz, J., Gray, M., Rajapakse, R.K.M.D., 2002. Suctions, stresses and
strengths in unsaturated sand–bentonite. Engineering Geology 64, 147–156.
Tarantino, A., Mongiovi, L., 2001. Experimental procedures and cavitation mechanisms in
tensiometer measurements. Geotechnical and Geological. Engineering 19, 189–210.
Tarantino, A., Mongiovì, L., 2003. Calibration of tensiometer for direct measurements of
matric suction. Geotechnique 53, 137–141.
Tarantino, A., De Col, E., 2008. Compaction behavior of clay. Geotechnique 58 (3),
199–213.
Tovey, N.K., Frydman, S., Wong, K.Y.,1973. A study of a swelling clay in the scanning electron
microscope. Proc., 3rd International Conference on Swelling Soils, 2, pp. 45–54.
Tuffour, Y.A., 1984. Shear strength of partly saturated clays. MSc. Thesis. Faculty of Civil
Engineering, Technion, Israeli Institute of Technology. Haifa, Israel.
Tuller, M., Or, D., Dudley, L.M., 1999. Adsorption and capillary condensation in porous
media: liquid retention and interfacial configurations in angular pores. Water
Resources Research 35, 1949–1964.
Tuller, M., Or, D., 2004. In: Hillel, D. (Ed.), Water retention and characteristic curve.
Encyclopedia of soils in the environment, 4. Elsevier Ltd., Oxford, United Kingdom,
pp. 278–289.
Vanapalli, S.K., Fredlund, D.G., 1997. Interpretation of undrained shear strength of
unsaturated soils in terms of stress state variables. Proc., 3rd Brazilian Symposium
on Unsaturated Soils, pp. 35–45.
Zheng, Q., Durben, D.J., Wolf, G.H., Angell, C.A., 1991. Liquids at large negative pressures:
water at the homogeneous nucleation limit. Science 254, 829–832.