Geotechnical Engineering Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers

http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/jgeen.16.00037
Prediction of unsaturated shear strength Paper 1600037
Received 22/03/2016 Accepted 13/01/2017
of expansive clays
Keywords: geotechnical engineering/landfills/strength & testing
Al-Mahbashi and Elkady of materials

ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

Prediction of unsaturated shear strength

of expansive clays
Ahmed M. Al-Mahbashi MSc
Researcher, Eng. Abdullah Bugshan Research Chair in Expansive Soils, Civil
Engineering Department, College of Engineering, King Saud University,
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (corresponding author: ena_almahpashi@hotmail.com)
Tamer Y. Elkady PhD
Associate Professor, Eng. Abdullah Bugshan Research Chair in Expansive
Soils, Civil Engineering Department, College of Engineering, King Saud
University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

The aim of this study is to predict the unsaturated shear strength of two locally expansive clays available in Saudi
Arabia over a wide range of suction. A variety of prediction models categorised as semi-empirical or micromechanical
were considered to examine their viability to estimate unsaturated shear strength of these clays over a wide range of
suction. Soil water characteristic curves and effective shear strength parameters for both expansive clays were
evaluated to serve as input for the prediction of unsaturated shear strength functions (USSFs). To verify the predicted
USSF, data for unsaturated shear strength as a function of matric suction were generated from a series of unconfined
compression strength (UCS) test specimens with different moisture (suction) levels. Comparison between experimental
data and predicted USSF revealed that there is great discrepancy between predicted and experimental data; especially
in the high-suction range; this was attributed to the emergence of desiccation cracks during drying. As an alternative
approach, function fitting models were used and their viability was discussed.

χ Bishop’s variable (parameter related to degree of

Notation
saturation used to proportion the amount of effective
a suction at the first inflection point on the curve
stress acting on the system)
c′ effective cohesion of the soil
Ψ soil suction
hr suction at volumetric residual water content
Ip plasticity index
k, α, β, fitting parameters 1. Introduction
a2, b2 The unsaturated shear strength of expansive soils plays an
and λ important role in the understanding and interpretation of their
m soil parameter related to the residual water content mechanical behaviour in many civil engineering situations,
n soil parameter related to slope at the such as slope stability, retaining structures, bearing capacity
inflection point and landslides. In addition, the beneficial use of expansive
Pat atmospheric pressure (101·3 kPa) soils as impervious liners for canals or engineering barriers for
qu ultimate unconfined compression strength nuclear waste repositories or landfills has raised interest in
S degree of saturation their unsaturated shear strength (Abeyrathne et al., 2012;
ua pore-air pressure Al-Rawas et al., 2006). Besides this importance in civil engin-
(ua−uw) matric suction eering, the unsaturated shear strength of expansive soils is also
(ua−uw)b air entry value of interest in the area of petroleum engineering with regard to
(ua−uw)r residual suction the stability of borehole walls in shale formations.
us matric suction
uw pore-water pressure Experimental investigations for the evaluation of the unsatu-
θ volumetric water content rated shear strength of soils are limited, and even more scarce
θr volumetric water content residual state for expansive soils. This is because the experimental determi-
θs volumetric water content at saturation nation of unsaturated shear strength uses suction-controlled
θw volumetric water content equipment that is expensive and requires trained personnel.
σ normal stress In addition, the long testing procedure prohibits the solution
σn net normal stress of in situ problems that need to be addressed within a short
σ1 primary axial stress time period. As a consequence, numerous researchers have
σ3 confining pressure developed different equations to estimate the unsaturated shear
τ unsaturated shear strength strength and promote its use in engineering practice. The
τus contribution of matric suction in unsaturated shear relationship between unsaturated shear strength and matric
strength suction is referred to as the unsaturated shear strength function
ϕ′ effective angle of internal friction (USSF). Many of these equations use the soil water character-
ϕb effective angle of internal friction relative to the istic curve (SWCC) and saturated shear strength parameters to
suction predict the unsaturated shear strength of soils. Other equations

1
Downloaded by [] on [02/03/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Geotechnical Engineering
assume hyperbolic relationships to represent the non-linear
failure envelope of unsaturated shear strength. Most vali-
dations of these equations have been carried out using unsatu-
rated shear strength data evaluated in the low suction range
(i.e. less than 1000 kPa) (Garven, 2009). Attempts to validate
these models up to the high suction range are scarce in the
technical literature (Nishimura and Fredlund, 2000; Vanapalli
et al., 2000).
This paper investigates the ability of selected USSFs to evalu-
ate the unsaturated shear strength of expansive clay over a wide
range of suction reaching up to 420 MPa. For this purpose, a
series of unconfined compression tests was performed on two
expansive clays with different swelling potentials encountered
in Saudi Arabia for comparison with the unsaturated shear
strength predicted from the USSF.
2. Background
Early research on the shear strength of unsaturated soils has
led to the development of two unsaturated shear strength
equations proposed by Fredlund et al. (1978) and Bishop
and Blight (1963) and represented by Equations 1 and 2,
respectively.
1: τ ¼ c0 þ ðσ n
ua Þ tan ϕ0 þ ðua
uw Þ tan ϕb
2: τ ¼ c0 þ ðσ n
ua Þ tan ϕ0 þ χ ðua
uw Þ tan ϕ0
Although they differ in concept, both equations use two
stress variables (i.e. (σ − ua) and (ua − uw)) and visualise that
the unsaturated shear strength comprises two components.
The first two terms of Equations 1 and 2 represent the satu-
rated shear strength; the last term represents the matric
suction contribution to shear strength (τus). Therefore, the pre-
vious USSF equations can be re-written in a generic form as
follows
3: τ ¼ c0 þ ðσ n
ua Þ tan ϕ0 þ τ us
Later on, numerous experimental studies were conducted to
evaluate the shear strength of unsaturated soils (e.g. Chae
et al., 2010; Escario and Juca, 1989; Estabragh and Javadi,
2012; Gan et al., 1988; Garven and Vanapalli, 2006; Lee et al.,
2005; Yang et al., 2003; Ye et al., 2010). The main findings of
these studies revealed that there is a close correlation between
the USSF and SWCC, as shown in Figure 1 (Fredlund et al.,
1996; Goh et al., 2014; Yang et al., 2003). As shown in
Figure 1, the USSF increases linearly with increase in suction
up to a certain suction value equal to the air entry value
(AEV) from SWCC. Beyond the AEV, an increase of soil
2
Downloaded by [] on [02/03/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Prediction of unsaturated shear strength
of expansive clays
Al-Mahbashi and Elkady
Volumetric water content: %
AEV
Suction: kPa
Shear strength: kPa
φ'
AEV
Soil suction: kPa
Figure 1. Schematic representation of USSF in relation to SWCC
suction results in non-linear increase of the unsaturated shear
strength.
Using the form of Equation 3, several investigators developed
equations for USSF. Variation between equations was mainly
in the component which governs the matric suction contri-
bution to shear strength (τus). These equations can be cate-
gorised as semi-empirical (Bao et al., 1998; Fredlund et al.,
1996; Garven and Vanapalli, 2006; Lee et al., 2005; Oberg and
Sallfors, 1997; Vanapalli et al., 1996); micromechanical
(Aubeny and Lytton, 2003; Lytton, 1995); fractal dimension
(Xu, 2004; Xu and Sun, 2001); and function fitting models
(Abramento and Carvalho, 1989; Escario and Juca, 1989; Lee
et al., 2003; Miao et al., 2002; Rohm and Vilar, 1995; Vilar,
2006; Yu et al., 1998).
Semi-empirical and micromechanical models were developed
based on combination of experimental observations and theor-
etical concepts, and are considered simple to use with no or
limited need of fitting parameters. Therefore, these models are
considered as prediction models and have been recurrently vali-
dated in the technical literature by comparing predicted with
experimental unsaturated shear strength (Garven, 2009;
Vanapalli et al., 2000). Input to the prediction models includes
effective shear strength parameters and SWCC. Review of the
technical literature has reported discrepancies regarding the
ability of different prediction models (i.e. semi-empirical and
micromechanical models) to predict the USSF for different soil
types. Garven (2009) conducted a comprehensive study to
investigate the predictive powers of seven semi-empirical and
 Geotechnical Engineering
micromechanical USSF models. The results revealed that the
percentage of acceptable fits for the selected models ranged
from as low as 20% to high as 93%, which is considered a wide
range. Acceptable criterion is defined by 50% or more of
experimental shear strength data falling within 10% of pre-
dicted shear strength. No explanations were provided for the
wide variation in predictive powers from one equation to
another. Therefore, it is apparent that no one model has the
ability to predict the USSF of all soils.
Function fitting models are basically equations that fit
experimental data to an assumed function (usually hyperbolic)
for the relationship between unsaturated shear strength and
suction (Miao et al., 2002; Rohm and Vilar, 1995; Yu et al.,
1998). Hence, these equations require experimental shear
strength data within the target suction range to evaluate fitting
parameters. Although the last statement may be considered
as a ‘con’, it is also a ‘pro’ in providing instant verification of
estimated USSF.
For this study, five prediction equations were examined for
their viability to estimate the USSF of expansive clays. Selected
equations were Vanapalli et al. (1996), Bao et al. (1998),
Aubeny and Lytton (2003), Lee et al. (2005) and Garven and
Vanapalli (2006). As mentioned earlier, these equations were
selected because they are simple to use, require no fitting
parameters or there is a rational guideline for the estimation of
parameters (Garven, 2009). A summary of the equations used
in this study is provided in Table 1. Furthermore, two function
fitting models proposed by Yu et al. (1998) and Miao et al.
(2002) are adopted in this study, as presented in Table 2.
Table 1. USSF prediction models used in this study
Equation


θ w
θr
τ ¼ c 0 þ ðσ n
ua Þ tan ϕ0 þ ðua
uw Þ tan ϕ0
θ s
θr
τ ¼ c 0 þ ðσ n
ua Þ tan ϕ0 þ ðua
uw Þðξ Þ½ðtan ϕ0 Þ
log ðua
uw Þr
logðua
uw Þ
ξ ¼
log ðua
uw Þr
log ðua
uw Þb
h i
τ ¼ c 0 þ ðσ n
ua Þ tan ϕ0 þ ðua
uw Þ ðtan ϕ0 ÞðθÞk ðaÞ
k¼
0008Ip2 þ 000801Ip þ 1 ðbÞ
k ¼
00016Ip2 þ 00975Ip þ 1 ðcÞ
If (ua − uw) ≤ AEV
0 0 0
τ ¼ c þ ðσ n
ua Þ tan ϕ þ ðua
uw Þ tan ϕ ðaÞ
If (ua − uw) > AEV
τ ¼c 0 þ ðσ n
ua Þ tan ϕ0 þ AEV tan ϕ0
þ ½ðua
uw Þ
AEVθk ½1 þ λðσ n
ua Þ tan ϕ0 ðbÞ
τ us ¼ f1 ðσ n
ua Þ θw tan ϕ0
where f1 is a factor ranging from 1 to 1/θ as follows
If S ¼ 100%; f1 ¼ 1= θ


S
85 1
If 85%  S  100%; f1 ¼ 1 þ
1
15 θ
If S  85%; f1 ¼ 1
Downloaded by [] on [02/03/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Prediction of unsaturated shear strength
of expansive clays
Al-Mahbashi and Elkady
3. Prediction models in terms of unconfined
compression strength
Assessing the appropriateness of selected USSF predictive
models (Table 1) to estimate the unsaturated shear strength of
expansive clays requires experimental data for the variation of
unsaturated shear strength with matric suction. This is typi-
cally obtained by conducting suction-controlled shear tests;
however, these tests are considered complex and time consum-
ing. Furthermore, large matric suction values, as required in
this study, are sometimes unattainable using available testing
equipment.
In this study, an alternative approach proposed by Vanapalli
et al. (1999, 2000) was adopted in which the unconfined com-
pression strength (UCS) was compared with unsaturated shear
strength obtained from predicted USSF. As a prelude to their
approach, Vanapalli et al. (1999, 2000) developed a theoretical
formulation in which the undrained triaxial shear strengths
were interpreted in terms of stress variable at failure (i.e.
(σ − ua)f and (ua − uw)f ) and effective shear strength parameters
as shown on Figure 2. Stress state variables at failure are evalu-
ated based on changes in pore-air pressure and pore-water
pressure that take place during application of confining
pressure and axial loading. Referencing Figure 2, Equation 3
(representing the generic form of USSF predictive models
in Table 1) is transformed in terms of triaxial stresses
(i.e. τ = (σ1 − σ3)/2 and σn = (σ1+σ3)/2) as follows



σ1
σ3 σ þ σ3 σ1
σ3
4: cos ϕ0 ¼ c0 þ 1
sin ϕ0 tan ϕ0 þ τ us
2 2 2
Reference
Vanapalli et al. (1996) (V-1996)
Bao et al. (1998) (B-1998)
Garven and Vanapalli (2006) (G&V-2006)
Lee et al. (2005) (L-2005)
Aubeny and Lytton (2003) (A&L-2003)
3
 Geotechnical Engineering Prediction of unsaturated shear strength
of expansive clays
Al-Mahbashi and Elkady

Table 2. USSF fitting models used in this study pore pressures, whereas slow strain rate will allow the dissipa-
Equation Description tion of pore pressures during shearing. Therefore, a series of
1 preliminary tests was carried out on specimens conditioned at
τ us ¼ ðua
uw Þ Yu et al. (1998) (Y-1998) different suction levels to assess the effect of strain rate on
1= tan α þ ðua
uw Þ=β
a 2 us UCS. In other words, a comparison was conducted between
τ us ¼ Miao et al. (2002) (M-1998)
1 þ ½ð1
a2 Þ=Pat  us the UCS specimens sheared using ASTM standard rate
(0·3 mm/min) and those evaluated using slow strain rates.
Although no measurements of excess pore pressures were con-
For the UCS test, no confining pressure is applied (i.e. σ3 = 0); ducted during these tests, the development of excess pore-water
hence, there are no changes in pore pressure, and, conse- pressure can be realised by changes in UCS values with strain
quently, matric suction will take place. During shearing, the rates as discussed later.
Vanapalli et al. (1999, 2000) approach assumes that pore-air
pressure is atmospheric (i.e. ua = 0) and the matric suction 4. Experimental procedure
change is negligible (i.e. matric suction at failure, (ua − uw)f, is This section provides details of the soil used in this study and
the same as the initial matric suction). Consequently, Equation experimental techniques used for the determination of SWCC
4 can be further simplified and re-arranged as follows and effective shear strength parameters that serve as input to
the prediction equations of USSF. Furthermore, the testing
qu σ1 c0 þ τ us procedure for the evaluation of UCS under different suction
5: ¼ ¼
2 2 cos ϕ þ sin ϕ0 tan ϕ0
tan ϕ0
0
levels is described.

4.1 Materials used

In line with the above approach, a series of UCS tests was
carried out on specimens with different moisture contents to
generate experimental data for the variation of UCS with
matric suction.
As stated above, the premise of this approach is that no excess
pore pressures, and in turn no matric suction changes, take
place during shearing (i.e. drained conditions). Development
of excess pore pressures during shearing depends primarily on
shear strain rate and will alter the unsaturated shear strength.
High shear strain rate may result in the development of excess
on
cti
Two expansive clays that possess different degrees of swelling
potential were used in this study; namely, Al-Qatif clay and
Al-Ghat clay (hereinafter referenced as Q-clay and G-clay,
respectively). Q-clay was sampled from the city Al-Qatif in the
eastern province of Saudi Arabia. G-clay was sampled from
Al-Ghat city located to the north east of Riyadh, capital of
Saudi Arabia. A generalised map of the sampling area is
shown in Figure 3. Specimens were obtained from sampling
pits of depths about 2·0–3·0 m below the ground surface.
Disturbed specimens were packed in plastic bags and trans-
ferred to the laboratory for full geotechnical characterisation.

φ'
su
ic
atr
M

φ' D E

σ1 – σ3
Shear strength

I φ' φ' 2 f

A B
σ3 F C σ1
f
w)

φb
–u
a
(u

c'

Net normal stress

Figure 2. Three-dimensional representation of undrained triaxial test expressed in terms of stress state variables

4
Downloaded by [] on [02/03/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Geotechnical Engineering Prediction of unsaturated shear strength
of expansive clays
Al-Mahbashi and Elkady

36° 39° 42° 45° 48° 51° 54° 57° 60° 25

32° Q-clay
G-clay
20
Jouf

Vertical strain: %
0 200 400 km
28° Tabuk Ar
Tayma ab 15
Al-Quatif ia n
Al-Ghatt Gu
lf 10
Madinah
24° Riyadh Hofuf
5
Red
Sea

20° 0
Sharorah 0·1 1 10 100 1000 10 000 100 000
Time: min
16° ea
nS Figure 4. Vertical swell plotted against time for expansive clays
bia
Ara considered in this study
N

Regions with expansive formations Sampling area

4.2 Soil water characteristic curve

Figure 3. Map of distribution of the expansive formations area in
Saudi Arabia (adapted from Ruwaih (1987) and Dhowian et al.
(1985))
Geotechnical characterisation results for both expansive clays
are summarised in Table 3. The typical free swell (vertical
strain) for both clays plotted against time are presented in
Figure 4. Based on geotechnical characterisation, Q-clay was
classified as high to very high swelling potential, whereas
G-clay is considered to be of low to moderate swelling poten-
tial (Gromko, 1974). These findings are consistent with several
studies conducted on these clays (Al-Mahbashi et al., 2015;
Al-Shayea, 2001; Azam, 2003; Dafalla and Al-Shamrani,
2012). All specimens used in this study were prepared by static
compaction using the initial moulding conditions representing
optimum moisture content (OMC) and maximum dry density
(MDD) presented in Table 3.
Soil water characteristic curves (SWCCs) for Q- and G-clays
were evaluated using two techniques to cover a wide range of
matric suction. The techniques used in this study were axis
translation (ASTM D6836 (ASTM, 2002)) and contact filter
paper techniques (ASTM D5298 (ASTM, 2003c). The axis
translation technique was carried out using a Fredlund SWC
device to evaluate the SWCC for matric suctions below
1·5 MPa; the contact filter paper technique was used to evalu-
ate the SWCC for matric suctions greater than 1·5 MPa.
The test set-up for the Fredlund SWC device comprised a lat-
erally confined specimen placed inside an air-pressurised
chamber and in direct contact with a 15 bar (1·5 MPa) high-
AEV (HAEV) ceramic disc, as illustrated in Figure 5. Axial
Load plate

Air
pressure Graduated
Top plate
burette
Table 3. Geotechnical characterisation of expansive clay
considered in this study
Test Al-Qatif Al-Ghatt Load cap with
porous stone
Specific gravity, Gs 2·72 2·86 Cell wall
Liquid limit, wL: % 160–170 45–65 Soil sample
High-air-entry
Plastic limit, wP: % 60 27 Grooves value ceramic disc
Shrinkage limit: % 11–15 15·1 Base plate
Plasticity index: % 100–110 22–38
USCS classification CH CH
Compaction characteristics (ASTM
D698 (ASTM, 2000))
Optimum moisture content: % 33 ± 1 23·96 ± 1
Maximum dry unit weight: kN/m3 11·86 ± 0·5 16·27 ± 0·5
Swelling characteristics (ASTM D4546
(ASTM, 2003b))
Free swell: % 17–26 6–10
Swelling pressure: kPa 450–600 150–250
Passing #200: % 95 82·1 Figure 5. Sketch of SWC device cell

5
Downloaded by [] on [02/03/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Geotechnical Engineering
deformation, and consequently volume change, that took place
during suction application was monitored using a dial gauge.
The test was initiated with the specimen at the saturated con-
dition; therefore, the compacted specimen had been initially
saturated by water submergence for a period of 24 h under a
vertical stress of 7 kPa. Suction was applied by incrementally
increasing the air pressure in the chamber and monitoring the
volume of water flowing out from the specimen using two
graduated burettes (Figure 5). Equilibrium under applied
suction was assumed to be attained when no visible change in
water level was observed in the graduated burettes. The time to
reach equilibrium under applied suction ranged between 3 and
4 d. The water content after suction application was obtained
by weighing. Further details regarding the testing procedure
for using the Fredlund SWC is provided by Al-Mahbashi
(2014).
The contact filter paper method was used to evaluate the
matric suction of test specimens with water contents less than
that attained from the axis translation technique. To this end, a
series of statically compacted specimens were prepared and
allowed to dry under ambient laboratory conditions to induce
a low-rate drying process. Target water content was identified
by tracing the weight of the specimen during the drying
process. Once target water content (weight) was achieved, the
soil specimens were wrapped in thin plastic film and stored for
a period of 2–5 d in a controlled environment to ensure
uniform moisture distribution. The filter paper (Whatman
no. 42) was sandwiched between identical specimens (in terms
of dimensions and water content) and placed inside a sealed
glass jar and stored in a temperature-controlled chamber for
an equilibration period of 21 d (ASTM D5298 (ASTM,
2003c)). At the end of equilibration the water content of the
filter paper was determined and the corresponding matric
suction was estimated using the calibration curve that had
been determined for the filter paper batch used, as shown in
Figure 6.
100 000
10 000
Suction: kPa
1000
100
Calibration points
10
1 metric water content). The target matric suction of a specimen
0 5 10 15 20 25
Water content: %
Figure 6. Calibration curve of filter paper used in this study
6
Downloaded by [] on [02/03/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Prediction of unsaturated shear strength
of expansive clays
Al-Mahbashi and Elkady
Owing to the expansive nature of the Q- and G-clays, it was
observed that test specimens during SWCC evaluation (either
axis translation or filter paper) underwent significant changes
in volume; especially Q-clay specimens. For the proper rep-
resentation of SWCC in terms of volumetric water content (or
degree of saturation), volume changes of the test specimens at
each suction level were traced (Fredlund and Houston, 2013).
The volume changes of the test specimens were monitored
using different techniques. For filter paper specimens, volume
change was evaluated based on thickness and diameter
measurements using a caliper. For the axis translation tech-
nique, vertical deformations were recorded using a dial gauge.
Radial deformations were evaluated using a simple image-
processing technique (IPT). This technique involved capturing
an image of the top surface of the test specimen and transfer-
ring it to a simple image-processing program for the evaluation
of radial deformation. The values of vertical and radial defor-
mations were used to evaluate the volumetric strain. At this
point, it is worth noting that two difficulties emerged during
the evaluation of radial deformation using the IPT. First,
cracking was observed along the edge of test specimen due
to adhesion between the soil specimen and the ring wall
(Figure 7(a)). This was mitigated by coating the inner surface
of the ring with a thin layer of high-silicone grease to
diminish the adhesion and result in an intact shrunk specimen
(Figure 7(b)). Second, non-uniform distribution of radial
deformations between the top and bottom faces of the speci-
men was apparent. This is attributed to friction between the
specimen base and the ceramic disc. Therefore, the radial
deformation was assumed as the average between the top and
lower faces.
4.3 Drained shear strength parameters
As discussed earlier, an input parameter for USSF prediction
equations cited in Table 1 is the effective shear strength par-
ameters (c′ and ϕ′). For this purpose, a series of direct shear
tests was conducted on saturated specimens to evaluate the
effective shear strength parameters in accordance with ASTM
D3080 (ASTM, 2004). Tests were performed on specimens
with dimensions 100 mm  100 mm  20 mm high. The com-
pacted specimen in the shear box consolidated under selected
vertical stress was then inundated with distilled water to satu-
rate it for at least 24 h. Vertical stresses considered for the test
ranged from 50 to 400 kPa. The shearing process was per-
formed at a rate of 0·06 mm/min.
4.4 Unconfined compressive strength
The UCS test was used to generate unsaturated shear strength
data as a function of suction. UCS tests were performed on a
series of specimens with different matric suctions (i.e., gravi-
30
was achieved using a drying process similar to that described
for the filter paper specimens. The unconfined compression
tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D2166
(ASTM, 2003a) on cylindrical specimens with dimensions
 Geotechnical Engineering
Area = 17·47 cm2
(a)
Figure 7. Radial changes in soil specimen (a) before and (b) after coating of ring
38 mm dia. and 76 mm high. Axial load and axial defor-
mation of specimens were recorded using a 5 kN load cell and
axial transducer; respectively. During the test, the soil specimen
was covered with plastic wrap to minimise loss in water
content, as shown in Figure 8. Soil specimens were loaded
using a computer-controlled load frame of 50 kN capacity and
sheared to failure at a shear strain rate of 0·3 mm/min for tests
conducted in accordance with ASTM D2166 (ASTM, 2003a),
herein referred to as the ‘UCS (ASTM rate)’. In the case of
Figure 8. UCS test set-up
Downloaded by [] on [02/03/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Prediction of unsaturated shear strength
of expansive clays
Al-Mahbashi and Elkady
Area = 16·88 cm2
(b)
UCS evaluated using slow shear strain rate (referred to as
‘UCS (slow rate)’), a shear strain rate of 0·003 mm/min
(6·578  10−5%/s) was adopted. In other words, the shear
strain rate was reduced by a factor of 100 to ensure a drained
condition during shearing (saturated permeability of Q- and
G-clays were estimated to be around 7·18  10−7 mm/min and
3  10−6 mm/min, respectively). This shear strain rate has been
selected based on findings reported in the technical literature
to ensure a drained condition (i.e. dissipation of excess
7
 Geotechnical Engineering Prediction of unsaturated shear strength
of expansive clays
Al-Mahbashi and Elkady

pore-water pressure) during shearing (Bishop et al., 1960;
Fredlund and Rahardjo, 1993; Pereira and De Gennaro, 2010;
Satija and Gulhati, 1979; Zhu and Yin, 2000). Shearing of the
UCS (slow rate) specimen was completed within 1 to 3 d.
During shearing, specimens were isolated from the ambient
environment with a membrane to prevent water content
changes due to evaporation. Recorded changes in water
content were negligible: from ±0·020 to ±0·968%, for all
points and 0·906, 1·358% for as-compacted specimens.
5. Results and discussion
This section presents the SWCCs and effective shear strength
parameters of Q- and G-clays. Based on these data, predictions
of USSFs were generated using selected prediction equations
(Table 1) and their prediction power was evaluated.
5.1 Soil water characteristic curve
Experimental data points for the drying SWCC of Q- and
G-clays together with fitted curve are illustrated in Figure 9.
These SWCCs were expressed as a relationship between volu-
metric water content and suction. Fitting of the SWCC exper-
imental data was conducted using the unimodal equation
proposed by Fredlund and Xing (1994) and shown as
Equation 6. The fitted SWCC will be used to provide sufficient
data points for the evaluation of USSF from prediction
equations.
( )
ln½1 þ ðΨ=hr Þ
θw ðΨÞ ¼θs 1
  mens (percentage difference in UCS is 27·7% for Q-clay and
ln 1 þ ð106 =hr Þ
6:
 
1 compacted specimens of G-clay). This difference is attributed
 m
ln ½expð1Þ þ ðΨ=aÞn 
Examination of SWCCs (Figure 9) revealed that there is a
smooth continuity between both axis translation and filter
paper data points, suggesting good consistency between test
results. Furthermore, the SWCCs of Q- and G-clays are
S-shaped with definable AEV and residual water content (θr).
For Q-clay, the AEV and residual volumetric water content
were estimated to be 100 kPa and 6%, respectively, whereas
these values were 1500 kPa and 3% for the G-clay.
5.2 Effective shear strength parameters
The effective shear envelope for both Q- and G-expansive
clays are plotted in the Figure 10 as a relationship between
peak shear strength obtained from the direct shear tests
(ASTM D3080 (ASTM, 2004)) and applied normal stress.
From the results presented, effective shear strength parameters
for Q-clay were c′ = 27·6 kPa and ϕ′ = 17·56° and for G-clay
were c′ = 36·5 kPa and ϕ′ = 31·2°.
5.3 Effect of shear strain rate on UCS values
Comparison between UCS (slow rate) and UCS (ASTM rate)
illustrated in Figures 11(a) and 11(b) indicates that both
UCS values show reasonable agreement. Quantitatively, the
difference between UCS (slow rate) and UCS (ASTM rate)
ranged between (8–16%) and (10–13%) for Q- and G-clays,
respectively, for all points. The exception to the aforementioned
observation is that a greater difference between UCS (slow
rate) and UCS (ASTM rate) was noted for as-compacted speci-
78·2%, 44% for specimens at as-compacted and near-as-
to the generation of excess pore-water pressure during fast
shear rates. Applying slow shear strain rate will allow the

80
AEV_Q Measured data (Q)
70 Fredlund and Xing (1994)
Measured data (G)
Fredlund and Xing (1994)
Volumetric water content: %

60
AEV_G
50

40

30
Θr–Q
20 Filter paper
Θr–G Axis translation
technique technique
10

0
1 10 100 1000 10 000 100 000 1 000 000
Suction: kPa

Figure 9. Soil water characteristic curves of Q- and G-clays

8
Downloaded by [] on [02/03/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Geotechnical Engineering Prediction of unsaturated shear strength
of expansive clays
Al-Mahbashi and Elkady

250 5.4 Unsaturated shear strength function

G-clay
The ability of USSF prediction equations (Table 1) to estimate
Q-clay
Peak shear strength: kPa

200 the unsaturated shear strength of G- and Q-clays is assessed in

this section. Unconfined compression strength data for G-clay
150 were evaluated for the suction range between 0·8 MPa and
81 MPa; whereas UCS for Q-clay were evaluated in the
100 suction range between 1·4 MPa and 420 MPa. These suctions
are beyond the ranges that have been typically considered in
50 the technical literature for validating USSF prediction
equations. The assessment was conducted in two stages. The
0 first stage compares predicted USSF with UCS data within the
0 100 200 300 400 500 suction range between 0 and 4 MPa (hereinafter referred to as
Normal stress: kPa the low-suction range). The second stage assesses the ability of
USSF prediction equations to predict data over the entire
Figure 10. Effective shear strength parameters obtained range of UCS data, extending up to suction values of
from direct shear test (ASTM D 3080 (ASTM, 2004)) for
Q- and G-clays 420 MPa (hereinafter referred to as the full suction range). For
each assessment stage, two criteria were adopted to evaluate
the descriptive and predictive powers of the prediction
equations, namely, average relative error (ARE) and sum of
square errors (SSE) (Garven, 2009; Guan et al., 2010). The
dissipation of excess pore-water pressure and reduce the values ARE identifies whether there is acceptable agreement between
of UCS (Alzubaidi and Lafta, 2013; Svoboda and McCartney, predicted USSF and measured UCS data defined by the fol-
2014; Tsutsumi and Tanaka, 2012). lowing equation

From the previous comparison, it could be concluded that, N  

1X 
yi
ŷi   100
except for as-compacted specimens, the strain rate had a minor 7: ARE ¼
N i¼1 yi 

impact on UCS. Considering the advantages of UCS (ASTM
rate) as a quick and simple test to do at any laboratory, the
data obtained using ASTM strain rate can be reasonably where yi is the actual value of the ith data; ŷi is the predicted
adopted for the generation of drained shear strength in this value of the ith data; and N is the total number of data
study. Furthermore, it is recommended to use a slow strain available. Agreement between predicted and experimental
rate when performing UCS on unsaturated clays with high unsaturated shear strength was considered to be acceptable
degrees of saturation to allow dissipation of excess pore-water when ARE was less than or equal to 20%. In addition, the
pressure. SSE assesses the predictive powers of the USSF equations

2500 5000

2000 4000
UCS: kPa (0·003 mm/min)

UCS: kPa (0·003 mm/min)

1500 3000

1000 2000

500 1000

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
UCS: kPa (0·3 mm/min) UCS: kPa (0·3 mm/min)
(a) (b)

Figure 11. Quantitative justification of validation points obtained from UCS under low strain rate: (a) Q-clay; (b) G-clay

9
Downloaded by [] on [02/03/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Geotechnical Engineering Prediction of unsaturated shear strength
of expansive clays
Al-Mahbashi and Elkady
Unconfined compressive strength: kPa

Unconfined compressive strength: kPa

2000 4500
1800 Measured data 4000
Lee et al. (2005)
1600 3500
Aubeny and Lytton (2003) Visible
1400 Bao et al. (1998) 3000 cracks
1200 Vanapalli et al. (1996) 2500
1000 Residual
2000 suction
800
1500
600 Measured data
1000 Lee et al. (2005)
400 Bao et al. (1998)
500 Vanapalli et al. (1996)
200 Aubeny and Lytton (2003)
0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 0 100 000 200 000 300 000 400 000
Soil suction: kPa Soil suction: kPa
(a) (a)
Unconfined compressive strength: kPa

6000 Unconfined compressive strength: kPa 9000

Measured data Measured data
Lee et al. (2005) 6000 Lee et al. (2005)
5000 Bao et al. (1998)
Bao et al. (1998) 6000 Vanapalli et al. (1996)
Aubeny and Lytton (2003)
Vanapalli et al. (1996) Garven and Vanipalli (2006)
4000 Aubeny and Lytton (2003)
6000
Garven and Vanipalli (2006) 5000
3000
4000
Residual
2000 3000 suction
2000
1000
1000
0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 0 20 000 40 000 60 000 80 000 100 000
Soil suction: kPa Soil suction: kPa
(b) (b)

Figure 12. Predicted unsaturated shear strength with the low Figure 13. Predicted unsaturated shear strength within high
suction range for: (a) Q-clay; (b) G-clay suction range (more than 4000 kPa) of: (a) Q-clay; (b) G-clay

defined by Equation 8. The smaller the value of SSE, the data with Ip values up to 33%, while the Ip of Q-clay is about
greater is the predictive capability of the equation. 105%.

XN
 Figure 13 illustrates the predicted USSFs for Q- and G-clays

yi
ŷi 2
8: SSE ¼ in comparison to UCS data over the full suction range. Similar
i¼1
yi
to that observed in the low suction range, all predicted USSFs
deviated from the measured UCS data for the full suction
range with ARE computed to be more than 20% and SSE
Figures 12(a) and 12(b) provide a graphical comparison ranging from 6 to 123. Furthermore, some models (V-1996;
between predicted USSFs and UCS data for Q- and G-clays B-1998; A&L-2003; L-2005) show a decrease in unsaturated
within the low suction range, respectively. From Figure 12, it is shear strength as the suction approaches the residual state.
obvious that most of the predicted USSFs for both clays
deviated widely from the experimental data. ARE values In an attempt to explain the observed deviation between pre-
were greater than 20% (between 56% and 288%) and SSE dicted USSFs and measured UCS, visual examination of test
values ranged between 3·63 and 51·3, which are indicative of specimens after moisture conditioning and before testing was
great discrepancy between experimental and predicted unsatu- carried out. This examination revealed the emergence of desic-
rated shear strength. The only exception is the USSF predicted cation cracks associated with specimen shrinkage during
for G-clay using A&L-2003 where the ARE was calculated to drying. These desiccation cracks resulted in weak zones in the
be less than 20% and SSE was computed to be 0·224. It is soil specimens, which, in turn, caused significant reduction in
worth noting that the G&V-2006 was not applied for Q-clay the unsaturated shear strength, especially in the high suction
as the equation proposed by G&V-2006 correlating the range. Desiccation cracks were more visible in Q-clay than
k-parameter to plasticity index (Ip) yielded a negative G-clay owing to the high swelling potential of Q-clay. Photo-
value. This can be attributed to the notion that the equation documentation of visible desiccation cracks in test specimens
correlating k-parameter with Ip was developed based on soil at different suctions levels is provided in Figure 14.

10
Downloaded by [] on [02/03/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Geotechnical Engineering
(ua – uw) = 8350 kPa
(ua – uw) = 11 500 kPa (ua – uw) = 79 500 kPa
Figure 14. Examples of desiccation cracks in Q-clay specimens at different levels of suction
These cracks varied in width from 0·05 to 0·40 mm and length
from 1·2 to 29 mm. The highest density of cracks traced in the
longitudinal face of specimen was estimated to be about
0·55 cm/cm2.
It was observed that the deviation between predicted and UCS
data increases with suction. Furthermore, deviation between
predicted USSF and UCS data clearly initiated at suction
value where cracks of considerable density were first observed
(Figure 12). Therefore, prediction models fell short of predict-
ing the unsaturated shear strength of expansive clays that
experience desiccation cracks in the high suction range.
An alternative approach for the estimation of USSF of Q- and
G-clays was proposed using function fitting models proposed
by Yu et al. (1998) and Miao et al. (2002) (Table 2). Fitting
parameters for both equations were obtained from the trans-
formed plots of UCS data illustrated in Figure 15. Fitted
USSFs for Q- and G-clays are shown in Figure 16. These
figures reveal that both models provide a good agreement with
UCS data, with the Y-1998 model providing a better fit for
Q- and G-clay (ARE ≤ 20 and SSE ranges from 0·20 to 0·88).
In conclusion, function fitting models can be considered a
Downloaded by [] on [02/03/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Prediction of unsaturated shear strength
of expansive clays
Al-Mahbashi and Elkady
(ua – uw) = 136 000 kPa
good tool to estimate the USSFs of expansive clay and can
circumvent the limitations of predicting USSFs of expansive
clay with desiccation cracks.
6. Summary and conclusions
In this study, the ability of five selected predictive USSF
equations to estimate the unsaturated shear strength data of
two expansive soils was evaluated. Degree of agreement
between experimental unsaturated shear strength and predicted
data was evaluated using ARE and SSE. Based on evaluation
criteria, it was observed that all predicted USSF failed to
predict unsaturated shear strength within acceptable ranges,
especially in the high suction range. This deviation between
experimental and predicted data was attributed to the desicca-
tion cracks observed during drying to attain target suction.
This undermined the ability of prediction equations to estimate
the USSF for expansive clays. This is because prediction
models do not account for the effect of desiccation cracks for
the estimation of USSF.
Furthermore, selected function fitting equations was used to
estimate USSFs of the expansive clays considered. Comparison
between fitted USSF and experimental unsaturated shear
11
 Geotechnical Engineering Prediction of unsaturated shear strength
of expansive clays
Al-Mahbashi and Elkady

0·007 2500

Unconfined compressive strength: kPa

G-clay
0·006 Q-clay
y = 14·101x + 0·0007 2000
0·005 R2 = 0·9811
1500
0·004
1/τus

1/tanα
0·003 1 1000
–
0·002
y = 5·6259x + 0·0005 500 Measured data
Miao et al. (2002)
0·001 R2 = 0·8829
Yu et al. (1998)
1/β
0 0
0 0·0001 0·0002 0·0003 0·0004 0·0005 0 100 000 200 000 300 000 400 000 500 000

1/(ua–uw) Soil suction: kPa

(a)
(a)
Unconfined compressive strength: kPa 4500
0·006
3500
y = 8·6853x + 0·0007
0·005 R2 = 0·9847 3000
2500
0·004
1/(τus + Pat)

a2 2000
0·003
1 1500
0·002 Measured data
1000
y = 4·6472x + 0·0005 Miao et al. (2002)

0·001 R2 = 0·962 Q-clay 500 Yu et al. (1998)

G-clay
b2 0
0 0 20 000 40 000 60 000 80 000 100 000
0 0·0002 0·0004 0·0006 0·0008 0·0010 0·0012
Soil suction: kPa
1/((ua – uw) + Pat) (b)
(b)
Figure 16. Predicted USSF for (a) Q-clay and (b) G-clay using
Figure 15. Graphical representation of model variables: (a) Yu function fitting models
et al. (1998); (b) Miao et al. (2002)

strength data revealed good agreement over a large suction levels. Capitalising on the conclusion that UCS can reasonably
range (i.e. ARE < 20% and SSE ranging between 0·25 and determine the drained unsaturated shear strength with accepta-
1·0). This suggests that function fitting models are negligibly ble error, UCS can be used as a fast and simple alternative to
affected by specimen condition (cracks). generate experimental data.

The drained unsaturated shear strength data used in the assess-
ment of USSF models for the compacted expansive clay con-
sidered in this study was experimentally evaluated from the
UCS test assuming full pore drainage. To confirm this assump-
tion, a comparison between UCS evaluated using fast rate
(as per ASTM) and slow rate (representing drained conditions)
showed minor differences in the range of 8–16%. This percen-
tage of error outweighs the disadvantages of conducting
suction control testing, which is considered time exhaustive
and requires skilled labour.
In view of the conclusions derived from these studies, function
fitting models are considered a powerful tool to evaluate the
USSF of expansive soils and circumvent the limitations of pre-
dictive USSFs. Notwithstanding, it is worth noting that
these functions are soil-specific. In practical geotechnical appli-
cations, it is imperative to conduct a few tests (around 4–5) to
generate unsaturated shear strength data at different suction
Acknowledgement
The authors are grateful to the Deanship of Scientific Research,
King Saud University, for funding through Vice Deanship of
Scientific Research Chairs.
REFERENCES
Abeyrathne WKAP, Priyankara NH, Pushpakumara KMT, Ranaweera RKSP
and Alagiyawanna AMN (2012) Suitability of expansive soil to use
as clay liners in arid zone of Sri Lanka. Proceedings of ACEPS –
2012, Galle, Sri Lanka, pp. 55–63.
Abramento M and Carvalho CS (1989) Geotechnical parameters for the
study of slopes instabilisation at Serra do Mar-Brazilian Southeast.
Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, vol. 3, pp.
1599–1602.
Al-Mahbashi AM (2014) Soil Water Characteristic Curves of Treated and
Untreated Highly Expansive Soil Subjected to Different Stresses.
MSc thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, The University of
King Saud, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

12
Downloaded by [] on [02/03/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Geotechnical Engineering
Al-Mahbashi AM, Elkady TY and Alrefeai TO (2015) Soil water
characteristic curve and improvement in lime treated expansive
soil. Geomechanics and Engineering 8(5): 687–706.
Al-Rawas AA, Mohamedzein YE, Al-Shabibi AS and Al-Katheiri S (2006)
Sand–attapulgite clay mixtures as a landfill liner. Geotechnical and
Geological Engineering 24(5): 1365–1383.
Al-Shayea N (2001) The combined effect of clay and moisture content
on the behavior of remolded unsaturated soils. Engineering
Geology 62(4): 319–342.
Alzubaidi R and Lafta SH (2013) Effect of strain rate on the strength
characteristics of soil–lime mixture. Geotechnical and Geological
Engineering 31(4): 1317–1327.
ASTM (2000) D698: Standard test methods for laboratory compaction
characteristics of soil using standard effort (12 400 ft-lbf/ft3
(600 kN-m/m3)). ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
USA, Vol. 4.08, D-18 Committee on soils and rocks.
ASTM (2002) D6836: Standard test methods for determination of the
soil water characteristic curve for desorption using a hanging
column, pressure extractor, chilled mirror hygrometer, and/or
centrifuge)). ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA,
Vol. 4.08, D-18 Committee on soils and rocks.
ASTM (2003a) D2166: Standard test method for unconfined
compressive strength of cohesive soil. ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, USA, Vol. 4.08, D-18 Committee on soils and
rocks.
ASTM (2003b) D4546: Standard test methods for one-dimensional swell
or collapse of cohesive soils. ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, USA, Vol. 4.08, D-18 Committee on soils and
rocks.
ASTM (2003c) D5298: Standard test method for measurement of soil
potential (suction) using filter paper. ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, USA, Vol. 4.08, D-18 Committee on soils and
rocks.
ASTM (2004) D3080: Standard test method for direct shear test of soils
under consolidated drained conditions. ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, USA.
Aubeny C and Lytton R (2003) Estimating Strength Versus Location and
Time in High-Plasticity Clays (No. FHWA/TX-03/2100-P1).
National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, USA.
Azam S (2003) Influence of mineralogy on swelling and consolidation
of soils in eastern Saudi Arabia. Canadian Geotechnical Journal
40(5): 964–975.
Bao C, Gong B and Zhan L (1998) Properties of unsaturated soils and
slope stability of expansive soils. Proceedings of the 2nd
International Conference on Unsaturated Soils (UNSAT 98),
Beijing, China, vol. 1, pp. 71–98.
Bishop AW and Blight GE (1963) Some aspects of effective stress in
saturated and partly saturated soils. Géotechnique 13(3): 177–197.
Bishop AW, Alpan I, Blight GE and Donald IB (1960) Factors controlling
the shear strength of partly saturated cohesive soils. Proceedings of
the Research Conference on Shear Strength of Cohesive Soils,
Boulder, CO, USA. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE),
New York, NY, USA, pp. 503–532.
Chae J, Kim B, Park SW and Kato S (2010) Effect of suction on
unconfined compressive strength in partly saturated soils. KSCE
Journal of Civil Engineering 14(3): 281–290.
Dafalla MA and Al-Shamrani MA (2012) Expansive soil properties in a
semi-arid region. Research Journal of Environmental and Earth
Sciences 4(11): 930–938.
Dhowian AW, Ruwiah I and Erol A (1985) The distribution and
evaluation of the expansive soils in Saudi Arabia. Proceedings of
the 2nd Saudi Engineering Conference, KFUPM, Dhahran, Saudi
Arabia, vol. 4, pp. 1969–1990.
Escario V and Juca J (1989) Shear strength and deformation of partly
saturated soils. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on
Downloaded by [] on [02/03/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Prediction of unsaturated shear strength
of expansive clays
Al-Mahbashi and Elkady
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,
vol. 2, pp. 43–46.
Estabragh AR and Javadi AA (2012) Effect of suction on volume change
and shear behaviour of an overconsolidated unsaturated silty soil.
Geomechanics and Engineering 4(1): 55–65.
Fredlund D and Houston S (2013) Interpretation of soil-water
characteristic curves when volume change occurs as soil suction is
changed. In Advances in Unsaturated Soils, Cartagena de Indias,
Colombia (Caicedo B (ed.)). Balkema, CRC Press, Boca Raton,
FL, USA, pp. 15–32.
Fredlund DG and Rahardjo H (1993) Soil Mechanics for Unsaturated
Soils. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, USA.
Fredlund DG and Xing A (1994) Equations for the soil-water
characteristic curve. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 31(4): 517–532.
Fredlund DG, Morgenstern NR and Widger RA (1978) Shear strength of
unsaturated soils. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 15(3): 313–321.
Fredlund DG, Xing A, Fredlund MD and Barbour SL (1996) The
relationship of the unsaturated soil shear strength to the soil-water
characteristic curve. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 33(3):
440–448.
Gan JK, Fredlund DG and Rahardjo H (1988) Determination of the shear
strength parameters of an unsaturated soil using direct shear test.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 25(3): 500–510.
Garven EA (2009) Review of the Empirical Equations for Predicting the
Shear Strength of Unsaturated Soils. MSc thesis, Ottawa
University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Garven EA and Vanapalli SK (2006) Evaluation of empirical procedures
for predicting the shear strength of unsaturated soils. In
Proceedings of the 4th International Conference of Unsaturated
Soil, UNSAT 2006 (Miller GA, Zapata CE, Houston SL and
Fredlund DG (eds)). ASCE, Reston, VA, USA, ASCE
Geotechnical Special Publication 147, pp. 2570–2581.
Goh SG, Rahardjo H and Leong EC (2014) Shear strength of unsaturated
soils under multiple drying–wetting cycles. Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering 2(140): 06013001.
Gromko GJ (1974) Review of expansive soils: 5F, 6T, 52R. Journal of
the Geotechnical Engineering Division 100(GT6): 667–687.
Guan GS, Rahardjo H and Leong EC (2010) Shear strength equations for
unsaturated soil under drying and wetting. Journal of Geotechnical
and and Geoenvironmental Engineering 136(4): 594–606.
Lee SJ, Lee SR and Kim YS (2003) An approach to estimate the
unsaturated shear strength using artificial neural network and
hyperbolic formulation. Computers and Geotechnics 30(6):
489–503.
Lee IM, Sung SG and Cho GC (2005) Effect of stress state on the
unsaturated shear strength of a weathered granite. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 42(2): 624–631.
Lytton RL (1995) Keynote address: foundations and pavements on
unsaturated soils. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference
on Unsaturated Soils, Paris, France, vol. 3, pp. 1201–1222.
Miao L, Liu S and Lai Y (2002) Research of soil-water characteristics and
shear strength features of Nanyang expansive soil. Engineering
Geology 65(4): 261–267.
Nishimura T and Fredlund DG (2000) Relationship between shear
strength and matric suction in an unsaturated silty soil. In
Unsaturated Soils for Asia. Proceedings of the Asian Conference on
Unsaturated Soils, UNSAT-Asia 2000, Singapore (Rahardjo H,
Toll DG and Leong EC (eds)). Balkema, Rotterdam,
The Netherlands, pp. 563–568.
Oberg AL and Sallfors G (1997) Determination of shear strength
parameters of unsaturated silts and sands based on the water
retention curve. Geotechnical Testing Journal 20(1): 40–48.
Pereira JM and De Gennaro V (2010) On the time-dependent behaviour
of unsaturated geomaterials. In Unsaturated Soils, Proceedings
of the 5th International Conference on Unsaturated Soils,
13
 Geotechnical Engineering
Barcelona, Spain (Gens A (ed.)). CRC press, Boca Raton,
FL, USA, vol. 2, pp. 921–925.
Rohm SA and Vilar OM (1995) Shear strength of an unsaturated sandy
soil. Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Unsaturated Soils
(UNSAT 95), Paris, France, vol. 1, pp. 189–193.
Ruwaih IA (1987) Experiences with expansive soils in Saudi Arabia.
Proceedings of 6th International Conference on Expansive Soils,
New Delhi, India, pp. 317–322.
Satija BS and Gulhati SK (1979) Strain rate for shearing testing of
unsaturated soil. Proceedings of the 6th Asian Regional Conference
on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Singapore,
pp. 83–86.
Svoboda J and McCartney J (2014) Impact of strain rate on the shear
strength and pore water pressure generation of saturated and
unsaturated compacted clay. In Proceedings of Geo-Congress 2014,
Atlanta, GA, USA (Abu-Farsakh M, Yu X and Hoyos LR (eds)).
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Reston, VA, USA,
GSP 234, pp. 1453–1462.
Tsutsumi A and Tanaka H (2012) Combined effects of strain rate and
temperature on consolidation behavior of clayey soils. Soils and
Foundations 52(2): 207–215.
Vanapalli SK, Fredlund DG, Pufahl DE and Clifton AW (1996) Model for
the prediction of shear strength with respect to soil suction.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 33(3): 379–392.
Vanapalli SK, Pufahl DE and Fredlund DG (1999) Interpretation of the
shear strength of unsaturated soils in undrained loading
14
Downloaded by [] on [02/03/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Prediction of unsaturated shear strength
of expansive clays
Al-Mahbashi and Elkady
conditions. Proceedings of the 52nd Canadian Geotechnical
Conference, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada, pp. 25–27.
Vanapalli SK, Wright A and Fredlund DG (2000) Shear strength behavior
of a silty soil over the suction range from 0 to 1.000.000 kPa.
Proceedings of the 53th Canadian Geotechnical Conference,
Montreal, Quebec, Canada, pp. 15–18.
Vilar OM (2006) A simplified procedure to estimate the shear strength
envelope of unsaturated soils. Canadian Geotechnical Journal
43(10): 1088–1095.
Xu Y (2004) Bearing capacity of unsaturated expansive soils.
Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 22(4): 611–625.
Xu YF and Sun DA (2001) Determination of expansive soil strength
using a fractal model. Fractals 9(1): 51–60.
Yang Q, He J and Luan MT (2003) Comparative study on shear strength
of unsaturated red clay and expansive soils. Rock and Soil
Mechanics 24(1): 13–16 (in Chinese).
Ye W, Zhang Y, Chen B, Zhou X and Xie Q (2010) Shear strength of an
unsaturated weakly expansive soil. Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering 2(2): 155–161.
Yu S, Ma A and Wang Z (1998) The feature of suction and hyperbola
model for shear strength of unsaturated soil. Proceedings of the
2nd International Conference on Unsaturated Soils, Beijing, China,
vol. 1, pp. 192–195.
Zhu J and Yin J (2000) Strain-rate-dependent stress strain behavior of
overconsolidated Hong Kong marine clay. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal 37(6): 1272–1282.
How can you contribute?
To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the
editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be
forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered
appropriate by the editorial board, it will be published as
discussion in a future issue of the journal.
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions from the
civil engineering profession (and allied disciplines).
Information about how to submit your paper online
is available at www.icevirtuallibrary.com/page/authors,
where you will also find detailed author guidelines.