Indian Geotechnical Conference IGC2016
15-17 December 2016, IIT Madras, Chennai, India
Stress State Variables for Unsaturated Soils – Consensus and Controversy
E.C. Leong
Nanyang Technological University, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Singapore
cecleong@ntu.edu.sg
Abstract
Stress state variables describe the state of equilibrium of
a system. When one or more stress state variables are
changed, the system will change in response to establish
the new equilibrium state. Hence, stress state variables
are the building blocks of a constitutive relation. In the
development of unsaturated soil mechanics, major
advances were made possible through the correct
identification of the stress state variables. In this paper,
the current understanding of stress state variables for
unsaturated soils is reviewed. Attempts have been made
to use a single stress state variable in term of an
equivalent effective stress for unsaturated soils. The
major consensus is for the use of two stress state
variables in terms of net normal stress and matric suction
when developing constitutive relationships for
unsaturated soils. It has been suggested lately that more
than two stress state variables are needed to fully
describe the full range of constitutive behaviour of
unsaturated soils and that matric suction be replaced
with a suction stress. These are interesting developments
that should be explored in future study and research.
Keywords: stress state variable, unsaturated soil, effective
stress, net normal stress, matric suction, suction stress.
1 Introduction
Soil mechanics have successfully applied continuum
mechanics to describe the response of soil to external
stimuli of force and displacement. The physical
difference between a soil and a continuum is obvious.
A soil is a multiphase system. In a saturated soil, the
two phases are the soil solid and the fluid usually
water. In an unsaturated soil, three phases exist: soil
solids, water and air. Although it has been put forth
that a fourth phase, the air-water interface termed as
the contractile skin, exists (Fredlund and Morgenstern,
1977), the volume of the contractile skin is small. In
terms of volume-mass relations for an unsaturated soil,
the contractile skin can be neglected and its mass can
be considered as part of the mass of water (Fredlund
and Rahardjo, 1993; Fredlund et al., 2012). Although
the concept of the fourth phase seems intuitive for
stress analysis of an unsaturated soil, no explicit
consideration of the fourth phase in constitutive
equations has been found.
The objective of this paper is to examine the stress
state variables used to describe the behaviour of
unsaturated soils. More specifically, this paper review
the current understanding of stress state variables for
unsaturated soils and evaluates the need for an
equivalent effective stress for unsaturated soils by
examining various forms of shear strength equations
for unsaturated soils.
2 Effective stress for unsaturated soils
The concept of effective stress for saturated soils as
explained by Terzaghi (1936) is: “The stresses in any
point of a section through a mass of soil can be
computed from the total principal stresses, 1, 2, 3,
which act at this point. If the voids of the soil are filled
with water under a stress, uw, the total principal stresses
consist of two parts. One part, uw, acts in the water and
in the solid in every direction with equal intensity. It is
called the neutral pressure. The balance 1’ = 1-uw,
2’ = 2-uw, 3’ = 3-uw represent an excess over the
neutral stress, uw, and has its seat exclusively in the
solid phase of the soil. All the measurable effects of a
change in shearing resistance are exclusively due to
changes in the effective stress, 1’, 2’, 3’.” The
definition of effective stress by Terzaghi (1936)
qualifies it as a stress state variable as defined in
continuum mechanics and thermodynamic references.
A stress state variable is a nonmaterial variable
required to characterise the stress condition (Fredlund
and Rahardjo, 1993; Fredlund et al., 2012). The
effective stress as a stress state variable has proved
pivotal in the development of saturated soil mechanics.
Various expressions of effective stress for unsaturated
1
Stress State Variables for Unsaturated Soils – Consensus and Controversy

soils have been proposed (Nuth and Laloui, 2008). as the Barcelona Basic Model (Alonso et al., 1990) or
These forms are summarised in Table 1. The form of SFG model (Sheng et al., 2008), the model formulation
effective stress for unsaturated soils suggested by maintains the separation of stress state variables and
Croney et al. (1958) is equivalent to the form suggested constitutive behaviour. The most likely reason for
by Bishop if pore-air pressure is atmospheric pressure separation of stress state variables and constitutive
(i.e. ua = 0 kPa). The inclusion of solute suction or behaviour in these models is that more than one
osmotic suction by Richards (1966) and Aitchison constitutive relation is present and using two stress
(1965, 1973) warrants further explanation. Soil suction state variables provided more flexibility in the
or total suction consists of mainly two components: formulation of the constitutive relationships. The
matric suction (ua - uw) and osmotic suction () (Krahn problem with the effective stress for unsaturated soils
and Fredlund, 1972). Matric suction can be measured is that it needs a different form of effective stress for
directly by measuring the negative pore-water pressure shear strength and volume change constitutive relations
uw using for example, a tensiometer (e.g., He et al. and thus it is easier to separate the stress state variables
2004). Osmotic suction which is attributed to the (Fredlund, 2015).
presence of dissolved salt in the pore water cannot be
Table 1. Effective stress for unsaturated soils
measured directly, it can be inferred by measuring the
salt concentration of the pore water or by measuring Reference Effective stress Notations
the total suction and matric suction (e.g., Leong et al. '  effectivenormalstress
Croney et '    ' u w
2003). al. (1958)   normalstress
'  holdingor bondingfactor,
The effect of matric suction on shear strength of effectivein contributing to
unsaturated soils has been observed in laboratory theshear strengthof soil
element tests (e.g., Bishop et al., 1960; Bishop and u w  pore - water pressure
Blight, 1963; Escario and Saez, 1986; Rahardjo et al.,
2004; Nyunt et al., 2011.). However, the effect of Bishop '    u a   u a  u w  u a  pore - air pressure
osmotic suction on shear strength of unsaturated soils (1959)   a parameterrelated to
has not been positively observed. Tang et al. (1997) degreeof saturationof soil
observed that shear strength decreases slightly as
osmotic suction increases while Katte and Blight Aitchison '    p p  pore - water pressure
(2012) did not observed any effect of osmotic suction (1961) deficiency
on shear strength. The salt concentration in the pore   a parameter with values
water influences the osmotic suction through its rangingfrom 0 to 1
influence of the diffuse double layer around clay
particles (Fredlund and Rahardjo, 1993; Fredlund et al., Jennings '     ' u w   a statistical factor of
2012). Thyagaraj and Salini (2015) provided (1961) the same typeas the contact
experimental evidence of the influence of osmotic area
suction on the double diffuse layer in expansive clay
soils. It was concluded by Tang et al. (1997) that total Richards '    u a   m h m  u a   m  effectivestress parameter
(1966) for matricsuction
suction cannot be as a stress state variable for   s h s  u a 
h m  matricsuction
unsaturated soils. Two reasons were provided in (cm of water)
Fredlund and Rahardjo (1993) for not including s  effectivestress parameter
osmotic suction in geotechnical engineering problems: for solutesuction
(1) The total suction and matric suction curves are h s  soluteor osmoticsuction
almost congruent. Therefore, a change in total suction (cm of water)

is equivalent to a change in matric suction; and (2)

Laboratory test results have already accounted for the Aitchison '    u a   m u a  u w     soluteor osmoticsuction
 m and s  soil parameters
changes in osmotic suction if the changes occurring in (1965, s 
which are usuallyin the
the field are simulated in the laboratory test. Hence 1973) range 0 to1, dependenton
from Table 1, the common form of effective stress that stress path.
has been suggested for unsaturated soils can be taken
as the form suggested by Bishop (1959). The major controversy in effective stress for
unsaturated soils arises especially when only one
3 Shear strength of unsaturated soils constitutive relationship is examined. Sometimes this is
due to the misunderstanding of the definition of stress
Shear strength of soils is a constitutive relation. It is a
state variable coupled with the form of the constitutive
single-valued equation that expresses the relationship
relationship. This is illustrated by a review of the shear
between state variables. In more complex models such
2
 Indian Geotechnical Conference IGC2016
15-17 December 2016, IIT Madras, Chennai, India

strength equations that have been proposed for Reference Shear Strength Notations
unsaturated soils as summarised in Table 2. The shear Equation
strength equation should be valid for the full range of Fredlund   c'   u a  tan '   shear strength
saturation, i.e., from dry to full saturation. All of the et al. u a  u w  tan  b c'  effective cohesion
shear strength equations in Table 2 satisfies this '  effective friction
(1978)
angle
condition and reverts to the shear strength equation for
b  angle indicating
saturated soils, i.e.
a change in shear

  c'   u w  tan '  c' ' tan ' (1)

strength related
to matric suction

All the shear strength equations in Figure 2 can also be Lambom   c'   u a  tan '   volumetric water

(1986) content
easily re-cast into the form of Bishop and Blight (1961) u a  u w  tan '
shear strength equation:
Vanapalli   c'   u a  tan '  r  residual volumetric
  c'  u a   u a  u w tan ' (2)
et al. water content
   r 
(1996)      X  r  saturated volumetric
where  is the Bishop’s effective stress parameter. The  s r 
water content
equivalent forms of for the shear strength equations u a  u w  tan '
are shown in Table 3. From Table 3, it can be Oberg and   c'   u a  tan ' S  degree of saturation
observed that can be expressed in terms of Sallfors Su a  u w  tan '
volumetric water content, degree of saturation, matric (1997)
suction and shear strength parameters. The various u a  u w r  residual matric
Bao et al.   c'    u a  tan '
forms suggest that is not unique for different soil
(1998)   u a  u w   
suction
types. A fact that has been well established by r u a  u w b  air  entry
 log 
experimental evidence as shown in Figure 1.   u a  u w    value
 X
 log u a  u w r  
   
  u a  u w b  
4 Stress State Variables for Unsaturated Soils u a  u w  tan '
Fredlund and Morgenstern (1977) put forth the Khalili and   c'    u a  tan '
theoretical basis for independent stress state variables Khabbaz  u a  u w  
 0.55

for unsaturated soils based on a continuum mechanics (1998)   X

 u a  u w b 
approach. They further provided combinations of stress u a  u w  tan '
variables that can be used to define the state variables.
Aubeny   c'   u a  tan ' 1
  for S  100%
The three possible combinations of stress state
and Lytton 
variables are ( – ua), ( – uw) and (ua – uw). Only two f 1 u a  u w  tan ' f 1    1 
S - 85  1 
  1 for85%  S  100%
 15   
(2003)  1 for S  85%
combinations of stress state variables are needed to 
describe the constitutive relations of unsaturated soils.
The most convenient combinations for engineering Tekinsoy   c'   u a  tan ' Pa  atmospheric pressure
practice are net normal stress ( – ua) and matric et al. u a  u w   Pa X
suction (ua – uw). (2004)  u  u w   Pa 
ln a
 tan ' 
 Pa 
The justification for these stress state variables have
been repeatedly evaluated by others. Zhang and Lytton Garven   c'   u a  tan '   - 0.0016I2p  0.0975I p  1
(2006) showed that three stress state variables, ( – ua), and    r 


Vanapalli   u a  u w  tan '

(ua – uw) and ua are needed if the pore-air pressure  s   r 
influence on volume change is not negligible. Lu (2006)
(2008) demonstrated that matric suction is definitely   c'   u a  tan '
Vilar c ult  ultimate shear strength
not a stress variable but could be a stress state variable (2006)  c ult  c'  
by using “universally accepted concepts of mechanical  X
 c ult  c'   u a  u w  tan ' 
equilibrium, stress definition on an REV, and physical u a  u w  tan '
and logical reasoning”. However, there is an
interdependency between net normal stress and matric
suction, and other stress state variables may be
Table 2. Shear strength equations for unsaturated soils

3
Stress State Variables for Unsaturated Soils – Consensus and Controversy

needed to describe the complete constitutive behaviour

Figure 1. Effective stress parameter  versus degree of
saturation (from Zerhouni 1991).
Table 3. Equivalent  for shear strength equations listed
in Table 2
Reference
Fredlund et al. (1978)
Lambom (1986)
Vanapalli et al. (1996)
Oberg and Sallfors (1997)
Bao et al. (1998)
Khalili and Khabbaz (1998)
of unsaturated soils. The roles of these additional stress
state variables have not been clearly demonstrated
through experiments or observations in the field.
Currently, the most contentious stress state variable is
matric suction (ua – uw). Matric suction is due to the
pore water that exists in meniscus form between soil
particles. As a soil dries, the pore water may exists in
insular air saturation, fuzzy saturation and pendular
saturation as illustrated in Figure 2 (Kohgo et al. 1993).
Considering that the arrangement of the pore water and
the associated menisci in an unsaturated soil is
dependent on the particle shape, size, arrangement,
pore water chemistry and particle surface properties,
the effect of matric suction on constitutive behaviour of
soil is non-uniform and non-homogeneous. There have
been attempts to account for the non-uniform and non-
homogeneous action of matric suction through the use
of a suction stress as a stress state variable instead of
matric suction (e.g., Karube et al., 1996; Lu and Likos,
 2006). The use of suction stress has been shown to
work well for shear strength behaviour of unsaturated
tan b soils (e.g. Lu and Likos, 2006; Kim et al., 2010) but it
tan ' remains to be fully validated for other constitutive
 relationships.
   r 
 
 s   r 
S
  u a  u w   
r
 log 
  u a  u w   
 
 log u a  u w r  
   
  u a  u w b  
 u a  u w  
0.55

 
 u a  u w b 
Aubeny and Lytton (2003) f 1 
Tekinsoy et al. (2004) u a  u w   Pa   u a  u w   Pa 
ln  
u a  u w   Pa 
Garven and Vanapalli 
   r 
(2006)  
 s   r 
Vilar (2006)  c ult  c'   Figure 2. Possible saturation conditions in real soils (from
 
 c ult  c'   u a  u w  tan '  Kohgo et al., 1993)

necessary to describe the full behaviour of unsaturated

soils. 5 Conclusion

The general consensus is that the stress state variables
of net normal stress ( – ua) and matric suction (ua –
uw) are needed to describe the behaviour of unsaturated
soils. However, additional stress state variables are
4
In the study of unsaturated soil mechanics, attempts
have been made to use a single stress state variable to
describe the constitutive relationships of soils. Limited
success of using a single stress state variable was
achieved with some soils. Generally, it is more well

accepted that two stress state variables, net normal
stress and matric suction, be used to describe the
constitutive behaviour of unsaturated soils. Many
element tests have been conducted where these two
stress state variables were applied or measured. More
advanced constitutive models have been developed
using these two stress state variables and have been
demonstrated to be able to describe more complete
unsaturated soil behaviour. In recent years, it has been
suggested that more than two stress state variables may
be needed to describe all constitutive behaviour of
unsaturated soils. It has also been suggested that the
stress state variable, matric suction, be replaced with
suction stress instead. More study and research are
needed to investigate these suggestions.
References
Aitchison, G.D. 1961. Relationship of moisture and
effective stress functions in unsaturated soils. In Pore
Pressure and Suction in Soils Conf., organised by
British Nat. Soc. Of Int. Soc. Soil Mech. Found. Eng. At
Inst. Civil Eng. London, England: Butterworth, pp. 47-
52.
Aitchison, G.D. 1965. Soil properties, shear strength, and
consolidation. In Proc. 6th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found.
Eng. (Montreal, Canada), Vol. 3, pp. 318-321.
Aitchison, G.D. 1973. The quantitative description of the
stress-deformation behaviour of expansive soils-
Preface to the set of papers. In Proc. 3rd Int. Conf.
Expansive Soils (Haifa, Isreal), Vol. 2, pp. 83-88.
Alonso, E.E., Gens, A., and Josa, A. 1990. A constitutive
model for partially saturated soils. Geotechnique,
40(3): 405–430.
Aubeny, C., and Lytton, R., 2003. Estimating strength
versus location and time in high plasticity clays. Texas
Transportation Institute, College Station, Texas.
Bao, C.G., 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), Vol. 1, pp. 71–98.
Bishop, A.W. 1959. The principle of effective stress.
Teknisk Ukeblad, Norwegian Geotechnical Institute,
106(39): 859-863.
Bishop, A.W., Alpan, I., Blight, G.E., and Donald, I.B. 1960.
Factors controlling the shear strength of partially
saturated cohesive soils. In ASCE Res. Conf. Shear
Strength of Cohesive Soils (Univ. of Colorado,
Boulder), pp. 503-532.
Indian Geotechnical Conference IGC2016
15-17 December 2016, IIT Madras, Chennai, India
Bishop, A.W., and Blight, G.E., 1963. Some aspects of
effective stress in saturated and partly saturated soils.
Geotechnique, 13: 177–197.
Croney, D., Coleman, J.D. and Black, W.P.M. 1958.
Movement and distribution of water in relation to
highway design and performance. In: Water and Its
Conduction in Soils, Highway Research Board, Special
Report, Washington, DC, No. 40, pp. 226-252.
Escario, V. and Saez, J. 1986. The strength of partly
saturated soils. Geotechnique 36(3):453–456.
Fredlund, D.G. 2015. State variables in saturated-
unsaturated soil mechanics. Soils and Rocks, 39(1): 3-
17.
Fredlund, D.G. and Morgenstern, N.R. 1977. Stress state
variables for unsaturated soils. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering Division, ASCE, 103(GT5): 447-466.
Fredlund, D. G., Morgenstern, N. R., and Widger, R. A.
1978. Shear strength of unsaturated soils. Can.
Geotech. J., 15(3): 313–321.
Fredlund, D.G. and Rahardjo, H. 1993. Soil Mechanics for
Unsaturated Soils. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 507p.
Fredlund, D.G., Rahardjo, H., and Fredlund, M.D. 2012.
Unsaturated Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice.
John Wiley & Sons, New York, 926p.
Garven, E. A., and Vanapalli, S. K. 2006. Evaluation of
empirical procedures for predicting the shear strength
of unsaturated soils. Proc., 4th Int. Conf. of
Unsaturated Soil, UNSAT 2006, ASCE Geotechnical
Special Publication 147, ASCE, Reston, Va., 2570–2581.
He, L.,, Leong, E.C., and Algamal, A. 2006. A miniature
tensiometer for measurement of high matric suction,
In G.A. Miller, C.E. Zapata, S.L. Houston & D.G.
Fredlund (Ed)., Proceedings of 4th International
Conference on Unsaturated Soils, Carefree, Arizona,
April 2-6, 2006: 1897-1907 American Society of Civil
Engineers, United States.
Jennings, J.E. 1961. A revised effective stress law for use
in prediction of the behaviour of unsaturated soils.
Proc. Conf. on Pore Pressure and Suction in Soils,
London, England, pp. 26-30.
Karube, D., Kato, S., Hamada, K., and Honda, M. 1996.
The relationship between the mechanical behavior
and the state of porewater in unsaturated soil.
Geotechnical Engineering Journal, JSCE, 535(III-34):
83–92.
5
Stress State Variables for Unsaturated Soils – Consensus and Controversy
Katte, V.Y. and Blight, G.E. 2012. The roles of solute
suction and surface tension in the strength of
unsaturated soil. Unsaturated Soils: Research and
Applications. Mancuso, C., Jommi, C. & D'Onza,
F.(eds), Heidelberg, Germany, Springler, Vol. 2, pp.
431-438.
Khalili, N., and Khabbaz, M. H. 1998. A unique
relationship for the determination of the shear
strength of unsaturated soils. Geotechnique, 48(5):
681–687.
Kim, B.-S., Shibuya, S., Park, S.-W. and Kato, S. 2010.
Application of suction stress for estimating
unsaturated shear strength of soils using direct shear
testing under low confining pressure, Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 2010, 47: 955-970.
Kohgo, Y., Nakano, M. and Miyazaki, T. 1993. Theoretical
aspects of constitutive modelling for unsaturated soils.
Soils and Foundations, 33(4): 49-63.
Krahn, J. and Fredlund, D.G. 1972. On total, matric and
osmotic suction. J. Soil Sci., 114(5): 339-348.
Lamborn, M.J., 1986. A Micromechanical Approach to
Modelling Partly Saturated Soils. M.Sc. Thesis Texas
A&M University, Texas.
Leong, E.C., Tripathy, S. and Rahardjo, H., 2003. Total
suction measurement of unsaturated soils with a
device using the chilled-mirror dewpoint technique,
Geotechnique, 53(2): 173 - 182.
Lu, N., 2008. Is matric suction a stress variable?, Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
134(7): 899-905.
Lu, N., and Likos, W. J. 2006. Suction stress characteristic
curve for unsaturated soil. J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 132(2): 131–142.
Nuth, M., and Laloui, L. 2008. Effective stress concept in
unsaturated soils: Clarification and validation of a
unified framework. Int. J. Numer. Analyt. Meth.
Geomech., 32: 771-801.
Nyunt,T.T., Leong, E.C., Rahardjo, H., 2011. Strength and
small-strain stiffness characteristics of unsaturated
sand, Geotechnical Testing Journal, 34(5):551-561.
Oberg, A., and Sallfors, G. 1997. Determination of shear
strength parameters of unsaturated silts and sands
based on water retention curve. Geotech. Test. J., 20,
40–48.
Rahardjo, H., Ong Boo Heng, Leong, E.C., 2004. Shear
strength of a compacted residual soil from
consolidated drained and constant water content
triaxial tests, Canadian Geotechnical, 41(3), pp 421 -
436.
Richards, B. G., 1966. The significance of moisture flow
and equilibria in unsaturated soils in relation to the
design of engineering structures built on shallow
foundations in Australia, presented at the Symp. On
Permeability and Capillary, American Society Testing
Materials, Atlantic City, N.J.
Sheng, D., Fredlund, D.G., and Gens, A. 2008. A new
modelling approach for unsaturated soils using
independent stress variables. Can. Geotech. J., 45(5):
511-534.
Tang, G.X., Graham, J. and Fredlund, D.G. 1997. Effect of
osmotic suction on strength of unsaturated highly
plastic clays. In Proc. 50th Canadian Geotechnical
Conference, Golden Jubilee, Ottawa, Canada, Oct 20-
27, 1997, Vol. 2, pp. 641-648.
Tekinsoy, M. A., Kayadelan, C., Keskin, M. S., and
Soylemaz, M. 2004. An equation for predicting shear
strength envelope with respect to matric suction.
Comput. Geotech., 31(7): 589–593.
Terzaghi, K. 1936. The shearing resistance of saturated
soils. Proc. 1st Int. Conference on Soil Mechanics, Vol.
1, 1936.
Thyagaraj, T. and Salini, U. 2015. Effect of pore fluid
osmotic suction on matric and total suctions of
compacted clay. Géotechnique, 65(11): 952-960.
Vanapalli, S. K., Fredlund, D. G., Pufahl, D. E., and Clifton,
A. W.1996. Model for the prediction of shear strength
with respect to soil suction. Can. Geotech. J., 33: 379–
392.
Vilar, O. M. 2006. A simplified procedure to estimate the
shear strength envelope of unsaturated soil. Can.
Geotech. J., 43: 1088–1095.
Zerhouni, M.I. 1991. Role de la pression interstitielle
negative dans le comportement des sols—apllication
au calcul des routes. Ph.D. Thesis, Ecole Centrale Paris,
Paris, France.
Zhang, X. and Lytton, R. (2006) Stress state variables for
saturated and unsaturated Soils. Unsaturated Soils
2006: pp. 2380-2391.