1088

NOTE / NOTE

A simplified procedure to estimate the shear

strength envelope of unsaturated soils
Orencio Monje Vilar

Abstract: Procedures that allow the prediction of some properties of unsaturated soils or the minimization of the num-
ber of tests needed to measure them are advantageous because the control of suction during testing is a formidable task
that is time consuming and involves a great degree of expertise. A simplified procedure is proposed in this paper to es-
timate the shear strength of an unsaturated soil. The procedure is based on an empirical hyperbolic function that has
been successfully used to fit experimental data. The function requires two input values, namely the shear strength of a
saturated sample and the shear strength of an air-dried sample tested without the need for suction control. Samples
tested under a controlled suction larger than the maximum suction expected in the problem can, alternatively, replace
the air-dried samples. Both alternatives were tested against results for various soils reported in the literature. The good
agreement between the estimates and the experimental data indicates that the proposed procedure is promising and reli-
able for estimating preliminary unsaturated shear strength parameters.
Key words: unsaturated soil, suction, shear strength, prediction, laboratory tests.
Résumé : Les procédures qui permettent de prédire des propriétés de sols non saturés ou de minimiser le nombre
d’essais requis pour les mesurer sont avantageuses parce que le contrôle de la succion durant les essais représente une
tâche importante qui prend du temps et implique un haut niveau d’expertise. Dans cet article, on propose une procé-
dure simplifiée pour estimer la résistance au cisaillement d’un sol non saturé. La procédure est basée sur une fonction
hyperbolique empirique qui a été utilisée avec succès pour lisser des données expérimentales. La fonction requiert deux
valeurs d’entrée : la résistance au cisaillement d’un échantillon saturé et celle d’un échantillon séché à l’air et testé
sans besoin de contrôler la succion. Les échantillons testés sous une succion contrôlée plus grande que la succion
maximale escomptée dans le problème peut alternativement remplacer les échantillons séchés à l’air. Les deux options
ont été testées et comparées aux résultats pour divers sols mentionnés dans la littérature. La bonne concordance entre
les estimations et les données expérimentales indiquent que la procédure proposée est prometteuse et fiable pour
l’estimation préliminaire des paramètres de résistance au cisaillement non saturée.
Mots clés : sol non saturé, succion, résistance au cisaillement, prédiction, essais de laboratoire.
[Traduit par la Rédaction] Vilar 1095

Introduction 2002). The methods of estimating the shear strength of un-

The experimental techniques to characterize unsaturated
soils in the laboratory are time consuming and complex and
require specialized expertise. It is not surprising therefore
that there has been a significant research effort directed to-
wards the development of methods to predict the basic soil
properties, such as the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity
(van Genutchen 1980, among others) and shear strength
(Fredlund et al. 1996; Vanapalli et al. 1996; Oberg and
Salfors 1997; Khalili and Khabbaz 1998; Rassam and Cook
Received 14 February 2005. Accepted 21 April 2006.
Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at
http://cgj.nrc.ca on 18 October 2006.
O.M. Vilar. University of São Paulo, 1465 Av. Dr. Carlos
Botelho, 13560-250 São Carlos SP, Brazil (e-mail:
orencio@sc.usp.br).
saturated soils have usually been based on the effective
shear strength parameters for saturated soils and on the soil
water characteristic curve (SWCC). However, Khalili and
Khabbaz (1998) determined the shear strength using the ef-
fective stress parameters of saturated soils and only a sin-
gle stress variable, and Rassam and Cook (2002) used
information from a saturated sample, the SWCC, and the
test results from an unsaturated specimen at the residual
water content.
A simplified procedure is proposed in this paper to esti-
mate the shear strength of unsaturated soils. This procedure
takes advantage of an empirical equation that has been suc-
cessfully used to fit experimental data relating the shear
strength to suction and uses data from saturated and air-dried
samples or, alternatively, from samples tested at a known
suction that is larger than the maximum expected suction in
the problem under analysis.

Can. Geotech. J. 43: 1088–1095 (2006) doi:10.1139/T06-055 © 2006 NRC Canada

Vilar
Fundamentals
The interpretation of the shear strength test results of un-
saturated soils is usually performed considering the equation
proposed by Fredlund et al. (1978). This equation is based
on stress state variables, namely the net normal stress (σ –
ua) and the matric suction (ua – uw), where σ is the total
stress, ua is the pore-air pressure, and uw is the pore-water
pressure. The Fredlund et al. approach can be expressed as
follows:
[1] τ = c′ + (ua − uw) tan φb + (σ − ua ) tan φ′
where τ is the shear strength of the unsaturated soil, c′ is the
effective cohesion intercept, φ′ is the effective angle of inter-
nal friction of the saturated soil, and φb is the angle of inter-
nal friction with respect to matric suction.
The model considers that an increase in matric suction
contributes to an increase in shear strength by increasing co-
hesion. Ho and Fredlund (1982) have presented experimental
techniques and a method of interpretation of test results to
obtain the parameter φb. It has been shown, however, that the
influence of suction on shear strength is not linear as pre-
sented in many datasets reported in the literature (Satija
1978 as cited in Fredlund et al. 1988; Escario and Saez
1986; Röhm and Vilar 1995). Although not strictly valid for
the entire range of suction, the Fredlund et al. (1978) model
is an interesting approach for its simplicity and usefulness to
deal with limited ranges of soil suction, where the influence
of suction on shear strength can be considered linear. Alter-
native ways of dealing with the nonlinearity of the shear
strength envelope for practical purposes have been suggested
by Fredlund and Rahardjo (1993), and the prediction of non-
linear envelopes is embodied in the previous models of
Fredlund et al. (1996) and Vanapalli et al. (1996).
Since 1992, the author has been successfully using an em-
pirical hyperbolic equation to represent the influence of
matric suction on the unsaturated shear strength of some
Brazilian soils (Röhm and Vilar 1995; Teixeira and Vilar
1997; Machado and Vilar 1998). This form of equation was
also successfully used by Miao et al. (2001) to fit their ex-
perimental results. The following mathematical expression is
used:
[2] c = c′ + ψ /(a + bψ)
where c is the cohesion intercept, ψ is the soil suction, and a
and b are curve-fitting parameters.
The soil parameters a and b can be obtained from best-fit
analysis or carefully chosen to reproduce experimental data.
Considering that eq. [2] has provided results that closely
matched the experimental data of many soils, it is consid-
ered as the basis of the new procedure to estimate the unsat-
urated shear strength of soils.
Proposed procedure
The air-entry value and the saturation degree or water
content associated with the residual suction are two notable
points of the SWCC and are used to qualitatively substanti-
ate the hypothesis of the proposed procedure.
1089
The air-entry value is related to a matric suction above
which air recedes into the soil pores. It defines, then, the
transition between saturated and unsaturated states, since the
soil is considered saturated for matric suctions lower than
the air-entry value. It can be shown from eq. [1] that in the
saturated state φb = φ′. The air-entry value depends on many
aspects, such as the void ratio and confining stress, and it is
not a straightforward parameter to evaluate, particularly for
plastic soils. These features are considered in the model, as-
suming that the slope of the relationship between c and ψ
(eq. [2]), as ψ approaches zero, is tan φ′, that is,
dc 1
[3] = = tan φ′
dψ a
ψ →0
The condition represented by the residual water content or
residual degree of saturation has been described in a number
of ways. Usually it is accepted as being the water content at
which drainage ceases and beyond which water moves pri-
marily in vapor form. The residual water content for sand
and silty soils is well defined and occurs at relatively low
values of suction. For clayey soils, the residual condition
may be difficult to define, especially for highly plastic clays.
Usually the asymptote of the SWCC, for low values of satu-
ration, is assumed as the point determining the residual wa-
ter content. It is common in soil science to associate this
state with the wilting point of plants, which is often taken to
be 1500 kPa (van Genutchen 1980).
Considering the typical conditions at the residual water
content, it is reasonable to expect that in a specimen under
these conditions the variation in matric suction during shear-
ing will not produce any significant change in mechanical
properties, such as the shear strength. In fact, many test re-
sults show an increase in shear strength with an increase in
suction up to a maximum, and thereafter the shear strength
remains almost constant as suction is increased (Escario
1988; de Campos and Carrillo 1995; Machado and Vilar
1998). Some particular soils, however, have shown that shear
strength drops off to a lower value for low confining pres-
sures (Gan and Fredlund 1996). Considering the experimen-
tal errors inevitably present and for the sake of simplicity, it
is assumed that shear strength reaches an ultimate value at
the residual moisture content in both cases. Therefore, as ψ
approaches infinity, it is assumed that the shear strength ap-
proaches an ultimate value, cult or τult, depending on how
shear strength is represented. Thus, the following equations
can be written:
[4] lim c = cult = c′ + 1/ b
ψ →∞
or
[5] b = 1/(cult − c′ )
Thus, if the effective shear strength parameters at saturation
and the ultimate shear strength at the residual moisture con-
tent are measured, both parameters a and b can be obtained
and the unsaturated shear strength can then be predicted based
on the assumption that the relationship between suction and
shear strength follows the general form of eq. [2].
Since the procedure can be implemented considering only
the ultimate value of cohesion (through eq. [5]) without ref-
© 2006 NRC Canada
1090 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 43, 2006

Table 1. Characteristics of the soils tested by Futai (2002), Reis (2004), and Escario (1988).
Soila Soil type φ′ (°) c′ (kPa) cult (kPa) a b R2 Remarksb
1 Sandy clay 27.3 17.0 125.0 1.940 0.0093 0.99 wL = 57%; PI = 29%; γ = 15 kN/m3;
(undisturbed) w = 30%; e = 1.1–1.2; triaxial CD
tests of Futai (2002)
2 Sandy silt 26.4 33.5 77.5 2.016 0.0227 0.99 wL = 42%; PI = 19%; γ = 17 kN/m3;
(undisturbed) w = 25%; e = 0.8–0.9; triaxial CD
tests of Futai (2002)
3 Silty sand 28.0 24.0 115 1.88 0.011 0.98 wL = 38%; PI = 15%; γ = 18 kN/m3;
(undisturbed) w = 17.5%; e = 0.75; triaxial CD tests
of Reis (2004)
4 Madrid gray clay 25.20 170 580 2.126 0.0024 0.98 LL = 71%; PI = 35%; standard Proctor
(statically γdmax = 13.3 kN/m3; wopt = 33.7%; for
compacted) molded specimens, γ = 13.3 kN/m3
and w = 29%; CD direct shear tests
of Escario (1988)
5 Guadalix de la 32.50 93 650 1.570 0.0180 0.98 LL = 33%; PI = 14%; standard Proctor
Sierra red clay γdmax = 18 kN/m3; wopt = 17%; for
(statically molded specimens, γ = 18 kN/m3 and
compacted) w = 13.6%; CD direct shear tests of
Escario (1988)
a
Soil numbers as given in Figs. 1–3.
e, void ratio; LL, liquid limit; PI, plasticity index; R2, coefficient of determination; wL, liquid limit; wopt, optimum moisture content; γ, unit weight;
b

γ dmax, maximum dry unit weight.

Fig. 1. Shear strength envelopes and experimental and predicted shear strength considering results of tests with air-dried samples (data
from Futai 2002).

© 2006 NRC Canada

Vilar
Fig. 2. Shear strength envelopes and experimental and predicted
variation of shear strength considering results of tests with air-
dried samples (data from Reis 2004).
erence to associated matric suction, it is proposed that test-
ing of air-dried specimens could be used to establish this
value of cohesion. Therefore, a simplified testing procedure
could be followed, performing, for instance, constant mois-
ture tests drained to the air to approach the usual condition
of drained tests and avoiding the complex procedures to per-
form a test with suction control.
The data from Futai (2002) and Reis (2004) can be used
to check the proposed approach. These authors performed
suction-controlled consolidated drained (CD) tests and con-
stant water content (CW) tests with air-dried samples of
soils whose characteristics are summarized in Table 1.
Figures 1a and 1b show the shear strength envelopes for
the samples tested by Futai (2002). The sample in Fig. 1a
corresponds to sandy clay, and that in Fig. 1b to sandy silt.
One can see that the angle of internal friction varies with
suction and that the cohesion intercept increases with an in-
crease in suction. For the air-dried samples, the sandy clay
presented a cohesion intercept of 125.0 kPa, and the sandy
silt a cohesion intercept of 77.5 kPa. To calculate the shear
strength envelope, the cohesion intercepts were directly
taken from the envelopes without any consideration of the
variation of the angle of internal friction with suction.
Taking the cohesion intercept of the air-dried soil and calcu-
lating b using eq. [5], the predicting envelope fits the experi-
mental results fairly well, as shown in Figs. 1c and 1d.
1091
Fig. 3. Experimental and predicted shear strength envelopes con-
sidering one set of tests with dry samples: (a) Madrid gray clay;
(b) Guadalix red clay (data from Escario 1988).
The same procedure was applied to the data of Reis
(2004). Figure 2a presents the shear strength envelopes un-
der different values of suction and shows an increase of the
cohesion intercept as expected and no variation of the angle
of internal friction with suction. The calculated shear
strength envelope considering the ultimate strength is shown
in Fig. 2b. It can be seen that after a good agreement be-
tween experimental and calculated data for the lower suction
values, the calculated values become lower than the experi-
mental values for higher suction values. The deviation
reaches a maximum of about 20%, and the prediction
showed conservative values that are interesting for prelimi-
nary studies.
Another comparison can be obtained using the data of
Escario (1988), who performed suction-controlled tests for
large values of suction. Escario presented results of direct
shear tests on Madrid gray clay and Guadalix red clay taken
to 15 000 and 8000 kPa of suction, respectively. These large
values of suction are probably beyond the residual suction of
these soils and thus allow the proposed procedure to be ap-
plied. The data for the soils tested by Escario are summa-
rized in Table 1, together with parameters for the proposed
model. Figure 3 shows that the equation matches the experi-
mental data and confirms the validity of the proposed proce-
dure.
© 2006 NRC Canada
1092 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 43, 2006

Table 2. Properties and characteristics of some unsaturated soils.

Soila Soil type φ′ (°) c′ (kPa) ψ b (kPa)b Remarksc
6 Sandy clay (compacted) 30 30 LL = 33%; PI = 10%; γ = 16 kN/m3; w =
15.5%; triaxial CD tests of Teixeira and
Vilar (1997)
7 Copper tailing dam 38.7–40.1 9.2 Sand (SM); γd = 18.4 kN/m3; nonplastic; w =
(compacted) 13%; CD and CW tests of Drumright and
Nelson (1995)
8 Expansive clayey silt 21.2 35 wL = 48%; PI = 25%; γd = 15 kN/m3; w =
(statically compacted) 17%; Miao et al. (2001)
9 Clayey silt (statically 29 7.8 PI = 23%; γ = 14.8 kN/m3; w = 22.2%
compacted) (Dhanauri clay); ψ b ≈ 40 kPa; Satija (1978,
as cited in Fredlund et al. 1988)
10 Glacial till (compacted 25.5 44.4 LL = 36%; PI = 19%; γdmax = 18 kN/m3;
clayey sandy silt) wopt = 16%; e = 0.51–0.77; multistage direct
shear tests; ψ b ≈ 70 kPa; Gan et al. (1988)
11 Glacial till (compacted)
σ – ua = 25 kPa 23 4–15 20 LL = 35.5%; PI = 18.7%; standard Proctor
γdmax = 18.8 kN/m3; wopt = 16.3%; speci-
mens with γd = 17.3 kN/m3; w = 13%; CD
direct shear tests of Vanapalli et al. (1996)
σ – ua = 100 kPa 23 4–15 30 LL = 35.5%; PI = 18.7%; standard Proctor
γdmax = 18.8 kN/m3; wopt = 16.3%; speci-
mens with γd = 17.3 kN/m3; w = 13%; CD
direct shear tests of Vanapalli et al. (1996)
σ – ua = 200 kPa 23 4–15 45 LL = 35.5%; PI = 18.7%; standard Proctor
γdmax = 18.8 kN/m3; wopt = 16.3%; speci-
mens with γd = 17.3 kN/m3; w = 13%; CD
direct shear tests of Vanapalli et al. (1996)
12 Decomposed fine ash tuff 40 0 Multistage CD direct shear; samples US-5 and
(silty coarse sand) US-3 of Gan and Fredlund (1996)
a
Soil numbers as given in Fig. 4.
b
Air-entry value.
c
CD, consolidated–drained; CW, constant water content; w, moisture content; γ d, dry unit weight.

Most test results presented in the literature are from soils
that were tested under some limited values of soil suction at
which shear strength is increasing. Consequently, it is proba-
ble that the ultimate shear strength was not reached. This
feature can be considered by changing the way parameter b
is determined. As the point corresponding to the maximum
test suction belongs to the curve that represents the shear
strength envelope, defining the maximum measured cohe-
sion cm (or τm , the maximum shear strength) at the maxi-
mum value of matric suction, ψm, it can be shown that
[6] b = 1/(cm − c′ ) − 1/(ψ m tan φ′ )
The use of eqs. [2], [3], and [6] is illustrated considering
the data shown in Table 2. Table 3 shows some additional
data for soils listed in Table 2 together with the derived soil
parameters obtained and the coefficients of determination
(R2) for the experimental and predicted data.
Figure 4 shows a comparison between the predicted and
experimental results. As can be seen, there is good agree-
ment, with R2 values greater than 0.95 for most of the data
tested.
Discussion
The good agreements obtained between the calculated and
measured values and the simplicity of the two alternatives of
the proposed method make this procedure a practical and re-
liable method of estimating the shear strength of unsaturated
soils. The simplicity of the procedure lies in the fact that it
requires only one set of tests on air-dried samples or at a
known suction, together with the saturated effective shear
strength parameters.
Some peculiarities of the method rest with the equation
used to describe the influence of matric suction on unsatu-
rated shear strength. As shown, the proposed method does
not take into account the air-entry value or any other quanti-
tative data from the SWCC, and thus it is different from
other methods such as those of Vanapalli et al. (1996) and
Fredlund et al. (1996).
The method of Fredlund et al. (1996) yields a linear rela-
tionship between shear strength and suction up to the air-entry
value. In eq. [2], as long as the product of the parameter b and
matric suction is negligible when compared with a, the rela-
tionship is almost linear and represented by
[7] c = c′ + ψ tan φ′
Under this circumstance, the contribution of matric suc-
tion to shear strength is equivalent to the contribution of net
normal stress, as must be expected in a saturated soil. Evalu-
ation of whether the proposed model yields such a linear re-
lationship up to the air-entry value of the soil could not be
© 2006 NRC Canada
Vilar 1093

Table 3. Parameters used to validate the alternative procedure of calculating unsaturated shear strength.
Input parameters Output parameters
Soil a
φ′ (°) c′ (kPa) cm (kPa) ψ m (kPa) a b R2
6 30.0 30.0 103.8 200 1.733 0.0049 0.97
7 38.7–40.1 9.2 62.0 150 1.218 0.0108 0.99
8 21.2 35.0 92.3 200 2.579 0.0045 0.99
9 29.0 7.8 104b 394 1.805 0.0058 0.96
10 25.5 44.4 173b 498 2.098 0.0035 0.94
11c
σ – ua = 25 kPa 23.0 10.0 73.0 500 2.356 0.0112 0.97
σ – ua = 100 kPa 23.0 38.0 113.0 500 2.356 0.0086 0.99
σ – ua = 200 kPa 23.0 84.0 164.0 500 2.356 0.0078 0.90
12c
σ – ua = 100 kPa 40.0 150.0 183.7 307 1.193 0.0258 0.94
σ – ua = 20 kPa 40.0 53.0 68.0 330 1.193 0.0630 0.83
a
Soil numbers as given in Fig. 4.
b
Average value near the maximum suction.
c
c′ and cm are the whole shear strength (cohesion intercept plus friction component).

Fig. 4. Experimental and predicted shear strength of soils from Table 1, considering the effective shear strength parameters of saturated
soil and the shear strength at the largest suction used in the tests.

completely assessed because information about the SWCC is
unavailable for many of the soils listed in Table 2. In Fig. 4b
a linear relationship is observed up to 15 kPa of suction for
soil number 10, which presents an air-entry value of about
40 kPa. Also in Fig. 4b, the linear relationship holds up to
70 kPa for soil number 9, whose air-entry value is 70 kPa.
More precise evaluation of the air-entry value is available
for soil number 11 (Fig. 4c). For the samples tested under
25 kPa of net normal stress, the air-entry value was 20 kPa,
and for 100 and 200 kPa of net normal stress, the air-entry
© 2006 NRC Canada
1094
values were 30 and 45 kPa, respectively (Vanapalli et al.
1996). Figure 4c shows that the matric suction at which the
nonlinearity commences appears to be close to the measured
air-entry values for the three net normal stresses used in the
tests. These observations suggest that the envelope predicted
by the proposed model begins to separate from the almost
linear relationship at a suction value that is below or close to
the air-entry value, but not beyond it.
Figure 4d shows a typical set of data that show a decrease
in shear strength after a maximum. The soil is coarse silty
sand, and the decrease is more noticeable for the lower net
normal stress used in the tests when the soil showed dilative
behavior. In predominantly granular soils it is expected that
the main contribution to soil suction is that from capillarity,
as the effect of adsorptive forces will be less pronounced in
these soils. It is therefore reasonable to admit that the effect
of suction on shear strength will reach a maximum and will
reduce as strain and dilation induce a perturbation on the
capillary meniscus, thus causing a reduction in shear
strength and other mechanical properties that depend on suc-
tion.
In this case, depending on the largest suction value used
in the tests, the calculated values can be lower than the mea-
sured values. As the model considers that shear strength as-
sociated with the largest suction used in the tests is the
maximum, the difference between measured and predicted
values is as large as the decrease in shear strength after the
maximum. Even in the case of the test results shown in
Fig. 4d, however, the coefficient of determination is still
high, but one must be aware that in granular soils the model
can yield conservative values.
Conclusion
The shear strength envelope for unsaturated soils as a
function of suction is generally nonlinear, especially if a
large range of soil suctions is considered. Based on the ob-
servation that an empirical hyperbolic relationship can pro-
vide a good fit to the experimental data for many soils, a
simplified procedure is proposed to estimate the shear
strength envelope for unsaturated soils. The proposed
method uses effective stress parameters from saturated sam-
ples and the results of only one set of tests performed on air-
dried specimens or on specimens tested under a controlled
suction, larger than the maximum suction expected in the
problem under analysis. Generally good agreement between
measured and predicted values was observed. The use of air-
dry samples could replace the more sophisticated suction
control tests, as some data available in the literature show
that this method could be promising. Of course, it is not in-
tended that this simplified procedure replace a more compre-
hensive investigation of soil properties, but rather it is
intended to provide a tool to make preliminary estimates of
the shear strength parameters of unsaturated soils.
References
de Campos, T.M.P., and Carrillo, C.W. 1995. Direct shear testing
on an unsaturated soil from Rio de Janeiro. In Proceedings of
the 1st International Conference on Unsaturated Soils, Paris, 6–
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 43, 2006
8 September 1995. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Vol. 1, pp. 31–38.
Drumright, E.E., and Nelson, J.D. 1995. The shear strength of un-
saturated tailings sand. In Proceedings of the 1st International
Conference on Unsaturated Soils, Paris, 6–8 September 1995.
Edited by E.E. Alonso and P. Delage. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam,
The Netherlands. Vol. 1, pp. 45–50.
Escario, V. 1988. Formulae for the shear strength envelope of par-
tially saturated soils. Report 68, Ingenieria Civil, CEDEX, Ma-
drid, Spain. [In Spanish.]
Escario, V., and Saez, J. 1986. The shear strength of partly satu-
rated soils. Géotechnique, 36(3): 453–456.
Fredlund, D.G., and Rahardjo, H. 1993. Soil mechanics for unsatu-
rated soils. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Fredlund, D.G., Morgenstern, N.R., and Widger, R.A. 1978. The
shear strength of unsaturated soils. Canadian Geotechnical Jour-
nal, 15(3): 313–321.
Fredlund, D.G., Rahardjo, H., and Gan, J.K.M. 1987. Non-linearity
of strength envelope for unsaturated soils. In Proceedings of the
6th International Conference on Expansive Soils, New Delhi, In-
dia, 1–4 December 1987. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Neth-
erlands. Vol. 1, pp. 49–54.
Fredlund, D.G., Xing, A., Fredlund, M.D., and Barbour, S.L. 1996.
The relationship of the unsaturated soil shear strength to the
soil-water characteristic curve. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
33(3): 440–448.
Futai, M.M. 2002. Theoretical–experimental study of the behavior
of non-saturated tropical soils applied to a gully erosion. Ph.D.
thesis, COPPE-Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Ja-
neiro, Brazil. 559 pp.
Gan, J.K.-M., and Fredlund, D.G. 1996. Shear strength characteris-
tics of two saprolitic soils. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
33(4): 595–609.
Gan, J.K.M., Fredlund, D.G., and Rahardjo, H. 1988. Determina-
tion of the shear strength parameters of an unsaturated soil using
the direct shear testing. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 25(3):
500–510.
Ho, D.Y.F., and Fredlund, D.G. 1982. A multistage triaxial test for
unsaturated soils. Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, 5(1):
18–25.
Khalili, N., and Khabbaz, M.H. 1998. A unique relationship for c
for the determination of the shear strength of unsaturated soils.
Géotechnique, 48(5): 681–687.
Machado, S.L., and Vilar, O.M. 1998. Shear strength of unsatu-
rated soil: lab tests and predicting equations. Solos e Rochas,
21(2): 65–78. [In Portuguese.]
Miao, L., Yin, Z., and Liu, S. 2001. Empirical function represent-
ing the shear strength of unsaturated soils. Geotechnical Testing
Journal, ASTM, 24(2): 220–223.
Oberg, A., and Salfors, G. 1997. Determination of shear strength
parameters of unsaturated silts and sands based on the water re-
tention curve. Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, 20(1): 40–
48.
Rassam, D.W., and Cook, F. 2002. Predicting the shear strength en-
velope of unsaturated soils. Geotechnical Testing Journal,
ASTM, 25(2): 215–220.
Reis, R.M. 2004. Stress–strain behaviour of two horizons of a re-
sidual sol from gneiss. Ph.D. thesis, University of São Paulo,
São Carlos, Brazil. 190 pp. [In Portuguese.]
Röhm, S.A., and Vilar, O.M. 1995. Shear strength of an unsatu-
rated sandy soil. In Proceedings of the 1st International Confer-
ence on Unsaturated Soils, Paris, 6–8 September 1995. Edited
by E.E. Alonso and P. Delage. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The
Netherlands. Vol. 1, pp. 31–38.
© 2006 NRC Canada
Vilar
Satija, B.S. 1978. Shear behavior of partly saturated soils. Ph.D.
thesis, Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, India.
Teixeira, R.S., and Vilar, O.M. 1997. Shear strength of an unsatu-
rated compacted soil. In Proceedings of the 3rd Brazilian Sym-
posium on Unsaturated Soils, Rio de Janeiro, 21–25 April 1997.
Edited by T.M.P. de Campos and E.A.Vargas. Freitas Bastos
Editora, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Vol. 1, pp. 161–169. [In Portu-
guese.]
1095
van Genutchen, M.T. 1980. A closed-form equation for predicting
the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil Science So-
ciety of America Journal, 44: 892–898.
Vanapalli, S.K., Fredlund, D.G., Pufahl, D.E., and Clifton, A.W.
1996. Model for the prediction of shear strength with respect to
soil suction. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 33(3): 379–392.
© 2006 NRC Canada