Effective Stress and Complex Soil

Settlement Behaviour

Md. Noor M.J., Mat. Jidin R. and Hafez M.A.

Faculty of Civil Engineering
Universiti Teknologi MARA
40450 Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia

ABSTRACT
Soil settlement behaviour is very complex to characterise. The existing soil settlement models
used to predict soil settlement are based on the effective stress concept. And this concept is
the existing fundamental concept applied in soil mechanics. By the concept, settlement is
always associated with the effective stress increase. However it is difficult to extend the
concept to partially saturated soils. The concept of effective stress by itself cannot explain the
occurrence of wetting collapse which takes place under effective stress decrease when the
condition changes from partially saturated to fully saturation. The role of effective stress in
governing the soil volume change behaviour will be discussed and evaluated. It is realised that
in the process of soil settlement, besides effective stress the role of shear strength has equal
importance. However due to the complexity of the soil volume change behaviour itself it is
very difficult to integrate both the variables in characterising the soil volume change
behaviour. In addition to the existing unusual soil volume change behaviour like settlement
under effective stress decrease during wetting and massive settlement near saturation, another
odd behaviour was encountered during laboratory inundation tests at different net stress. This
creates further complexity in characterising the volume change behaviour. The additional soil
peculiar volume change behaviour will be presented.
KEYWORDS: Effective stress, net stress, suction, shear strength, volume change,
unsaturated soil, settlement, wetting collapse, complex settlement behaviour.

INTRODUCTION
The effective stress concept of Terzaghi (1936) quoted that; “All the measurable effects of a
change in stress, such as compression, distortion, and a change in shearing resistance, are
exclusively due to changes in effective stress σ1’, σ2’ and σ3’.” The concept has been very
successful in describing the settlement behaviour of saturated soils. The expression for effective
stress, σ’ is as in Equation 1.0 where σ, is the total stress and uw, is the pore water pressure.
 Vol. 13, Bund. H 2

Effective stress is the average stress between the soil grains over a cross-section. Soil settlement
models are developed base on effective stress concept where settlement are always associated
with effective stress increase (Terzaghi, 1943; Janbu et al., 1956; Schertmann et al., 1978) This is
considering the occurrence of settlement as pore water pressure is dissipated which result in the
increase in the effective stress. Effective stress is also increased when water table drops and this
also triggered settlement and a good example for this is the massive soil subsidence reported in
Mexico City (Strozzi and Wegmuller, 1999) caused by the depletion of ground water level when
it is being pumped for domestic consumption. However the concept of effective stress increase
with settlement is in contrary for settlement which occurs due to inundation as reported by
Jennings and Burland (1962), Blanchfield and Anderson (2000) and Tadepalli et al. (1992) This
is because the effect of inundation is actually diminishing the effect of suction (Bishop, 1959)
provided by the surface tension force that pulls two soil particles together when the condition is
partially saturated. The reduction in the suction force in turns reduces the effective stress. From
this fact settlement cannot be viewed solely from the standpoint of effective stress.
σ ' = σ − uw (1)

The incorporation of the influence of shear strength is certainly required since from the
plastic hardening law (Wood, 1990) the aspect of strength is apparently playing a major role in
the soil volume change process. Researchers do realised the significant of shear strength as the
settlement resisting variable. But there is a difficulty to incorporate that in a framework. This
concept has already been implemented in the critical state model of Alonso et al., (1990) where
the aspect of strength is incorporated in the deviatoric stress, q as the stress state variable in the
framework. However the critical state model failed to explain soil settlement behaviour due to
alternate wetting and drying as noted by Wheeler et al., (2003) and described by Md.Noor and
Anderson (2007) against the data of Alonso et al, (1995)

An anisotropic soil volume change model has been developed by Md.Noor and Anderson
(2007) from the concept of effective stress and shear strength interaction. The shear strength
behaviour that the model adopted is the curved surface envelope shear strength model of
Md.Noor and Anderson (2006) The anisotropic soil volume change model is able to qualitatively
explain the settlement under effective stress decrease during wetting and the massive settlement
near saturation. These weird soil volume change behaviours is attributed to the steep drop in shear
strength as suction approaches zero. However the new complex soil settlement behaviour is
posing a challenge of compliance to the model.

EFFECTIVE STRESS IN PARTIALLY SATURATED

CONDITION
There have been many introductions of effective stress equations for unsaturated soils in the
attempt to extend the concept of effective stress to unsaturated soils. The most popularly cited is
effective stress equation of Bishop (1959) which is as in Equation 2 where (σ − u a ) is net stress
and (u a − u w ) is suction. The factor χ equals to 1 when the condition is saturated and zero when
dry.
σ ' = (σ − u a ) + χ (u a − u w ) (2)
 Vol. 13, Bund. H 3

Khalili and Khabbaz (1998) anticipated that χ is a function of air-entry suction, (u a − u w )e as

in Equation 3 where the exponent, k varies from 0.4 to 0.65 and statically it was taken as 0.55.
This is further agreed by Geiser (2000) However the expression is indicating that χ is always
increasing with suction which means that effective stress and thus the shear strength increases
indefinitely with suction. But there are many evidences that showed otherwise. Shear strength
decreases beyond residual suction (Gan and Fredlund, 1996; Toll et al., 2000; Md.Noor and
Anderson, 2006) The problem in determining the real stress between the soil grains for
unsaturated soils is the difficulty to obtain the magnitude of the adhesive stress due to surface
tension force on the water meniscus connecting the soil solids. The magnitude of this stress is not
equal to suction, (u a − u w ) but a fraction or multiple of suction as demonstrated by Equation 3.

 (u − u ) 
k

χ = a w  (3)
 (u a − u w )e 

The validity of Equation 3 was questioned by Jennings and Burland (1962) however the
equation is re-evaluated in this section. The manner the magnitude of effective stress for saturated
soil condition was derived is similar to the way net stress for unsaturated soil condition was
derived and they comply with the law of physics between gas and solid. Net stress is the stress
between the soil solids which is the applied stress or total stress, σ minus the pore air pressure, ua.
That is why effective stress and net stress are recognised more as a law rather than a stress state
variable.

There is no effect of pore water pressure, uw on net stress when its magnitude is less than the
pore air pressure. To ease understanding let start with the interaction between the total stress, σ
and the pore air pressure, ua as illustrated in Figure 1(a) The net stress is the difference between
the total stress and the pore air pressure. Even though the pore air pressure is isotropic throughout
the system but the upward component is reducing the stress that the total stress imposing on the
particle to particle contact. That is why the net stress or the effective particle to particle stress is
the different between the total stress and the pore air pressure. However when part water is
introduced into the system through the high-air entry ceramic disk as shown in Figure 1(b) while
maintaining the condition in Figure 1(a) there is no effect on the particle to particle stress. This is
when pore-water pressure is less than the pore air pressure. The pore water pressure is uw within
the water bodies. This is because both pressures are isotropic i.e. act equally in all directions. The
effective upward pressure is the bigger between the two, which is the pore air pressure. Thence
the net stress or the effective particle to particle stress is still the difference between the total
stress and the pore air pressure. Nevertheless the introduction of water meniscus has given rise to
the additional attractive stress in addition to the initial net stress formed in Figure 1(a) However
there is a difficulty to quantify this extra adhesive stress which is derived from surface tension
force on the surface of the water meniscus. Bishop (1959) anticipated that this is given by the
term, χ(ua-uw) in his equation (refer Equation 2) Thence the adhesive stress was taken to be an
empirical function of suction where suction is just a stress state variable.

The existence of pore air and pore water pressures in the system do not exert any stress
between the soil solids. This is due to their isotropic nature. The adhesive stress is resulted purely
from the tensile skin on the water meniscus. Therefore the suction, (u a − u w ) by itself is not the
adhesive stress but, perhaps it is just a stress state variable. Suction only determines the radius of
curvature of the water meniscus which in turn determines the resultant magnitude of the tensile
 Vol. 13, Bund. H 4

skin. This is the only way that suction influence the adhesive stress. The determination of the
adhesive stress is very complex. So far the magnitude of the adhesive stress is only inferred from
the magnitude of shear strength or the deviator stress that it produces rather than knowing its real
magnitude.

σ σ

χ (u a − u w )
σ ' = (σ − u a )
(σ − ua ) (σ − ua )

ua ua
High air-entry
ceramic disk
uw
(a) (b)
Figure 1: The derivation of effective stress for unsaturated soils which verify the validity of the Bishop
(1959) effective stress equation (a) the derivation of net stress when the soil is completely dry (b) the
derivation of effective stress when part water was introduced to the condition in (a)

The above argument justifies the validity of Bishop (1959) effective stress equation (i.e.
Equation 2) However in this case effective stress function cannot be taken as a stress state
variable since the incorporation of the factor χ has made it a constitutive equation (Fredlund and
Rahardjo, 1993) Thence this restricts its application to study mechanical behaviour of
unsaturated soil since a stress state variable need to be independent of the soil property.

Apparently the variation of the factor χ is much more complex than what is anticipated by
Bishop (1959) Nevertheless this doesn’t affect the validity of the equation base on the principle
explained in Figure 1. The factor, χ increases from 1 when saturated to a maximum value at
suction equal to residual suction and decreases when suction increases beyond residual suction
and become zero when the condition is dry. This is substantiated by the non-linear variation of
shear strength with respect to suction as reported by Gan and Fredlund (1996) and MdNoor and
Anderson (2006) where apparent shear strength increases to a maximum value as suction
increases from zero when the condition is saturated to residual suction. In the case of the shear
strength variation relative to suction presented by MdNoor and Anderson (2006) where the effect
of suction is greater than net stress for suction lesser than residual suction, there is no gradual
drop of the factor χ from 1 when saturated to zero when dry as anticipated by Bishop (1959) At
saturation the factor χ is 1. If the graph of shear strength due to suction overlapped the graph of
shear strength due to net stress then χ is equal to 1. This is to indicate that the increase in suction
produce equal increase in shear strength due to the same increase in net stress. However this is
not the case in reality. If the graph of shear strength relative to suction lies below the graph of
shear strength relative to net stress, then it indicates that the increase in suction produces a lower
shear strength compared to the same increase in net stress. In this case the factor χ is less than 1.
If the graph of shear strength relative to suction lies above the graph of shear strength relative to
net stress then the factor χ is more than 1.
 Vol. 13, Bund. H 5

The variation of shear strength relative to suction will indicate the variation of adhesive stress
relative to suction. The shear strength behaviour of limestone gravel of 6 mm nominal diameter is
shown in Figure 2. The inset in the figure shows the perspective view of the shear strength
surface envelope which illustrates the variation of shear strength relative to net stress and suction
(Md.Noor and Anderson, 2006) The graphs in Figure 2 are the transformation of the shear
strength behaviour to two-dimensional plot which overlapped the variation of shear strength
relative to net stress and suction to ease comparison. The rate of increase in shear strength relative
to net stress is the highest at the steepest graph which is at zero net stress. But still the graphs
demonstrate a steeper increase in shear strength relative to suction for the same increase in net
stress. This is only valid for suction less than residual suction. This is implying that the factor χ
must has increased higher than 1 to indicate that the increase in suction produces a higher
effective stress (i.e. indicates by the higher shear strength) compared to the same increase in net
stress. The factor χ is at maximum value (i.e. greater than 1) when effective stress has the highest
value which corresponds to the resulted maximum apparent shear strength at residual suction.
When the graph of shear strength versus suction is higher than the graph of shear strength versus
net stress this is directly implicating that φ b is greater than φ ' for the value of net stress lesser
than the residual suction. This shows the possibility that φ b can be greater than φ ' .

250

200

Residual suction = 15 kPa

Shear strength (kPa)

150

Zone4 Shear strength (kPa)

100
3
ne
Zo

Zone 2
1e

50
Zon

Net
Suction (kPa) stress (kPa)

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Net stress or suction (kPa)
Shear strength versus net stress Shear strength versus suction at all net stress
Shear strength v suction at net stress 0 Shear strength v suction at net stress 100
Shear strength v suction at net stress 200 Shear strength v suction at net stress 300

Figure 2: Variation of shear strength relative to net stress and suction for limestone gravel of 6 mm
nominal diameter (MdNoor and Hafez, 2008)

WETTING COLLAPSE AND SOIL COMPLEX VOLUME

CHANGE BEHAVIOURS
Wetting collapse is the settlement that occurs when the soil is wetted. The process is taking
place under effective stress decrease. This behaviour contradicts the effective stress concept. This
behaviour is categorised as complex soil volume change behaviour. Nevertheless, this is not the
only soil complex volume change behaviour. There are several more soil complex volume change
behaviours which will be briefly discussed here. The combination of these complex soil volume
change behaviour has made it difficult to formulate a framework that can comprehensively
characterise the soil volume change behaviour and complies with each of those behaviours.
 Vol. 13, Bund. H 6

Characterising soil volume change behaviour in partially saturated condition is much more
complex than the shear strength. This is because it is not just the variation of the two independent
stress state variables that govern the soil volume change behaviour but also the variation in shear
strength as the soil undergoes compression. The increase in strength as the soil is compressed is
referred as the soil hardening. The complex behaviours that have been reported are summarised
as follows:-

1. Settlement can be due to effective stress decrease or increase i.e. wetting or loading respectively.
It would be impossible to arrive at a close-form solution if settlement behaviour is to be
characterised base on effective stress. This is because of the occurrence of settlement under both
effective stress increase and decrease. The latter is known as inundation settlement or wetting
collapse and the behaviour is reported by Blanchfield and Anderson (2000) This is the most
difficult puzzle to solve. This evident denies the applicability of the effective stress concept.

2. Massive settlement occurs as suction approaches zero i.e. near saturation (Alonso et al., 1990;
Tadepalli et al., 1992)
This is the most difficult soil volume change behaviour to characterise. The framework must be
able to differentiate the different magnitudes of settlement under different range of suction drop.
Bigger settlement must be modelled for suction drop close to zero suction which is near saturation.

3. Settlement occurs when the soil undergo drying.

This is another weird soil settlement behaviour which is encountered in the laboratory. This has
been reported by Ali et al. (2007)

4. Settlement is partly recoverable and partly not when the stress exceeds yield stress.
This is the elastic-plastic behaviour. The soil deforms elastic and plastic manner when the stress
condition exceeds the yield limit. But the common errors in the existing settlement models are to
assume that soil always deforms in elastic manner. Yield limit is defined by the value of stresses
on the state boundary surface (Alonso et al., 1990; Wheeler and Sivakumar, 1993 and 1995)) and
whenever the applied stresses exceed these stresses the soil response will be elastic-plastic. The
yield stress limits are seem to act as resisting stress states but they are not actually functioning as
intended. A closed-form volume change framework must be able to differentiate the stress ranges
where soil behaves fully elastic and elastic-plastic.

5. Settlement is fully recoverable when the stress change is within the yield limit.
The soil behaves fully elastic when the stress state is within the yield limit (Alonso et al., 1990;
Wheeler and Sivakumar, 1993 and 1995) The yield limit can be seen as the past maximum shear
strength that soil has been mobilised (Md.Noor and Anderson, 2007)

The combination of the above five complex settlement characteristics will make the
circumstances worse and thereby increase the level of difficulty in the framework formulation.
This has posed a great difficulty to geotechnical researchers since 1950’s. A framework that can
comply with all these characteristics must be very idyllic and would be able to make excellent
settlement prediction. Characterising soil volume change behaviour base on net stress and suction
without the incorporation of shear strength would be inadequate to arrive at a comprehensive
volume change theory. The role of shear strength has to be incorporated in the formulation when
it is apparent that a denser soil has a greater resistance to settlement compared to a loose soil
subjected to same load increase. This is because essentially the denser soil has a greater shear
strength compared to the loose soil and greater shear strength provides a greater resistance to
settlement.
 Vol. 13, Bund. H 7

The existing soil settlement models predict settlement base on the increase in the applied
stress. These are like the models of Steinbrenner (1934), Terzaghi (1943), and Janbu et al. (1956)
that predict settlement in clays and the models of De Beer and Martens (1951) and Schertmann et
al. (1978) that predict settlement in sand. The settlement equations are summarised in Equations
4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 respectively.

(Steinbrenner, 1934) si ⋅ or ⋅ ρ =
qB
E
( )
1 −ν 2 I p (4)

Cc H  p + ∆p 
(Terzaghi, 1943) S= log 0  (5)
1 + e0  p0 
µ o µ1qB
(Janbu et al., 1956) si ⋅ or ⋅ ρ =
Eu
(1 −ν )
2
(6)

H σ o' + ∆σ
(De Beer and Martens, 1951) s= ln (7)
C σ o'

Iz
(Schertmann et al., 1978) si = C1C2 qn ∑ ∆z (8)
E

These settlement equations or models calculate settlement base on the stress increase in the
form of either ∆q or q. In other words the models cannot justify settlement when there is no
stress increase. This is like in inundation settlement or wetting collapse where settlement occurs
under constant applied stress. These models are developed base on effective stress concept where
settlement is always associated with effective stress increase. And effective stress will be increase
when there is an increase in the applied load or the lowering of the groundwater table. Thus a
more comprehensive soil settlement model is required to encompass the soil complex behaviours.

Rowe cell inundation test

A Rowe cell of diameter 254 mm was used in this study. The test material is an ex-mining
sandy soil. The particle size distribution is shown in Figure 3. The soil specimen is placed on the
lower compartment. A diaphragm was used to separate the water in the upper compartment from
the soil specimen as shown in Figure 4. The vertical pressure applied to the specimen is provided
through the pressure applied to the upper compartment. The air pressure in the specimen is
exposed to the atmosphere by opening the outlet that goes through the piston central spindle.
Oven dried soil sample were used in every test using the same dry weight of soil of 5136g. The
initial thickness of specimen is maintained at 74 mm in every test by levelling the top layer using
the same wooden plate as shown in Figure 5. In this way all the tests were started with the same
void ratio. There are five number of tests conducted which are TA, TB, TC, TD and TE. The load
increments in every test are 0, 50, 100, 200, 400, 800 and 1600 kPa. The specimen was not
subjected to any inundation in test TA. Thus in this test the specimen was compressed under dry
condition throughout. In tests TB, TC, TD and TE the inundation was applied from the Rowe cell
bottom line until overflow is encountered at the outlet of the pore air pressure line that goes
through the piston spindle. In test TB the specimen was inundated before the application of the
first vertical stress of 50 kPa. In this case the settlement encountered upon the application of 50
kPa vertical stress must be representing the wetting collapse for effective stress of 50 kPa. While
in tests TC, TD and TE the specimens were inundated at vertical stress of 200, 400 and 800 kPa
 Vol. 13, Bund. H 8

respectively. In every pressure increment, the settlement was allowed to be fully stabilised before
the next pressure increment was applied. The graphs of void ratio against log of net stress (i.e. e -
log(σ − u a ) ) for the tests are shown in Figure 6. The magnitude of wetting collapse under net
stress of 200, 400 and 800 kPa cannot be easily noticed in Figure 3 and thus the graphs that show
wetting collapse at net stress 200 and 400 kPa are enlarged Figure 7. The amount of inundation
settlement, ∆H which is the drop in the specimen height in the tests are shown in Table 1.

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Job No. 001 Project Ex-mining Puchong Putra Perdana BH/Pit no. 001-004 Date 06.05.2007

Site Puchong Putra Perdana Client UiTM Sample no. 001-004 Tested by Roseman

Test method Dry Sieving Soil Descrip. Well Graded SAND Depth (m) 39449 Checked by

GRADING

0.063

0.212

0.425
British Standard Sieves, (mm)

0.15

1.18

3.35

37.5
0.3

0.6

6.3

10

14

20

28

50
63
75
CHARACTERISTICS

5
100
% Gravel 15.29

90 % Sand 84.19

% Fine 0.52
80

70 D60 (mm) 1.018

Percentage Passing (%)

D50 (mm) 0.786

60
D30 (mm) 0.450

50 D10 (mm) 0.241

Cu 4.23
40
Cg 0.83

30 LL (%)

PL (%)
20
PI (%)

10

0 Poorly Graded
0.001 0.002 0.006 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.1 0.2 0.6 1 2 6 10 20 60 100 SAND, SP
particle diameter (mm)
ROM no.

Cobbles
fine medium coarse fine medium coarse fine medium coarse
CLAY Degree
SILT SAND GRAVEL

Figure 3: Particle size distribution of ex-mining sand as the test material.

Figure 4: Rowe cell set-up for inundation tests.

Vol. 13, Bund. H 9

Figure 5: Rotating the wooden leveller to achieve initial specimen

height of 74 mm in every test.

0.85

0.8

0.75
Void Ratio

0.7

0.65

0.6

0.55

0.5
10 100 1000 10000
Net Pressure

Wetting 200kPa Wetting 400kPa Wetting 800kPa Dry Saturated

Figure 6: Graphs of void ratio versus log net stress.

Table 1: Drop in the specimens’ height upon inundation.

Test code TA TB TC TD TE
Net stress at 50 200 400 800
inundation No inundation
(kPa)
Height drop, - 7.76 0.66 0.25 0.01
∆H (mm)
 Vol. 13, Bund. H 10

0.8

0.75

Void Ratio, e
0.7

0.65

Inundation
0.6
0 100 200 300 400 500
Net Pressure (kPa)
Wetting at 200kPa Wetting at 400kPa

Figure 7: Wetting collapse settlement induced at net stress of 200 and 400 kPa.

Another soil complex volume change behaviour

Wetting under low effective stress produce bigger settlement compared to high effective
stress. This behaviour is substantiated by the graphs in Figure 6 and 7 and the value of inundation
settlement shown in Table 1. The graphs of inundation settlement at net stress of 200 and 400 kPa
are enlarged in Figure 7. The net stresses were maintained constant during inundation. The graphs
in Figure 7 show substantial settlement at the inundation point. In the inundation tests, further
stress increments were applied subsequently after the collapse ended. Greater inundation
settlement at net stress 200 kPa than at 400 kPa and a much smaller settlement at net stress of 800
kPa is another complex settlement behaviour that needs scientific explanation. This behaviour
cannot be modelled by the existing soil settlement models which characterise settlement base on
effective stress increase. By effective stress concept a bigger loading will give rise to a greater net
stress and would always produce a greater settlement.

However this weird soil behaviour can be easily understood from the standpoint of soil
hardening law. As the soil is compressed its strength increases and thus the denser the soil the
greater the resistance that it will impose to applied stress. This will end up with lesser inundation
settlement as the soil become denser. Therefore it is inevitable that shear strength must be
incorporated in characterising soil volume change behaviour in addition to the net or effective
stress. The latter must be considered as the driving stress state variable and the shear strength as
the resisting stress state variable. This is the way where the anisotropic soil volume change
behaviour of MdNoor and Anderson (2007) characterise the behaviour. In this manner settlement
can be modelled by either increasing the applied load or reducing the state of the soil shear
strength. The latter is responsible for the occurrence of settlement when groundwater table rises
since wetting the soil reduces the apparent shear strength and thereby decreases the settlement
resisting factor. The settlement is modelled in the extended Mohr-Coulomb space by interacting
the effective stress Mohr circle and the curved-surface envelope mobilised shear strength model
of Md.Noor and Anderson (2006) Whenever the applied stress state is greater than the soil
 Vol. 13, Bund. H 11

mobilised shear strength indicated by the effective stress or net stress Mohr circle extends above
the mobilised shear strength envelope, then there is a state of stress imbalance. The soil will react
automatically towards reinstating equilibrium condition by undergoing compression which
increases the mobilised shear strength. This is demonstrated by the rotation of the envelope
anticlockwise about the suction axis to indicate an overall increase in the internal friction angle.
The compression stops when stress equilibrium is reinstated. This is when the Mohr circle and the
mobilised shear strength envelope return to a point contact. There are two ways of causing stress
imbalance which resulted in the effective stress Mohr circle lies higher than the mobilised shear
strength envelope; (1) load increase and (2) inundation or wetting. The detail modelling of
settlement by the framework has been described by Md.Noor and Anderson (2007) Thence the
anisotropic model is able to comprehensively explain the settlement due to effective stress
decrease and the massive settlement near saturation. However the ability of the model to simulate
this newly discovered soil volume change behaviour pose another challenge to the model.

CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions that can be drawn from the above discussions are:-
1. Effective stress concept of Terzaghi (1936) is restricted to saturated soils only.
2. Effective stress equation of Bishop (1959) for unsaturated soil is valid but it cannot be taken as
stress state variable since it relies on soil property.
3. Effective stress is not the sole factor that governs the soil volume change behaviour.
4. Mobilised shear strength is the soil intrinsic property that resists soil compression.
5. The application of net stress and suction has lead to the understanding of the true soil shear
strength behaviour and let the understanding of soil volume change behaviour.

REFERENCES
1. Ali, F., Choong, F.H., Huat, B.B.K. and Duraisamy, Y. (2007) “Collapsibility and volume change
behaviour of unsaturated residual soil.” Proceedings of the 16th Southeast Asian Geotechnical
Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

2. Alonso, E. E., Gens, A., and Josa, A. (1990) "A constitutive model for partially saturated soil."
Geotechnique, 40(3), 405-430

3. Alonso, E. E., Lloret, A., Gens, A., and Yang, D. Q. (1995) "Experimental behaviour of highly
expansive double-structure clay." Proceedings of the 1st. International Conference on Unsaturated
Soils, 1, Paris: 11 - 16.

4. Bishop, A. W. (1959) "The principle of effective stress." Teknisk Ukeblad, 106(39), 859-863.

5. Blanchfield, R. and Anderson, W.F. (2000) “Wetting collapse in opencast coalmine backfill.”
Proceedings of the ICE Geotechnical Engineering, London: 139-149.

6. De Beer, E.E. and Martens, A. (1951) “Method of computation of an upper limit for influence of
heterogeneity of sand layers on the settlement of bridges.” Proceedings 4th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, London, page 275 – 278.
Vol. 13, Bund. H 12

7. Fredlund, D. G., and Rahardjo, H. (1993) Soil Mechanics for unsaturated soils., John Wiley and
son.

8. Fredlund, D. G., Morgenstern, N. R. and Widger, R.A. (1978) "The shear strength of unsaturated
soils." Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 15(3), 313-321.

9. Gan, J. K. M., and Fredlund, D. G. (1996) "Shear strength characteristics of two saprolitic soils."
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 33, 595-609.

10. Geiser, F. (2000) “Applicability of a general effective stress concept to unsaturated soils.”
Proceedings of the Conference on Unsaturated Soils for Asia, Singapore, Balkeema, 101-105.

11. Janbu, N., Bjerrum, L. and Kjaernsli, B. (1956) “Veiledring ved losning av
fundermenteringsoppgaver.” Norwegian Geotechnical Institute Publication No.16, Oslo.

12. Jennings, J. E. and J. B. Burland (1962) "Limitations to the use of effective stresses partly
saturated soils." Geotechnique, 12(No.2): pp.125-144.

13. Khalili, N. and Khabbaz, M.H. (1998) “A unique relationship for χ for the determination of the
shear strength of unsaturated soils.” Geotechnique, 48(5): pp. 681-687.

14. Md.Noor, M J and Anderson, W F (2007) “A Qualitative Framework for Loading and Wetting
Collapses in Saturated and Unsaturated Soils.” Proc. 16th Southeast Asian Geotechnical
Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

15. Md.Noor, M. J. and Anderson, W.F. (2006), “A comprehensive shear strength model for saturated
and unsaturated soils.” Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Unsaturated Soils,
ASCE Geotechnical Publication No. 147, Carefree, Arizona, USA, 2, 1992-2003.

16. Md.Noor, M.J. and Hafez, M.A., (2008) “From effective stress concept to the role of net stress and
suction in resolving the complex soil mechanical behaviours.” Proc. Int. Conf. on Geotechnical
and Highway Engineering (GEOTROPIKA 2008), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

17. Schmertmann, J.H., Hartman, J.P. and Brown, P.R. (1978) “Improved strain influence factor
diagrams.” Proceedings, American Society of Civil Engineers, Volume104(GT8), page 1131 –
1135.

18. Steinbrenner, W. (1934) “Tafeln zur Setzungsberechnung.” Die Strasse, Volume 1, page 121 –
124.

19. Strozzi, T. and Wegmuller, U. (1999) “Land subsidence in Mexico City mapped by ERS
differential SARinterferometry.” Proceedings of Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium,
Hamburg, Germany, ISBN: 0-7803-5207-6, Volume 4, page 1940 – 1942.

20. Tadepalli, R., Rahardjo, H., and Fredlund, D. G. (1992) "Measurement of matric suction and
volume change during inundation of collapsible soil." ASTM Geotechnical Testing Journal, 15(2),
115 - 122.

21. Terzaghi, K. (1936) "The shear resistance of saturated soils." Proceedings for the 1st.
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering (Cambridge, MA), 1, 54
- 56.

22. Terzaghi, K. (1943) Theoretical soil mechanics. New York, Wiley Publications.
Vol. 13, Bund. H 13

23. Toll, D. G., Ong, B. H., and Raharjo, H. (2000) "Triaxial testing of unsaturated samples of
undisturbed residual soil from Singapore." Proceedings of the Conference on Unsaturated Soils for
Asia, Singapore, Balkeema, 581-586.

24. Wheeler, S. J., and Sivakumar, V. (1993) Development and application of critical state model for
unsaturated soil., Thomas Telford, London.

25. Wheeler, S. J., and Sivakumar, V. (1995) "An elasto-plasticity critical state framework for
unsaturated silt soil." Geotechnique, 45(1), 35-53.

26. Wheeler, S. J., Sharma, R. S., and Buisson, M. S. R. (2003) "Coupling of hydraulic hysteresis and
stress-strain behaviour in unsaturated soils." Geotechnique, 53(1), 41-54.

27. Wood, D.M. (1990) “Soil Behaviour and Critical State Soil Mechanics.” Cambridge University
Press, ISBN 0-521-33249-4

© 2008 ejge