Laboratory Tests for

Unsaturated Soils

The testing of unsaturated soils requires greater care and effort than that of
saturated soils. Although unsaturated soil mechanics has been embraced by
geotechnical engineering, engineering practice has not yet caught up as the
characterisation of unsaturated soils is difficult and time-­consuming, and
made harder still by a lack of standards.
Laboratory Tests for Unsaturated Soils collates test procedures to cover
all laboratory tests for characterising unsaturated soils. It covers the back-
ground, theory, test procedures and interpretation of test results. Each test
procedure is broken down into simple stages and described in detail. The
pitfalls of each test and the interpretation of the test results are explained.
Test data and calculation methods are given, along with numerical examples
to illustrate the methods of interpretation and to offer the presentation of
typical results.
The book is especially useful for students and researchers who are new to
the field and provides a practical handbook for engineering applications.
Laboratory Tests for
Unsaturated Soils

Eng-Choon Leong
and
Martin Wijaya
First edition published 2023
by CRC Press
6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300, Boca Raton, FL
33487-2742

and by CRC Press

4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN

CRC Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

© 2023 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

Reasonable efforts have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the
author and publisher cannot assume responsibility for the validity of all materials or
the consequences of their use. The authors and publishers have attempted to trace the
copyright holders of all material reproduced in this publication and apologize to
copyright holders if permission to publish in this form has not been obtained. If any
copyright material has not been acknowledged please write and let us know so we
may rectify in any future reprint.

Except as permitted under U.S. Copyright Law, no part of this book may be reprinted,
reproduced, transmitted, or utilized in any form by any electronic, mechanical, or
other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying, microfilm-
ing, and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without written
permission from the publishers.

For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this work, access
www.copyright.com or contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC), 222
Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400. For works that are not
available on CCC please contact [email protected]

Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered

trademarks and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to
infringe.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Leong, E. C., author. | Wijaya, Martin, author.
Title: Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils / Eng-Choon Leong and Martin
Wijaya.
Description: First edition. | Boca Raton : CRC Press, [2023] | Includes
bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2022034960 | ISBN 9781138093829 (hbk) | ISBN
9780367860585 (pbk) | ISBN 9781315105147 (ebk)
Subjects: LCSH: Soil mechanics--Laboratory manuals. | Arid
soils--Testing--Laboratory manuals.
Classification: LCC TA710 .L444 2023 | DDC 624.1/5136--dc23/eng/20221011
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022034960

ISBN: 978-1-138-09382-9 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-0-367-86058-5 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-315-10514-7 (ebk)

DOI: 10.1201/b22304

Typeset in Sabon
by SPi Technologies India Pvt Ltd (Straive)
Dedicated to our families
Contents

Preface xix
Acknowledgments xxi

1 Introduction 1
1.1 Historical development 1
1.2 Unsaturated soils 2
1.2.1 Residual soils 2
1.2.2 Expansive soils 4
1.2.3 Loess 5
1.3 Stresses and stress-state variables 6
References 7
Further reading 9

2 Basic definitions, test environment and general apparatuses 11

2.1 Introduction 11
2.2 Phase relationships 11
2.2.1 Porosity 12
2.2.2 Void ratio 12
2.2.3 Degree of saturation 12
2.2.4 Gravimetric water content 13
2.2.5 Volumetric water content 13
2.2.6 Soil density 13
2.2.7 Volume-mass relationships 14
2.3 Role of air 14
2.4 Test environment 17
2.5 General apparatuses 18
References 21

vii
viii Contents

3 Sampling, storage and sample preparation 23

3.1 Background 23
3.2 Related standards 23
3.3 Sampling category and sample quality 25
3.3.1 BS EN ISO 22475-1 (2006) 25
3.3.2 ASTM D4220/D4220M (2014) 29
3.4 Sampling in unsaturated soil 29
3.5 Labelling soil samples 32
3.6 Storage of unsaturated soil samples 33
3.7 Sample preparations 35
3.7.1 Undisturbed soil specimen 35
3.7.1.1 Specimen prepared from undisturbed
samples with retaining ring 35
3.7.1.2 Specimen prepared from undisturbed
samples without retaining ring 36
3.7.2 Specimen prepared from re-constituted soil 36
3.7.3 Specimen prepared from compacted soil 36
References 37
Further reading 38

4 Grain-size distribution and specific gravity 39

4.1 Background 39
4.2 Related standards 39
4.3 Soil classification based on grain size 40
4.4 Curve-fitting grain-size distribution 41
4.5 Effect of grain size and packing configuration on the
SWCC (contacting spheres model) 43
4.6 Test methods for determining grain-size distribution 48
4.6.1 Sample preparations 49
4.6.2 Preparation of dispersing agent 51
4.6.3 Wet sieving 52
4.6.4 Dry sieving 53
4.6.5 Sedimentation test based on hydrometer 56
4.7 Test methods for determining specific gravity 59
4.7.1 Specific gravity test based on small fluid pycnometer 60
4.7.2 Specific gravity test based on large fluid pycnometer 63
4.7.3 Specific gravity test based on gas jar method 64
4.7.4 Specific gravity test based on gas pycnometer
method 65
References 66
Further reading 67
 Contents ix

5 Atterberg limits and shrinkage test 69

5.1 Background 69
5.2 Related standards 69
5.3 Theory 70
5.3.1 Fine-grained soil classification 70
5.3.2 Water in soils 70
5.3.3 Shrinkage and swelling curves of soils 73
5.3.4 Classification of soil shrinkage curve 73
5.3.5 Effect of stress history on soil
shrinkage curve 76
5.4 Test methods 79
5.4.1 Gravimetric water content test 79
5.4.2 Specimen preparations for liquid limit and
plastic limit tests 81
5.4.3 Liquid limit 82
5.4.3.1 Liquid limit based on Casagrande
apparatus 83
5.4.3.2 Liquid limit based on fall
cone test 83
5.4.4 Plastic limit test 84
5.4.5 Shrinkage limit and shrinkage curve test 85
5.4.5.1 Volumetric shrinkage 85
5.4.5.2 Linear shrinkage 89
References 90
Further reading 92

6 Compaction 93
6.1 Background 93
6.2 Related standards 93
6.3 Theory 94
6.4 Test methods 94
6.4.1 Moist sample preparation 96
6.4.2 Dry sample preparation 98
6.4.3 Compaction test procedures 99
6.4.3.1 Standard and modified
compaction test 99
6.4.3.2 Vibrating compaction test 102
6.4.3.3 Static compaction test 103
References 105
Further readings 105
x Contents

7 Suction measurement 107

7.1 Background 107
7.2 Matric suction 108
7.3 Osmotic suction 109
7.4 Total suction 111
References 113
Further reading 116

8 Matric suction measurement: direct methods 117

8.1 Introduction 117
8.2 Jet-filled or small-tip tensiometer 119
8.3 High-capacity tensiometer 119
8.3.1 Introduction 119
8.3.2 Calibration 121
8.3.3 Evaporation test 122
8.3.4 Types of equilibrium between HCT and soil
specimens 122
8.4 Null-type axis translation apparatus 124
8.4.1 Set-up 124
8.4.2 Operation 126
8.5 Hygrometer 129
8.5.1 Calibration 129
8.5.2 Test procedures 130
8.5.3 Precaution 131
References 132

9 Indirect suction measurement methods 135

9.1 Introduction 135
9.2 Related standards 135
9.3 Filter paper method 136
9.3.1 Calibration 137
9.3.2 Test procedures 138
9.3.3 Calculations 141
9.3.4 Summary 141
9.4 Thermal conductivity sensor 141
9.4.1 Calibration 143
9.4.2 Test procedures 145
9.5 Electrical resistance sensors 146
9.5.1 Calibration 147
9.5.2 Test procedures 148
 Contents xi

9.6 Capacitance sensor 148

9.6.1 Calibration 150
9.6.2 Test procedures 150
9.7 Electrical conductivity of pore water 150
9.7.1 Saturated extract 151
9.7.2 Mechanical squeezing 153
9.8 Summary 154
References 155
Further reading 159

10 Soil-water characteristic curve 161

10.1 Background 161
10.2 Related standards 162
10.3 SWCC convention 162
10.4 Theory 163
10.4.1 SWCC equations 164
10.4.1.1 Empirical equations 164
10.4.1.2 Physical-based equations 166
10.4.2 Hysteresis 170
10.4.3 The effect of dry density on SWCC 171
10.4.4 Bimodal/multimodal SWCC 178
10.4.5 Using shrinkage curve as an alternative volume
measurement 179
10.5 Test methods 180
10.5.1 Specimen preparation 180
10.5.2 Test procedures 180
10.5.3 Suction intervals 184
10.5.4 SWCC test on coarse-grained soils 184
10.5.5 SWCC test on fine-grained soils 185
10.5.6 Accuracy 185
10.6 Estimation of SWCC 186
10.6.1 Pedo-transfer function 186
10.6.2 One-point method 190
References 191
Further reading 193

11 Permeability: steady-state methods 195

11.1 Background 195
11.2 Related standards 196
11.3 Theory 197
xii Contents

11.4 Test method 199

References 205
Further reading 206

12 Permeability: transient-state methods 207

12.1 Background 207
12.2 Related standards 208
12.3 Instantaneous profile method 209
12.3.1 Test set-up 209
12.3.2 Test procedures 213
12.3.2.1 Sample preparation 213
12.3.2.2 Soil column preparation 213
12.3.2.3 Column test 214
12.3.2.4 Finishing 216
12.4 Multistep outflow method 216
12.4.1 Test set-up 216
12.4.2 Test procedures 217
12.4.2.1 Sample preparation 217
12.4.2.2 Preparation of apparatus 217
12.4.2.3 Permeability test 217
12.4.2.4 Rigid-wall permeameter 218
12.4.2.5 Flexible-wall permeameter 219
12.4.2.6 Finishing 220
12.5 Calculations and data interpretation 220
12.5.1 Instantaneous profile method 220
12.5.2 Multistep outflow method 223
12.6 Summary 225
References 225
Further reading 228

13 Oedometer test 229

13.1 Background 229
13.2 Related standards 230
13.3 Theory 230
13.3.1 Settlement and heave 230
13.3.2 Compression, shrinkage and wetting-induced
volume change 233
13.3.3 Saturated compression test 233
13.3.4 CWC compression test 235
13.3.5 Wetting-induced swelling/swelling pressure 236
13.3.6 Wetting-induced collapse 238
 Contents xiii

13.3.7 Constant-suction compression test 238

13.3.8 Configuration of oedometer tests 239
13.4 Test methods 241
13.4.1 Saturated oedometer test 241
13.4.1.1 Specimen preparation stage 241
13.4.1.2 Inundation stage 245
13.4.2 Loading/unloading stage 245
13.4.3 Unsaturated oedometer test 246
13.4.4 CWC and CWC-P tests 247
13.4.4.1 CWC loading 247
13.4.4.2 Wetting under constant net normal stress 248
13.4.4.3 Wetting under constant volume 248
13.4.5 Stages in the CWC oedometer test 249
13.4.5.1 Specimen preparation 249
13.4.5.2 CWC loading/unloading 249
13.4.5.3 Wetting under constant net normal stress 250
13.4.5.4 Wetting under constant volume 250
13.4.5.5 Saturated loading/unloading stage 251
13.4.6 CWC and CWC-P oedometer test procedures 251
13.4.6.1 ASTM D3877-08 for one-dimensional
expansion, shrinkage and uplift pressure
of soil-lime mixtures 251
13.4.6.2 ASTM D4546-08 for one-dimensional
swell or collapse of cohesive soil 254
13.4.6.3 ASTM D5333-03 for measurement of
collapse potential of soils 257
13.4.6.4 Wijaya (2017) CWC oedometer test
procedure 257
13.4.7 SC Oedometer test 258
13.4.7.1 Constant-suction loading/unloading stage 258
13.4.7.2 Suction decrease (SD) stage 259
References 259
Further reading 262

14 Constant rate of strain test 263

14.1 Background 263
14.2 Related standard 263
14.3 Theory 264
14.3.1 Saturated CRS test (ASTM D4186/D4186M-12 2012) 264
14.3.2 Unsaturated CRS test 268
xiv Contents

14.4 Test methods 272

14.4.1 CRS apparatus calibration stages 272
14.4.1.1 Calibration for apparatus compressibility 272
14.4.1.2 Calibration for chamber pressure 272
14.4.1.3 Calibration for piston uplift 273
14.4.1.4 Calibration for piston seal dynamic
friction 273
14.4.2 Specimen preparation 273
14.4.3 Saturated CRS test 274
14.4.3.1 End calibration and set-up stage 275
14.4.3.2 Saturation stage 276
14.4.3.3 Loading stage 276
14.4.3.4 Unloading stage 277
14.4.3.5 Constant load stage 277
14.4.3.6 End-stage 277
14.4.4 CWC-CRS test 277
14.4.4.1 Suction initialisation stage 277
14.4.4.2 Calibration and set-up stage 278
14.4.4.3 Loading stage 278
14.4.4.4 Unloading stage 278
14.4.4.5 Inundation stage 278
14.4.4.6 End-stage 279
References 279
Further reading 280

15 Triaxial test (volume change) 281

15.1 Background 281
15.2 Related standards 281
15.3 Theory 282
15.3.1 Stress and strain of soils 282
15.3.2 Compression curve based on stress and strain
invariants 288
15.4 Triaxial test for saturated and unsaturated soil 289
15.4.1 Volume measurement for unsaturated triaxial test 290
15.4.1.1 Volume measurement based on
confining cell fluid displacement 291
15.4.1.2 Volume measurement based on
specimen fluid displacement 293
15.4.1.3 Volume measurement based on the
direct measurement of specimen
dimension 294
 Contents xv

15.5 Triaxial test calibrations 294

15.5.1 Load cell uplift correction 295
15.5.2 Filter-paper correction 295
15.5.3 Membrane correction 296
15.5.4 Triaxial test calculation 297
References 298
Further reading 300

16 Direct shear test 301

16.1 Background 301
16.2 Related standards 301
16.3 Theory 302
16.4 Test methods 303
16.4.1 CWC test 305
16.4.2 CS test 306
16.5 Test procedures 308
16.5.1 CWC test 309
16.5.2 CS test 311
16.6 Interpretation of test results 313
References 316

17 Triaxial test (shear strength) 317

17.1 Background 317
17.2 Related standards 317
17.3 Theory 318
17.3.1 Mohr-Coulomb (MC) model for saturated and
unsaturated soil 319
17.3.2 Failure envelope of unsaturated soil based on MC
model 320
17.4 CS triaxial test 324
17.5 CWC triaxial test 324
17.6 Test methods 325
17.6.1 UC test 328
17.6.2 UU test 329
17.6.3 CU test 330
17.6.4 CD test 331
17.6.5 IC test 332
17.6.6 At rest (k0) consolidation test (k0C) 333
17.6.7 CCSS test 334
17.6.8 ICSC test 335
xvi Contents

17.6.9 CCWCS test 336

17.6.10 Isotropic constant water content consolidation
test (ICWCC) 337
References 338
Further reading 340

18 Ring shear test 341

18.1 Background 341
18.2 Related standards 342
18.3 Test methods and apparatus 342
18.4 Test procedures 346
18.5 Calculations 349
18.6 Summary 350
References 351

19 Tension test 353

19.1 Background 353
19.2 Related standards 354
19.3 Direct tensile test 355
19.3.1 Test apparatus 357
19.3.2 Preparation of soil specimen 357
19.3.3 Test procedures 357
19.3.4 Calculations 358
19.4 Indirect tensile tests 358
19.4.1 Unconfined penetration test 359
19.4.1.1 Test apparatus and soil specimen 360
19.4.1.2 Test procedures 361
19.4.1.3 Calculations 361
19.4.2 Brazilian tensile strength test 362
19.4.2.1 Test apparatus and preparation of soil
specimen 363
19.4.2.2 Test procedures 363
19.4.2.3 Calculations 364
19.5 Summary 364
References 365

20 Wave velocities 369

20.1 Background 369
20.2 Related standards 370
20.3 Bender element test 370
 Contents xvii

20.3.1 Test set-up 372

20.3.2 Test procedures 375
20.3.3 Interpretations 377
20.4 Ultrasonic test 380
20.4.1 Test set-up 381
20.4.2 Test procedures 383
20.4.3 Calculations 386
References 386
Further reading 388

21 Thermal conductivity 389

21.1 Background 389
21.2 Relevant standards 390
21.3 Theory 391
21.4 Test method 391
21.5 Test procedures 392
21.5.1 Calibration 392
21.5.2 Soil specimen 393
21.5.3 Test procedures 394
21.5.4 Calculations 394
References 396
Further reading 398

Appendix A: Glossary of terms 399

Appendix B: Formulas and conversion factors 403
Index 405
Preface

The development of unsaturated soil mechanics lagged the development of

saturated/classical soil mechanics. Our understanding of unsaturated soil
mechanics has vastly improved in the last four to five decades. However,
the application of unsaturated soil mechanics has still not become com-
monplace in practice. This is hardly surprising as noted by the late Professor
Geoffrey Blight in his book Unsaturated Soil Mechanics in Geotechnical
Practice that

unsaturated soils do not usually give rise to geotechnical problems, as

long as they remain in their unsaturated state at an approximately con-
stant water content. … Problems arise when unsaturated soils become
subject to wetting … that settlement, collapse or heave of soil surfaces
occurs, when loss of strength results in slope failures or landslides, when
piping failure is initiated, and compacted earth liners leak. Without the
absorption of excess water, none of these widespread problems occur.

When these “special” problems do occur, practicing engineers who may not
be familiar with unsaturated soil mechanics also faced the major problem of
determining the properties of unsaturated soils. Testing of unsaturated soils
entails greater care, patience and effort than saturated soils. The testing of
unsaturated soils has remained mostly in the research laboratories of univer-
sities. The testing of unsaturated soils is made more difficult due to a lack of
standards. Often cited problems of testing unsaturated soils are cost of the
testing apparatus is expensive, the tests are complicated and the test dura-
tion is very long. While there is a workaround solution to obtaining proper-
ties of unsaturated soils by using estimation, the gold standard in obtaining
unsaturated soil properties as is for saturated soils is still through tests.
Hence, we have endeavoured to collate our experiences on the testing of
unsaturated soils together with those of others from the literature into this
book to provide a convenient source of reference for students and practitio-
ners, as well as early researchers in unsaturated soils. Where applicable, it
complements existing standards for testing of unsaturated soils and aug-
ments with current developments and knowledge.

xix
xx Preface

This book assumes that the user has knowledge of classical soil mechanics
and the testing of saturated soils to appreciate the significance and limita-
tions of soil tests. Nevertheless, description of each unsaturated soil test is
organised into three main parts: background and theory, test method and
interpretation and analysis. The first and third parts distinguished it from
the usual testing manual and are meant to help the reader to quickly grasp
the basic principles of the unsaturated soil test. The test procedures are bro-
ken down into stages so that readers can associate the stages with the stages
in the corresponding saturated soil test. The pitfalls in each test and the
interpretation of the test results are carefully explained where applicable.
The distillation of only the essential information of each test will enable the
newcomer to embark on unsaturated soil testing quickly. The book contains
references and further reading list to encourage readers to further develop
their understanding and advanced their knowledge on unsaturated soil
mechanics and unsaturated soil tests.
We hope that this book will become a useful resource and testing of
unsaturated soils will become more common in practice.
Acknowledgments

This book contains the experiences in the authors’ journey into unsaturated
soil mechanics and unsaturated soil testing. The experiences are the collec-
tive efforts of colleagues, collaborators, students, research staff and friends
who have shared the journey with the authors.
We acknowledge the influence of Professor Harianto Rahardjo who
brought unsaturated soil mechanics to Nanyang Technological University.
We have benefited greatly from the interactions with distinguished research-
ers in the field of unsaturated soils (not in any order of merit): Professors
Geoffrey Blight (late), Delwyn G Fredlund, Pierre Delage, David Toll,
James Graham and Sandra Houston who were at Nanyang Technological
University at various points in time. We are grateful for the collaboration
with various individuals: Professors Rifat Bulut, Hosaam Albuel-­Naga,
Ria Soemitro, Snehasis Tripathy, Arun Prasad, Alexandro Tarantino
Devendra N. Singh and Lyesse Laloui.
We learnt through the experiences of many postgraduate and undergrad-
uate students, and research staff who worked on unsaturated soils: Yeo Sir
Hoon, Tran Sy Kien, Chin Kheng Boon, Than Than Nyunt, Cheng Zhuoyuan,
Richard Kizza, Huang Wengui, Zou Lei, Sam Bulolo, He Liangcai, Zhang
Xihu, Agus S. Samingan, Tou Jen Hau, Sri Widiastuti, Julianto Cahyadi, Lee
Chin Chye, Tsen-­Tieng Daryl, Trinh Min Thu, Henry Krisdani, Yang Hong,
Goh Shin Guan, Alfrendo Satyanaga, Deny Tami, Harnas F.R., Indrawan
I.G.B., Inge Meilani, Fifi Melinda, Lee Siew Beng, Ang Sok Ser, Senthikumar
s/o Alagan, Koh Xin Yun, Jasmine Soh Xiang Qin, Rayner Wee Jian De, Ong
Lay Sah @ Lisa, Peh Qingli, Tan Ee Jin, Tan Wenli Kyna, Tan Wei Jian, Liu
Fang Ming, Phoong Bo Jun, Wong Kah Chou, Hardy Kek, Timothy Toh
Hong Ern, Feng Yuyun, Ho Lun Fa, Muhammad Ashraf Assawaf B S, Chia
Wei Ning Samuel, Ng Rui Kang Keith, Ng Teik Ting, K Loshana, Jesslyn
Chua Jie Si, Jerome Tiah Sze Kiat, Eng Zheng, Leong Yoke Mun, Toh Jia
Ming, Cui Xiao, Liu Chenying, Tang Weilun, Chen Xingyu, Lee Wen Yan,
Jasmine Bte Sadimin, Li Lingyan, Poorooye Harivansh, Khairul Anwar Bin
Ramli, Jeffrey Ho Jun Hua, V Madhavan Narayanan, Jenell A Sy Hui Zhen,
Tong Wan Yi, Chong Han Siang, Chan Win Kit, Muhammad Amirul Haziq
Bin Yahya, Chia You Xun, and Sarah Peter.

xxi
xxii Acknowledgments

The second author would like to specially thank all his peers who accom-
panied him through his Ph.D. journey at Nanyang Technological University:
Dr. Abdul Halim Hamdany, Dr. Alfrendo Satyanaga, Dr. Huang Wengui, Dr.
Sam Bulolo, Dr. Richard and Felicia; friends who supported his research:
Bjorn Tan and Lai Shan from Wykeham Farrance; former colleagues at
Kiso-­Jiban for all the great time in learning in situ and laboratory testing:
Triwi Hayuningrum and Vivian Sim.
We apologise if we inadvertently omitted the names of individuals
who should have been in the previous list. All contributions are gratefully
acknowledged.
Last but not least, we thank the staff at Taylor & Francis: Tony Moore,
who got us started on writing this book, as well Frazer Merritt and Aimee
Wragg, for their patience and professionalism in handling editorial matters.
Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

The early study of soil mechanics was not separated into saturated and
unsaturated soils as evidenced by the papers presented since the First
International Society for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering
Conference in 1936. However, the principles and theories for saturated soils
started emerging from that conference, and the concept of effective stress
was first presented by Terzaghi at the same conference. The establishment
of the principles of effective stress led to rapid developments in saturated
soil mechanics and its application to numerous geotechnical engineering
problems. In hindsight, the development of saturated soil mechanics first is
natural, as saturated soils involved only two phases, soil and air (dry soil)
or soil and water (saturated soil). The understanding of unsaturated soils
faced many challenges in the early years. First, three phases are involved;
second, soil testing was still in its infancy stage of development, and finally,
most serious geotechnical engineering problems at that time involved satu-
rated clay soils. The development of saturated soil mechanics led to the
design of better soil tests, equipment and instruments. Although research on
unsaturated soils did not stop completely, it was only in 1959 that a concept
of effective stress for unsaturated soils appeared (Bishop 1959). In 1977,
Fredlund and Morgenstern proposed two stress-­state variables to describe
the behaviour of unsaturated soils. With the advent of data acquisition and
personal computers in the 1970s, longer duration tests and feedback control
systems were made possible, and this in part helped with development of
testing of unsaturated soils at constant suction where a very low shearing
rate has to be applied, much lower than the shearing rate of drained tests
for saturated soils.
At the same time when saturated soil mechanics was developing since the
First International Society for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering
Conference in 1936, a separate group of people was studying a peculiar soil

DOI: 10.1201/b22304-1 1
2 Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

known as expansive soils that cause problems to many building structures

around the world. The expansive soils problem occurs with soils in which
the initial condition was dry/unsaturated, but they swell extensively when
wetted. Such an expansive soil problem was first recognised by the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation in 1938 for a foundation of a steel siphon at their
Owyhee Project in Oregon (Holtz and Gibbs 1956). Interest in expansive
soils grew, and the first national conference on expansive clay was held at
the Colorado School of Mines in Golden, Colorado, in 1959. The first and
second International Conferences on Expansive Soils were held at Texas A
& M University in 1965 and 1969, respectively. This was followed by five
more conferences on expansive soils with the seventh or last International
Conference on Expansive Soils being held in Dallas, Texas, in 1992. It was
realised that expansive soils fall naturally into the domain of unsaturated
soils and since then it was subsumed under the International Conference of
Unsaturated Soils where the first conference was held in 1995 in Paris,
France. Since then many international and regional conferences have been
regularly held to disseminate the latest research and developments in unsat-
urated soils.
Despite the numerous advances made in the testing of unsaturated soils,
unsaturated soil testing remains largely in the research laboratories of the
universities, although a few unsaturated soil tests have been standardised.
Currently, there is no book solely on the laboratory testing of unsaturated
soils. This book collates our experiences and those of others from the litera-
ture on testing of unsaturated soils to bring the advances made in unsatu-
rated soil tests in research to commercial soil testing laboratories.

1.2 UNSATURATED SOILS

Unsaturated soils usually exist near the ground surface and arise mainly due
to a deep groundwater table and climatic conditions. Hence, unsaturated
soils are encountered widely in the world. Commonly, unsaturated soils are
associated with residual soils, expansive soils and loess. Brief descriptions of
residual soils, expansive soils and loess are given in the following sections.

1.2.1 Residual soils
The wet and humid climatic conditions in the tropics led to extensive physical
and chemical weathering of rocks and rock formations, leading to the forma-
tion of residual soils (Figure 1.1). The degree of weathering is most extensive
near the ground surface and decreases with depth. The depth of weathering
can be quite variable. The weathering profile is commonly described using
Little’s (1969) six grades weathering profile as shown in Figure 1.2 where
weathering grade I refers to fresh intact rock and weathering grade VI refers
 Introduction 3

Figure 1.1 World distribution of residual soils.

Figure 1.2 Weathering profile based on Little (1969).

to residual soil. The zones of highly weathered (grade IV) and completely
weathered (grade V) which still bears the original rock structure are termed
saprolite, while the zone that bears no resemblance to the original parent
rock (grade VI) is termed a lateritic or residual soil. The boundary between
each weathering grade is not clearly defined, and tests on residual soils can
involve weathering grades IV to VI.
4 Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

1.2.2 Expansive soils
Expansive soils refer to soils which swell significantly on wetting and are
responsible for extensive damage to residential structures and infrastruc-
tures such as roads (Figure 1.3). Volume changes in expansive soils usually
exceed 10% (Chen 1988; Nelson and Miller 1992). Damages due to expan-
sive soils have been estimated to cost billions of dollars annually (Steinberg
1985; Dasog and Mermut 2013). The properties of expansive soils are due
to the presence of swelling clay minerals, smectite or vermiculite (Rogers et
al. 1993). Expansive soils are developed by geological processes which allow
accumulation of predominantly silt and clay-­sized particles that contained
large quantities of expansive minerals (Rollings and Rollings 1996). The
swelling and shrinkage of expansive soils depend on soil suction. Soil suc-
tion gives a measure of the tendency of the soil to undergo volume change
when its moisture content changes with time (Cameron and Walsh 1984;
Chen 1988; Nelson and Miller 1992; Bulut et al. 2001). All engineering
structures on expansive soils are subjected to variations of suction at the soil
surface due to climate, vegetation, drainage, site cover and watering patterns
(Lytton 1977).
Hence, measuring soil suction is crucial for investigating expansive soil
behaviour, and knowledge of moisture flow in expansive soils enables the
estimation of the swelling and shrinkage behaviour (e.g., Arampatzis et al.
2001; Baumgartl and Kock 2004; Wray et al. 2005).

Figure 1.3 World distribution of expansive soils.

 Introduction 5

1.2.3 Loess
Loess is mainly an aeolian deposit but can also be formed by glacier grinding
rocks to a fine powder and transporting them to the end of the glacier where
the sediment becomes loess. The composition of loess is primarily silt-­sized
particles with small quantities of clay and sand particles. Loess can be found
in many parts of the world (Figure 1.4), including Africa, Antarctica, Asia,
central and southern Europe, northern Russia, north-­western and central
USA and South America (Porter 2007; Roberts et al. 2007; Rousseau et al.
2007; Zárate 2007). The most extensive occurrence of loess can be found
in China. The Loess Plateau in northern and north-­western China occupies
a total area of about 65 × 104 km2, which accounts for more than 6% of
China’s land area (Tan 1988; Derbyshire 2001; Xu et al. 2014; Li et al. 2019).
Dry loess deposits can stand vertically. However, loess is susceptible to
collapse upon wetting and is associated with many geotechnical engineering
problems such as wetting-­induced landslides, hydroconsolidation and seis-
mic settlement (Feda 1988; Feda et al. 1993; Dijkstra et al. 1994, 1995;
Rogers et al. 1994; Derbyshire 2001; Delage et al. 2005; Yuan and Wang
2009; Xu et al. 2014). The engineering properties of loess are primarily
controlled by its mineralogical composition and structure, including macro-
scopic texture and microstructure. Soil structure refers to both fabric and
the non-­frictional interparticle forces between soil particles (Lambe and
Whitman 1969, Mitchell and Soga 2005). Soil fabric usually refers to the
arrangement and association of particles, particle groups and pore spaces.

Figure 1.4 World distribution of loess.

6 Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

1.3 STRESSES AND STRESS-STATE VARIABLES

In testing, the stress condition of a soil specimen in an element test such as

oedometer, direct shear or triaxial test is important for interpretation. The
establishment of the effective stress concept by Terzaghi (1936) has enabled
the successful application of saturated soil mechanics to many geotechnical
problems involving saturated soils. Hence, it is easy to understand why soil
tests typically involve soil specimens in the fully saturated condition.
When a soil is fully saturated, it has two phases: soil solids and water.
Both phases are incompressible, but the soil skeleton consisting of soil par-
ticles in contact (for inert particles such as sand) or in close proximity due
to attractive and repulsive forces (for clay particles) reacts to the externally
applied stresses. The soil particles can be re-­arranged into a more compact
structure with smaller voids resulting in deformation and a stronger and
stiffer soil. The stresses leading to such a change are attributed to the stresses
acting on the solid phase (normal stresses, σ) and the stress acting on the
water phase (pore-­water pressure, uw). According to Terzaghi (1936), it is
the difference between σ and uw given by the effective stress σ′ that is causing
the change in state. Hence, in an element test for saturated soils, σ and uw are
applied or monitored and test results are more often interpreted based on
the principles of effective stress.
Bishop (1959) proposed an effective stress for unsaturated soils:

σ ′ = (σ − u a ) + χ ( u a − u w ) (1.1)

where
ua = pore-­air pressure
χ = a parameter related to degree of saturation of the soil.

The value of χ is unity for a fully saturated soil and zero for a dry soil.
However, the expression for χ is non-­unique and depends on soil type. In
1961, Bishop and Donald published triaxial test results where σ, ua and uw
were controlled independently. The test results show that the response of
the soil under different σ, ua and uw were the same as long as (σ − ua) and
(ua − uw) were constant. These test results did not demonstrate the validity
of Equation 1.1 but that (σ − ua) and (ua − uw) are the variables that control
the response of the soil.
Using multi-­phase continuum principles, Fredlund and Morgenstern (1977)
presented a theoretical analysis of unsaturated soils and concluded that any
two of three possible normal stress variables can be used to describe the stress
state of unsaturated soils. There are three possible combinations of the nor-
mal stress variables: (1) (σ − ua) and (ua − uw), (2) (σ − uw) and (ua − uw) and
(3) (σ − ua) and (σ − uw). Among the three combinations, (σ − ua) and (ua − uw)
 Introduction 7

is the most convenient combination to apply in laboratory tests and shall be

the stress-­state variables used in this book.

REFERENCES

Arampatzis, G., Tzimopoulos, C., Sakellariou-­Makrantonaki, M., & Yannopoulos, S.

(2001). Estimation of unsaturated flow in layered soils with the finite control vol-
ume method. Irrigation and Drainage, 50: 349–358.
Baumgartl, Th. & Kock, B. (2004). Modeling volume change and mechanical prop-
erties with hydraulic models. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 68: 57–65.
Bishop, A. W. (1959). The principle of effective stress. Teknisk Ukeblad, Norwegian
Geotechnical Institute, 106(39): 859–863.
Bishop, A. W. & Donald, I. B. (1961). The experimental study of partly saturated soil
in the triaxial apparatus. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Paris, Vol. 1, pp. 13–21.
Bulut, R., Lytton, R. L., & Wray, W. K. (2001). Soil suction measurements by filter
paper. In Expansive Clay Soils and Vegetative Influence on Shallow Foundations,
ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 115 (eds. C. Vipulanandan, M. B.
Addison, and M. Hasen), ASCE, Reston, Virginia, pp. 243–261.
Cameron, D. A. & Walsh, P. F. (1984). The prediction of moisture induced foun-
dation movements using the instability index. Australian Geomechanics, No. 8.
5–11.
Chen, F. H. (1988). Foundations on expansive soils, 2nd ed. New York: Elsevier.
Dasog, G. S. & Mermut, A. R. (2013). Expansive soils and clays. In Bobrowsky,
P. T. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of natural hazards. Encyclopedia of Earth Sciences Series.
Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­1-­4020-­4399-­4_124
Delage, P., Cui, Y. J., & Antoine, P. (2005). Geotechnical problems related with
loess deposits in Northern France. In Proceedings of International Conference
on Problematic Soils, Eastern Mediterranean University, Famagusta, N. Cyprus,
pp. 25–27.
Derbyshire, E. (2001). Geological hazards in loess terrain, with particular reference
to the loess regions of China. Earth Science Review, 54(1): 231–260. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0012-­8252(01)00050-­2
Dijkstra, T. A., Rogers, C. D. F., Smalley, I. J., Derbyshire, E., Li, Y. J., & Meng,
X. M. (1994). The loess of northcentral China: Geotechnical properties and their
relation to slope stability. Engineering Geology, 36(3–4): 153–171. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0013-­7952(94)90001-­9
Dijkstra, T. A., Smalley, I. J., & Rogers, C. D. F. (1995). Particle packing in loess depos-
its and the problem of structure collapse and hydroconsolidation. Engineering
Geology, 40(1–2): 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-­7952(95)00022-­4
Feda, J. (1988). Collapse of loess upon wetting. Engineering Geology, 25(2–4): 263–
269. https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-­7952(88)90031-­2
Feda, J., Boháč, J., & Herle, I. (1993). Compression of collapsed loess: Studies on
bonded and unbonded soils. Engineering Geology, 34(1–2): 95–103. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0013-­7952(93)90045-­E
Fredlund, D. G. & Morgenstern, N. R. (1977). Stress state variables for unsaturated
soils. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 1039GT5: 447–466.
8 Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

Holtz, G. W. & Gibbs, H. J. (1956). Engineering properties of expansive soils.

Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 121(1): 641–663. https://
doi.org/10.1061/TACEAT.0007325
Lambe, T. W. & Whitman, R. V. 1969. Soil mechanics. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
New York, USA.
Li, X.-A., Li, L., Song, Y., Hong, B., Wang, L., & Sun, J. (2019). Characterization of
the mechanisms underlying loess collapsibility for land-­creation project in Shaanxi
Province, China—a study from a micro perspective. Engineering Geology, 249:
77–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2018.12.024
Little, A. L. (1969). The engineering classification of residual soils. In Seventh
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
ISSMFE, Mexico, Vol. 1, pp. 1–10.
Lytton, R. L. (1977). Foundations in expansive soils. In Desai, C. S. & Christian, J. T.
(Eds.), Numerical methods in geotechnical engineering. New York: McGraw-­Hill,
pp. 427–458.
Mitchell, J. K. & Soga, K. 2005. Fundamentals of soil behavior, 3rd ed. Hoboken,
NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Nelson, J. D. & Miller, D. J. (1992). Expansive soils: Problems and practice in foun-
dation and pavement engineering. New York: Wiley.
Porter, S. C. (2007). Loess records: China. In Elias, S. A. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of qua-
ternary science. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier, pp. 1429–1440.
Roberts, H. M., Muhs, D. R., & Bettis, E. A., III (2007). Loess records: North
America. In Elias, S. A. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of quaternary science. Amsterdam,
The Netherlands: Elsevier, pp. 1456–1466.
Rogers, C. D. F., Dijkstra, T. A., & Smalley, I. J. (1994). Hydroconsolidation and subsid-
ence of loess: Studies from China, Russia, North America and Europe. Engineering
Geology, 37: 83–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-­7952(94)90045-­0
Rogers, J. D., Olshansky, R., & Rogers, R. B. (1993). Damage to foundations from
expansive soils. Claims People, 3(4): 1–4.
Rollings, M. P. & Rollings, R. S. (1996). Geotechnical materials in construction.
London, UK: McGraw-­Hill Publishing Co.
Rousseau, D.-D., Derbyshire, E., Antoine, P., & Hatté, C. (2007). Loess records:
Europe. In Elias, S. A. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of quaternary science. Amsterdam, The
Netherlands: Elsevier, pp. 1440–1456.
Steinberg, M. L. (1985). Controlling expansive soil destructiveness by deep verti-
cal geomembranes on four highways. Transportation Research Records, 1032:
48–53.
Tan, T. K. (1988). Fundamental properties of loess from northwestern China.
Engineering Geology, 25: 103–122.
Terzaghi, K. (1936). The shear strength of saturated soils. In Proceedings of the
First International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Cambridge, MA, Vol. 1, pp. 54–56.
Wray, W. K., El-­Garhy, B. M., & Youssef, A. A. (2005). Three-­dimensional model
for moisture and volume changes prediction in expansive soils. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 131(3): 311–324.
Xu, L., Dai, F., Tu, X. et al. (2014). Landslides in a loess platform, North-­West China.
Landslides, 11: 993–1005. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-­013-­0445-­x
 Introduction 9

Yuan, Z. X. & Wang, L. M. (2009). Collapsibility and seismic settlement

of loess. Engineering Geology, 105: 119–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enggeo.2008.12.002
Zárate, M. (2007). Loess records: south America. In Elias, S. A. (Ed.), Encyclopedia
of quaternary science. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier, pp. 1466–1479.

FURTHER READING

Fredlund, D. G. (2006). Unsaturated soil mechanics in engineering practice. Journal

of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 132(3): 286–321.
Houston, S. L. (2019). It is time to use unsaturated soil mechanics in routine geo-
technical engineering practice. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 145(5): 02519001.
Chapter 2

Basic definitions, test environment

and general apparatuses

2.1 INTRODUCTION

In all soil mechanics textbooks, phase relationships appear at the beginning

of the book, as it is the most elementary way to describe a soil where the
relationship of one phase of the soil is related to other phases of the soil in
terms of mass and volume. It is also the phase relationships that recognise
that soil in its most general state is unsaturated. Some phase relationships
used in unsaturated soils were borrowed from other disciplines, and these
have been included in this chapter for the benefit of those not familiar with
unsaturated soil mechanics. In addition, a glossary of terms uncommon to
saturated soil mechanics is given in Appendix A.
Unsaturated soils present challenges to the current norm of sampling,
storage and sample preparation. Unlike saturated soils where it is sufficient
to maintain the soil in a fully saturated condition during sampling, storage
and sample preparation, the meaning of degree of saturation of unsaturated
soils needs to be considered, as the degree of saturation of an unsaturated
soil represents a transient condition which changes with the climatic condi-
tion. The purpose of obtaining the soil sample must be made known, which
dictates the procedures needed for sampling, storage and sample prepara-
tion. If the purpose is to determine the in situ moisture content and suction,
it is important to obtain the soil sample at its natural moisture condition
and to ensure that there is no change in its moisture condition during sam-
pling, storage and sample preparation. Being unsaturated, a soil exhibits
higher strength and lower ductility. Hence, an unsaturated soil sample is
harder to sample and more susceptible to cracks and breakage during sam-
pling. Sampling at depth becomes more challenging.

2.2 PHASE RELATIONSHIPS

It is common to represent a soil as three phases where each phase has a mass
and volume as shown in Figure 2.1. Generally, the mass of air is assumed to
be negligible in relation to the other phases.

DOI: 10.1201/b22304-2 11
12 Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

volume, mass,

Figure 2.1 Volume-mass relations.

2.2.1 Porosity
Porosity n is defined as the ratio of volume of voids Vv to the total volume
V, and is commonly expressed in percent:
Vv
n= (100%) (2.1)
V

According to Equation 2.1, n can range from 0% to 100%, but in the

loosest soils, the minimum value of n is about 10%.

2.2.2 Void ratio
Void ratio e is defined as the ratio of the volume of voids Vv to the volume
of soil solids Vs:
Vv
e= (2.2)
Vs

According to Equation 2.2, e can range from 0 to greater than 1. In the

densest soil, e typically ranges between 0.1 and 0.2.

2.2.3 Degree of saturation
Degree of saturation S is defined as the ratio of the volume of water in the
void space to the volume of the voids and is usually expressed in percent:
Vw
S= (100%) (2.3)
Vv
 Basic definitions, test environment and general apparatuses 13

According to Equation 2.3, S can range from 0% for dry soil to 100% for
a saturated soil and is between 0% and 100% for an unsaturated soil.

2.2.4 Gravimetric water content

Gravimetric water content w is defined as the ratio of mass of water Mw to
the mass of soil soils Ms and is usually expressed in percent:

Mw
w= (100%) (2.4)
Ms

Gravimetric water content w is more commonly referred to as water con-

tent in geotechnical engineering.

2.2.5 Volumetric water content

Volumetric water content θw is defined as the ratio of the volume of water
Vw to the total volume of a soil V:

Vw
θw = (2.5)
V

When the soil is saturated, i.e., S = 100%, Vw will be equal to Vv, and the
saturated volumetric water content θs will be numerically equal to the poros-
ity n.

2.2.6 Soil density
There are two commonly used soil densities, i.e., total density and dry den-
sity. Total density of a soil is defined as the ratio of the total mass of the soil
M and the total volume of the soil V:

M
ρ= (2.6)
V

Total density ρ is also referred to as bulk density, and when the soil is fully
saturated (S = 100%), it is usually referred to as the saturated density ρsat.
As total density ρ does not take into account the degree of saturation of
the soil, it is more useful to use dry density ρd to express the quantity of soil
solids that are packed into a unit volume of soil as a measure of its compact-
ness. The dry density ρd is defined as the ratio of the mass of soil solids Ms
and the total volume of the soil V:

Ms
ρd = (2.7)
V
14 Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

2.2.7 Volume-mass relationships
Using Equations 2.1–2.7, other useful volume-­mass relationships can be
derived as summarised next:
S ⋅ e = w ⋅ Gs (2.8)

1+ w Gs (1 + w ) G + S⋅e
ρ= ρs = ρw = s ρw (2.9)
1+ e 1+ e 1+ e

1 G
ρd = ρ s = s ρw (2.10)
1+ e 1+ e

S⋅e w ⋅ Gs S ⋅ w ⋅ Gs
θw = = S⋅n = = (2.11)
1+ e 1+ e S + w ⋅ Gs

2.3 ROLE OF AIR

In the previous phase relationships, the air phase is “invisible”. However, in

the testing of unsaturated soils, the air phase is always present and in some
tests leads to “inconveniences” and in other tests leads to poor test results.
There are three different situations where the role of air has to be considered
in the testing of unsaturated soils:

Situation 1:
Whenever there is water and air, water is present in the air as water vapour.
In a closed environment where air is above water, water molecules leave the
water surface as water vapour and re-­enter the water surface eventually reach-
ing equilibrium when the number of water molecules leaving and entering
becomes equal at the saturated vapour condition. According to Dalton’s law,
the water vapour in the air has a partial pressure, and at the saturated vapour
condition, the partial pressure of the water vapour is equal to the satura-
tion vapour pressure. Equations to estimate the saturated vapour pressure of
water are given in Appendix B. The saturated vapour pressure depends on the
temperature (Figure 2.2). Evaporation takes place when there are more water
molecules leaving than entering the water surface, and the partial pressure of
water vapour in the air is below the saturation vapour. Condensation takes
place when there are more water molecules entering than leaving the water
surface, and the partial pressure of water vapour in the air exceeds the satura-
tion vapour pressure. Hence, the partial pressure of the water vapour in the
air represents the degree to which the air is saturated with water vapour, and
the ratio of the partial pressure of the water vapour in the air to the saturated
vapour pressure is called relative humidity.
 Basic definitions, test environment and general apparatuses 15

Figure 2.2 Saturated vapour pressure of water based on Huang (2018).

Condensation is observed in low suction tests (high relative humidity) when

there is a drop in temperature. If the condensate falls onto the soil specimen,
suction of the soil specimen may be affected. Usually, evaporation occurs dur-
ing unsaturated soil tests due to two reasons: (1) air pressure above atmo-
spheric pressure supplied to the test apparatus (closed chamber) is usually
dried before entering the test apparatus, and (2) the soil specimen is exposed
to ambient conditions where relative humidity is low. The suction of a soil
increases as it dries. The effect of (1) on the soil specimen is dependent on the
air space around the soil specimen and the air voids in the soil specimen. It is
negligible when the ratio of the volume of air space to the volume of the soil
specimen is small. The effect of (2) may be minimised by increasing the relative
humidity of the air space around the specimen.

Situation 2:
In a test system where both air and water are present, the air can dissolve in
water. The volume of air that can dissolve in a unit volume of water is called
volumetric coefficient of solubility, and the rate at which air dissolves in water
is called diffusivity. The amount of dissolved air in water is governed by Henry’s
law, which states that the amount of dissolved gas in a liquid is proportional to
its partial pressure above the liquid. The higher the amount of dissolved air in
water, the higher the compressibility of the water becomes, thus affecting the
response behaviour of the pore-­water pressure measurement in the test sys-
tem. This is well known in saturated soil tests where the use of de-­aired water
is highly recommended. In unsaturated soil tests where air pressure remains
elevated above atmospheric pressure for a long duration, the water in the
system and the soil will become more and more saturated with dissolved air.
However, to date, no effect of dissolved air in the pore-­water of unsaturated
soil on its engineering properties has been reported.
16 Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

Situation 3:

Air can diffuse through water and through the water phase of soils and other
porous materials. The diffusion process is governed by Fick’s first law and the
mass rate of transfer across a unit area of water Jm depends on the coefficient
of diffusion D and the concentration gradient ∇ua (Equation 2.12).

Jm = −D∇ua  (2.12)

Coefficients of diffusion for air through the water phase of soils and porous
elements measured by Sides and Barden (1970) are summarised in Table 2.1.
The implication of Table 2.1 is that air will diffuse through the rubber mem-
brane, soil specimen and porous elements during an unsaturated soil test in
the laboratory. Hence, caution needs to be exercised when the diffused air
presents a measurement error.
It is common in laboratory unsaturated soil tests, where a high air-­entry
ceramic disk is used to separate the air and water phases, to track the vol-
ume of water flowing out from the unsaturated soil specimen. In such tests,
the diffused air will accumulate below the high air-­entry ceramic disk and
interfere with water flowing out of the soil specimen and, hence, its volume
measurement. Padilla et al. (2006) measured the average diffusion rate of air
through a 15-­bar ceramic disk as shown in Figure 2.3. The average diffusion
rate increases as the applied air pressure increases. Padilla et al. (2006) recom-
mended that the tests involved be flushed according to the frequency shown
in Table 2.2.

Table 2.1 Coefficients of diffusion for air through different materials

Coefficient of Diffusion,
Material
D (m2/s) × 10−10

Free water 22.0

Latex rubber (0.5 mm thick) 1.1
Coarse porous stone (6 mm thick) 25.0
High air-­entry ceramic disk (6 mm thick) 1.6
Kaolin (saturated, w = 75%) 6.2
Dement clay (saturated, w = 53%) 4.7
Jackson’s-­bentonite clay mix (saturated, w = 39%) 0.1
Compacted west water clay (w = 16.5%) 0.38

(data from Sides and Barden (1970)).

 Basic definitions, test environment and general apparatuses 17

Figure 2.3 A
 verage diffusion rate of air through saturated 15-bar high air-entry
ceramic disk with applied air pressure (data from Padilla et al. (2006)).

Table 2.2 F requency of flushing of high air-entry ceramic disks recommended by

Padilla et al. (2006)

Ceramic disk Frequency of flushing

1-­bar Once in three days

3-­bar Once in three days
5-­bar Once in two days
15-­bar Once a day for applied air pressures < 750 kPa
Twice or more times a day for applied air pressure > 750 kPa

2.4 TEST ENVIRONMENT

Control of temperature and relative humidity of the test environment is

needed when required, especially in the testing of unsaturated soils. When
required, tests shall be conducted in an environment where the temperature
and relative humidity can be controlled to within acceptable limits. For tem-
perature, British Standards (BS1377, 1990) typically specify that the tempera-
ture should be kept to within ±4°C, whereas American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM) typically specifies ±5°C. Commonly adopted standard
temperature is taken as 20°C, but this may be difficult to achieve in tropical
countries laboratories, and usually more attention is placed on recording the
daily maximum and minimum temperatures and observing that the tempera-
ture fluctuation range is kept within ±4°C or ±5°C during the test. For rela-
tive humidity, there is no specific mention except for the storage of samples.
Relative humidity may play a bigger role in testing unsaturated soils, as tem-
perature and relative humidity affect the rate of drying of soil specimens dur-
ing the test where such specimens are exposed to the ambient condition.
18 Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

2.5 GENERAL APPARATUSES

The general apparatuses that are used for soil tests can be found in many
books and standards and will not be elaborated on here. For this book, we
shall only look at the general apparatuses that are needed for unsaturated
soil tests. Table 2.3 shows the general apparatuses which are referred to in
this book.

Table 2.3 General apparatuses

Apparatus Description

Beaker
500 ml conical beaker in BS 1377-­3:2018
250 ml beaker in BS 1377-­3:2018

Oven
Temperature of 105°C to 110°C to be maintained for drying soil
samples in BS. Temperature of 45°C to 50°C are to be used for
soil samples that experience physical changes at the higher drying
temperature of 105°C to 110°C
Temperature of 110 ± 5°C to be maintained for drying soil samples
in BS
Burette
50 ml Burette in BS 1377-­3:2018

Desiccator
Used to cool specimen after oven dry. Can be either using vacuum
pump or using silica gel

Electronic weight scales

Accuracy depends on the test
0.1 g for particle density test using gas jar
0.01 g for typical water content measurement
0.001 g for particle density test using small pycnometer
Evaporating dish
150 mm diameter – BS 1377-­2 (1990)

Round bottom flask

(Continued)
 Basic definitions, test environment and general apparatuses 19

Table 2.3 (Continued)

Apparatus Description
Flat bottom flask

BS1377-­2
Small pycnometer – 50 mL
Large pycnometer – 1L

Funnel
BS1377-­2 (1990)
Glass filter funnel – 100 mm diameter
Buchner funnel – 150 mm diameter

Gas jar
1L in capacity – BS1377-­2 (1990)

Hand vacuum pump

Burette/pipette pump

Hydrometer
Apparatus used to conduct sedimentation test by hydrometer
method according to BS 1377-­2 (1990)

Measuring cylinder
25 mL, 50 mL, 100 mL, 500 mL, 1L measuring cylinder BS1377-­2
(1990)

(Continued)
20 Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

Table 2.3 (Continued)

Apparatus Description
Pestle and mortar
Used to pulverise material in Atterberg Limit (D4318-­2017)

Tube/tubing
Used to provide water or air pressure
Retort stand with clamp
Typically used to support burette

Stirrer
Usually made of glass

Stopwatch
Used to record time

Tripod
Used to place non-­flat bottom apparatus such as Tempe cell or
round bottom flask
U tube
Used as manometer

Weight
Used to apply small seating pressure to a specimen
 Basic definitions, test environment and general apparatuses 21

REFERENCES

Huang, J. (2018). A simple accurate formula for calculating saturation vapor pres-
sure of water and ice. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 57(6):
1265–1272. Retrieved May 12, 2022, from https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/
journals/apme/57/6/jamc-d-17-0334.1.xml
Padilla, J. M., Perera, Y. Y., Houston, W. N., Perez, P. N., & Fredlund, D. G. (2006).
Quantification of air diffusion through high air-­entry ceramic disks. In Proceedings
of the Fourth International Conference on Unsaturated Soils, ASCE, Carefree, AZ,
Vol. 2, pp. 1852–1863.
Sides, G. R. & Barden, L. (1970). The times required for the attainment of air-­
water equilibrium in clay soils. Journal of Soil Science, 21: 50–62. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1365-­2389.1970.tb01151.xj
Chapter 3

Sampling, storage and

sample preparation

3.1 BACKGROUND

Reliable soil properties cannot be obtained without an appropriate sam-

pling technique, proper storage and careful sample preparation. In testing
saturated soils, the soil specimen is commonly re-conditioned by saturating
the soil specimen. However, unsaturated soil commonly requires the soil
to be tested at its natural (as is) condition of soil suction and water con-
tent. Thus, it is not an understatement to say that unsaturated soil testing
requires a much higher sample quality compared to saturated soil testing.
In this chapter, sampling, storage and sample preparation will be described
with emphasis on unsaturated soils. This chapter aims to guide engineers to

1. select the best sampling method depending on the test that is desired,
2. specify proper storage conditions for soil samples intended to be used
for unsaturated soil testing, and
3. select the appropriate specimen preparation method for the intended
test.

3.2 RELATED STANDARDS

1. ASTM D1452/D1452M (2016) Standard Practice for Soil Exploration

and Sampling by Auger Borings.
2. ASTM D1586 (2011) Standard Test Method for Standard Penetration
Test (SPT) and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils.
3. ASTM D1587/D1587M (2015) Standard Practice for Thin-Walled
Tube Sampling of Fine-Grained Soils for Geotechnical Purposes.
4. ASTM D3550/D3550M (2017) Standard Practice for Thick Wall,
Ring-Lined, Split Barrel, Drive Sampling of Soils.
5. ASTM D4220/D4220M (2014) Standard Practices for Preserving and
Transporting Soil Samples.
6. ASTM D4700 (2015) Standard Guide for Soil Sampling from the
Vadose Zone.

DOI: 10.1201/b22304-3 23
24 Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

7. ASTM D5299/D5299M (2017) Standard Guide for Decommissioning

of Groundwater Wells, Vadose Zone Monitoring Devices, Boreholes,
and Other Devices for Environmental Activities.
8. ASTM D5782 (2018) Standard Guide for Use of Direct Air-Rotary
Drilling for Geoenvironmental Exploration and the Installation of
Subsurface Water-Quality Monitoring Devices.
9. ASTM D5783 (2018) Standard Guide for Use of Direct Rotary Drilling
with Water-Based Drilling Fluid for Geoenvironmental Exploration
and the Installation of Subsurface Water-Quality Monitoring Devices.
10. ASTM D5784/D5784M (2013) Standard Guide for Use of Hollow-
Stem Augers for Geoenvironmental Exploration and the Installation
of Subsurface Water-Quality Monitoring Devices.
11. ASTM D5876/D5876M (2017) Standard Guide for Use of Direct
Rotary Wireline Casing Advancement Drilling Methods for
Geoenvironmental Exploration and Installation of Subsurface Water-
Quality Monitoring Devices.
12. ASTM D6151/D6151M (2015) Standard Practice for Using Hollow-
Stem Augers for Geotechnical Exploration and Soil Sampling.
13. D6169/D6169M (2013) Standard Guide for Selection of Soil and
Rock Sampling Devices Used With Drill Rigs for Environmental
Investigations.
14. ASTM D6232 (2016) Standard Guide for Selection of Sampling
Equipment for Waste and Contaminated Media Data Collection
Activities.
15. ASTM D6282/D6282M (2014) Standard Guide for Direct Push Soil
Sampling for Environmental Site Characterizations.
16. ASTM D6286 (2012) Standard Guide for Selection of Drilling
Methods for Environmental Site Characterization.
17. ASTM D6519 (2015) Standard Practice for Sampling of Soil Using the
Hydraulically Operated Stationary Piston Sampler.
18. ASTM D6640 (2015) Standard Practice for Collection and Handling
of Soils Obtained in Core Barrel Samplers for Environmental
Investigations.
19. ASTM D7015 (2013) Standard Practices for Obtaining Intact Block
(Cubical and Cylindrical) Samples of Soil.
20. BS 5930 (2015) Code of Practice for Ground Investigations.
21. BS EN 1997-2 (2007) Eurocode 7 – Geotechnical Design – Part 2:
Ground Investigation and Testing.
22. BS EN ISO 22475-1 (2006) Geotechnical Investigation and Testing –
Sampling Methods and Groundwater Measurement – Part 1: Technical
Principles for Execution.
23. BS 22475-2 (2011) Geotechnical Investigation and Testing – Sampling
Methods and Groundwater Measurements – Part 2: Qualification
Criteria for Enterprises and Personnel.
 Sampling, storage and sample preparation 25

24. BS 22475-3 (2011) Geotechnical Investigation and Testing. Sampling

Methods and Groundwater Measurements. Conformity Assessment
of Enterprises and Personnel by Third Party.

3.3 SAMPLING CATEGORY AND SAMPLE QUALITY

Sampling is commonly carried out either by drilling and sampling (making

a borehole through drilling and then using a sampler), or by excavating
and retrieving the soil through block sampling (BS EN ISO 22475-1 2006;
Monnet 2015). The selection of sampling method is affected by several fac-
tors such as (BS EN ISO 22475-1 2006)

1. type of soil being sampled (sandy soil, clayey soil, etc.),

2. consistency of soil (soft, stiff, etc.),
3. depth of soil sample,
4. location of groundwater table, or
5. required sample quality.

Sample quality is divided into five classes where class 1 represents the best
sample quality and class 5 the worst (BS EN ISO 22475-1 2006). The sample
quality class will affect the type of geotechnical engineering properties that
can be determined (BS EN 1997-2 2007; ASTM D4220/D4220M 2014) as
shown in Table 3.1.

3.3.1 
BS EN ISO 22475-1 (2006)
Sampling can be categorised into A, B and C depending on the drilling
method, soil type and sampler used. Category A sampling can be used to
obtain samples of quality class from 1 to 5 where the sampling process
introduces very minimal disturbance to the soil structure, water content,
void ratio and chemical composition. Geotechnical engineering parameters
related to shear strength, compressibility and permeability must be obtained
from samples obtained by category A sampling.
Category B sampling can be used to obtain sample quality class from 1 to
5 where natural water content can be retained but the structure of the soil
has been disturbed and thus affecting its engineering properties. Category B
sampling is commonly used to obtain samples for index tests such as grain
size distribution, water content, Atterberg limits, density and chemical test.
Category C sampling can only obtain samples of quality class 5 where the
soil has been completely remoulded and thus does not retain its natural
structure and water content. Tables 3.1 and 3.2 show several sampling
methods, along with their potential sample quality and requirement. Samples
obtained using category C sampling are only useful for visual examination
of soil type and determining the sequence of layers (profile).
 26
Table 3.1 Sampling by drilling in soils without flushing medium based on BS EN ISO 22475-1 (2006)

Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

Sampling Sample
Cutting technique Designation Tool Preferred soil type categories* class*
Rotary drilling Rotary dry core Single-tube core barrel Clay, silt, fine sand, silt B (A) 4 (2–3)
drilling Hollow-stem auger Clay, silt, sand, organic soils B (A) 3 (1–2)
Auger drilling Drill rods with shell or flight All soils above water surface, all B 4 (3)
auger, hollow-stem auger cohesive soils below water surface
Auger drilling with Shell auger or spiral flight auger Clay to medium gravel above water C (B) 5
light equipment surface, cohesive soils below water
surface
Hammer driving Percussive core Percussion clay cutter with Clay, silt and soils with particle size A 2 (1)
drilling cutting edge inside; also with up to De/3
sleeve (or hollow-stem auger) Non-cohesive soil B (A) 3 (2)
Percussive drilling Percussive clay cutter with Gravel and soils with a particle size B 4
cutting edge outside up to De/3
Small diameter Hammer driving linkage with Soils with a particle size up to De/5 C 5
hammer driving tube sampler
Vibration drilling with Resonance drilling Thick wall sampler or single- Cohesive soil B 4
an optional slow tube core barrel with optional Non-cohesive soil C 5
rotation plastic lining tube
Percussion Cable percussion Cable with percussion shell Clay and silt above water surface, clay C (B) 4 (3)
drilling auger below water surface
Cable with valve auger Gravel and sand in water C (B) 5 (4)
Pneumatic/continuous Small diameter Pneumatic/continuous thrust Clay, silt, fine sand C 5
thrust pneumatic/ linkage, with tube sampler
continuous thrust
drilling
Grabbing Grab drilling Cable with grab Gravel, boulders of size less than B 4
De/2, cobbles (above water surface)
Gravel, boulders of size less than C 5
De/2, cobbles (below water surface)
De is internal diameter of sampling tool.
* The sampling categories and quality classes in parentheses can be achieved provided sampling is carried in favourable conditions.

Sampling, storage and sample preparation

27
28 Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

Table 3.2 S ampling by drilling in soils with flushing medium based on BS EN ISO 22475-1
(2006)

Need
Cutting flushing Preferred soil Sampling Sample
technique Designation medium Tool type categories* class*
Rotary Rotary core Yes Single-tube core Clay, clayey and B (A) 3 (1–2)
drilling drilling barrel cemented
Double-tube composite B (A) 4 (2–3)
core barrel soils, boulders
Triple-tube core A 3 (1–2)
barrel
Double/triple- Clay, silt A 2 (1)
tube core barrel
with extended
inner tube
Reverse Yes Drill rods with All soils C (B) 5 (4)
circulation hollow chisel
drilling
Rotary Rotary yes Single- or Clay, silt A 2 (1)
hammer percussive double-tube (cohesive soil)
driving drilling core barrel Fine sand B 4 (3)
(Non-
cohesive soil)
De is the internal diameter of the sampling tool.
* The sampling categories and quality classes in parentheses can be achieved provided sampling is
carried in favourable conditions.

Table 3.3 S ampling method using sampler which is able to produce sample class 1 based
on BS EN ISO 22475-1 (2006)

Penetration Sampling Sample

Sampler type Abbreviation method Suitable soil types category* class*
Thin-walled OS-T/W static or Cohesive or organic A 1
open-tube dynamic soils of soft or stiff
driving consistency
Cohesive or organic A 2 (1)
soils of stiff
consistency
Thin-walled PS-T/W Static Cohesive or organic A 1
piston tube driving soils of pasty or
stiff consistency and
sensitive soils
Thick-walled PS-TK/W Static Cohesive or organic B (A) 2 (1)
piston tube driving soils of soft to stiff
consistency and
sensitive soils
Cylinder (large LS Static Clay, silt A 1
sampler) rotating

* The sampling categories and quality classes in parentheses can be achieved provided sampling is
carried in favourable conditions.
 Sampling, storage and sample preparation 29

Table 3.4 Class requirement and of geotechnical engineering properties (BS EN 1997-2 2007)

ASTM D4220/
(BS EN 1997-2 2007) D4220M (2014)
Minimum class Minimum
Soil properties requirement sampling category Group
Compressibility 1 A C or D
Shear strength 1 A C or D
Permeability 2 A C or D
Density, density index, porosity 2 A C or D
Boundary of strata – fine 2 A C or D
Water content 3 B B
Boundary of strata – broad 4 B B
Particle size 4 B B
Atterberg limits, particle density,
4 B B
organic content, water content
Sequence of layers 5 C A

3.3.2 ASTM D4220/D4220M (2014)

The sampling classification listed in ASTM D4220/D4220M (2014) dif-
fers slightly from BS EN ISO 22475-1 (2006). The classification in ASTM
D4220/D4220M (2014) is divided into four groups A, B, C and D as follows:

1. Group A is only used for visual identification or profiling (Equivalent

to Category C of BS EN ISO 22475-1 (2006)).
2. Group B is used for water content determination, classification, com-
paction and laboratory test which requires bulk sample (Equivalent to
Category B of BS EN ISO 22475-1 (2006)).
3. Groups C and D give the best sample quality (Equivalent to Category
A of BS EN ISO 22475-1 (2006)). However, ASTM D4220/D4220M
(2014) places more emphasis on group D, which is for highly sensitive
or fragile samples. The difference between groups C and D samples
is that the soil sample obtained using group D must be stored in the
same orientation as it is sampled due to its sensitivity.

3.4 SAMPLING IN UNSATURATED SOIL

As mentioned previously, sampling for unsaturated soil testing demands a

higher sample quality than for saturated soil testing. Unsaturated soil is
often encountered near the ground surface above the groundwater table
(Fredlund et al. 2012), and the zone is usually referred to as vadose zone
30 Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

(ASTM D4700 2015). Obtaining undisturbed unsaturated soil is more dif-

ficult due to the following:

1. Restriction in using water or drilling fluid during the sampling process

(ASTM D4546 2008; ASTM D4700 2015). In unsaturated soil test-
ing, the natural water content and void ratio are very important as
the soil properties of unsaturated soil are affected by its water content
(which affects its suction). The use of drilling fluid may cause the soil
to become saturated due to seepage of the fluid into the soil. Thus, a
sampling method using water or drilling fluid is not suitable due to the
possibility of changing the natural water content of the soil.
2. A sampler which depends on suction (i.e., piston sampler) to retrieve
and hold the sample may not work in unsaturated coarse-grained
sands and gravels due to the high air permeability of the soil that pre-
vents the creation of suction (ASTM D4700 2015).

Drilling methods for unsaturated soil sampling should use air only as the
flushing fluid to preserve the water content of the soil. Suitable drilling meth-
ods using air as the flushing fluid are listed in Table 3.1 and only rotary dry
core drilling with a hollow-stem auger or percussive core drilling with cut-
ting edge inside and a sleeve can be used to achieve the desired sample qual-
ity. If it is not possible to use any of the methods listed in Table 3.1, drilling
with flushing fluid other than water may be used (Table 3.2) provided that
the water content profile of the soil is known. For such soil samples, it may
be possible to bring the soil specimen back to its in situ water content before
the test.
Block sampling is the best method to obtain large amounts of high-quality
undisturbed unsaturated soil. It is categorised as sampling category A (BS
EN ISO 22475-1 2006) and the sample quality is class 1 (Monnet 2015).
Block sampling procedures are described in ASTM D7015 (2013) and in BS
EN ISO 22475-1 (2006). The procedures are schematically shown in
Figure 3.1 and summarised as follows:

1. Prepare a box with side lengths around 0.30 m (the side length is arbi-
trary, but it must be at least 10 to 15 mm larger than the sample size).
2. Remove topsoil containing roots and other organic matters which are
not desired.
3. Level and smooth the ground surface at which the soil sample is going
to be sampled.
4. Excavate a trench surrounding the soil sample (without inducing dis-
turbance to the soil sample) such that there is sufficient working space
for a person to go in and trim the sample. The width and height of the
pedestal are about 0.90 m and 1.20 m, respectively, and it is unneces-
sary for the trench to be all around the soil sample.
 Sampling, storage and sample preparation 31

Area to be excavated
Ground surface

Specimen elevation

Specimen to be sampled

(a)

Specimen Elevation

Specimen to be sampled

(b)

Specimen to be sampled
(c)

Specimen box

(d)

Figure 3.1 Block sampling process. (a) Stage 1 to 3. (b) Stage 4. (c) Stage 5 to 8.
(d) Stage 9 to 19.
32 Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

5. Use a chain saw or hand tools to trim the pedestal into the soil sam-
ple with the desired dimensions. Remoulded soil shall be removed
from the sampling spot, and no water shall be in contact with the soil
sample.
6. Measure and record the top elevation of the block sample.
7. Measure and record the groundwater elevation if encountered.
8. Visually classify the soil sample.
9. Cover the exposed surface of the sample block. This should be done
as soon as possible if the sample is to be tested at its natural water
content, as evaporation can affect the natural water content of the
sample. ASTM D7015 (2013) suggests covering the soil sample with
three layers of cheesecloth and painting it with melted wax to prevent
evaporation.
10. Label the sample.
11. Mark the sample at the top and indicate the north orientation such as
by using a piece of paper that is waxed to the top of the sample.
12. For easily disturbed soil, a box with both ends removed should be
placed over the sample.
13. Fill up the space between the sample and the box with packing mate-
rial to cushion the sample from disturbance during transportation.
14. Attach the top cover to the box with screws or bolts and nuts.
15. Cut the base of the sample using a wire saw, shovel or knife.
16. Slowly tilt the box and add additional packing materials to minimise
gaps between the sample and the box.
17. Cover the exposed bottom part of the sample with three layers of
cheesecloth and paint it with melted wax.
18. Attach a cover to close the box with screws or bolts and nuts.
19. Place a copy of the paper with the sample information on the top of
the box.

3.5 LABELLING SOIL SAMPLES

In general, the following information is required in identifying soil samples

(BS EN ISO 22475-1 2006; Monnet 2015):

1. identification of the project;

2. identification of trial pit, borehole number, etc.;
3. sample reference;
4. sampling method;
5. sample depth (top and bottom);
6. sample direction (top and bottom);
7. sampling date;
8. sample recovery; and
9. possible disturbance during the sampling process.
 Sampling, storage and sample preparation 33

Due to climatic and groundwater conditions, the water content of unsatu-

rated soil may vary greatly with depth (Fredlund et al. 2012). Thus, it is
important to know the direction and depth of each specimen which is going
to be tested. For example, air-entry value of sandy soils can be less than 10
kPa, which is equivalent to 1m depth of water. Thus, the water contents of a
1m long sample at the top and at the bottom of the sample may vary greatly.
If the sample recovery is less than 100%, judgement is required to determine
the actual depth of the tested specimen.
Sampling date is important to determine the possibility of the sample dry-
ing due to the long duration between sampling and testing. Similar with
saturated soils, it is recommended that unsaturated soil testing should be
carried out as soon as possible after sampling to avoid sample disturbance.

3.6 STORAGE OF UNSATURATED SOIL SAMPLES

Storage of the soil sample starts from the time when the soil sample is taken
until the time that the soil sample is used for testing. Procedures for han-
dling unsaturated soil samples are given in BS EN ISO 22475-1 (2006) for
sampling category A or (ASTM D4220/D4220M 2014) for group D. Any
disturbance which might be induced during the handling process (from site
to the laboratory for testing) must be clearly indicated in the test as it might
affect the test result.
Proper storage procedures for tube samples are given below:

1. BS EN ISO 22475-1 (2006) specifies that the ends of the sample tube
shall be sealed with either plastic expandable packers or by a soil
filling.
2. Wax must be applied on both ends of the soil sample to avoid evapo-
ration. BS EN ISO 22475-1 (2006) specifies that for long-term seal-
ing, microcrystalline wax up to 15% beeswax, paraffin or resin can
be used. ASTM D4546 (2008) specifies that the temperature of the
wax shall be 8°C to 14°C above the melting point, as very hot wax
might penetrate pores and cracks, and dry the sample. Cheesecloth or
aluminium foil may be placed as an interface between soil sample and
the wax to avoid wax intrusion.
3. A rubber cap is placed at the top and bottom of the sample tube to
protect the sample tube from impact and vibration and to keep the
sample from falling out.
4. At the site, the sample tubes must be kept using a sample holder such
as shown in Figure 3.2 to avoid the possibility of any accidental dam-
age to the sample.
5. At the site, the sample tubes must be placed in a shaded area to avoid
direct exposure of the soil sample to sunlight.
34 Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

Figure 3.2 Storage of soil sample on site.

During transportation, BS EN ISO 22475-1 (2006) specifies that soil samples

must be protected from vibration, shock and extreme temperatures. Samples
shall be transported in a solid box or container such that the samples fit
snugly to prevent bumping, rolling or dropping. Additional cushioning
material such as sawdust, rubber, polystyrene, urethane foam or any other
resilient material can be used to protect the samples. Cushioning between
samples and the walls of the container shall have a minimum thickness of
25 mm, while the thickness of the cushion between samples and the bottom
of the container shall be 50 mm.
At the laboratory, the sample tubes should be kept in a sample storage
room that has a high relative humidity and constant temperature to pre-
serve the water content of the soil samples (Monnet 2015). BS EN ISO
22475-1 (2006) specifies that the storage room temperature must be the
same as the ground temperature (+6°C to +12°C) with relative humidity
from 85% to 100%.
 Sampling, storage and sample preparation 35

3.7 SAMPLE PREPARATIONS

Three types of soil specimens are used for unsaturated soil testing (ASTM
D5333 2003; ASTM D6836-02 2008; ASTM D4829 2011):

1. undisturbed soil specimen,

2. re-constituted soil specimen, and
3. compacted soil specimen.

3.7.1 Undisturbed soil specimen

Undisturbed soil specimens can be prepared with or without a retaining ring
(ASTM D6836-02 2008). A retaining ring is commonly used to maintain the
shape of the specimen or to simulate k0 condition. However, a retaining ring
may cause friction, or the soil specimen may shrink within the retaining ring
due to drying.

3.7.1.1 Specimen prepared from undisturbed samples with

retaining ring
Preparation of undisturbed soil specimen with a retaining ring can be sum-
marised as follows:

1. Place the retaining ring on top of the soil sample.

2. Use a trimming tool to slowly cut away the soil which is protruding
beyond the edge of the retaining ring until the soil specimen slowly
slides into the ring.
3. Trim the top and bottom surfaces of the soil specimen such that it is
levelled with the ring.
4. Weigh the soil specimen in the retaining ring to the nearest 0.01 g.
5. Determine the initial water content from the left-over material.
Trim 1 Trim 2

Trim 3

Retaining
ring

Trim 4

Figure 3.3 Specimen preparation using retaining ring.

36 Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

3.7.1.2 Specimen prepared from undisturbed samples without

retaining ring
Preparation of undisturbed soil specimen without retaining ring is as follows:

1. Trim the specimen to the desired dimensions using a trimmer. A cylin-

drical soil specimen is preferred for the ease of volume calculation as
the soil may shrink and volume change measurement may be required.
2. Measure the dimensions (diameter/side length/height) at three loca-
tions (or four locations in BS1377: 1990) for each dimension to calcu-
late the volume of the soil specimen.
3. Determine the average of each dimension to the nearest 0.1 mm.
4. Weigh the soil specimen to the nearest 0.01 g.

3.7.2 Specimen prepared from re-constituted soil

In some cases, it is not possible to prepare undisturbed soil specimens.
Therefore, re-constitution of the soil specimen might be the only choice.
Re-constituting the specimen must be done such that the specimen’s con-
dition can meet certain criteria such as duplicating the site condition.
Preparation for the disturbed specimen is summarised as follows:

1. Air dry and crush the representative samples for an amount up to two
times the specimen required to fill the specimen retaining ring.
2. Remove all particles with a diameter exceeding one-half the height of
the retaining ring.
3. The sample may be moistened to the specified water content if
required.
4. Place the moistened sample into the retaining ring or mould.
5. Tap or compact the soil to the specified density.
6. Trim the top and bottom surface of the specimen such that it is lev-
elled with the ring.
7. Weigh the specimen in the retaining ring to the nearest 0.01 g.
8. Determine the water content of the remaining material.

3.7.3 Specimen prepared from compacted soil

A compacted soil specimen can be obtained by dynamic or static compac-
tion. In dynamic compaction, the soil sample is compacted in the standard
mould using a specific compaction effort. The soil specimen for the unsatu-
rated soil test can then be obtained by pushing a tube or ring with a cutting
edge into the compacted sample or trimmed from the compacted sample
using a soil lathe. However, it is challenging to obtain a soil specimen from
a soil sample compacted dry of optimum. In order to achieve a uniform/
consistent specimen. It is usually more convenient to compact the soil into
 Sampling, storage and sample preparation 37

the soil specimen that is required for the test (i.e., water content and dry
density) by using static compaction (Goh 2012; Priono et al. 2017).

REFERENCES

ASTM D1452/D1452m (2016). Standard practice for soil exploration and sampling
by auger borings. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
ASTM D1586 (2011). Standard test method for standard penetration test (spt) and
split-barrel sampling of soils. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
ASTM D1587/D1587m (2015). Standard practice for thin-walled tube sampling
of fine-grained soils for geotechnical purposes. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM
International.
ASTM D3550/D3550m (2017). Standard practice for thick wall, ring-lined, split
barrel, drive sampling of soils. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
ASTM D4220/D4220m (2014). Standard practices for preserving and transporting
soil samples. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
ASTM D4546 (2008). Standard test methods for one-dimensional swell or collapse
of cohesive soils. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
ASTM D4700 (2015). Standard guide for soil sampling from the Vadose Zone. West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
ASTM D4829 (2011). Standard test method for expansion index for soils. West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM Standard.
ASTM D5299/D5299m (2017). Standard guide for decommissioning of groundwa-
ter wells, vadose zone monitoring devices, boreholes, and other devices for envi-
ronmental activities. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
ASTM D5333 (2003). Standard test method for measurement of collapse potential
of soils. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
ASTM D5782 (2018). Standard guide for use of direct air-rotary drilling for geoen-
vironmental exploration and the installation of subsurface water-quality monitor-
ing devices. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
ASTM D5783 (2018). Standard guide for use of direct rotary drilling with water-
based drilling fluid for geoenvironmental exploration and the installation of
subsurface water-quality monitoring devices. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM
International.
ASTM D5784/D5784m (2013). Standard guide for use of hollow-stem augers for
geoenvironmental exploration and the installation of subsurface water-quality
monitoring devices. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
ASTM D5876/D5876m (2017). Standard guide for use of direct rotary wireline cas-
ing advancement drilling methods for geoenvironmental exploration and instal-
lation of subsurface water-quality monitoring devices. West Conshohocken, PA:
ASTM International.
ASTM D6151/D6151m (2015). Standard practice for using hollow-stem augers
for geotechnical exploration and soil sampling. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM
International.
D6169/D6169m (2013). Standard guide for selection of soil and rock sampling
devices used with drill rigs for environmental investigations. West Conshohocken,
PA: ASTM International.
38 Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

ASTM D6232 (2016). Standard guide for selection of sampling equipment for waste
and contaminated media data collection activities. West Conshohocken, PA:
ASTM International.
ASTM D6282/D6282m (2014). Standard guide for direct push soil sampling for envi-
ronmental site characterizations. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
ASTM D6286 (2012). Standard guide for selection of drilling methods for environ-
mental site characterization. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
ASTM D6519 (2015). Standard practice for sampling of soil using the hydraulically
operated stationary piston sampler. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
ASTM D6640 (2015). Standard practice for collection and handling of soils obtained
in core barrel samplers for environmental investigations. West Conshohocken, PA:
ASTM International.
ASTM D6836-02 (2008). Standard test method for determination of soil water char-
acteristic curve for desorption using hanging column, pressure extractor, chilled
mirror hygrometer, or centrifuge. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
ASTM D7015 (2013). Standard practices for obtaining intact block (cubical and
cylindrical) samples of soil. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
BS EN 1997-2 (2007). Eurocode 7 – geotechnical design – part 2: Ground investiga-
tion and testing.
BS 5930 (2015). Code of practice for ground investigations. UK: BSI.
BS EN ISO 22475-1 (2006). Geotechnical investigation and testing – sampling meth-
ods and groundwater measurement – part 1: Technical principles for execution.
UK: BSI.
BS 22475-2 (2011). Geotechnical investigation and testing – sampling methods and
ground water measurements – part 2: Qualification criteria for enterprises and
personnel. UK: BSI.
BS 22475-3 (2011). Geotechnical investigation and testing. Sampling methods and
groundwater measurements. Conformity assessment of enterprises and personnel
by third party. UK: BSI.
Fredlund, D. G., Rahardjo, H., & Fredlund, M. D. (2012). Unsaturated soil mechan-
ics in engineering practice. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Goh, S. G. (2012). Hysteresis effects on mechanical behaviour of unsaturated soils. In
School of civil and environmental engineering. Nanyang Technological University,
Singapore, vol. Ph.D.
Monnet, J. (2015). In situ tests in geotechnical engineering. New Jersey: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc., ISTE Ltd, UK.
Priono Rahardjo, H., Chatterjea, K., & Leong, E.-C. (2017). Laboratory investiga-
tion on hydraulic anisotropy behavior of unsaturated soil. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal 54(7): 1034–1046.

FURTHER READING

Head, K. H. (2006). Manual of soil laboratory testing, volume I, soil classification

and compaction testing, 3rd ed. Caithness,UK: Whittles Publishing.
Monnet, J. (2015). In situ tests in geotechnical engineering. New Jersy: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.
Chapter 4

Grain-size distribution, and specific

gravity

4.1 BACKGROUND

Soil is an assemblage of discrete grains of various shapes and sizes (Head

2006). Thus, classification of soil is commonly based on the cumulative pro-
portions of grains (by mass) under different ranges of sizes obtained by con-
ducting grain-­size analysis. There are two common methods to determine the
grain-­size distribution of soil, which are mechanical sieving and sedimentation
test. Mechanical sieving is commonly carried out to determine the proportions
of coarse-­grained soils, while a sedimentation test (i.e., pipette and hydrom-
eter tests) is carried out to determine the proportions of fine-­grained soils.
In unsaturated soil mechanics, grain-­size distribution or its parameters
are commonly used to obtain properties such as soil-­water characteristic
curve (SWCC), hydraulic conductivity and shear strength. Such relation-
ships are commonly known as pedo-­transfer function. Considering the long
test duration to obtain SWCC, pedo-­transfer functions for SWCC are the
most common, as they can provide a quick preliminary estimate until more
accurate SWCC can be made available from tests.
The specific gravity of soil solid is used to calculate the void ratio and
degree of saturation (ASTM D854-­14 2014). Both parameters are com-
monly used in unsaturated soil mechanics, and their determinations are
already well covered in test standards and classical soil mechanics text-
books. Hence, in this chapter, the emphasis will be on the determination of
the grain-­size distribution and specific gravity. Their roles in determining the
SWCC will also be covered.

4.2 RELATED STANDARDS

1. BS EN ISO 17892-­3 (2015) Geotechnical Investigation and Testing.

Laboratory Testing of Soil. Part 3: Determination of Particle Density.
2. BS EN ISO 17892-­4 (2016) Geotechnical Investigation and Testing.
Laboratory Testing of Soil. Part 4: Determination of Particle Size
Distribution.

DOI: 10.1201/b22304-4 39
40 Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

3. BS 1377-­2 (1990) Methods of Test for Soils for Civil Engineering

Purposes. Part 2: Classification Tests.
4. ASTM D854-­14 (2014) Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of
Soil Solids by Water Pycnometer.
5. ASTM D421-­85 (2007) Standard Practice for Dry Preparation of Soil
Samples for Particle Size Analysis and Determination of Soil Constants.
6. ASTM D422-­ 63 (2007) Standard Test Method for Particle-­ Size
Analysis of Soils.
7. ASTM D2487-­17 (2017) Standard Practice for Classification of Soils
for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System).
8. ASTM D6913/D6913M (2017) Standard Test Methods for Particle-­
Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis.
9. ASTM D7928 (2017) Standard Test Method for Particle-­ Size
Distribution (Gradation) of Fine-­Grained Soils Using the Sedimentation
(Hydrometer) Analysis.

4.3 SOIL CLASSIFICATION BASED ON GRAIN SIZE

Grain-­size distribution is used to

1. classify soil according to predominant soil types such as gravel, sand,

silt or clay and
2. estimate engineering properties.

In unsaturated soil mechanics, grain-­size distribution is particularly useful

in estimating the SWCC, which can then be used to estimate other unsatu-
rated soil properties.
Unfortunately, different soil classification systems as shown in Table 4.1
and Figure 4.1 are in use. In some soil classifications, such as Unified Soil

Table 4.1 Soil classification based on different standards

Minimum grain size (mm)

Soil type BS 1377:1990 ASTM D422-­63 BS EN ISO 14688-­1 2018 USDA
Large Boulders >630
Boulders >200 200–630
Cobbles 60–200 63–200
Gravel 2–60 75–4.75 2–63 >2
Sand 0.06–2 4.75–0.075 0.063–2 0.05–2
Silt 0.002–0.06 0.075–0.005 0.002–0.064 0.002–0.05
Clay <0.002 <0.005 <0.002 <0.002
 Grain-size distribution, and specific gravity 41

Percentage of Sand

Figure 4.1 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) soil classification.

Classification System (USCS) and BS 5930 (2015), additional tests are needed
to determine whether the soil should be referred to as silt or clay. Comparison
between different soil classification is shown in Figure 4.2.

4.4 CURVE-FITTING, GRAIN-SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Mechanical sieving provides discrete data points but does not differentiate
the shape of the grains. The sedimentation test, on the other hand, based on
Stokes’ law assumes all grains to be an equivalent sphere. Sometimes there
is a discontinuity between the overlapping data from the two tests because
of the difference in assumptions. When this happens, a smooth best-­fit curve
is drawn through this overlapping zone which may not pass through the
data points from both tests in the overlapping zone. A common criticism of
the grain-­size distribution curve is that the exact proportions of the grains
within a size range are not known, and the grain-­size Dx where x is the
percent passing (e.g., D10, D30, D60) is read from the curve assuming equal
distribution of grains within the size range. As the grain-­size distribution
curve is used in unsaturated soil mechanics to estimate other engineering
properties, it is desirable to represent the grain-­size distribution curve using
 42
Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils
Clay Silt Sand Gravel
USDA

Clay Silt Sand Gravel Large Boulders

BS EN ISO 14688-1 (2018)

Clay Silt Sand Gravel Cobbles

ASTM D422-63

Clay Silt Sand Gravel Cobbles Boulders

BS1377:1990

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000

Figure 4.2 Comparison between soil classification system based on grain size.
 Grain-size distribution, and specific gravity 43

an equation. It is possible to use an interpolation function such as a cubic

spline to represent the grain-­size distribution, but there are advantages in
using an equation over an interpolation function:

1. The entire grain-­size distribution can be represented by a set of param-

eters in the equation.
2. Parameters of the equation can be used for correlation purposes.

Table 4.2 shows some of the equations that can be used to fit the grain-­size
distribution curve. Most of the equations are adapted from equations to fit
the SWCC, as both SWCC and grain-­size distribution have a similar shape.

4.5 EFFECT OF GRAIN SIZE AND PACKING

CONFIGURATION ON THE SWCC (CONTACTING
SPHERES MODEL)

The effect of grain size on the SWCC can be described by using the contact-
ing spheres model (Lu and Likos 2004). Figure 4.3. shows a schematic of the
air-­water interface between two identical spherical soil grains with radius
R, where r1 describes the curvature that concaves towards the water phase,
while r2 describes the curvature that convex from the water phase (toroidal
approximation), and θ is filling angle. According to the contacting spheres
model, r1 causes a pressure decrease in the water phase while r2 causes a
pressure increase in the water phase.
There are three forces in the free body diagram:

1. Surface tension Ts along the interface described by r1 (positive hori-

zontal direction) F1
2. Surface tension along the interface described by r2 (negative horizon-
tal direction) F2
3. Air and water pressure applied on either side of the interface F3

F1, F2 and F3 are given as follows:

F1  2  Ts sin   2r3   4r3Ts sin  (4.1)

F2  4Tsr1 sin  (4.2)

F3   ua  uw  2r1 sin   2r2  4r1r2  ua  uw  sin  (4.3)

By balancing all three forces, it is possible to describe matric suction

(ua−uw) in terms of Ts, r1 and r2 as follows:

1 1
ua  uw  Ts    (4.4)
 r1 r2 
 44
Table 4.2 Curve-fitting, grain-size distribution

Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

Author Equation Parameters
Zou Multimodal form: P = percent passing
(2018) n d = grain diameter
P  100  m1  Dmax  D    m  m
i 2
1 i 1  Ri  D, Dmax , c i  mi = slope of linear segment
dmax = maximum grain diameter
di = grain diameter at the intersection
1 1  cosh  c i  Di  D    between linear segment i and linear
Ri  D, Dmax , c i    Dmax  D   ln   ;
2 c i  cosh  c i  Dmax  Di    segment i-­1
  di−­= convergence point between the
2 curve and linear segment i-­1
ci  ; D = log d di+ = convergence point between the
 d i 
log    curve and linear segment i+1
 di 
Fredlund Unimodal form: agr, ngr, mgr, dr,gr = curve-­fitting parameters of
et al.  7 Fredlund et al. (2000) for unimodal form
(2000)   d r , gr 
 ln 1  agr,i, ngr,i, mgr,i, dr,gr = curve-­fitting
1  d  parameters of Fredlund et al. (2000)
P 1  
 
mgr
  d r , gr  for bimodal form with i = 1 is an index
 a gr  
ngr

     ln 1   which can be either 1 or 2

ln exp 1  d     dmin 
    dhp, nhp, mhp = curve-­fitting parameters of
Haverkamp and Parlange (1986)
Bimodal form: dm = mean grain size
 7 sd = standard deviation of the grain size
  d r , gr  dm,1 = mean grain size of the coarser grain
 ln 1 
w 1 w  d  dm,2 = mean grain size of the finer grain
P  1  sd,1 = standard deviation of the coarse
 
mgr ,1
 
mgr ,2
  d r , gr 
 a gr ,1    a gr ,2  
ngr ,1 ngr ,2
 ln 1  
ln exp 1   ln exp 1  
  dmin grain size
     sd,2 = standard deviation of the finer grain
  d     d  
size
Haverkamp Unimodal form:
and 1 1
Parlange P mhp
mhp  1 
  d hp  
nhp nhp
(1986) 1   

  d  
Satyanaga Unimodal form:
et al.    0.075    
(2013) P  1  0.15 ln 1  erfc  x dmax , d m , sd   
   d     

Bimodal form:

 0.075    w erfc  x  dmax,1, d m,1, sd ,1  

   
P  1  0.15 ln 1    
   d      1  w  erfc  x  dmax,2 , d m,2 , sd ,2   

Grain-size distribution, and specific gravity

   
  dmax  d m 
 ln   x
d d 1  x2 
x  dmax , d m , sd     max
 sd
 ; erfc x 

  
2
exp  
 2
 dx

  
 

45
46 Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

Spherical A Ts
Ts
particle
r3

R r1
Ts
A
r2 r2
Water

r1
A

Spherical
particle
Ts
A Ts

Water meniscus between Free-body diagram for

two spherical soil particles water meniscus

Figure 4.3 Idealised air-water interface geometry in unsaturated soil re-drawn

from Lu and Likos (2004).

Relationships between r1, r2, c, and R are given as follows:

 1 
r1  R   1 (4.5a)
 cos  

r2  R tan   r1 (4.5b)

Substituting Equation 4.5 into Equation 4.4, (ua−uw) can be described

using R and θ as follows:

Ts   cos   sin   2 cos   2 

ua  uw  s ;s  (4.6)
R   cos   sin  cos  1
1

where s* is normalised suction as a function of filling angle θ. Equation 4.6

shows that (ua−uw) is directly a function of R. When R decreases, (ua−uw)
will increase. Thus, under the same filling angle θ, fine-­grained soil will have
much larger (ua−uw) compared to coarse-­grained soil.
The packing configuration of identical spherical grains can be represented
by simple cubic (SC) packing for loose condition giving a void ratio of 0.91
and tetrahedral (TH) packing for dense condition giving a void ratio of 0.34
(Lu and Likos 2004), as shown in Figure 4.4. Dallavalle (1943) shows that
the volume of water lenses normalised by the volume of one sphere for SC
packing, and its water content can be represented as:
2
Vl 3  1 
  1  1   0.5    tan   (4.7a)
Vs 2  cos  
 Grain-size distribution, and specific gravity 47

(a)

(b)

Figure 4.4 Packing order of spherical grains redrawn from Lu and Likos (2004).
(a) Simple cubic packing which represent the loosest packing order (e = 0.91).
(b) Tetrahedral packing which represent the densest packing order (e = 0.34).

2
3 Vl 9  1 
w   1  1   0.5    tan   (4.7b)
Gs Vs 2Gs  cos  

The water content for tetrahedral (TH) packing is given as:

2
6 Vl 9  1 
w    1  1   0.5    tan   (4.8)
Gs Vs Gs  cos  
48 Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

7
SC Packing
6 TH Packing

4
w (%)

0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
ua - uw (kPa)

Figure 4.5 SWCC comparison between SC and TH packing order.

However, water lenses may overlap when θ is larger than 45° for SC packing
and 30° for TH packing, thus violating the assumption in deriving the vol-
ume of water lenses. Figure 4.5 shows the comparison between TH and SC
packing configurations for solid grains with R = 1 mm and Gs = 2.65. For
SC packing, the maximum water content with respect to θ = 45° is 6.25%,
while saturated water content (e = 0.91) is 34.3%. For TH packing, maxi-
mum water content with respect to θ = 30° is 3.21%, while saturated water
content (e = 0.34) is 12.8%. It is also shown that the SWCC of TH pack-
ing is located above SC packing, which is not in accord with experimental
observation on SWCC-­w (Salager et al. 2010; Wijaya and Leong 2017).
Despite these limitations, packing configurations of spheres provide a good
description on how grain size can be employed to estimate the pore size to
estimate the SWCC of soil.

4.6 TEST METHODS FOR DETERMINING GRAIN-SIZE

DISTRIBUTION

Test method for grain-­size distribution depends on the adopted standard.

In this section, the general principles from several standards are outlined.
Inspection of the soil is important to determine the set of procedures
required to obtain the grain-­size distribution. Head (2006) recommends the
following to be considered:
 Grain-size distribution, and specific gravity 49

1. Size of the largest grains present to determine the amount of required

soil sample
2. Range of grain sizes to determine the testing methods
3. Soil characteristics and stability of soil grains to determine the com-
plexity of the test and the required preparation methods

There are three types of commonly employed tests that will be discussed in
this chapter:

1. Wet sieving (ASTM D1140-­00 2000; BS 1377-­2 1990; BS EN ISO

17892-­4 2016)
2. Dry sieving by using a mechanical shaker (BS EN ISO 17892-­4 2016;
BS 1377-­2 1990; ASTM D6913/D6913M 2017)
3. Sedimentation test by using hydrometer (ASTM D7928 2017; BS
1377-­2 1990; BS EN ISO 17892-­4 2016)

Wet sieving is carried out to obtain an accurate separation between fine-­and

coarse-­grained soils. Dry sieving is conducted to obtain the grain-­size distri-
bution for coarse-­grained soils, while a sedimentation test is conducted to
obtain the grain-­size distribution of fine-­grained soils.
In sieve analysis, it is important to ensure that the sieve is not overloaded.
The maximum mass to be retained on each sieve following BS 1377-­2 (1990)
is given in Table 4.3.
The recommended test according to soil type is given as follows:

1. Clean sands and gravels: dry sieving

2. Soils containing silts or clay: wet sieving for separation and dry sieving
for the retained materials
3. Predominantly clayey and silty soils: wet sieving for separation and
material passing the 63 μm sieve is collected for sedimentation test
while material retained on the 63 μm sieve is for dry sieving

4.6.1 Sample preparations
Table 4.4 shows the minimum quantity of soil required based on the maximum
size of material present in substantial proportion. Figure 4.6 shows the recom-
mended minimum quantity of soil required for sieving based on the largest
significant particle size according to BS 1377-2 (1990) and ASTM D422-63.
For some residual soils, especially volcanic soils, the result of the grain-­
size distribution test may be affected by the preparation method. Usually,
oven drying of such soils is avoided and instead the soil is air dried to a
water content necessary to carry out the test (Wesley (2010)). Difficulties are
also encountered for soils with a high proportion of allophane as it tends to
flocculate. Hence, a dispersing agent is important for such soils when con-
ducting sedimentation tests to avoid flocculation.
50 Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

Table 4.3 M
 aximum mass of material to be retained on each test sieve at the completion
of sieving (BS 1377-2 1990)

Maximum mass on sieve of diameter

Test sieve aperture size 450 mm 300 mm 200 mm
Mm kg kg g
50 10 4.5 —
37.5 8 3.5 —
28 6 2.5 —
20 4 2 —
14 3 1.5 —
10 2 1 —
6.3 1.5 0.75 —
5 1 0.5 —
3.35 — — 300
2 — — 200
1.18 — — 100
Μm
600 — — 75
425 — — 75
300 — — 50
212 — — 50
150 — — 40
63 — — 25

Table 4.4 M
 ass of soil sample for sieving determined based on the maximum
size of material present in substantial proportion (more than 10%)

BS 1377-­2 (1990) BS EN ISO 17892-­4 (2016)

Test sieve aperture
(mm) Minimum mass of sample (kg)
63 50 40
50 35
37.5 15 14
28 6
20 2 2
14 1
10 0.5 0.5
6.3 0.2 0.3
5 0.2
3.35 0.15
2 or smaller 0.1 0.1
 Grain-size distribution, and specific gravity 51

1000

BS1377-2 (1990)
100
Dry mass of sample (kg)

10

1 ASTM D422-63

0.1
0.06 0.6 6 60
Largest significant particle size (mm)

Figure 4.6 M
 inimum mass of sample required for grain size test (BS 1377-2, 1990
and ASTM D422-63).

4.6.2 Preparation of dispersing agent

Silty clay materials tend to clump together. Thus, a dispersing agent is
required to separate the soil grains. Table 4.5 and Table 4.6 show the com-
position of the dispersing agent for wet sieving and sedimentation test,
respectively, for the various standards.
A dispersing agent may not work on some soils, which can be observed by
the formation of relatively large crumbs or flocs which fall rapidly through
the water leaving a sharply defined, clear layer above the suspension (BS

Table 4.5 Dispersing agent for wet sieving

Standard Formula
BS EN ISO 17892-­4 (2016) 2 g of sodium hexametaphosphate in 1L solution.
Hydrogen peroxide (20%V/V) to remove organic material.
Hydrochloric acid (0.2M) to remove carbonate.
BS 1377-­2 (1990) 2 g of sodium hexametaphosphate in 1L solution.
ASTM D1140-­00 (2000) 40 g of sodium hexametaphosphate in 1L solution.
52 Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

Table 4.6 Dispersing agent for sedimentation test

Standard Formula
BS EN ISO 17892-­4 - 40 of sodium hexametaphosphate in 1L solution
(2016) - Tetra-­sodium diphosphate 20 g in 1L solution
BS 1377-­2 (1990) - 33 g of sodium hexametaphosphate and 7 g of sodium
carbonate
- Hydrogen peroxide. A 20-­volume solution (20%V/V)
ASTM D7928 (2017) - 5 g of sodium hexametaphosphate in 1L of final suspension
volume
- 50 g of sodium hexametaphosphate in 1L of solution

1377-­2 1990). Some tropical residual soils may require trisodium phosphate
or tetra-­sodium phosphate as dispersing agent (Head 2006). For highly
aggregated soils, allow the soil to settle to the bottom of the cylinder and
gradually add 25 mL of dispersing agent, shake well and then make up to
500 mL with distilled water (BS 1377-­2 1990).

4.6.3 Wet sieving
In wet sieving (Figure 4.7), the soil sample is washed using either water (pro-
cedure A) or water with dispersing agent (procedure B). ASTM D1140-­00
(2000) states that plain water must be used unless specified. The amount
of fine materials are determined by the amount of soil that passes through
sieve with openings of either 75 μm (#200) for ASTM D1140-­00 (2000) or
63 μm for BS 1377-­2 (1990). In general, the test procedures for wet sieving
are as follows:

1. Oven dry (ASTM D1140-­00 2000) or air dry the soil sample and
determine its mass.
2. Place the sample in a container.
3. Pour water to cover the soil sample (procedure A) and optionally add
dispersing agent (procedure B) to the water. The dispersing agent can
be either 2 g/L sodium hexametaphosphate (BS 1377-­2 1990) or 50 ml
of standard dispersant solution such as sodium hexametaphosphate
per litre (Head 2006).
4. Agitate the soil to separate the fine grains from the coarse grains
(ASTM D1140-­00 2000). If a dispersing agent is used, BS 1377-­2
(1990) recommends that the soil mixture be stirred continuously for 1
hour.
5. Pour the water with the suspended fine grains into the nested sieves
(coarser sieve at the top). BS 1377-­2 (1990) specified that the sieve
size is 2 mm at the top and 63 μm at the bottom (see Table 4.7).
6. Repeat steps 3 to 5 several times until the water becomes clear.
7. Put back all the soil into the container.
 Grain-size distribution, and specific gravity 53

Figure 4.7 Wet sieving.

8. Oven dry the soil and determine the leftover soil mass.
9. The differences between soil mass before and after washing is the mass
of the fine-­grained soils, which is reported to the nearest 0.1% (BS
1377-­2 1990; ASTM D1140-­00 2000).
10. Report the wet sieving result using record sheet such as that shown in
Figure 4.8.

4.6.4 Dry sieving
Dry sieving is best carried out for soil that has negligible fine materials or
clean granular materials (Head 2006). Otherwise, wet sieving must be car-
ried out first to precisely determine the percentage of coarse-grained and
fine-­grained soils.
In dry sieving (Figure 4.9), a set of sieves is stacked with the largest aper-
ture sieve at the top and the smallest aperture sieve at the bottom. A pan is
placed below the smallest aperture sieve. Recommended sieve sizes accord-
ing to different standards are shown in Table 4.7. It is not necessary to use
all of the sieve sizes (BS EN ISO 17892-­4. 2016; BS 1377-­2 1990; ASTM
D6913/D6913M. 2017) and additional sieve sizes outside the standard set
shown in Table 4.7 can be added but the largest aperture sieve size must
allow 100% passing of the soil sample (ASTM D6913/D6913M 2017).
54 Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

Table 4.7 Sieve sizes according to different standards

ASTM 6913-­17 ASTM 6913-­17 BS 1377-­2 (1990) ISO 3310-­2

(Alternative) (Standard) (Complete) ISO 3310-­1 (2016) (2016)
Lid Lid Lid Lid Lid
3 in. 75 mm 75 mm 125 mm 125 mm
2 in. 50 mm 63 mm 90 mm 90 mm
1-­1/2 in. 37.5 mm 50 mm 63 mm 63 mm
1 in. 25.0 mm 37.5 mm 45 mm 45 mm
3/4 in. 19.0 mm 28 mm 31.5 mm 31.5 mm
3/8 in. 9.5 mm 20 mm 22.4 mm 22.4 mm
No. 4 4.75 mm 14 mm 16 mm 16 mm
No. 10 2.00 mm 10 mm 11.2 mm 11.2 mm
No. 20 850 μm 6.3 mm 8 mm 8 mm
No. 40 425 μm 5 mm 5.6 mm 5.6 mm
No. 60 250 μm 3.35 mm 4 mm 4 mm
No. 100 150 μm 2 mm 2.8 mm 2.8 mm
No. 140 106 μm 1.18 mm 2 mm 2 mm
No. 200 75 μm 600 μm 1.4 mm 1.4 mm
Pan Pan 425 μm 1 mm 1 mm
300 μm 710 μm
212 μm 500 μm
150 μm 355 μm
63 μm 250 μm
Pan 180 μm
125 μm
90 μm
63 μm
45 μm
32 μm
25 μm
20 μm

1. Oven dry the soil such that the amount of soil for the sieve analysis is
in accord with Figure 4.6 or Table 4.4.
2. Prepare the sieve sizes in accord with Table 4.7. Additional sieves
between the sizes shown may be added.
3. Weigh each of the sieves.
4. Place the soil into the topmost sieve. The sample can be divided into
several portions as well.
5. Secure the sieve set in a mechanical shaker and turn it on for around
10 to 20 minutes. A very long shaking duration does not guarantee a
 Grain-size distribution, and specific gravity 55

Grain-Size Distribution – Finer Materials Separation

Project details
Project ID: BK-01
Project Name: Example of Grain size distribution test
Contract No: CN-01
Company: Geotech Consultant
Client Name: SI Contractor
Technician:Martin Wijaya
Testing date: 15-10-19
Project Engineer: Martin Wijaya
Sample details
BH No.: BH-01
Sample reference: TW-1
Sample depth top: 1.00 m
Sample depth bottom: 2.00 m
Speciemen details
Specimen reference: Sieve-1
Specimen depth top: 1.00 m
Specimen depth bot (m): 2.00 m
Test details Notation
Standard: ASTM D1140 Method A M sieve : Mass of sieve
Oven dried specimens M sieve+soil : Mass of sieve + mass of soil
Container ID: 203 M soil : Mass of soil
Mcontainer: 200 gram M container : Mass of container
Mc+WS : 1455 gram M c+WS : Mass of container + mass of wet soils
Mc+DS: 1144.3 gram M c+DS : Mass of container + mass of oven dried soils

Wet sieving
Sieve size Container Mcontainer Mc+WS Mc+DS Msoil
mm ID gram gram gram gram
0.425 M1 428.31 685 588.65 160.34
0.075 M2 294.71 532.09 389.93 95.22
Wet sieving summary
Water content of sieved soils: 32.90 %
Dissolving agent: None
Weight of dissolving agent: 0.00 gram
Total mass of soils: 344.57 gram
Collected fined soil using dry sieving: 8.57 gram
Mass of collected fine grained soils: 97.58 gram
Mass of collected coarse grained soils: 246.99 gram
%Fine grained soils: 28.3 %
%Coarse grained soils: 71.7 %
Remark

Figure 4.8 Wet sieving record sheet.

better result, as the soil grains might be able to pass through an open-
ing that is slightly oversized (Head 2006).
6. Repeat steps 4 and 5 until all the soils have been sieved.
7. Record the weight of each sieve with soil. The mass of soil on each
sieve should not exceed the allowed maximum mass shown in
Table 4.4.
56 Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

Figure 4.9 Sieve shaker.

8. Calculate the percentage passing of soil for each sieve.

9. Plot the grain-­size distribution curve and determine all the required
parameters as shown in Figure 4.10.

4.6.5 Sedimentation test based on hydrometer

A sedimentation test is conducted to determine the size of soil grains based
on Stoke’s law which is defined in Equation 4.9.

D2 g   s  L 
v (4.9)
18
 Grain-size distribution, and specific gravity 57

Grain Size Distribution – Sieve Analysis

Project details
Project ID: BK-01
Project Name: Example of Grain size distribution test
Contract No: CN-01 Technician:Martin Wijaya
Company: Geotech Consultant Testing date: 15-10-19
Client Name: SI Contractor Project Engineer:Martin Wijaya
Sample details
BH No.: BH-01
Sample reference: TW-1
Sample depth top:1.00 m Sample depth bottom:2.00 m
Speciemen details
Specimen reference: Sieve-1
Specimen depth top:1.00 m Specimen depth bot (m):2.00 m
Initial mass of soil prior to sieve Soil mass after sieve Wet sieving:Yes
MContainer: 0.00 gram Mpan: 270.00 gram Msoil+Pan : 367.58 gram
MContainer + Soil : 344.57 gram Total soil mass after sieve: 344.44 gram
MSoil : 344.57 gram Soil mass difference: –0.13 gram
Sieve analysis
0.005 0.075 4.75 75 300
100

90
203.00
80

70
1144.30
60
%Pas s in g

Boulders
Cobbles
Gravel
Sand
Clay

Silt

50

40

30

20

10

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 0.00 1 10 100 1000
344.57 Particle size
Sieve size Msieve Msieve+soil Msoil Retained ∑retained Passing
Result summary
mm gram gram gram % % %
4.75 433.03 446.51 13.48 3.91 3.91 96.09 Soil classification: ASTM D2487-17/422-63
2.36 420.22 439.60 19.38 5.62 9.54 90.46 %Coarse grained: 71.7
1.18 394.02 438.60 44.58 12.94 22.47 77.53 %Fine grained: 28.3
0.6 349.02 401.00 51.98 15.09 37.56 62.44
0.3 319.60 370.64 51.04 14.81 52.37 47.63
0.15 301.35 342.92 41.57 12.06 64.44 35.56
0.075 264.52 289.35 24.83 7.21 71.64 28.36

Figure 4.10 Dry sieving record sheet.

58 Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

where v is the terminal velocity, and D is the grain diameter. In the sedi-
mentation test, it is assumed that soil grains are spherical although clay
grains are far from spherical (Head 2006). Large grains suspended in liquid
settle faster than small grains. The most common sedimentation test is the
hydrometer test. The procedures for hydrometer test are as follows:

1. Prepare 20g–30g of oven-­dried fine-­grained soil materials (BS EN ISO

17892-­4 2016), i.e., passing sieve #200. However, BS 1377-­2 (1990)
specifies 100g for sandy soils, 50g for silt soil and 30g for clay soil
(accurate to 0.01g). If oven drying may cause the soil properties to
change, dry mass should be calculated based on the soil sample’s water
content (BS 1377-­2 1990).
2. Pre-­treatment is necessary if organic or carbonate materials are pres-
ent (BS EN ISO 17892-­4 2016). For BS 1377-­2 (1990), if organic
materials present are more than 0.5% or when the effect of organic
materials is unknown, a parallel test (with and without pre-­treatment)
should also be carried out. The pre-­treatment involves adding 150
mL of hydrogen peroxide and stirring the mixture gently with a glass
rod for a few minutes. The mixture is then covered with a glass plate
and left to stand overnight. Afterwards, the mixture is heated gently
in a conical flask, taking care to avoid frothing over, and stirring the
content of the flask periodically. As soon as vigorous frothing has sub-
sided, the volume is reduced to 50 mL by boiling. For soil with very
high organic content, additional hydrogen peroxide may be required.
3. Place the soil sample in a conical flask and add dispersing agent equal
to 10% of the final volume of suspension. If the predetermined vol-
ume of suspension is 1L, add 100 mL of dispersing agent (BS EN ISO
17892-­3 2015; BS 1377-­2 1990).
4. Agitate the suspension (either by using a mechanical shaker or stirrer)
long enough to disperse the soil grains (BS EN ISO 17892-­4 2016) or
for around 4 hours (BS 1377-­2 1990). For gentle mixing, 4 hours is
generally appropriate (BS EN ISO 17892-­3 2015).
5. Transfer the suspension into the sedimentation cylinder (1L) by pour-
ing it through a 63 μm sieve, and use distilled water to clear the soil
in the sieve. BS EN ISO 17892-­4 (2016) specifies that the amount of
distilled water cannot exceed 80% of predetermined volume while
BS 1377-­2 (1990) strictly specifies that the amount of water cannot
exceed 500 mL.
6. Add distilled water to the predetermined volume, usually taken as 1L
(BS 1377-­2 (1990)), and close the top of the cylinder with a rubber
bung. If too much distilled water is added, remove the excess water
through evaporation (BS EN ISO 17892-­4 2016).
7. Place the cylinder into a constant temperature bath (25°C+/−0.5°C)
for at least 1 hour (BS 1377-­2 1990).
 Grain-size distribution, and specific gravity 59

8. Prepare a sedimentation cylinder with a reference solution consist-

ing of the same volume of dispersing agent solution and add distilled
water such that the reference cylinder has the same volume usually 1L
(BS EN ISO 17892-­4 2016).
9. Place the hydrometer in the reference solution. Once the hydrometer is
stable, take the hydrometer reading R’0 at the upper rim of the meniscus to
the nearest 0.0005 g/mL (nearest 0.5 reading), and then rinse the hydrom-
eter with distilled water (BS EN ISO 17892-­3 2015; BS 1377-­2 1990).
10. Agitate the soil suspension by turning the sedimentation cylinder end to
end for 60 times in 2 minutes (BS EN ISO 17892-­4 2016; BS 1377-­2 1990).
11. Start the timer at the end of agitation stage, remove the rubber bung
and place the sedimentation cylinder in the testing place (BS EN ISO
17892-­4 2016).
12. Disperse the froth on the surface of the suspension by adding two
drops of methylated spirit (BS 1377-­2 1990).
13. Place the hydrometer in the suspension and ensure it floats freely for
around 15 seconds (BS EN ISO 17892-­3 2015; BS 1377-­2 1990).
14. Take the hydrometer reading (R’h) at the upper rim of the meniscus at
short intervals of time. The first three readings must be taken within 5
minutes (i.e., 0.5 minute, 1 minute and 2 minutes). Record the reading
to the nearest 0.0005 g/ml (nearest 0.5) (BS EN ISO 17892-­3 2015).
BS 1377-­2 (1990) specifies four readings which are taken at 0.5 min-
ute, 1 minute, 2 minutes and 4 minutes.
15. After the first three readings, remove the hydrometer and rinse it with
distilled water (BS EN ISO 17892-­4 2016).
16. Record the temperature of the suspension once in the first 15 minutes
and then for every hydrometer reading to the nearest 0.1°C (BS EN
ISO 17892-­3 2015).
17. Repeat steps 13 and 14 for at least three times until the proportion
finer than 2 μm has been determined (BS EN ISO 17892-­3 2015; BS
1377-­2 1990). BS 1377-­2 (1990) specifies that the reading must be
taken at 8 minutes, 30 minutes, 2 hours, 8 hours, 24 hours and twice
in the following day until the proportion finer than 2μm is obtained.

4.7 TEST METHODS FOR DETERMINING SPECIFIC GRAVITY

Specific gravity test assumes that soil solid is not soluble in water (ASTM
D854-­14 2014), and there is no enclosed void. If an enclosed void is pres-
ent, the soil must be crushed (BS EN ISO 17892-­3 2015). Accurate deter-
mination of specific gravity (Gs) is especially important for unsaturated soil
analysis, as it is used to determine the void ratio and the degree of satura-
tion. Inaccuracy in determining Gs may cause the degree of saturation to be
calculated to be higher than 100% and will affect the shrinkage curve and
the saturation-­based SWCC. Different test methods may be employed for
different ranges of grain size as described next:
60 Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

1. Small fluid pycnometer is suitable for soils that pass through 4.75
mm sieve size (ASTM D854-­14 2014), 4 mm sieve size (BS EN ISO
17892-­3 2015) or for soils consisting of clay, silt and sand sizes (less
than 2 mm) grains (BS 1377-­2 1990). For soil grains larger than the
recommended size, BS 1377-­2 (1990) and BS EN ISO 17892-­3 (2015)
specify that the large grains must be grounded to grain size smaller
than the recommended size.
2. Large fluid pycnometer is suitable for non-­cohesive soil finer than 20
mm (coarser grain shall be broken down to be less than this size) (BS
1377-­2 1990).

Some other methods such as the following will not be discussed in detail in
this book:

1. Gas jar or gas pycnometer method is suitable for soils of any grain
size, especially when 10% of the soil grains are retained on 37.5 mm
sieve (BS 1377-­2 1990).
2. Gas pycnometer (BS EN ISO 17892-­3 2015).

While different grain sizes within a sample may have different Gs values, it is
sufficient to determine the average value or conduct different tests for each
grain-­size fraction (BS 1377-­2 1990; ASTM D854-­14 2014).
BS 1377-­2 (1990) and BS EN ISO 17892-­3 (2015) prefer to express spe-
cific gravity in terms of solid density (and thus, has the unit of density). In
this book, the term “specific gravity” (Gs) is preferred, as it is unitless and is
commonly used.

4.7.1 Specific gravity test based on small fluid pycnometer

For a specific gravity test based on a small pycnometer, the balance should
be accurate to 0.01g according to ASTM D854-­14 (2014) and BS EN ISO
17892-­3 (2015) or 0.001g according to BS 1377-­2 (1990). The pycnometer can
be either a stoppered flask, a stoppered iodine flask or a volumetric flask with
250 mL minimum capacity. Stoppered flask and stoppered iodine flask are pre-
ferred, as both mechanically set the volume. The test procedures are as follows:

1. Determine the mass of pycnometer (and stopper if a stopper is used)

(M1) (ASTM D854-­14 2014; BS 1377-­2 1990).
2. Determine the dry mass of the specimen required. ASTM D854-­14
(2014) recommends different specimen dry masses according to soil
type, as shown in Table 4.8. BS 1377-­2 (1990) specifies that at least
two tests (5g to 10g for each test) must be conducted, whereas BS EN
ISO 17892-­3 (2015) specifies that the specimen must be at least 10g.
The specimen can be either moist or oven dried.
 Grain-size distribution, and specific gravity 61

Table 4.8 R
 ecommended mass of test specimen for specific gravity test using small
pycnometer (ASTM D854-14 2014)

Specimen dry mass (g) Specimen dry mass (g)

Soil type When using 250 mL pycnometer When using 500 mL pycnometer
SP,SP-­SM 60±10 100±10
SP-­SC, SM, SC 45±10 75±10
Silt or Clay 35±5 50±10

For moist specimen, determine the water content of the specimen

(ASTM D854-­14 2014). Put 100 mL of water into a mixing container
or blender, add the soil and blend (ASTM D854-­14 2014). Pour the
slurry into the pycnometer by using a funnel and rinse the soil that re-
mains in the funnel by using a wash/spray squirt bottle (ASTM D854-
­14 2014). Based on the water content of the specimen, determine the
dry mass of soil (Ms) to calculate the weight of dry pycnometer, stop-
per and dry mass of soil (M2). Another alternative is to oven dry the
specimen at the end of the test to obtain the dry mass of soil (BS EN
ISO 17892-­3 2015).
For oven-­dried specimen, the specimen shall be dried in an oven set
at 105°C to 110°C (BS 1377-­2 1990; ASTM D854-­14 2014; BS EN
ISO 17892-­1 2014), but if the specific gravity may change due to the
high temperature, the specimen must be oven dried at a lower temper-
ature (BS EN ISO 17892-­1 2014; BS 1377-­2 1990). BS 1377-­2 (1990)
specifies that the temperature must not exceed 80°C for such soils. To
determine the specific gravity of an oven-­dried specimen, break up the
soil clods using a mortar and pestle. Place the funnel into the pycnom-
eter where the stem of the funnel goes beyond the calibration mark,
spoon the soil solids directly into the funnel and then rinse the funnel
by using a wash/spray squirt bottle (ASTM D854-­14 2014). Record
the weight of the pycnometer, stopper and soil (M2).
3. Remove the stopper and add de-­aired distilled water to cover the soil
in the bottle in order to make a slurry (BS 1377-­2 1990) approxi-
mately 10 to 20 mm depth (BS EN ISO 17892-­3 2015). De-­air the
soil slurry by either mechanical agitation, heating (hot plate or Bunsen
burner), vacuum (vacuum desiccator) or a combination of heat and
vacuum. Mechanical agitation is sufficient for coarse specimens while
other methods can be used for both coarse and fine specimens (BS
EN ISO 17892-­3 2015). ASTM D854-­14 (2014) recommends two
hours duration for heating and vacuum methods as the soil is agitated,
while for a combination of heat and vacuum, the temperature must
not be more than 40°C and the vacuum is applied for at least 1 hour.
62 Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

Whenever heating is involved, slurry should be agitated to prevent the

slurry from drying and sticking to the pycnometer. BS 1377-­2 (1990)
recommends using a vacuum desiccator with a suction of about 20
mm of mercury (2.7 kPa) to avoid the air inside the soil to bubble too
violently for at least 1 hour until no further loss of air is apparent. Stir
the soil in the bottle with a chattaway spatula or vibrate the bottle and
then wash off any soil stuck to the spatula with de-­aired water and
repeat this step until no more air comes out from the soil (BS 1377-­2
1990). This step is very important, as most errors in this test come
from a failure to completely remove the entrapped air.
4. Filled the pycnometer with de-­aired water. It is important to ensure
that a clear water layer forms at the top surface prior to placing the
stopper to avoid soil grains coming out from the pycnometer. Placed
the stopper carefully to avoid any trapped air. Clean the outside of the
pycnometer and let the pycnometer’s temperature come to equilibrium
with the room’s temperature. Record the weight of the pycnometer
with water and soil solids (M3) (ASTM D854-­14 2014; BS 1377-­2
1990, BS EN ISO 17892-­3 2015). Record the temperature of the soil
slurry inside the pycnometer by inserting the sensing portion of the
thermometric device to the appropriate depth of immersion (ASTM
D854-­14 2014).
5. Clean out the bottle and fill it with de-­aired water and placed the
stopper while ensuring no air is trapped inside the pycnometer and
then record the weight of the pycnometer, water and stopper (M4).
This step can also be done prior to the test (BS EN ISO 17892-­3
2015). Calculate Gs as follows (BS 1377-­2 1990; BS EN ISO 17892-­3
2015):

M2  M1
Gs  (4.10)
 M4  M1    M3  M2 

6. If M4 is measured at different times (referred to as pycnometer cali-

bration) during the test, there may be a significant difference in the
temperature between calibration and testing stages. It is thus required
to measure the temperature during the calibration stage and to apply
a correction factor to the testing stage (ASTM D854-­14 2014) or, use
a water bath to control the temperature (BS EN ISO 17892-­3 2015).
Density of water (ρw) for both pycnometer calibration stage (ρw,c) and
testing stage (ρw,t) can be obtained as follows (ASTM D854-­14 2014):

  
w  1.00034038  T 7.77  106  T 2 4.9  106  (4.11)

where T is temperature in °C. Alternatively, it can be obtained as fol-

lows (BS EN ISO 17892-­3 2015):
 Grain-size distribution, and specific gravity 63

1
w  (4.12)
1   2.31T  2   182  106

2
 
7. Calculate the volume of the pycnometer (Vp) and specific gravity of
the soil solids (Gs) as follows (ASTM D854-­14 2014):
M4  M1
Vp  (4.13)
w,c

M2  M1
Gs  (4.14)
 M1  Vp w,t    M3  M2 
where ρw,t is the density of water during the testing stage.
8. If Gs at 20°C is required, apply the correction factor to the calculated
Gs as follows (ASTM D854-­14 2014):

 w 
Gs,200 C  Gs   (4.15)
 0.9982063 

9. If soil grains have R percent of soil retained on the 4.75 mm sieve

with Gs,20∘C equals to G1, and P percent of soil pass through 4.75 mm
sieve with Gs,20∘C equals to G2, the average specific gravity at 20°C
(Gave,20∘C) is calculated as follows (ASTM D854-­14 2014):

1
Gave,20 C  (4.16)
R P

100G1 100G2

4.7.2 Specific gravity test based on large fluid pycnometer

Large pycnometer (approximately 1L capacity) test is less accurate than the
gas jar method and is suitable for clay soils (BS 1377-­2 1990). The test must
be carried out using a balance with 0.5g accuracy (BS 1377-­2 1990). The
test procedures are as follows:

1. Prepare two sets of 400g of oven-­dried specimen (BS 1377-­2 1990).

2. Clean the pycnometer along with the screw cap assembly and record
its weight (M1) (BS 1377-­2 1990).
3. Place the specimen inside the pycnometer along with the screw cap
assembly and record the weight of pycnometer and the soil (M2) (BS
1377-­2 1990).
4. Add water to pycnometer until half full and stir the mixture thor-
oughly with a glass rod to remove the air trapped in the soil (BS
1377-­2 1990).
64 Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

5. Fit the screw cap assembly and tighten to the reference point and fill
the pycnometer with water (BS 1377-­2 1990).
6. Agitate the pycnometer by shaking or rolling while covering the open-
ing of the conical top with a finger. Allow air to escape and the froth
to disappear (BS 1377-­2 1990).
7. Top up the pycnometer with de-­aired water so that the water level
is flushed with the hole in the conical stopper and ensure neither air
bubble nor froth is trapped inside (BS 1377-­2 1990).
8. Clean the outside of the pycnometer and record the weight of pyc-
nometer, water and soil (M3) (BS 1377-­2 1990).
9. Clean the pycnometer and then fill the pycnometer with de-­ aired
water. Ensure that no air is trapped inside the pycnometer and the
water surface is flush with the hole. Record the weight of the pycnom-
eter with water (M4) (BS 1377-­2 1990).
10. Calculate the specific gravity as follows (BS 1377-­2 1990):

M2  M1
Gs  (4.17)
 M4  M1    M3  M2 

11. Repeat the test with the second specimen and take the average (BS
1377-­2 1990).

4.7.3 Specific gravity test based on gas jar method

The gas jar method is suitable for soil containing up to 10% of grains
retained on 37.5 mm test sieve and, any grains retained on a 50 mm test
sieve shall be broken down to less than 37.5 mm size (BS 1377-­2 1990). The
test procedure is given as follows:

1. Prepare 200 g for fine-­grained soils and 400 g for coarse-­grained soils
for a test and prepare for at least two tests (BS 1377-­2 1990).
2. Oven dry the specimen at 105°C to 110°C. If it is suspected that the
high temperature may affect the specific gravity, the temperature must
not be higher than 80°C (BS 1377-­2 1990).
3. Prepare a clean dry 1L gas jar and record its weight (M1) to the nearest
0.2g (BS 1377-­2 1990).
4. Transfer the soil into the gas jar, and record the weight (M2) to the
nearest 0.2g (BS 1377-­2 1990).
5. Add approximately 500 mL of water at room temperature (±2°C),
placed the rubber stopper, and leave it for 4 h (BS 1377-­2 1990).
6. Agitate the gas jar by hand until the soil grains are in suspension (BS
1377-­2 1990).
7. Place the gas jar in the shaking apparatus and shake for 20 to 30
minutes.
 Grain-size distribution, and specific gravity 65

8. Remove the stopper and wash any soil grains with distilled water back
into the jar. Disperse any froth with spray distilled water and add dis-
tilled water to the gas jar within 2 mm of the top, and allow the soil to
settle for a few minutes.
9. Fill the gas jar to the brim with more distilled water, place a glass plate
on the top of the jar and ensure that there is no air trapped under the
plate. Record the weight of the gas jar and glass plate with soil and
water (M3).
10. Dry the gas jar, wash it out thoroughly and fill it to the brim with
water at room temperature ±2°C. Record the weight of the gas jar
with water (M4).
11. Calculate the specific gravity as follows:

M2  M1
Gs  (4.18)
 M4  M1    M3  M2 

12. Repeat steps 2 to 10 for the second set of specimens and take the aver-
age if the difference between the two measurements is less than 0.03.
Express the average value to the nearest 0.01 (BS 1377-­2 1990)

4.7.4 Specific gravity test based on gas pycnometer method

Helium is preferred as the measurement gas. Alternatively, any gas that gives
good diffusion into soil pores may be used. The principle behind the gas
pycnometer method is to compare the difference between gas pressure when
the sample is present and when the sample is absent. The pressure difference
is converted to a volume by using Boyle’s law. The test procedure is given as
follows (BS EN ISO 17892-­3 2015):

1. Prepare 10g of oven-­ dried specimen. If the specimen has coarse-­

grained material, it should be crushed prior to the test.
2. Determine the volume of the sample chamber (Vc) by using appro-
priate pressure readings in accordance with the equipment manufac-
turer’s instructions.
3. Determine the volume of the expansion chamber (Vr) in accordance
with the equipment manufacturer’s instructions.
4. Calculate the volume of the specimen Vs as follow (BS EN ISO 17892-­3
2015):

Vr
Vs  Vc  (4.19)
 p  p0 
1  1 
 p2  p0 
66 Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

ms
s  (4.20)
Vs

s
Gs  (4.21)
w

where p0 is the initial pressure in the equipment, which can be atmospheric

pressure, p1 is the pressure in the system before opening the isolation valve,
p2 is the pressure in the system after opening the isolation valve, ρs is the
solid density.

REFERENCES

ASTM D1140-­00 (2000). Standard test method for amount of materials in soils finer
than the no. 200 (75-­mm) sieve. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM D2487-­17 (2017). Standard practice for classification of soils for engineer-
ing purposes (unified soil classification system). West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM
International.
ASTM D6913/D6913m (2017). Standard test methods for particle-­size distribu-
tion (gradation) of soils using sieve analysis. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM
International.
ASTM D7928 (2017). Standard test method for particle-­size distribution (grada-
tion) of fine-­grained soils using the sedimentation (hydrometer) analysis.. West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
ASTM D854-­14 (2014). Standard test methods for specific gravity of soil solids by
water pycnometer. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
BS 1377-­2 (1990). Methods of test for soils for civil engineering purposes classifica-
tion tests.
BS 5930 (2015). Code of practice for ground investigations. UK: BSI.
BS EN ISO 17892-­1 (2014). Geotechnical investigation and testing – laboratory test-
ing of soils part 1: Determination of water content. UK: BSI.
BS EN ISO 17892-­3 (2015). Geotechnical investigation and testing. Laboratory test-
ing of soil. Part 3: Determination of particle density. UK: BSI.
BS EN ISO 17892-­4 (2016). Geotechnical investigation and testing. Laboratory test-
ing of soil. Part 4: Determination of particle size distribution.. UK: BSI.
Dallavalle, J. M. (1943). Micrometrics. London: Pitman.
Fredlund, M. D., Fredlund, D. G., & Wilson, G. W. (2000). An equation to represent
grain-­size distribution. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 37(4): 817–827.
Haverkamp, R. & Parlange, J. Y. (1986). Predicting the water-­retention curve from
particle-­size distribution: 1. Sandy soils without organic matter. Soil Science,
142(6): 325–339.
Head, K. H. (2006). Manual of soil laboratory testing, volume I, soil classification
and compaction testing, 3rd ed. Caithness, UK: Whittles Publishing.
Lu, N. & Likos, W. J. (2004). Unsaturated soil mechanics. Hoboken, NJ: J. Wiley,
c2004.
 Grain-size distribution, and specific gravity 67

Salager, S., El Youssoufi, M. S., & Saix, C. (2010). Definition and experimental deter-
mination of a soil-­water retention surface. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 47(6):
609–622.
Satyanaga, A., Rahardjo, H., Leong, E.-C., & Wang, J.-Y. (2013). Water characteris-
tic curve of soil with bimodal grain-­size distribution. Computers and Geotechnics,
48(0): 51–61.
Wesley, L. D. (2010). Geotechnical engineering in residual soils. Hoboken, New
Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Wijaya, M. & Leong, E. C. (2017). Modelling the effect of density on the unimodal
soil-­water characteristic curve. Géotechnique, 67(7): 637–645.
Zou, L. (2018). Effects of grain-­size distribution and hysteresis on soil-­water char-
acteristic curve (SWCC). In School of civil and environmetal engineering (vol.
Ph.D.). Singapore: Nanyang Technological University.

FURTHER READING

Head, K. H. (2006). Manual of soil laboratory testing, volume I, Soil classification

and compaction testing, 3rd ed. North America, Whittles Publishing,
Lu, N. & Likos, W. J. (2004). Unsaturated soil mechanics. Hoboken, NJ: J. Wiley.
Chapter 5

Atterberg limits and shrinkage test

5.1 BACKGROUND

Behaviour of fine-­grained soils is highly affected by water content. The soil

becomes a slurry at high water content and becomes hard and brittle as the
soil dries. A simple method to distinguish a fine-­grained soil behaviour is
through its Atterberg limits (Atterberg 1911).
The Atterberg limits (shrinkage limit, plastic limit and liquid limit) sepa-
rates fine-­grained soils into four physical states: solid, semi-­solid, plastic and
liquid. In unsaturated soil mechanics, the shrinkage test provides not only
the shrinkage limit but also the volume change with water content, which is
commonly referred to as the shrinkage curve.

5.2 RELATED STANDARDS

1. BS 1377-­1 (2016) Methods of Test for Soils for Civil Engineering

Purposes Part 1: General Requirements and Sample Preparation.
2. BS 1377-­2 (1990) Methods of Test for Soils for Civil Engineering
Purposes Classification Tests.
3. BS 5930 (2015) Code of Practice for Ground Investigations, BSI.
4. BS EN ISO 17892-­1 (2014) Geotechnical Investigation and Testing –
Laboratory Testing of Soils Part 1: Determination of Water Content.
5. ASTM D427-­04 (2004) (Withdrawn 2008) Standard Test Method for
Shrinkage Factors of Soils by the Mercury Method, ASTM International.
6. ASTM D2216 (2010) Standard Test Methods for Laboratory
Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by
Mass, ASTM International.
7. ASTM D2487-­17 (2017) Standard Practice for Classification of Soils
for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System). West
Conshohocken, PA 19428-­2959, ASTM International.

DOI: 10.1201/b22304-5 69
70 Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

5.3 THEORY

5.3.1 Fine-grained soil classification

Fine-­grained soil is usually classified as either silts or clays. The classification
of a fine-­grained soil into either silt or clay is usually based on its plasticity.
Silt is a fine-­grained soil which is non-­plastic, making its behaviour similar
to coarse-­grained soil (BS 5930 2015) except it has much smaller soil par-
ticles, while clay is a fine-­grained soil which is plastic (Holtz et al. 2011).
Thus, classifying fine-­grained soil solely on its particle size is inappropriate
(BS 5930 2015) as clay and silt cannot be distinguished. According to BS
5930 (2015) most fine-­grained soils are always a mixture of clay-­and silt-­
size particles. Thus, fine-­grained soils should be described as either silt or
clay depending on the plastic properties and secondary descriptor for fine-­
grained soils (i.e., silty clay, or clayey silt) is allowed only for field distinction
when differentiation is difficult. However, ASTM D2487-­17 (2017) allows
the use of secondary descriptors to describe fine-­grained soils.

5.3.2 Water in soils
Water in soils may exist in different forms (Head 2006):

1. Water of hydration within the solid particle (unremovable through

oven drying).
2. Adsorbed water, which exists in solid state at the particle surface
(unremovable through oven drying at 110°C).
3. Hygroscopic water, which is held by van der Waals forces and not
tightly held (removable through oven drying).
4. Capillary water, which is held by surface tension (removable through
oven drying).
5. Gravitational water (removable through drainage and oven drying).

As a water content test is commonly conducted by oven drying the soil

specimen at 105°C–110°C, only hygroscopic water, capillary water and
gravitational water are removed. Thus, the so-­called dry condition does not
necessarily mean that there is no more water in the soil but that no more water
can be removed at a temperature not exceeding 110°C (BS 1377-­2 1990).
The amount of water in a soil has a strong influence on the behaviour of
soil, especially for fine-­grained soils. Thus, measurement of water content is
very important in geotechnical engineering, especially for unsaturated soils.
Gravimetric water content (w) is the most commonly used in geotechnical
engineering to express the water content of soil and is calculated using
Equation 5.1.
 Atterberg limits and shrinkage test 71

Mw
w= 100% (5.1)
Ms

where Mw is the mass of water, and Ms is the mass of soil solid. Volumetric
water content (θ) is often used in unsaturated soil mechanics to express soil
water content and is calculated using Equation 5.2.

Vw
  (5.2)
Vt

where Vw is the volume of water and Vt is the total volume of the specimen.
When the prefix “gravimetric” or “volumetric” is not mentioned in geotech-
nical engineering, it usually referred to gravimetric water content.
Description of the soil’s physical states based on its water content can be
easily described by using an idealised shrinkage curve which is shown in
Figure 5.1. The shrinkage curve is a curve which describes the relation
between water content and the void ratio (Wijaya et al. 2015; Fredlund et
al. 2002). In an idealised shrinkage curve, the soil starts drying from the
slurry condition (with degree of saturation equals 100%). The soil dries
along the saturation line, and the relationship between water content and
the void ratio is linear and is given by Equation 5.3.

e = wGs (5.3)

LL = Liquid limit
PL = Plastic limit
SL= True shrinkage limit
SL'= Apparent shrinkage limit
e

GS
1

Residual shrinkage

Zero shrinkage
emin
Solid Semi-solid Plastic Liquid
SL SL PL LL
w (%)

Figure 5.1 Idealised shrinkage curve.

72 Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

On the saturation line, soil suction has the same effect as the net normal
stress, i.e., volume and shear strength change due either to the change in net
normal stress or change in pore-­water pressure.
A soil with water content above its liquid limit behaves as a viscous fluid.
As such a soil dries below its liquid limit, the soil reaches a plastic state.
The soil shrinks and the shear strength increases (Fredlund et al. 2012).
The undrained shear strength of soil at the liquid limit is approximately 1.7
kPa (Aitkinson 2007), and its average effective stress is approximately 8
kPa (Wood 1990). Once the soil’s water content reaches the plastic limit,
the soil starts to desaturate (Fredlund et al. 2002, 2012) and the undrained
shear strength may increase by up to two orders in magnitude (Aitkinson
2007). It is still open for discussion if the plastic limit is the water content
at the air-­entry value. The difference between liquid limit (LL) and plastic
limit (PL) is defined as plasticity index (PI) and is used in the plasticity
chart for soil classification, as well as a number of empirical relations for
many saturated soil properties. Another three indices that are commonly
used are relative consistency (Cr), liquidity index (IL) and activity which are
defined according to Equations 5.4, Equations 5.5, and Equations 5.6,
respectively.

LL  w
Cr  (5.4)
PI

w  PL
LI  (5.5a)
PI

Alternatively,

LI  1  Cr (5.5b)

PI
Activity  (5.6)
%Clay( 2  m)

As the soil desaturates further from PL, the soil reaches a semi-­solid phase.
The associated shrinkage phase is referred to as residual shrinkage (Leong
and Wijaya 2015; Peng and Horn 2013). At this point, the effect of soil suc-
tion on the volume change and shear strength of the soil is less than the net
normal stress as the soil becomes unsaturated (Sr < 100%). On further dry-
ing, the soil reaches the zero-­shrinkage phase (no further volume changes
due to a decrease in water content), and the corresponding minimum void
ratio is referred to as emin. The water content at which the soil reaches the
zero-­shrinkage phase is the true shrinkage limit (SL). Contrast the true
 Atterberg limits and shrinkage test 73

shrinkage limit to the shrinkage limit defined at the intersection between the
zero-­shrinkage line and the saturation line (BS 1377-­2 1990; Fredlund et al.
2002). Leong and Wijaya (2015) differentiate the two shrinkage limits as
follows:

1. Apparent SL’, which is given by the intersection between the zero-­

shrinkage line and the saturation line, is commonly used in geotechni-
cal engineering.
2. True SL is the water content at which the soil experiences no further
change in volume as its water content decreases further and is com-
monly used in soil science.

True shrinkage limit is more difficult to determine, as the shrinkage curve for
some soils does not asymptote to a horizontal line near zero water content.
The apparent shrinkage limit is easier to determine as it only requires the
weight and volume of soil before and after oven-­dried condition to obtain
emin and assume a horizontal line and SL’ can then be determined from emin
using Equation 5.7.

e 
SL   min  100% (5.7)
 Gs 

5.3.3 Shrinkage and swelling curves of soils

The role of the shrinkage curve is not limited to describing the shrinkage
limit of soils from the slurry condition. The shrinkage curve can also be used
to estimate the volume change of undisturbed or compacted soils induced
by drying. Conversely, the swelling curve of soils can be obtained by wetting
the soil instead of drying the soil. The swelling curve can be used to estimate
the wetting-­induced volume change of soils.
The swelling curve is rarely determined as it is more difficult to wet the
soil while measuring its weight and volume. However, some studies show
that there is negligible hysteresis between shrinkage and swelling curves
(Fleureau et al. 2002; Gould et al. 2011). Thus, Wijaya (2017) suggests that
the shrinkage curve can be a proxy for the swelling curve. The limit of the
swelling curve is defined by the swelling potential of soil, which is defined in
Chapter 13.

5.3.4 Classification of soil shrinkage curve

The basic soil shrinkage curve consists of two linear segments (saturation
line and zero-­shrinkage line) as shown in Figure 5.1. Natural and compacted
74 Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

soil shrinkage curves may not follow the basic shrinkage curve for the fol-
lowing reasons:

1. presence of occluded air may cause the degree of saturation of the soil
to never reach 100%;
2. presence of macropore that may cause structural shrinkage (Cornelis
et al. 2006; Peng and Horn 2013); or
3. presence of peat, organic matter or bentonite (montmorillonite) may
cause the soil to not have a true shrinkage limit or no zero-­shrinkage
line (Peng and Horn 2013; Wijaya et al. 2019).

To simplify the description of the soil shrinkage curve, Leong and Wijaya
(2015) use a number of linear segments (two, three and four linear seg-
ments) to describe the shrinkage curve as shown in Figure 5.2. Figure 5.2a,
c and e show the schematic illustration and the parameters describing the
shrinkage curve while Figure 5.2b, d and e show examples of shrinkage
curve data from literature.
The two linear segments shrinkage curve in Figure 5.2a is for the basic
shrinkage curve as shown in Figure 5.1 except the first linear segment is
referred to as loading line instead of as saturation line. The saturation
line is for a soil at 100% degree of saturation and is strictly applicable to
soils starting from the slurry condition. However, the soil is not necessar-
ily fully saturated for undisturbed or compacted soils as occluded air
might exist in the soil. Thus, the slope of loading line (m2) is given by
Equation 5.8.

Gs
m2 = (5.8)
S0

where S0 is the initial degree of saturation. For the zero-­shrinkage line, the
slope (m1) is commonly taken as 0 unless peat, organic matter or montmo-
rillonite is present. Table 5.1 lists the equations that can be used to represent
the shrinkage curve with two linear segments. In constructing the shrinkage
curve, specific gravity (Gs), minimum void ratio (emin) and initial degree of
saturation (S0) must be obtained while the curvature parameter can be esti-
mated (Wijaya and Leong 2015; Leong and Wijaya 2015; Fredlund et al.
2002).
The three linear segments shrinkage curve in Figure 5.2b is commonly
encountered for peats and organic soils (Leong and Wijaya 2015; Peng
and Horn 2013), while the four linear segments shrinkage curve in Figure
5.2c is applicable when macropores are present. The difficulty in curve
fitting three and four linear segments shrinkage curve using a single
equation increases and a more complex equation is required as shown in
Table 5.2.
 Atterberg limits and shrinkage test 75

2
w2– = True shrinkage limit (SL)
w2 = Apparent shrinkage limit (SL')
w2+ = Air entry (AE) point 1.8
e
lin 1.6
ng
di
oa
=L 1.4

e
2 )
e

e( m2
lin 1
Residual 1.2
shrinkage
k2
Lab data
emin line(1) = Zero shrinkage line 1
m1 Leong and Wijaya (2015)
0.8
W2– W2 W2+ 0 20 40 60 80
w (%) w (%)
(a) (b)
w2– = Macroporosity limit (Boivin et al., 2006) (ML) 7
w2 = Swelling limit (Voltz and Cabidoche., 1995) (SWL)
w2+ = Maximum swelling of plasma (Boivin et al., 2006)(MS) 6
w3– = Structural shrinkage limit (SSL) m3
w3 = Saturated water content (ws) k3 5
w3+ = Air entry of macropore (AEM)
k2 m2 4
e
e

3
m1
Gs/S 0
2 Lab data
emin
1
Leong and Wijaya (2015)
W2– W2 W2+ W3– W3 W3+
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
w (%) w (%)
(c) (d)
w2– = True shrinkage limit (SL)
w2 = Apparent shrinkage limit (SL')
w2+ = Air entry point of the micropore (AE)
w3– = Macroporosity limit (Boivin et al., 2006) (ML) 1.4
w3 = Swelling limit (Voltz and Cabidoche., 1995) (SWL) m4
w3+ = Maximum swelling of plasma (Boivin et al., 2006)(MS) 1
w4– = Structural shrinkage limit (SSL) 1.2
w4 = Saturated water content (ws) k4
w4+ = Air entry point of the macropore (AEM)
e

k3 1
m3
e

1 1
k2 0.8
m2
emin line(1)
0.6 Experimental
m1
Leong and Wijaya (2015)
w3+ w4– w4+ 0.4
w2– w2 w2+ w3–w3 w4 0 20 40 60
w (%) w (%)
(e) (f)

Figure 5.2 S hrinkage curve classification based on the number of linear segments
(Leong and Wijaya 2015; Wijaya et al., 2019). (a) 2 linear segments
shrinkage curve. (b) Kaolin (Wijaya, 2017). (c) Three linear segments
shrinkage curve. (d) Histosol undisturbed soil core (Peng et al., 2007).
(e) Four linear segments shrinkage curve. (f) Lixisol A (Cornelis et al.,
2006).
76 Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

Table 5.1 Curve fitting equation for two linear segments shrinkage curve

Model Equation Parameters

Frelund et al. 1/ C emin = minimum
 wC 
(2002) model e  w   emin  C  1 void ratio
 SL  SL’ = apparent
emin G s shrinkage limit
 Gs = specific
SL S0 gravity
Recommended C value S0 = initial degree
Fredlund et al. (2002) recommendation: of saturation
C = curvature of
1. undisturbed soil = 9.57 the shrinkage
2. initially slurried soil = 25.31 curve
3. compacted spo = 8.47 wAEV = water
Wijaya et al. (2015) recommendation: content at air-­
entry value
1. all soils = 9 β = slope
Giraldez et al.
(1983) model e
GS
S0  w 2AEV
0.0267w 3  0.23w 2 w AEV  0.7249w 3AEV  parameter
depending on
Kim et al. G AEV
(1992) model e  emin exp    wG s   w s K2 = curvature
S0 of the shrinkage
Leong and  cosh  k2  w  SL    curve
Wijaya (2015) e  w   emin  GS w  1 ln   

2S0 k2  cosh  k2  SL  
 
2
k2 
SL  w AE
Wijaya and Leong (2015) recommendation on k2:
 G  G 
k2  4.32  s  or k2  4.32  s 
S e
 0 min   SL 

5.3.5 Effect of stress history on soil shrinkage curve

Wijaya (2017) investigated the effect of stress history on the shrinkage
curve. Figure 5.3a shows a kaolin specimen which was loaded to 1600 kPa
and then unloaded. Figure 5.3b shows the comparison between pre-­and
post-­compression shrinkage test results. Figure 5.3b shows that compres-
sion will affect the shrinkage curve of soil. Thus, the shrinkage test must be
conducted by considering the stress history of the soil.
Table 5.2 Curve fitting equation for multi-linear segments shrinkage curve

Reference Equation Parameters

Leong and Wijaya (2015) n emin = minimum void ratio
e  w   emin  m1w  T w, w , m , m
i 2
i i i i 1, ki  w = gravimetric water content
mi = slope of linear segment i
 mi  mi 1  1  cosh  ki  w  w i    wi = gravimetric water content between
Ti  w , w i , mi , mi 1, ki   w ln   segment i and segment i-­1
2 ki  cosh  ki w i   ki = curvature parameter between

segment i and segment i-­1
ki can be either curve fitted or obtained from: SL’ = apparent shrinkage limit
2 1 1 Gs = specific gravity
ki  ; ki  ; ki 
wi  wi wi  wi wi  wi S0 = initial degree of saturation
Chertkov (2000, 2003) emin ;   SL υ = moisture ratio = w.Gs
 υAE = moisture ratio at air-­entry value
2 
2

e  emin     SL  w ; SL     AE m2 = slope of the loading line
 s β = slope parameter depending on AEV

Atterberg limits and shrinkage test

 ;    AE μ = model parameter
Cornelis et al. (2006) or emin ;   SL υSL = moisture ratio at true shrinkage limit
modified Chertkov (2000,  υLL = moisture ratio at liquid limit
2 
2
2003) equation (ModC) e  emin     SL  w ; SL     AE γ, ζ, ξ = model parameter
 s υSL’ = moisture ratio at apparent shrinkage
2        e limit
 SL min
 AE    LL υinf = moisture ratio at inflection point
   AE  SL   AE  SL  ;
es = saturated void ratio
β = model parameter
a0, aG,bG,er,mG,ϕG,αG, αer,er0 = model
parameters
(Continued)

77
Table 5.2 (Continued)

78
Reference Equation Parameters

Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

Cornelis et al. (2006) or     
modified Groenevelt and e  emin   exp  
Grant (2001, 2002) (ModGG)    
McGarry and Malafant (1987)  
emin   SL  emin  en  0    SL
SL 

e  en   SL    SWL
 
e s  SWL  es  en  SWL    S
 SWL
es
e  emin 
1  exp      inf  
Gould et al. (2011) e  f  w , aG   f  w , bG   f  0, aG   f  0, bG   er

f  x, y   
m
  2
  x  y  tan1   x  y    0.5 ln 1    x  y   

to account for net normal stress:

  
aG   G ln 1    a0
 0 
  
er   er ln 1    er 0
 0 
 Atterberg limits and shrinkage test 79

1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
e

1.1
1
0.9
0.8 Compression test
0.7
1 10 100 1000 10000
(kPa)

(a)
2.2
Specimen 1-Air dried
2 Specimen 2-Air dried
Specimen 3-Desiccator
1.8 Specimen 4-Pressure plate
Specimen 5-Post compression
1.6
e

1.4

1.2

0.8
0 15 30 45 60 75
w (%)
(b)

Figure 5.3 Post-compression shrinkage curve. (a) Compression test on

Specimen 5. (b) Pre‑compression shrinkage curve (Wijaya et al., 2015) and
Post‑compression shrinkage curve (Specimen 5).

5.4 TEST METHODS

5.4.1 Gravimetric water content test

Gravimetric water content test (or water content test) is one of the most
common tests in geotechnical engineering, as the water content of the speci-
men is always required in determining the Atterberg limits, saturated soil
80 Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

Table 5.3 Specimen mass requirement for water content test

Standard Maximum particle size Mass requirement

ASTM D2216 (2010) 75 mm 5 kg
37.5 mm 1 kg
19.0 mm 250 g
9.5 mm 50 g
4.75 mm 20 g
2 mm 20 g
BS 1377-­2 (1990) and More than 10% retained on a 20 mm 3 kg
BS 1377-­1 (2016) test sieve but not more than 10%
retained on a 37.5 mm test sieve
More than 10% retained on a 2 mm test 300 g
sieve but not more than 10% retained
on a 20 mm test sieve
Not more than 10% retained on a 2 mm 30 g
test sieve
BS EN ISO 17892-­1 63 mm 21,000 g
(2014) 32.5 mm 3,000
10 mm 500
2 mm 100
0.063 mm 30

properties and unsaturated soil properties. Water content can be determined

using either (ASTM D2216 2010):
Method A: the water content is recorded to the nearest 1% (referee
method).
Method B: the water content is recorded to the nearest 0.1%.
The most commonly used method to determine the water content of the
specimen is oven drying, which will be explained in this section. The proce-
dures to determine water content by oven drying are as follows:

1. Prepare a specimen with mass according to Table 5.3.

2. Prepare a clean moisture can or tray (including lid if it is used) and
record its weight (Mc) (BS 1377-­2 1990; ASTM D2216 2010; BS EN
ISO 17892-­1 2014).
3. Place the specimen into the can/tray and record the weight of both
specimen and can/tray (Mc,ws) (BS 1377-­2 1990; ASTM D2216 2010;
BS EN ISO 17892-­1 2014).
4. Place the specimen in the oven and use a drying temperature of either
(105°C – 110°C) (BS 1377-­2 1990) or 110 ± 5°(ASTM D2487-­17
2017). For certain soil types such as peats or highly organic soils, 60°C
 Atterberg limits and shrinkage test 81

is preferred (Head 2006). For material that contains gypsum, the tem-
perature cannot exceed 800C (BS 1377-­2, 1990).
5. Check the change in the sample weight at 4-­hour intervals until the dif-
ference between each 4-­hour interval does not exceed 1% for method
A or 0.1% for method B of the original mass of the sample (BS 1377-­2
1990; ASTM D2216 2010). In most cases, 12 (ASTM D2487-­17
2017), 16 (BS 1377-­2 1990; ASTM D2216 2010; BS EN ISO 17892-­1
2014) to 24 hours (BS 1377-­2 1990) are sufficient to dry a soil.
6. Take out the specimen and place it in a desiccator to cool without it
absorbing water from the air (BS 1377-­2 1990; ASTM D2216 2010;
BS EN ISO 17892-­1 2014).
7. Record the weight of the can/tray with the dry specimen (Mc,ds) (BS
1377-­2 1990; ASTM D2216 2010; BS EN ISO 17892-­1 2014).
8. Calculate the gravimetric water content of the specimen using
Equation 5.9 (BS 1377-­2 1990; ASTM D2216. 2010; BS EN ISO
17892-­1 2014):

Mc,ws  Mc,ds
w 100% (5.9)
Mc,ds  Mc

9. If the water content is to be related to the Atterberg limits, it is necessary

to do a correction such that the water content used for the correlation
(i.e., liquidity index and relative consistency) is only representing the
particle size used for the Atterberg limits (i.e., 425 μm for BS standard).
The correction can be done using Equation 5.10 (BS 1377-­2 1990):

 100   100  pa 
wa  w    wr   (5.10)
 Pa   pa 

where wa is the corrected water content for Atterberg limit correlation, Pa

is the percentage by dry mass of the portion of the soil sample passing the
425 μm, wr is the water content of the fraction retained on the 425 μm
sieve (for BS standard). The water content wr is necessary when the particles
retained on the 425 μm sieve (for BS standard) are porous and absorbing
water; ­otherwise, wr is set to 0.

5.4.2 Specimen preparations for liquid limit and plastic

limit tests
The liquid limit test can be done on a natural soil or a sieved sample. A natu-
ral sample can be used when there is little to no material retained on a 425
μm sieve. The procedures for natural material are as follows:
82 Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

1. Prepare at least 500 g of soil in its natural state and remove any
observable particles retained on a 425 μm sieve.
2. Determine the mass of all coarse particles that is present in the soil in
its natural state (BS 1377-­2 1990).
3. Transfer the soil to a flat glass plate (BS 1377-­2 1990).
4. Add distilled water to the soil and mix thoroughly with palette knives
until the soil and water become a homogeneous paste (BS 1377-­2 1990).
5. Place the paste in an airtight container for 24 hours (BS 1377-­2 1990).

The procedures for a sieved sample are as follows:

1. Prepare at least 300g of soil that passed through the 425 μm sieve (BS
1377-­2 1990). The use of a dispersing agent is not allowed.
2. Take a representative specimen and determine its water content (wn).
3. Record the weight of the specimen (Mw).
4. Place the soil in a container and then submerged under distilled water
until it becomes a slurry (BS 1377-­2 1990).
5. Conduct wet sieving of the slurry with a 425 μm sieve and collect the
filtrate using a receiver pan. Use as little distilled water as possible.
Wash the fines in the 425 μm sieve.
6. Oven dry the soil particles retained on the 425 μm sieve and record
their weight (Mr).
7. Allow the soil particles in the receiver pan to settle and decant any
clear water above the suspension.
8. Dry the suspension using warm air, vacuum or pressure until it forms
a stiff paste.
9. Calculate the dry mass of the soil using Equation 5.11.

100
Ms  Mw (5.11)
100  wn

10. Calculate the percentage of the soil passing through the 425 μm using
5.12.

Ms  Mr
Pa  (5.12)
Ms

5.4.3 Liquid limit
There are two commonly used methods for the determination of liquid limit:

1. Casagrande liquid limit test

2. Fall cone penetrometer test
 Atterberg limits and shrinkage test 83

Casagrande test is the earliest method used to obtain liquid limit. However,
the fall cone penetrometer test is easier to conduct, gives more consistent
results and is less prone to error, as it is a static test which depends on soil
shear strength (BS 1377-­2 1990).

5.4.3.1 Liquid limit based on Casagrande apparatus

Procedures for the liquid limit test based on the Casagrande apparatus are
as follows:

1. Prepare 300 g of soil paste and place it on the glass plate.

2. Mix the paste for around 10 minutes and add more distilled water if
necessary.
3. Place a portion of the soil paste into the Casagrande cup without
entrapping air and level off the soil paste surface parallel to the
base.
4. Hold the grooving tool normal to the surface of the cup with the
chamfered edge facing the direction of movement and split the soil
into two equal parts.
5. Turn the crank handle at the rate of two revolutions per second so
the cup is lifted and dropped until the two parts of the soil come into
contact at the bottom of the groove along a distance of 13 mm and
record the number of bumps at which this occurs.
6. Repeat steps 3 to 5 until two consecutive consistent numbers of
bumps can be achieved. If the soil paste slides on the surface of the
cup instead of within the soil, the test is discarded and steps 2 to 5 are
repeated.
7. If two consistent consecutive numbers of bumps can be achieved, take
about 10 g of soil with a spatula from the portions of the sample that
have flowed together and determine the water content of the soil.
8. Remove the soil from the cup. Clean, wash and dry the Casagrande
cup and the grooving tool. Add more water to the paste.
9. Repeat steps 2 to 8 at least three times. Plot the number of bumps with
their respective water contents.
10. Make a straight (regression) relationship and determine the liquid
limit from the regression line corresponding to the water content at
25 bumps. Present the liquid limit as a whole number.

5.4.3.2 Liquid limit based on fall cone test

Procedures for a liquid limit test based on a fall cone penetrometer are as
follows:

1. Prepare 300 g of soil paste and place it on the glass plate.

84 Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

2. Mix the soil paste for around 10 minutes and add more distilled water
if necessary.
3. Place a portion of the soil paste into the cup using the palette knife and
push it with the palette knife without entrapping air. Repeat until the
cup is full.
4. Use a straightedge to level the soil surface at the cup level.
5. Adjust the fall cone position such that the tip of the cone just touches
the surface of the soil. The correct position is indicated by moving the
cup slightly and the cone tip should mark the soil surface.
6. Record the initial dial gauge reading to the nearest 0.1 mm.
7. Release the cone for 5 ± 1s.
8. Record the final dial gauge reading to the nearest 0.1 mm and calcu-
late the penetration, which is the difference between final and initial
dial readings.
9. Lift up the cone and clean it.
10. Add soil paste to patch the soil in the cup and repeat steps 3 to 9.
11. Record the average of the two penetrations if the difference between
first and second penetration readings is not more than 0.5 mm. If the
difference is more than 0.5 mm and less than 1 mm, patch the soil
in the cup and redo steps 3 to 9 to get the third penetration. If the
overall range is not more than 1 mm, record the average of the three
penetrations, otherwise, remove all the soil from the cup and repeat
steps 2 to 11.
12. Take 10 g of the soil paste around the penetrated area to determine its
water content.
13. Remove the soil paste from the cup, wash and clean the cup.
14. Add more distilled water to the soil paste and repeat steps 2 to 12 for
at least three more readings such that the range of penetration from
15 mm to 25 mm is obtained.
15. Plot water content versus cone penetration and plot a best-­fit straight
line through the data points (i.e., regression line), and determine the
liquid limit which is the water content on the straight line correspond-
ing to a cone penetration of 20 mm.
16. Present the liquid limit as a whole number and report the percentage
of material passing the 425 μm sieve.

5.4.4 Plastic limit test

Procedures for the plastic limit test are as follows:

1. Prepare 20 g of the soil paste and place it on a scratch-­free glass plate.

2. Let the soil dry on the plate such that it can be shaped into a ball.
3. Mould the ball with fingers and roll it between palms such that there
is a slight crack on its surface.
4. Divide the sample into two 10 g sub-­samples.
 Atterberg limits and shrinkage test 85

5. Divide each sub-­sample into four equal parts.

6. Mould each part with fingers to form a soil thread of 6 mm in diameter.
7. Roll the thread between the fingers, from the fingertip to the second
finger joint of one hand, and the surface of the glass plate.
8. Use small pressure to reduce the thread diameter to about 3 mm by
using forward and back movement of the hand.
9. Pick up the soil, mould it between the fingers to dry it further.
10. Repeat steps 7 to 9 until the thread shears both longitudinal and trans-
versely when it has been rolled to about 3 mm diameter. Usually, a short
metal rod of 3 mm diameter is used as a guide for the required soil
thread. Water content of the soil at this point is taken as the plastic limit.
11. Gather the portions of the crumbled soil thread and placed it in a
moisture content can.
12. Repeat steps 6 to 11 for the other three equal parts of the sub-­sample
and place all four crumbled parts together in the same moisture con-
tent can and determine the water content.
13. Repeat steps 5 to 12 for the other sub-­samples.
14. Take the average water content of the two samples as the plastic limit
and present it to the nearest whole number.

5.4.5 Shrinkage limit and shrinkage curve test

Shrinkage tests can be conducted on a cylindrical specimen (volumetric
shrinkage) or on a soil bar (linear shrinkage). The soil bar is formed from
soil paste prepared in the same manner as for the liquid limit test, except
only 150g of the fraction passing sieve 425 μm is required. Whichever speci-
men is used, the shrinkage limit of the soil, the shrinkage ratio and the volu-
metric shrinkage for a given change of moisture content can be determined.

5.4.5.1 Volumetric shrinkage
Shrinkage limit can be conducted on either an intact sample (definitive
method) or from a sieved sample which is made into a slurry paste (subsid-
iary method) (BS 1377-­2 1990) . For the definitive method, the ideal speci-
men size is 38 mm to 51 mm in diameter and a length of one to two times
the diameter (BS 1377-­2 1990).
The principle behind the shrinkage limit or the shrinkage curve is to record
the volume and weight of the specimen as the specimen dries. For shrinkage
limit determination (ASTM D427-­04 2004), only the initial and final mass
and volume of the specimen need to be recorded (the final mass and volume
refer to the oven-­dry condition) and the apparent SL’ can be obtained. But
shrinkage curve determination (BS 1377-­2 1990) requires multiple readings
to be taken between initial wet to dry conditions. It is possible to estimate the
shrinkage curve by using SL’ (Wijaya et al. 2015; Wijaya and Leong 2015;
Fredlund et al. 2002) when the shrinkage curve only has two linear segments,
86 Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

and the zero-­shrinkage line is present. Thus, it is always recommended to

determine the shrinkage curve when dealing with unsaturated soils.
The challenge in determining the shrinkage limit and the shrinkage curve
of soil is in determining the volume of the specimen as the soil specimen may
not shrink homogeneously and uniformly. Shrinkage may distort the speci-
men’s shape, making volume measurement challenging. Several methods
that can be employed in measuring the specimen’s volume are listed in
Table 5.4. Specimen volume measurement using mercury described in
BS1377-­2 (1990) is intentionally omitted.

Table 5.4 V
 olume measurement method for shrinkage test updated from Wijaya et al.
(2015)

Method Destructive Description

Direct measurement Non-­destructive Using measurement devices
method such as the Vernier caliper to
obtain the dimensions of the
specimen. It is assumed that the
specimen has a regular geometry
such as a cylinder so that the
volume can be easily calculated.
In order to account for the
non-­homogeneous geometry,
several measurements are taken
to obtain the average dimension.
The simplicity, speed and non-­
destructive are the advantages
of this method. This method may
not work on irregular-­shaped
specimen.
Volume displacement Destructive The soil specimen is coated with
method /Non-­destructive wax or saran resin dissolved in
ethyl ketone (Brasher et al. 1966)
and then submerged into a liquid.
The volume of the liquid displaced
equals to the total volume of
the specimen. It can be used
to measure the volume of the
irregular-­shaped specimen.The
disadvantages of this method are
destructive and when the clods
have large pores, more viscous
saran resins are needed (Guillermo
et al. 2001) or alternatively by using
mercury (ASTM D427-­04 2004; BS
1377-­2 1990)
(Continued)
 Atterberg limits and shrinkage test 87

Table 5.4 (Continued)

Method Destructive Description
Two non-­mixing liquid Destructive Two types of liquids are used
method to produce different buoyancy
forces on the soil specimen.
The difference in the buoyancy
force is then used to calculate
the density of the specimen and
hence the total volume of the
specimen. This method is similar
to the volume displacement
method.
Gamma-­ray attenuation Non-­Destructive Dual-­energy gamma beam with
dual-­energy method different mass absorption
coefficients is applied to obtain
different mass attenuation
coefficients and a number of
gamma-­ray quanta produced
and hence bulk density and total
volume. This method requires
special apparatus and is the
most capital-­expensive method
compared to the others; however,
it can be used to measure
irregular-­shaped specimen and it
is not destructive.
Photogrammetry method Non-­destructive Soil specimen pictures are taken at
different views to construct 3D
specimen model.
Laser scanner method Non-­destructive Laser scanner is used to obtain
a very dense point cloud to
construct a 3D specimen model.

As volume measurement depends on the technique employed, the shrink-

age limit test can be briefly described as follows:

1. Determine the initial water content of the specimen when possible

(i.e., using the left-­over sample) to estimate the water content and void
ratio of the specimen during the test.
2. Record the initial weight and volume of the specimen and estimate the
water content of the specimen using Equation 5.13.

 M   wref 
wi   i   100  1   100% (5.13)
 Mref  
88 Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

where wi is the gravimetric water content at measurement i, Mi is

the mass of soil at measurement i, Mref is the reference mass, while
wref is the reference gravimetric water content. As Mref and wref are
obtained at the same time, they can be obtained either before or after
the shrinkage test. If Mref and wref are obtained prior to the shrink-
age test, Mref is the mass of the specimen at the beginning of the test,
while wref can only be obtained by using other specimens or left-­over
sample.
3. Place the specimen on a watch glass and exposed it to air at room
temperature for 2h (BS 1377-­2 1990) or place it in the pressure plate
and apply suction to the specimen.
4. Record the weight and volume of the specimen.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there is no more change in the weight of the
specimen.
6. For a very expansive clay (i.e., bentonite), there may be no more
change in weight while the water content is still relatively high. For
such a specimen, place it in the oven for 5 to 20 minutes to accel-
erate the drying process by using a temperature lower than 105°C
(BS1377-­1 recommends oven temperature from 45°C to 50°C while
ASTM D4318-­17 recommends oven temperature less than 60°C).
7. Record the weight and volume of the specimen.
8. Repeat steps 6 and 7 until there is very little water inside the specimen
and record the final mass and volume of the specimen.
9. Oven dry the specimen to a constant mass to determine its water
content.
10. Use the final mass as Mref and final water content as wref and determine
the actual water content of the specimen by using Equation 5.9 and
calculate the void ratio of the specimen from each measurement using
Equation 5.14.

ei  VG
i s
1  w ref
100  1 (5.14)
Mref

where ei is the void ratio at measurement I, Vi is the volume of the specimen

at measurement i.
The shrinkage ratio, Rs, of the specimen is given by Equation 5.15:

md
Rs = (5.15)
Vd

where md is the mass and Vd is the volume of the specimen after oven drying.
The shrinkage ratio provides a convenient way to calculate the volumetric
 Atterberg limits and shrinkage test 89

shrinkage of the soil, Vs, from an initial water content w, as shown in

Equation 5.16.

w  SL
Vs  (5.16)
Rs

5.4.5.2 Linear shrinkage
The linear shrinkage test is performed on a soil bar formed from soil paste
using a mould, as shown in Figure 5.4. The test procedures are as follows:

1. Use about 150 g of the dried soil and make it into a paste at its liquid
limit. The paste is prepared in the same manner as the liquid limit test.
2. Fill the mould with the soil paste using a palette knife ensuring that
there is no air trapped within.

Figure 5.4 Mould for linear shrinkage test.

90 Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

3. Level the soil along the top of the mould with a palette knife and clean
the surrounding of the mould of any adhering soil with a damp cloth.
4. Place the mould at a location where the soil specimen can air dry
slowly until the soil has shrunk away from the walls of the mould. A
closed chamber with low humidity (60%–70%) may be suitable.
5. Then dry it in the oven at a temperature not exceeding 65°C until
shrinkage has largely stopped and complete the drying at 105°C to
110°C.
6. Remove the mould and soil from the oven to cool.
7. Measure the mean length of the soil bar, Ld. Some soils may result in
a curved soil bar during drying. In this case, remove the soil carefully
from the mould and measure the lengths of the top and bottom sur-
faces, and record Ld as the mean of these two lengths.

The linear shrinkage is given by Equation 5.17.

 L 
Linear shrinkage   1  d   100% (5.17)
 L0 

where L0 is the original length of the soil bar.

REFERENCES

Aitkinson, J. H. (2007). The mechanics of soils and foundations. London:

McGraw-­Hill.
ASTM D2216 (2010). Standard test methods for laboratory determination of water
(moisture) content of soil and rock by mass. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM
International.
ASTM D2487-­17 (2017). Standard practice for classification of soils for engineer-
ing purposes (Unified Soil Classification System). West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM
International.
ASTM D427-­04 (2004). Standard test method for shrinkage factors of soils by the
mercury method. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
Atterberg, A. (1911). The behaviour of clays with water, their limits of plasticity
and their degrees of plasticity. Kungliga Lantbruksakademiens Handlingar och
Tidskrift, 50(2): 132–158.
Boivin, P., Garnier, P., & Vauclin, M. (2006). Modelling the soil shrinkage and water
retention curves with same equations. Soil Science Society of America Journal,
70(4): 1082–1093.
Brasher, B. R., Franzmeier, D. P., Valassis, V., & Davidson, S. E. (1966). Use of saran
resin to coat natural soil clods for bulk density and water retention measurement.
Soil Science, 101(2): 108.
BS 1377-­1 (2016). Methods of test for soils for civil engineering purposes Part 1:
General requirements and sample preparation. UK: BSI.
 Atterberg limits and shrinkage test 91

BS 1377-­ 2 (1990). Methods of test for soils for civil engineering purposes
Classification tests.
BS 5930 (2015). Code of practice for ground investigations. UK: BSI.
BS EN ISO 17892-­1 (2014). Geotechnical investigation and testing – Laboratory
testing of soils Part 1: Determination of water content. UK: BSI.
Cornelis, W. M., Corluy, J., Medina, H., Diaz, J., Hartmann, R., Van Meirvenne, M.,
& Ruiz, M. E. (2006). Measuring and modelling the soil shrinkage characteristic
curve. Geoderma, 137(1–2): 179–191.
Fleureau, J. M., Verbrugge, J. C., Huergo, P. J., Correia, A. G., & Kheirbek-­Saoud,
S. (2002). Aspects of the behaviour of compacted clayey soils on drying and
wetting paths. Canadian Geotechnical Journal of Agricultural Science, 39(6):
1341–1357.
Fredlund, D. G., Rahardjo, H., & Fredlund, M. D. (2012). Unsaturated soil mechan-
ics in Engineering practice. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc..
Fredlund, M. D., Wilson, G. W., & Fredlund, D. G. (2002). Representation and esti-
mation of the shrinkage curve. In Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on
Unsaturated Soils, UNSAT 2002, pp. 145–149.
Gould, S. J. F., Kodikara, J., Rajeev, P., Zhao, X. L., & Burn, S. (2011). A void ratio
– water content – net stress model for environmentally stabilized expansive soils.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 48(6): 867–877.
Guillermo, O. S., Roberto, R. F., & Gimenez, D. (2001). Measurement of soil aggre-
gate density by volume displacement in two non-­mixing liquids. Soil Sciience
Society of America Journal, 65(5): 1400–1403.
Head, K. H. (2006). Manual of soil laboratory testing, volume I, soil classification
and compaction testing, 3rd ed. Caithness, UK: Whittles Publishing.
Holtz, R. D., Kovacs, W. D., & Sheahan, T. C. (2011). An introduction to geotechni-
cal engineering, 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, Inc.
Leong, E. C. & Wijaya, M. (2015). Universal soil shrinkage curve equation.
Geoderma, 237: 78–87.
Peng, X. & Horn, R. (2013). Identifying six types of soil shrinkage curves from a
large set of experimental data. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 77(2):
372–381.
Peng, X., Horn, R., & Smucker, A. (2007). Pore shrinkage dependency of inorganic
and organic soils on wetting and drying cycles. Soil Science Society of America
Journal, 71(4): 1095–1104.
Wijaya, M. (2017). Compression, Shrinkage and Wetting-­Induced Volume Change
of Unsaturated soils. In Civil and Environmental Engineering (Ph.D.) Nanyang
Technological University: Singapore.
Wijaya, M. & Leong, E. C. (2015). Estimation of Soil Shrinkage Curve. In Proceedings
of Unsaturated soils: Research & Applications. CRC Press/Balkema, vol. 1, pp.
785–789.
Wijaya, M., Leong, E. C., & Abuel-­Naga, H. (2019). Shrinkage curves for powder
and granular bentonites. E3S Web of Conferences, 92: 07009.
Wijaya, M., Leong, E. C., & Rahardjo, H. (2015). Effect of shrinkage on air-­entry
value of soils. Soils and Foundations, 55(1): 166–180.
Wood, D. M. (1990). Soil behaviour and critical state soil mechanics. London:
Cambridge University Press.
92 Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

FURTHER READING

Leong, E. C. & Wijaya, M. (2015). Universal soil shrinkage curve equation.

Geoderma, 237: 78–87.
Wijaya, M., Leong, E. C., & Rahardjo, H. (2015). Effect of shrinkage on air-­entry
value of soils. Soils and Foundations, 55(1): 166–180.
Chapter 6

Compaction

6.1 BACKGROUND

Compacted soils are used in a number of civil engineering projects, espe-

cially as fill material. Fill material is compacted either by rolling, ramming or
vibrating. Compaction reduces the air voids in the soil. The quality of com-
paction is related to the dry density of the compacted materials. Therefore,
it is important to specify the desired dry density that must be achieved by
compaction in civil engineering projects. Compaction is the only topic in
classical soil mechanics textbooks where the soils are in an unsaturated
state. Compaction is also used to prepare soil specimens for saturated and
unsaturated soil tests. In this chapter, Proctor, vibrating hammer and static
compaction test procedures will be laid out.

6.2 RELATED STANDARDS

1. BS 1377-1 (2016) Methods of Test for Soils for Civil Engineering

Purposes – Part 1: General Requirements and Sample Preparation.
2. BS 1377-4 (1990) Methods of Test for Soil for Civil Engineering
Purposes – Part 4: Compaction-Related Tests, BSI.
3. ASTM D698-12 (2012) Standard Test Methods for Laboratory
Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort (12,400 ft-
lbf/ft3 (600 kN-m/m3)).
4. ASTM D1557-12 (2012) Standard Test Methods for Laboratory
Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort (56,000 ft-
lbf/ft3 (2,700 kN-m/m3)).
5. ASTM D7382-08 (2008) Standard Test Methods for Determination
of Maximum Dry Unit Weight and Water Content Range for Effective
Compaction of Granular Soils Using a Vibrating Hammer.

DOI: 10.1201/b22304-6 93
94 Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

6.3 THEORY

There are two important factors that determine the dry density of soil
through compaction:

1. compaction effort, and

2. water content.
Higher compaction effort will lead to higher soil dry density. However, it
is not as straightforward for water content. At the beginning, when soil is
compacted using the same compaction effort, higher water content will lead
to higher density as the water makes the soil easier to compact until the
water content reaches the optimum water content (wopt) and the dry density
reaches maximum dry density. However, when more water is added, excess
pore-water pressure which is generated during the compaction will push the
soil particles apart. Thus, under the same compaction effort, an increase in
water content beyond wopt will reduce the dry density. Relationship between
water content and dry density using the same compaction effort is referred
to as the compaction curve.
Several contour lines which represent the degree of saturation through the
basic soil properties relationship is usually plotted together with the com-
paction curve. The contour lines can be plotted according to Equation 6.1.
Gs
d 
w  Gs
1
Sr (6.1)

The degree of saturation line which represents the fully saturated condi-
tion (Sr = 100%) is commonly referred to as zero air void (ZAV) line. It is
not possible for the compaction curve to cut the ZAV line due to the pres-
ence of occluded air bubbles that are generated when the soil is compacted.
Thus, a compacted soil is always unsaturated.
Static compaction test on uniformly graded and coarse clean sands may
not be reliable, and a vibrating hammer must be used instead (BS 1377-4
1990; ASTM D7382-08 2008).

6.4 TEST METHODS

Compaction test is commonly differentiated into

1. standard compaction test or standard Proctor test (ASTM D698-12

2012; BS 1377-4 1990),
2. modified compaction or modified Proctor test (ASTM D1557-12
2012; BS 1377-4 1990),
3. vibrating hammer (BS 1377-4 1990; ASTM D7382-08 2008), or
4. static compaction test (Priono et al. 2017; Goh 2012).
 Compaction 95

The differences between standard and modified Proctor tests are shown
in Table 6.1. The selection of whether to conduct a standard or modified
Proctor test is based on the compaction requirement of the site. Depending
on the particle size of the specimen, ASTM recommends three testing meth-
ods for standard and modified Proctor compaction – namely, Methods A,
B and C, while BS recommends five grading zone classifications, which are
zone 1 to zone 5. Both ASTM and BS test procedures are summarised in
Table 6.2. The vibrating hammer is mainly for granular soils satisfying the
soil suitability shown in Table 6.3. The ASTM and BS test procedures for
vibrating hammer compaction test are summarised in Table 6.4.
BS 1377-4 (1990) allows the same soil sample to be used multiple times
after progressively increasing the water content, provided that the soil is not
susceptible to crushing (and thus, requires a smaller sample size). If the soil
contains soft granular material such as limestone or sandstone or if the soil
is susceptible to crushing, the soil sample cannot be reused (BS 1377-1 2016;
BS 1377-4 1990). ASTM D698-12 (2012) and ASTM D1557-12 (2012)
strictly do not allow the soil sample to be reused.
If the expected dry density is known, the mass of water can be calculated
by Equation 6.2 (ASTM D7382-08 2008):

 1 
Mw  Ms  w  
 pd Gs  (6.2)

where Mw is the mass of water, Ms is the dry mass of the test specimen, ρd is
the expected dry density and Gs is the specific gravity.

Table 6.1 C
 omparison between standard and modified Proctor compaction test (ASTM
D1557-12 2012; ASTM D698-12 2012; BS 1377-4 1990)

ASTM D698-­12 (2012) ASTM D1557-­12 (2012)

Standard compaction test Modified compaction test
• rammer: 5.5 lbf (24.5 N) • rammer: 10 lbf (44.48 N)
• layers: 3 • layers: 5
• drop height: 12 in. (305 mm) • drop height: 18 in. (457.2 mm)
• compaction effort: 12,400 ft-­lbf/ft3 (600 • compaction effort: 56,000 ft-­lbf/ft3
kNm/m3) (2,700 kNm/m3)

BS 1377-­4 (1990)
Standard compaction test Modified compaction test
• rammer: 2.5 kg • rammer: 4.5 kg
• layers: 3 • layers: 3 to 5
• drop height: 300 mm • drop height: 450 mm
96 Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

Table 6.2 Standard test procedures for Proctor compaction tests

Standards: ASTM D698-­12 (2012) and ASTM D1557-­12 (2012)

Method A Method B Method C
• Mould diameter: 4in. • Mould diameter: 4in • Mould diameter: 6in
(101.6 mm) (101.6 mm) (152.4 mm)
• Material: passing No. 4 • Material: passing 3/8in. • Material: passing 3/4in.
(4.75 mm) sieve (9.5 mm) sieve (19 mm) sieve
• Specimen dry mass: 16 kg • Specimen dry mass: 16 kg • Specimen dry mass: 45 kg
• Sub-­specimen mass: 2.3 kg • Sub-­specimen mass: 2.3 kg • Sub-­specimen mass: 5.9 kg
• Blows per layer: 25 • Blows per layer: 25 • Blows per layer: 56
• Usage: may be used if • Usage: may be used if • Usage: may be used if
25% or less by mass of 25% or less by mass of 30% or less by mass of
the material is retained the material is retained the material is retained
on the No. 4 (4.75 mm) on the 3/8in (9.5 mm) on the 3/4in (19 mm)
sieve sieve sieve

Standard: BS 1377-­4 (1990)

Minimum Minimum
specimen specimen
Grading Zone P20 P37.5 mass (a) mass (b) Type of mould
1 100 100 6 kg 15 kg 1L
2 95 100 6 kg 15 kg 1L
3 70 100 15 kg 40 kg CBR
4 70 95 15 kg 40 kg CBR
5 70 90 15 kg 40 kg CBR
X <70 <90 Not suitable for static compaction test

P20 Minimum percentage passing test sieve size 20 mm

P37.5 Minimum percentage passing test sieve size 37.5 mm
(a) Soil particles not susceptible to crushing during compaction
(b) Soil particles susceptible to crushing during compaction
1 L = one-­litre compaction Mould
CBR = California bearing ratio
Grading zone x is not suitable for a static compaction test. The vibrating hammer can be considered.

6.4.1 Moist sample preparation

Compaction test can be carried out either by using a moist sample (which is the
preferred method) or a dry sample. Preparation for moist sample can be done
as follows (BS 1377-1 2016; ASTM D698-12 2012; ASTM D1557-12 2012):

1. Sieve the sample in accord with Table 6.4.

2. Determine the mass of both retained (oversized) and passing (test frac-
tion) portions of the sample.
3. Oven dry the oversized fraction and determine its dry mass.
4. If more than 0.5% of the total dry mass of the sample is the oversized
fraction, wash the oversized fraction, oven dried and record its oven-
dry mass.
 Compaction 97

Table 6.3 Vibrating hammer compaction test (ASTM D7382-08 2008; BS 1377-4 1990)

Condition ASTM D7382-­08 (2008) BS 1377-­4 (1990)

Soil suitability P50 = 100% P20 <70%
P19 > 70%
If P0.425 is nonplastic, P0.075
< 35%
If P0.425 is plastic, P0.075 < 15%
Hammer Frequency: 53 Hz to 58 Hz Frequency: 25 Hz to 60 Hz
Weight: 53 N to 89 N Power consumption: 600 W to
Impact energy: 9.5 m.N to 800 W
12 m.N Voltage: 110V with earth leakage
circuit breaker between the
hammer and the mains supply
Total applied force during vibration:
300 N to 400 N
Final height Must be above the mould Final height of the specimen must
but not higher than 10 mm be between 127 mm to 133 mm

Table 6.4 Standard test procedures for vibrating hammer compaction test

ASTM D7382-­08 (2008)

Method A Method B
• Mould diameter: 6 in. (152.4 mm) • Mould diameter: 11 in. (279.4 mm)
• Material: passing 19.0 mm sieve • Material: passing 50 mm sieve
• Layers: three • Layers: three
• Dry mass: 7 kg • Dry mass: 45 kg
• Wet mass: 9 kg • Wet mass: 57 kg
• Vibration duration: 60 ± 5 s • Vibration duration: 52 ± 5 s

BS 1377-­4 (1990)

• Mould: CBR mould

• Layers: three
• Vibration duration: 60 ± 2 s

5. Determine and record the water content of the test fraction by using
small samples of the test fraction (BS 1377-1 2016; ASTM D698-12
2012; ASTM D1557-12 2012). Take at least two samples for repre-
sentative value (BS 1377-1 2016).
6. Based on the water content determined in step 5, determine the dry
mass of the test fraction.
7. Based on the dry mass of the oversized and test fractions, determine
the percent of oversized fraction PC and percent of test fraction PF.
8. From the test fraction, select and prepare five sub-samples with the
total mass of all sub-samples to be in accord with Table 6.2.
98 Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

Table 6.5 R
 equired standing time for the moist specimens (BS 1377-4
1990; ASTM D698-12 2012; ASTM D1557-12 2012)

ASTM D698-­12 (2012) and ASTM D1557-­12 (2012)

Classification Minimum standing time, h
GW, GP, SW, SP No requirement
GM, SM 3
All other soils 16

BS 1377-­4 (1990)
Cohesive soil 24

9. Determine the water content required for the sub-samples. It is desired

for the sub-samples water content to be around the optimum water
content (preferably, two sub-samples are at the wet of optimum while
two sub-samples are at the dry of optimum). The optimum water con-
tent for cohesive soil is typically less than the plastic limit (ASTM
D698-12 2012). Thus for cohesive soils, water content of 8%–10% of
plastic limit can be used as the starting water content while for sandy
and gravelly soils, water content of 4%–6% is suitable as the starting
water content (BS 1377-4 1990). In general, increment of 1%–2%
are suitable for sandy and gravelly soils and 2%–4% are suitable for
cohesive soils (BS 1377-4 1990).
10. Add/remove water to the sample to achieve the desired water content.
Water can be added by using a spray bottle or removed by air or oven
drying. Temperature for oven drying should not exceed 60°C. Mix the
soil thoroughly and let the soil stand/cure in a closed container with
duration in accord with Table 6.5.

6.4.2 Dry sample preparation

Dry sample preparation is not preferred. However, when the soil is too
damp to be friable, dry sample preparation can be used. The procedure for
dry sample preparation is as follows:

1. Dry the sample in air or by oven drying. Temperature for oven drying
should not exceed 60°C.
2. Break up the sample thoroughly without breaking the individual soil
particles (using a rubber mallet).
3. Sieve the sample in accord with either Method A, B or C (Table 6.2).
4. Determine the mass of both retained (oversized) and passing (test frac-
tion) portions of the sample.
 Compaction 99

5. From the test fraction, select and prepare five sub-samples by using
either mechanical splitting or quartering process to obtain the sub-
samples with the mass for each sub-sample to be in accord with Table
6.2.
6. Determine the water content required for the five sub-samples. It is
desirable for the water content of the five sub-samples to be around
the optimum water content (preferably, two sub-samples are at the
wet of optimum while two sub-samples are at the dry of optimum).
The optimum water content for cohesive soil is typically less than the
plastic limit (ASTM D698-12 2012). Thus, for cohesive soils, water
content of 8%–10% of plastic limit can be used as starting water
content while for sandy and gravelly soils, water content of 4%–6%
is suitable as a starting water content (BS 1377-4 1990). In general,
increments of 1%–2% are suitable for sandy and gravelly soils and
2%–4% are suitable for cohesive soils (BS 1377-4 1990).
7. Add/remove water to the sample to achieve the desired water content.
Water can be added by using a spray bottle or removed by air or
oven drying. Temperature for oven drying should not exceed 60°C.
Thoroughly mix the soil and let the soil stand/cure in a closed con-
tainer with a duration in accord with Table 6.5.

6.4.3 Compaction test procedures

6.4.3.1 Standard and modified compaction test

A typical compaction apparatus is shown in Figure 6.1, with test procedures
for the standard and modified compaction tests as follows:

1. Choose either to conduct a standard or modified Proctor test

(Table 6.1) in accord with the compaction requirement of the site.
2. Sieve the sample and select to do either Method A, B or C.
3. Prepare the sample under either moist or dry condition.
4. Record the mass of the mould and base plate Mm and the volume of
the compaction mould Vm.
5. Assemble the compaction apparatus. The mould must rest on the base
plate, and the extension collar must rest on the mould.
6. Place loose soil into the mould and spread it into a layer of uniform
thickness. Lightly tamp the soil such that it is not in a loose state using
the manual rammer.
7. Compact the soil layer in accord with Table 6.1 and the number of
blows in accord with Table 6.2. In operating the manual rammer, take
care to avoid lifting the guide sleeve during the rammer stroke, and the
guide sleeve must be within 5° of vertical. The blow rate is 25 blow/
min with the rammer pattern shown in Figure 6.2 to provide uniform
100 Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

Figure 6.1 Compaction mould and hammer.

coverage of the soil surface. When the rammer pattern causes the sur-
face to be uneven, judgement is required to adjust the rammer pattern.
Every layer must have approximately the same thickness with the last
layer extending into the collar. On each layer except the last layer, any
soil that has not been compacted (sticking to the wall or extending
above the compacted surface) shall be trimmed and discarded. The
total amount of soil shall be such that the last compacted layer slightly
extends into the collar but does not extend more than approximately
6 mm above the top of the mould. If the last layer extends beyond this
limit or is below the top of the compaction mould, the compaction
point shall be discarded.
8. Remove the collar and base plate from the mould by trimming and
loosening the soil in the collar. Rotate the mould before removing
the collar and base plate to reduce soil sticking to the collar or base
plate.
9. Trim the compacted specimen by using a straightedge to level the
specimen at the top and bottom of the mould and remove gravel-sized
particles that are encountered. Patch any holes on the top surface with
trimmed soil, pressing in with fingers.
10. Determine and record the mass of the specimen and mould Ms,m.
11. Determine bulk density ρb of the specimen using Equation 6.3:

Ms,m  Mm
b  (6.3)
Vm
 Compaction 101

Figure 6.2 R
 ammer pattern (ASTM D698-12 2012; ASTM D1557-12 2012; ASTM
D7382-08 2008). (a) Rammer pattern for 4in (101.6 mm) Mould.
(b) Rammer pattern for 6in (152.4 mm) Mould. (c) Rammer pattern
(Vibrating hammer).
102 Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

12. Extrude the specimen from the mould. Collect small amounts of soil
from the top, middle and bottom of the soil specimen to determine the
water content by oven drying.
13. Determine the dry density of the specimen ρd using Equation 6.4.

b
d 
w
1
100 (6.4)

14. Repeat steps 5 to 13 for the rest of the sub-samples.

15. Plot the compaction curve (dry density versus the water content) by
using all of the sub-samples along with the ZAV curve. The compac-
tion curve at the wet side of optimum typically follows the shape of
the ZAV curve. Additionally, plot 95% and 90% degrees of saturation
contour line as well (BS 1377-4 1990).

6.4.3.2 Vibrating compaction test

The vibrating hammer is suitable for soils that contain particles up to coarse
gravel, and it is not suitable for cohesive soils. The suitability of the soil for
vibrating hammer compaction is shown in Table 6.3. The test procedures
are as follows:

1. Prepare the sample and mould according to Table 6.4.

2. Weigh the mould with base plate and collar extension (Md).
3. Assemble the apparatus.
4. Measure the internal dimensions of the mould to obtain the mould
volume (Adh).
5. Place moist soil in the mould such that when compacted, it occupies
about 1/3 of the height of the mould body.
6. Place the circular tamper on the soil and compact it according to the
vibration duration shown in Table 6.4 and rammer pattern as shown in
Figure 6.1c for (ASTM D7382-08 2008). For BS, a total applied force
of 300N to 400N is applied when the hammer is vibrated (Table 6.3).
7. Repeat steps 4 and 5 twice (three layers to fill up the mould).
8. Remove any loose materials lying on the surface of the specimen
around the sides of the mould.
9. Remove the collar extension and use a straightedge across the top of
the mould. Remove any oversized particles and fill any holes on the
top surface with unused or trimmed soil and press in with fingers.
Re-level the soil surface with straightedge.
10. Take four readings over the surface of the specimen to obtain the aver-
age height (h) of the specimen. The final height of the specimen must
be in accord with Table 6.3.
 Compaction 103

11. Weigh the soil, mould and base plate (Msd).

12. Extrude the specimen from the mould and determine the sample’s
water content (w).
13. Calculate the bulk density ρb of each compacted specimen using
Equation 6.4.

Msd  Md
b 
Ad  h (6.5)

14. Calculate the dry density ρd of each compacted specimen using

Equation 6.6.

b
d 
w
1
100 (6.6)

15. Repeat steps 1 to 12 for the rest of the sub-samples

16. Plot the compaction curve (dry density versus the water content) by
using all of the sub-samples together with the ZAV curve. The com-
paction curve at the wet side of optimum typically follows the shape
of the ZAV curve. Additionally, plot the 95% and 90% degrees of
saturation contour lines as well (BS 1377-4 1990).

6.4.3.3 Static compaction test

In static compaction, soil is compressed one-dimensionally in a mould using
a compression machine until a specific dry density. To ensure uniformity
of the soil specimen, the soil specimen is compacted in lifts. For dynamic
compaction, usually, a constant compaction effort is used for each layer,
while for static compaction, each soil layer is compressed to a specific dry
density. For a tall specimen (l/d = 2), a static compaction apparatus similar
to Goh (2012) can be used. The apparatus consists of multiple rings (base,
split ring and cap ring), which can be assembled as each lift of the specimen
is statically compacted, as shown in Figure 6.3. The height of each ring cor-
responds to the compacted lift height. The purpose of the multiple rings is
to allow uniform compression of each lift by flipping the apparatus after
each lift is statically compacted as indicated by the order of the compacted
layers in Figure 6.3. When a lift is to be added, a split ring is added and soil
is added and then pressed with a compression machine. The compacted soil
specimen at a certain water content and dry density has a certain matric
suction and prestress. Care must be exercised in interpreting the test data of
a compacted soil specimen.
104 Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

Figure 6.3 Static compaction apparatus for a tall specimen.

 Compaction 105

REFERENCES

ASTM D1557-12 (2012). Standard test methods for laboratory compaction char-
acteristics of soil using modified effort (56,000 ft-lbf/ft3 (2,700 kN-m/m3)). West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
ASTM D698-12 (2012). Standard test methods for laboratory compaction char-
acteristics of soil using standard effort (12,400 ft-lbf/ft3 (600 kN-m/m3)). West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
ASTM D7382-08 (2008). Standard test methods for determination of maximum
dry unit weight and water content range for effective compaction of granular soils
using a vibrating hammer. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
BS 1377-1 (2016). Methods of test for soils for civil engineering purposes – Part 1:
General requirements and sample preparation. UK: BSI.
BS 1377-4 (1990). Methods of test for soil for civil engineering purposes – Part 4:
Compaction-related tests. UK: BSI.
Goh, S. G. (2012). Hysteresis effects on mechanical behaviour of unsaturated
soils. In School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Singapore Nanyang
Technological University, vol. Ph. D.
Priono Rahardjo, H., Chatterjea, K., & Leong, E.-C. (2017). Laboratory investiga-
tion on hydraulic anisotropy behavior of unsaturated soil. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 54(7): 1034–1046.

FURTHER READINGS

Kodikara, J. (2012). New framework for volumetric constitutive behaviour of com-

pacted unsaturated soil. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 49: 1227–1243.
Chapter 7

Suction measurement

7.1 BACKGROUND

The energy state of soil water at a particular elevation and atmospheric

pressure is referred to as total potential (Soil Science Society of America
Glossary of Terms). Hence, the total potential of soil water is the sum of
several energy components: gravitational potential, matric potential (or
hydrostatic potential below the groundwater table), osmotic potential and
velocity potential. When considering a soil element, gravitational potential
is irrelevant and velocity potential is negligible as flow velocity in soil is
small (and neglected) hence total potential is the sum of matric potential
and osmotic potential. In engineering, unit of stress is preferred and hence
suction is more commonly used in place of potential. Collectively, matric
suction and osmotic suction are referred to as soil suction or total suction.
Soil suction or total suction, π, is an important stress variable for unsatu-
rated soils. The term “soil suction” was first introduced in soil physics in
relation to the soil-­water-­plant system (Buckingham 1907; Gardner and
Widtsoe 1921; Richards 1928; Schofield 1935; Edlefsen and Anderson
1943; Childs and Collis-­George 1948; Bolt and Miller 1958; Corey and
Kemper 1961; Corey et al. 1967). Although the effect of soil suction on the
mechanical properties of an unsaturated soil is dependent on the degree of
saturation of the soil, it is measurable (Passioura 1980) unlike suction stress
(Karube et al. 1996; Lu and Likos 2006).
Generally, soil suction can be divided into two major components: matric
suction (ua−uw) and osmotic suction π (Krahn and Fredlund 1972). Matric
suction is a stress-­state variable but not osmotic suction. Matric suction is
attributed to capillary and adsorptive forces (Stephens 1996; Or et al. 2003;
Lu and Zhang 2019), whereas osmotic suction is attributed to the presence
of salt in the pore water. More formal definitions of total, matric and osmotic
suctions are given by Aitchison (1965):
Matric suction is the “equivalent suction derived from the measurement
of the partial pressure of water vapour in equilibrium with the soil water,
relative to the partial pressure of the water vapour in equilibrium with a
solution identical in composition with the soil water”.

DOI: 10.1201/b22304-7 107

108 Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

Osmotic suction is the “equivalent suction derived from the measurement

of partial pressure of the water vapour in equilibrium with a solution identi-
cal in composition with the soil water, relative to the partial pressure of
water vapour in equilibrium with free pure water”.
Total suction is the “equivalent suction derived from the measurement of
partial pressure of the water vapour in equilibrium with the soil water, rela-
tive to the partial pressure of water vapour in equilibrium with free pure
water”.
It is generally accepted that total suction is the sum of matric and osmotic
suctions (Krahn and Fredlund 1972; Edil and Motan 1984; Thyagaraj and
Salini 2015).

7.2 MATRIC SUCTION

Although matric suction is attributed to capillary and adsorptive forces, it

has long been conceptually associated with capillary forces alone. The capil-
lary rise in a tube is often used as a simple model to associate matric suction
with pore size (Fredlund et al. 2012). The capillary rise height, hc, is given
by Equation 7.1.

2Ts
hc = (7.1)
ρw gRs

where
Ts = surface tension of water (0.0728 N/m at 20°C)
ρw = density of water
g is gravitational constant (9.81 m/s2)
Rs = radius of curvature of the meniscus of the air-­water interface in a capil-
lary tube of radius r (given by r/cos α)
α = contact angle between meniscus and capillary tube

There have been many attempts to associate the parameters of the grain-­
size distribution with Rs in Equation 7.1. Using Equation 7.1, the pore-­
water pressure uw is given by Equation 7.2.

uw = − ρw ghc (7.2)

In a soil system where both air and water phases exist in the voids, the air
potential given by ua (which is generally atmospheric, i.e., 0 kPa) should be
included on the right-­hand side of Equation 7.2, and ignoring adsorptive
forces, Equation 7.3 is obtained.

ua − uw = ρw ghc (7.3)
 Suction measurement 109

To avoid confusion in this book, (ua−uw) is defined as matric suction as

commonly used in the literature, and the stress due to adsorptive forces is
called adsorption, i.e., matric potential is the summation of matric suction
and adsorption. Adsorption is contributed by several components: cation
hydration, inner-­ layer surface hydration, and particle surface hydration
(Khorshidi et al. 2016). Cation hydration is attributed to the Coulomb elec-
tric force at the atomic scale and diminishes rapidly as hydration water
increases beyond a few layers of water molecules. Cation hydration strongly
bonds the water on the exchangeable cations and corresponds to suction on
the order of a few hundred of MPa. Inner-­layer surface hydration (expansive
soil) and particle surface hydration are attributed to van der Waals force.
The van der Waals force is much weaker than the Coulomb force by orders
of magnitude (Mitchell and Soga 2005). The water held by the van der
Waals force forms a moveable film on the particle surface and the suction
associated with the moveable water film is below a few hundred MPa.
At present, no known measurement of adsorption is possible, and it has
only been inferred (Lu 2016; Lu and Zhang 2019). In contrast, matric suc-
tion can be directly measured using tensiometers (Stannard 1992; Ridley
and Burland 1993; Marinho and Chandler 1995; Guan and Fredlund 1997;
He et al. 2006) and can be applied to test specimens in the laboratory using
the axis-­translation technique (Hilf 1956) by independently controlling
pore-­air and pore-­water pressures to give the same magnitude of (ua−uw).
Laboratory tests using the axis-­translation principle have advanced the cur-
rent understanding of unsaturated soil mechanics by ensuring the effect of a
measurable stress-­state variable on the engineering behaviour of soils.

7.3 OSMOTIC SUCTION

The role of osmotic suction in engineering properties of unsaturated soils is

poorly understood. Osmotic suction or osmotic pressure of a salt solution
is the pressure measured across a semi-­permeable membrane where distilled
water is present on the other side of the semi-­permeable membrane. It is
defined as the pressure that must be applied to the salt solution to prevent
solvent (water) movement across the semi-­permeable membrane due to the
osmotic pressure gradient. It is unclear how the difference in salt concentra-
tion within a soil affects its engineering behaviour. The osmotic suction of
a soil is usually measured indirectly by measuring the electrical conductiv-
ity of the pore water. To determine the osmotic pressure, the chart shown
in Figure 7.1, relating osmotic pressure and electrical conductivity of salt
solutions, is often used (USDA 1960). However, such a chart is meant to
be used to estimate the salt concentration of the pore water that roots are
exposed to in the soil. Water moves into the roots from the soil by osmosis
and relies on the osmotic gradient. High salt concentration in the pore water
will hinder or even reverse the direction of water movement across the root
110 Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

Figure 7.1 R
 elationship of electrical conductivity with osmotic suction for vari-
ous salt concentrations(from Leong et al. 2007).

cellular semi-­permeable membrane. Figure 7.1 can be more conveniently

represented by Equation 7.4 (Leong et al. 2007).

(
π = Pa 0.31Ec1.15 ) (7.4)

where
pa = atmospheric pressure (~101.325 kPa)
EC = electrical conductivity in mS/cm

As osmotic suction has units of stress, it is often thought to have the same
effect as other stresses in soils. The misunderstanding has led to some research
to investigate the effect of osmotic suction on the mechanical response of
unsaturated soils. For example, Ho and Pufahl (1987) and Peterson (1990)
showed that soil strength increases as osmotic suction increases, whereas
Yong and Warkentin (1975), Tang et al. (1997) and Mokni et al. (2014) found
the reverse. The salt concentration of the pore water affects the soil structure
through its influence on the adsorptive forces. The adsorptive forces have a
greater effect on the soil structure of clays with high plasticity through their
effect on the double diffuse layer of clay particles (Chattopadhyay 1972; Di
Maio 1996; Tang et al. 1997; Arifin and Schanz 2009; Thyagaraj and Salini
 Suction measurement 111

2015). Soils with pore water of high salt concentration were observed to
exhibit an aggregated structure and affect the matric suction (Thyagaraj and
Salini 2015; Mokni et al. 2014). The effects were more evident in saturated
soil tests (Peterson 1990; Rao et al. 2006; Wahid et al. 2011a, b; Witteveen
et al. 2013; Mokni et al. 2014). Tests on soils with little or no double dif-
fuse layer showed no changes in soil strength (Blight 1983; Katte and Blight
2012; Leong and Abuel-­Naga 2018).

7.4 TOTAL SUCTION

Total suction or soil suction is the sum of matric and osmotic suction. In
terms of measurement, total, matric and osmotic suctions in a soil can be
illustrated conceptually using Figure 7.2. From Figure 7.2, total suction is
given by the pressure difference across a semi-­permeable membrane sepa-
rating pure water from a soil whose pore water contains salts. In most geo-
technical engineering problems, unsaturated soils are a common result of
environmental changes that affect primarily the matric suction. Changes in
osmotic suction are less significant (Fredlund and Rahardjo 1993) and nor-
mally these are inherently accounted for during the laboratory tests. Hence,
for most geotechnical engineering problems that do not involve chemical
contamination, a matric suction change is equivalent to a change in total
suction, as osmotic suction is relatively constant.

Figure 7.2 Illustration of suctions in soils (modified from He 1999).

112 Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

Total suction is related to relative humidity through the thermodynamic

relationship given in Equation 7.5.

RT
ψ = ln ( Rh ) (7.5)
vw0ωv

where
ψ = total suction or soil suction (kPa)
R = universal (molar) gas constant [i.e., 8.31432 J/(mol K)]
T = absolute temperature [i.e., T = (273.16 + t°C) (K)]
t = temperature in °C
vw0 = specific volume of water or the inverse of the density of water [i.e.,
(1/ρw) (m3/kg)]
ρw = density of water (i.e., 998 kg/m3 at t = 20°C)
ωv = molecular mass of water vapour (i.e., 18.016 kg/kmol)
Rh = relative humidity

Figure 7.3 shows a plot of total suction versus Rh for t = 20°C computed
using Equation 7.2. There are many instruments that can be used to
measure relative humidity (Leong et al. 2003). These instruments can be
classified into primary standard, transfer standard and secondary instru-
ments. Primary standard instruments which rely on fundamental principles
and base units of measurement are of the highest accuracy and are used
in national calibration laboratories. One such instrument is the gravimet-
ric hygrometer (Weiderhold 1997) which weighs a certain amount of dry
gas and compares it with the weight of the test gas at the same volume to

10000
Osmotic pressure (kPa)

1000

100

10
1 10 100
Electrical conductivity at 25˚C (mS/cm)

Figure 7.3 Relative humidity versus total suction relationship at t = 20°C.

 Suction measurement 113

calculate the amount of water present in the gas. Hence, the water vapour
pressure can be calculated. Other base units of measurement besides mass
are temperature and pressure. However, primary standard instruments are
difficult to operate and not practical for normal usage. At the other end of
the accuracy spectrum are the secondary instruments for relative humid-
ity measurement. Secondary instruments are non-­fundamental and must be
calibrated against a transfer standard. To obtain accurate readings, second-
ary instruments need frequent recalibrations. Examples of secondary instru-
ments are thin-­film capacitive and resistive sensors. In between the primary
and secondary standards are the transfer standard instruments which oper-
ate on fundamental principles and can provide good, stable and repeatable
readings. However, precaution is needed when using these instruments, as
improper usage can give incorrect results. Examples of transfer standard
instruments are the chilled-­mirror hygrometer, electrolytic hygrometer and
psychrometer. Thermocouple psychrometers have been used for the mea-
surement of total suction (Brown 1970; Krahn and Fredlund 1972; Richards
1974; van der Raadt et al. 1987; Hamilton et al. 1979; Lee and Wray 1992;
Ridley 1993). The accuracy of psychrometer is known to be affected by
many factors. Non-­constant air temperature can cause fluctuations in rela-
tive humidity readings (e.g., Krahn and Fredlund 1972; Ridley 1993; He
1999). Krahn and Fredlund (1972) found that fluctuation in the tempera-
ture of the measurement environment of ±0.001°C can cause and an error
of ±10 kPa in total suction measurement. The accuracy of the psychrometer
is highly dependent on the operator’s skill (Weiderhold 1997). Currently, the
chilled-­mirror hygrometer has seen an increase in usage for measuring the
total suction of soils in the laboratory. All transfer and secondary standards
instruments have a reduced accuracy above relative humidity above 95%.
The chilled-­mirror hygrometer is no exception. As seen in Figure 7.3, 95%
relative humidity corresponds to suctions below about 7,000 kPa. It is very
difficult to get accurate suction readings for relative humidity greater than
99% which corresponds to the suction of 1,000 kPa and below.

REFERENCES

Arifin, A. F. & Schanz, T. (2009). Osmotic suction of highly plastic clays. Acta
Geotechnica, 4(3): 177–191.
Blight, G. E. (1983). Aspects of the capillary model for unsaturated soils. In
Proceedings of the Seventh Asian Regional Conference. on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Haifa, Israel, Vol. 1, pp. 3–7.
Bolt, G. H. & Miller, R. D. (1958). Calculation of total and component potentials of
water in Soil. Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 39: 917–928. https://
doi.org/10.1029/TR039i005p00917
Brown, R. W. (1970). Measurement of water potential with thermocouple psy-
chrometers. Construction and Applications. U.S.D.A. Forest Service Res. Paper
INT-­80, 27pp.
114 Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

Buckingham, E. (1907). Studies on the movement of soil moisture. Bulletin No. 38.
Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Soils.
Chattopadhyay, P. K. (1972). Residual shear strength of some pure clay minerals
[PhD thesis]. Canada: University of Alberta, Edmonton.
Childs, E. C. & George, N. C. (1948). Soil geometry and soil-­water equilibria.
Faraday Society, 3: 78–85.
Corey, A. T. & Kemper, W. D. (1961). Concept of total potential in water and its
limitations. Soil Science, 91: 299–302.
Corey, A. T., Slatyer, R. O., & Kemper, W. D. (1967). Comparative terminologies
for water in the soil-­plant-­atmosphere system. In R. M. Hagan, H. R. Haise, &
T. W. Edminster (Eds.), Irrigation of agricultural lands. https://doi.org/10.2134/
agronmonogr11.c23
Di Maio. (1996). Exposure of bentonite to salt solution: Osmotic and mechanical
effects. Géotechnique 1996, 46(4): 695–707.
Edil, T. B. & Motan, S. E. (1984). Laboratory evaluation of soil suction components,
Geotechnical Testing Journal, 7(4): 173–181.
Edlefsen, N & Anderson, A. (1943). Thermodynamics of soil moisture. Hilgardia,
15(2): 31–298. https://doi.org/10.3733/hilg.v15n02p031
Gardner, W. & Widtsoe, J. A. (1921). The movement of soil moisture. Soil Science,
11: 215–232.
Guan, Y. & Fredlund, D. G. (1997). Use of the tensile strength of water for the direct
measurement of high soil suction. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 34: 604–614.
Hamilton, J. M., Daniel, D. E., & Olson, R. E. (1979). Measurement of hydrau-
lic conductivity of partially saturated soils. In T. F. Zimmie & C. O. Riggs
(Eds.), Permeability and groundwater contaminant transport, ASTM STP 746.
Philadelphia: ASTM, pp. 182–196.
He, L. (1999). Evaluation of instruments for measurement of suction in unsaturated
soils. MEng Thesis, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
He, L., Leong, E. C., & Algamal, A. (2006). A miniature tensiometer for measure-
ment 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, pp. 1897–1907.
Ho, Y. A. & Pufahl, D. E. (1987). The effects of brine contamination on the proper-
ties of fine grained soils. In Geotech. Practice for Waste Disposal. ASCE Special
Conference, pp. 547–561.
Karube, D., Kato, S., Hamada, K., & Honda, M. (1996). The relationship between the
mechanical behavior and the state of pore-­water in unsaturated soil. Geotechnical
Engineering Journal, JSCE, 535(III-­34): 83–92.
Katte, V. & Blight, G. (2012). The roles of solute suction and surface tension in
the strength of unsaturated soil. In C. Mancuso, C. Jommi, & F. D’Onza (Eds.),
Unsaturated soils: Research and applications. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, pp
431–437.
Krahn, J. & Fredlund, D. G. (1972). On total, matric and osmotic suction. Journal of
Soil Science, 114(5): 339–348.
Lee, H. C. & Wray, W. K. (1992). Evaluation of soil suction instruments. In
Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Expansive Soils, Dallas,
Texas, August 3–5, Vol. 1, 231–238.
Leong, E.-C. & Abuel-­Naga, H. M. (2018). Contribution of osmotic suction to shear
strength of unsaturated high plasticity silty soil. Geomechanics for Energy and the
Environment, 15(9): 65–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gete.2017.11.002
 Suction measurement 115

Leong, E. C., Widiastuti, S., Lee, C. C., & Rahardjo, H. (2007). Accuracy of suction
measurement. Geotechnique, 57(6): 547–556.
Leong, E. C., Tripathy, S., & Rahardjo, H. (2003). Total suction measurement of
unsaturated soils with a device using the chilled-­ mirror dewpoint technique,
Géotechnique, 53(2): 173–182.
Lu, N. (2016). Generalized soil water retention equation for adsorption and cap-
illarity. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 142(10):
04016051. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-­5606.0001524
Lu, N. & Zhang, C. (2019). Soil sorptive potential: Concept, theory, and verification.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 145(4): 04019006.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-­5606.0002025
Lu, N. & Likos, W. J. (2006). Suction stress characteristic curve for unsaturated soil.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 132(2): 131–142.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-­0241(2006)132:2(131)
Marinho, F. A. M. & Chandler, R. J. (1995). Cavitation and the direct measure-
ment of soil suction. In Unsaturated Soils: Proceedings of the 1st International
Conference On Unsaturated Soils, Paris, France, pp. 623–629.
McGeorge, W. T. (1954). Diagnosis and improvement of Saline and Alkaline soils.
Soil Science Society of America Journal, 18(3): 348–348.
Mokni, N., Romero, E., & Olivella, S. (2014). Chemo-­hydro-­mechanical behav-
iour of compacted Boom Clay: Joint effects of osmotic and matric suctions.
Géotechnique, 64(9): 681–693.
Passioura, J. B. (1980). The meaning of matric potential. Journal of Experimental
Botany, 31(123): 1161–1169.
Peterson, R. W. (1990). The influence of soil suction on the shear strength of
unsaturated soil. Misc. Paper No GL-­90-­17. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Corps of Army
Engineers, Waterways Experimental Station.
Rao, S. M., Thyagaraj, T., & Thomas, H. R. (2006). Swelling of compacted clay
under osmotic gradients. Géotechnique, 56(10): 707–713.
Richards, L. A. (1928). The usefulness of capillary potential to soil-­moisture and
plant investigations. Journal of Agricultural Research, 37: 719–42. https://doi.
org/10.1097/00010694-­192103000-­00003
Ridley, A. M. & Burland, J. B. (1993). A new instrument for the measurement of soil
moisture suction, Geotechnique, 43(2): 321–324.
Ridley, A. M. (1993). The Measurement of Soil Moisture Suction. PhD thesis,
Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of London.
Schofield, R. K. (1935). The pF of water in soil. Transactions Third International
Congress of Soil Science, 2: 37–48.
Tang, G. X., Graham, J., & Fredlund, D. G. (1997). Effects of osmotic suction on
strength of unsaturated highly plastic clays. In Proceedings of the 50th Canadian
Geotechnical Conference, Golden Jubilee, Ottawa, pp. 641–648.
Thyagaraj, T. & Salini, U. (2015). Effect of pore fluid osmotic suction on matric and
total suctions of compacted clay. Géotechnique, 65(11): 952–960.
van der Raadt, P., Fredlund, D. G., Clifton, A. W., Klassen, M. J., & Jubien, W.
E. (1987). Soil suction measurement at several sites in Western Canada.
Transportation Res. Rec. 1137. In Soil Mech. Considerations in Arid and Semi-­
Arid Areas. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, pp. 24–35.
Wahid, A. S., Gajo, A., & Di Maggio, R. (2011a). Chemo-­mechanical effects in
kaolinite. Part 1: prepared samples. Géotechnique, 61(6): 439–447.
116 Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

Wahid, A. S., Gajo, A., & Di Maggio, R. (2011b). Chemo-­mechanical effects in

kaolinite. Part 2: exposed samples and chemical and phase analyses. Géotechnique,
61(6): 449–457.
Weiderhold, P. R. (1997). Water vapour measurement, methods and instrumentation.
New York, NY: Marcel Dekker.
Witteveen, P., Ferrari, A., & Laloui, L. (2013). An experimental and constitutive
investigation on the chemo-­mechanical behaviour of a clay. Géotechnique, 63(3):
244–255.
Yong, R. N. & Warkentin, B. P. (1975). Soil properties and behaviour. Amsterdam:
Elservier Scientific Publishing Co.

FURTHER READING

ASTM E104-­20a (2020). Standard practice for maintaining constant relative humid-
ity by means of aqueous solutions. 1998 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 1103,
Water and environmental technology, 781–783.
Camuffo, D. (2014). Appendix 2 – summary of key equations to calculate humidity
variables, microclimate for cultural heritage (second edition). Elsevier, pp. 507–
509, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-­0-­444-­63296-­8.15002-­4.
Lang, A. R. G. (1967). Osmotic coefficients and water potentials of sodium chloride
solutions from 0 to 40°C. Australian Journal of Chemistry, 20: 2017–2023.
Chapter 8

Matric suction measurement

Direct methods

8.1 INTRODUCTION

Matric suction can be determined by measuring the pore-­water pressure and

pore-­air pressure (frequently pore-­air pressure is at atmospheric condition,
i.e., 0 kPa). Direct measurement is considered to be more reliable than indi-
rect measurement, that involves the use of a proxy. However, direct meth-
ods of matric suction measurement have a limited range and a short stable
period when measuring a high matric suction.
Direct measurement methods require a high-­ air entry (HAE) ceramic
disk/cup to separate the air phase from the water phase. The HAE ceramic
disk serves as an impermeable boundary for air but is permeable to water
under air pressure below the air-­entry value of the ceramic disk. For the
ceramic disk to work properly, it must be saturated prior to use. The higher
the air-­entry value of the ceramic disk, the higher the water pressure and the
longer the duration needed to properly saturate the disk. Thus, it is impor-
tant to choose the appropriate ceramic disk according to the range of suc-
tion measurements that is of interest. The air-­entry value (AEV) of the
ceramic disk can be determined based on the maximum pore size of the
ceramic disk and is given by Equation 8.1.

2Ts
AEV = (8.1)
Rmax

Where Ts is the surface tension of water which is 72.75 mN/m at 20 °C, and
Rmax is the radius of the maximum pore size of the ceramic disk. Some typi-
cal HAE disks and their AEV together with their coefficient of permeability
with respect to water (kd) have been compiled and are shown in Tables
8.1–8.3.

DOI: 10.1201/b22304-8 117

118 Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

Table 8.1 List of HAE disks used at imperial college (Blight 1966)

Coefficient of permeability Air-­entry

Porosity with respect to water value
n kd AEV
Type of disks (%) m/s kPa
Doulton grade P6A 23 2.1 x 10 −9 152
Aerox “celloton” grade VI 46 2.9 x 10−8 214
Kaolin-­consolidated from a
45 6.2 x 10−10 317
slurry and fired
Kaolin-­dust pressed and fired 39 4.5 x 10−10 524

Table 8.2 P
 roperties of the air-entry disks manufactured by soil moisture equipment
corporation

Coefficient of permeability Air-­entry

Approximate pore with respect to water value
diameter kd AEV
Type of disks 10−3 mm m/s kPa
0.5 bar high flow 6 3.11 x 10−7 48–62
1 bar 2.1 3.46 x 10−9 138–207
1 bar high flow 2.5 8.6 x 10−8 131–193
2 bar 1.2 1.73 x 10−9 241–310
3 bar 0.8 1.73 x 10−9 317–483
5 bar 0.5 1.21 x 10−9 >550
15 bar 0.16 2.59 x 10−11 >1520

Table 8.3 P
 ermeability and air-entry value measurements on HAE disk from soil moisture
equipment corporation (Fredlund 1973; Rahardjo 1990)

Coefficient of permeability Air-­entry

Diameter of Thickness of with respect to water value
the disk the disk kd AEV
Type of disks mm mm m/s kPa
1 bar high flow 19 6.4 5.12 x 10−8 115
19 6.4 3.92 x 10−8 130
19 6.4 3.98 x 10−8 110
19 6.4 5.09 x 10−8 130
19 6.4 5.60 x 10−8 150
101.6 10 4.20 x 10−8 >200
5 bar 56.8 6.2 1.30 x 10−9
15 bar 56.8 3.1 8.41 x 10−9
57 3.1 6.82 x 10−10
 Matric suction measurement 119

8.2 JET-FILLED OR SMALL-TIP TENSIOMETER

A jet-­filled or small-­tip tensiometer can directly measure negative pore-­

water pressure in a soil specimen. The jet-­filled tensiometer is more com-
monly used in the field, while the small-­tip tensiometer is more commonly
used in laboratory model tests. Both the jet-­filled and small-­tip tensiom-
eters use a 1-­bar HAE ceramic cup. Due to cavitation, it is only possible to
measure negative pore-­water pressures, as low as −90 kPa (Stannard 1990).
According to Cassel and Klute (1986), an increase in the pressure gauge
sensitivity may cause less water movement between soil and the tensiometer
and provides higher accuracy. However, the low permeability of the ceramic
cup may cause a longer response time.
Saturating the tensiometer before use is very important for reliable read-
ings. The ceramic cup must first not be clogged. In order to check whether
the ceramic cup is clogged, the ceramic cup is attached to the empty tensi-
ometer and submerged under water overnight. If the ceramic cup works
properly, water should be able to pass through the ceramic cup and fill up
the tensiometer.
To reduce the high possibility of cavitation, the tensiometer must be filled
up with deaerated water. After that, vacuum pressure of 80 kPa must be
applied for 30–60 s from the top of the tensiometer to ensure that there is
no air bubble inside the ceramic cup and the water.
The response time of the tensiometer can be checked by conducting an
evaporation test where the ceramic cup is left to dry by evaporation. As
water evaporates from the ceramic cup, the pore-­water pressure becomes
negative. When the pore-­water pressure is around −80 kPa, it is then re-­
saturated by submerging the ceramic cup in water. The pore-­water pressure
should immediately revert to 0 kPa when the tensiometer is working prop-
erly. A longer response time may indicate clogging, entrapped air or calibra-
tion issue.

8.3 HIGH-CAPACITY TENSIOMETER

8.3.1 Introduction
High-­capacity tensiometer or HCT (Ridley and Burland 1993; Guan and
Fredlund 1997; Ridley and Burland 1999; Tarantino and Mongiovi 2002;
He et al. 2006; Wijaya and Leong 2016) is perhaps the only device that
can directly measure the pore-­water pressure of the soil specimen less
than −100 kPa (depending on the AEV of the ceramic disk). It is typi-
cally used to measure pore-­water pressure as low as −1,500 kPa. Besides
120 Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

measuring pore-­water pressure lower than −100 kPa, the HCT has two
additional advantages:

1. Its size is only slightly bigger than the normal pressure transducer due
to the requirement to attach the HAE disk, which makes it convenient
and flexible to be attached to any apparatus.
2. It has a fast response time.

The schematic of a typical HCT is given in Figure 8.1. The HCT is able to
measure matric suction as high as the AEV of the ceramic disk due to the
following:

1. Small water reservoir about 2 mm3 (He et al. 2006) between the HAE
ceramic disk and the diaphragm of the pressure transducer which
reduces the possibility of cavitation occurring within the water res-
ervoir. It has also been shown that cavitation is also possible in the
ceramic disk (Mendes and Buzzi 2013).

Figure 8.1 Schematic drawing of high-capacity tensiometer (from Wijaya and

Leong 2016). (a) Section view of high-capacity tensiometer (Wijaya
and Leong 2016). (b) Perspective view of high suction tensiometer.
 Matric suction measurement 121

2. High-­water pressure (higher than the AEV of the HAE disk) is needed
to dissolve any air inside the water reservoir and to saturate the
ceramic disk.

8.3.2 Calibration
Most pressure gauges are not made to measure negative pore-­water pres-
sure. Thus, calibration of the HCT is done by applying positive water pres-
sure. Under positive water pressure, the sensing diaphragm will flex in the
inward direction. By assuming that the diaphragm follows Hooke’s law
under compression and tension, the calibration line can be extrapolated for
negative pressure (tension).
Figure 8.2a shows the schematic diagram of calibrating HCT using a digi-
tal pressure/volume controller, while Figure 8.2b shows the results of the
calibration. By applying different pressures to the HCT, a regression line of
the voltage and the pressure readings can be made, as shown in Figure 8.2b.
The regression line is assumed to be applicable to the negative range as well.

Figure 8.2 H
 CT calibration. (a) Schematic of calibrating HCT. (b) HCT calibra-
tion line.
122 Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

8.3.3 Evaporation test
The capacity and the response time of the HCT can be tested by conducting
an evaporation test. In the evaporation test, the HCT is exposed to the ambi-
ent environment (drying), and the water pressure reduces until it reaches the
capacity of the HCT. The rate at which the water pressure reduces indicates
the quality of the saturation of the HCT where a faster rate corresponds
to a higher quality of saturation of the HCT. Figure 8.3 shows an example
of HCT response during an evaporation test. At the beginning, the surface
of the ceramic disk is slightly moist, and the reading remains constant at 0
kPa. Once the excess water on the surface of the ceramic disk is removed,
the water pressure starts to decrease. If the ceramic disk is wetted before the
negative water pressure reaches the capacity of the HCT, the water pres-
sure will reduce to 0 kPa almost instantaneously. A sluggish reduction to 0
kPa indicates that the HCT was not saturated properly. Figure 8.3 shows
the HCT subjected to several cycles of drying and wetting and in the final
drying cycle, the water pressure was allowed to decrease until the HCT cavi-
tates. Once the cavitation occurs, the water pressure will directly go back to
around −100 kPa before slowly drifting back to 0 kPa.

8.3.4 Types of equilibrium between HCT and soil

specimens
In order to read the negative pore-­water pressure of soil, it is important to
ensure that the water phase of the specimen is connected hydraulically with
the water in the HAE ceramic disk. Lourenço et al. (2009) show that there
are at least three types of HCT response during the equilibrium and are
referred as Equilibrium A, B and C. This observation has been revisited in
Wijaya and Leong (2016) and Wijaya (2017). Equilibrium A (Figure 8.4a)

200

0
Wetting Wetting

–200

–400
Uw (kPa)

–600
Drying Cavitate
–800 Drying

–1000

–1200
Drying
–1400
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time (sec)

Figure 8.3 Evaporation test (from Wijaya and Leong 2016).

 Matric suction measurement 123

Figure 8.4 Typical equilibrium of kaolin specimen (from Wijaya and Leong 2016).
124 Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

is the normal equilibrium where the water pressure reading of the HCT
slowly decreases until it reaches the pore-­water pressure of the soil speci-
men. Equilibrium B is when the HCT records a water pressure lower than
the pore-­water pressure of the specimen before the water pressure reading
rebounds back to the specimen pore-­water pressure. Lourenço et al. (2009)
suggest that equilibrium B is due to the water pressure inside the soil speci-
men not being in equilibrium, while Wijaya and Leong (2016) attribute it
to poor contact conditions between HCT and the soil specimen where air
gets trapped between the HAE ceramic disk and the specimen. Equilibrium
C is when the water pressure reading keeps dropping and thus never reaches
equilibrium. Lourenço et al. (2009) suggest that this is due to the evapora-
tion of the soil specimen.

8.4 NULL-TYPE AXIS TRANSLATION APPARATUS

Axis-­translation technique (Hilf 1956) is commonly applied in laboratory

testing of unsaturated soils to avoid cavitation in the water pressure measur-
ing system. In axis translation, the air pressure (ua) is elevated above atmo-
spheric pressure (ua = 0 kPa) such that the same matric suction (ua−uw) can
be achieved by using zero or small positive water pressure. Null-­type axis
translation apparatus is able to measure the matric suction of a soil speci-
men. In a null-­type axis translation apparatus, the pore-­water pressure (uw)
is maintained at a small constant pressure by increasing air pressure when-
ever the water pressure falls below a certain value. Thus, during the test, the
air pressure is increased in steps whenever the water pressure becomes nega-
tive until there is no more change in water pressure. The matric suction can
be calculated simply from the difference between air and water pressures.
However, the range of the null-­type axis translation apparatus is limited
by the capacity of the HAE ceramic disk. As AEV of the HAE ceramic disk
increases, the equilibrium time will also get longer due to the decreased per-
meability of the HAE ceramic disk.

8.4.1 Set-up
The null-­type axis translation in the most basic set-­up consists of a closed
chamber with a water reservoir recessed into the base (Figure 8.5a). A HAE
ceramic disk is epoxied on top of the water reservoir and it is usually flushed
with the bottom of the chamber’s base. The diameter of the ceramic disk
should be equal to or less than the diameter of the soil specimen whose
matric suction is to be measured. It is preferable for the water reservoir to
 Matric suction measurement 125

consist of a spiral grooved channel so that water flow is unidirectional along

the groove, making it easier to flush out any entrapped air. An air pressure
supply inlet is provided either on the cover of the chamber or on the top side
of the chamber. The air pressure supply into the chamber is controlled via a
pressure valve that is connected to an air pressure transducer or gauge. The
water reservoir at the base has an outlet at the bottom or the side to allow
water to drain during saturation of the HAE ceramic disk and is connected
to a water pressure transducer or gauge. Another water outlet at the base
of the chamber can be provided to allow flushing water to drain from the
chamber.

Flushing pot to Feedback

Air pressure
supply water to control board
release valve
flush the water (see Figure 3) Pressure
reservoir readout unit P
u Air
Stainless pressure –5 kPa
steel cell inlet
Soil Dead
Air
0.05 specimen weight High air
pressure
supply entry disk
Electro-pneumatic
pressure regulator Pressure
transducer
Flushing line Water reservoir

(a)

(b)

Figure 8.5 A
 ctive control null-type axis translation apparatus (from Leong et al.
2009). (a) Modified pressure plate apparatus with active control sys-
tem. (b) Schematic drawing of the feedback control.

(Continued)
126 Laboratory tests for unsaturated soils

Start

Read water pressure

Increase air pressure

by 10 kPa

Water pressure No
within ±10
kPa?

Yes

No Equilibrium
state?

Yes

End

(c)

Figure 8.5 (Continued). (c) The feedback system algorithm.

8.4.2 Operation
The operation of the null-­type axis translation consists of the following
stages:

1. preparing the apparatus, and

2. measuring matric suction.
 Matric suction measurement 127

The preparation of the apparatus entails the following steps:

1. Remove the cover of the chamber and put in some de-­aired water that
is several cm above the ceramic disk. Replace the cover and secure it.
2. At the water reservoir outlet, connect a short tube with its free end
submerged in a beaker of water and apply air pressure not exceeding
the AEV of the ceramic disk. The water inside the chamber should flow
through the HAE ceramic disk into the water reservoir, exit through
the outlet tube into the beaker quickly, and eventually stop.
3. Monitor the outlet of the tube in the beaker for air bubbles for at least
10 minutes. It takes 10 minutes or more after the water has exited
from the water reservoir for air bubbles to start appearing. The pres-
ence of minute air bubbles suggests that the HAE ceramic disk is not
fully saturated. Repeat steps 1 to 3 to saturate the ceramic disk.
4. If steps 1 to 3 are not able to saturate the disk, connect the bottom
inlet tube to an external de-­aired water supply reservoir. Apply a low
vacuum pressure of 10–30 kPa at the air pressure inlet valve and
repeat steps 1–3. If step 4 also fails, it is highly likely that there is a
fine crack on the ceramic disk or the epoxy seal around the perim-
eter of the ceramic disk has broken in parts. When this happens, the
ceramic disk must be left to dry and then removed. The ceramic disk
is either replaced or removed, dried and re-­sealed into the water reser-
voir again. Steps 1–3 are again repeated.

When the ceramic disk is fully saturated, the null-­type axis translation appa-
ratus is considered prepared (ready) for matric suction measurement. For
matric suction measurement, the following steps are followed:

1. A representative soil specimen of diameter larger than the diameter

of the ceramic disk is placed onto the ceramic disk, and a 1 kg dead-
weight is placed on the soil specimen to ensure good contact between
soil specimen and ceramic disk.
2. Quickly replace the cover of the chamber and increase the air pressure
to 10 kPa.
3. Note the reading of the water pressure transducer at the bottom of the
water reservoir.
4. If the water pressure becomes increasing negative instead of positive,
increase the air pressure by a further 10 kPa and observe.
5. Repeat Step 4 until the water pressure stabilises at zero or small posi-
tive air pressure.
6. When the water pressure reading stabilises near zero or small positive
pressure, the matric suction of the soil specimen is given by the differ-
ence between air pressure and water pressure.

The operation of the null-­type axis translation apparatus is labour inten-

sive, as the air pressure needs to be adjusted frequently to avoid the water