First Euro Mediterranean Conference on Advances in Geomaterials and Structures Hammamet 3-5 May Tunisia

Numerical Simulation of Unsaturated Soil

Behaviour
Ayman A. Abed*
Institute of Geotechnical Engineering,
Universitt Stuttgart, Germany
E-mail: abed@igs.uni-stuttgart.de
*Corresponding author

Pieter A. Vermeer
Institute of Geotechnical Engineering,
Universitt Stuttgart, Germany
E-mail: vermeer@igs.uni-stuttgart.de

Abstract: The mechanical behaviour of unsaturated soils is one of the challenging topics in the field of geotechnical engineering. The
use of finite element technique is considered as a promising method to solve settlement and heave problems, as associated with
unsaturated soil. Nevertheless, the success of the numerical analysis is strongly dependent on constitutive model being used. The
well-known Barcelona Basic Model is considered to be a robust and suitable model for unsaturated soils and has thus been
implemented into the PLAXIS finite element code. This paper provides results of numerical analyses of a shallow foundation resting
on an unsaturated soil using the implemented model. Special attention is given to the effect of suction variation on soil behaviour.

Keywords: unsaturated soil, constitutive modelling, finite element method, shallow foundation.

1 INTRODUCTION It can be seen from Figure 1 that suction plays a more

Unsaturated soil is characterized by the existence of three
different phases, namely the solid phase, the liquid phase
and the gas phase. The important consequence is the
development of suction force at the solid-water-air interface.
This force increases with continuous drying of the soil and
vice versa suction forces will be reduced upon wetting of
the soil. This relation between the suction in the gas phase
and the soil water content is named the Soil Water
Characteristic Curve (SWCC). Figure 1 gives a graphical
representation for two different soils, namely clayey silt and
fine sand. This curve plays a key role in unsaturated ground
water flow calculations and unsaturated soil deformation
analyses.
important rule in the case of fine-grained soil than in the
case of a coarse-grained sand. Indeed at the same water
content, clay exhibits much more suction than sand. For that
reason, one can expect more suction related problems
during construction on clay than on sand.
Soil shrinkage is a well recognized problem which is
associated with suction increase, i.e. soil drying. On the
other hand, soil swelling and soil structure collapse is
considered as a main engineering problem during suction
decrease under constant load, i.e. soil wetting. These
phenomena would affect the foundations if no special
measures would have been taken during the design process.
The damage reparation costs level could reach high numbers
e.g. as much as $9 billion per year in the USA only [1].
Many empirical procedures have been proposed during the
past to predict the volumetric changes due to suction
variations, but during the last fifteen years research attention
has shifted to more theoretical models. In combination with
robust constitutive models the FE method gives the designer
a nice tool to understand the mechanical behaviour of
unsaturated soils and reach better design criteria.

2 UNSATURATED SOIL MODELLING

In surveying the literature one can classify the modelling

Figure 1 The soil water characteristic curves for
clayey silt and fine sand
methods into empirical and theoretical approaches.

Copyright 2004 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

 A. A. ABED AND P. A. VERMEER

2.1 Empirical methods stress measures together with the critical state soil
mechanics, an elastoplastic constitutive model for
Empirical methods are based on direct fitting of test data
unsaturated soil has been developed by Alonso et al. [6],
for clays or silts. Especially poorly graded silts (loess) are
and later by Gens et al. [7]. Later other constitutive models
renown as collapsible soil. These empirical methods are
have been proposed, but all of them remain in the
mostly based on data from oedometer apparatus for one-
framework of the Alonso and Gens model, which became
dimensional compression. These tests give only clear
known as Barcelona Basic Model (BB-model).
information about the sample initial conditions and final
conditions but no information about the suction variation
during the saturation process. A nice review and evaluation
of these methods can be found for example in the paper by 3 BARCELONA BASIC MODEL
Djedid et al. [2]. As an example, Equation 1 is proposed by
Kusa and Abed [3] to predict the swelling pressure sw in The BB-model is based on the Modified Cam Clay model
(kg/cm2) as a function of the liquid limit wL (%) the initial for saturated soil with extensions to include suction effects
water content wn (%) and the free swelling strain 0 (%). in unsaturated soil [7]. This model uses the net stresses -ua
This strain is defined as the ratio of the soil sample height and the suction s as the independent stress measures. Many
after saturation (without any external load) and the initial symbols have been used for the net stresses such as " and
sample height before saturation. * . The latter symbol will be used here. It is assumed that
0 the soil has different stiffness parameters and different
sw = 0.053 w L + 0.033 w L ln (1) mechanical response for the changes in net stresses than
wn
them for the changes in suction.
It is believed that such empirical correlations give only
satisfactory results as long as they are applied to the same
soils which are used to derive them. This reduces their use 3.1 Isotropic loading
to a very narrow group of soils.
For unloading-reloading the rate of change of the void ratio
is purely elastic and related to the net stress and the suction
2.2 Theoretical methods
p& * s&
e& = e& e = s (3)
This category uses the principles of soil mechanics together p * s + p atm
with sophisticated experimental data for the formation of a
constitutive stress-strain law. An early attempt was made by where is the normal swelling index and s is the suction
Bishop [4]. He extended the well-know effective stress swelling index, patm is the atmospheric pressure and p* is the
principle for fully saturated soil to unsaturated soil. Bishop mean net stress
proposed the effective stress measure
1
p* = ( 1 + 2 + 3 ) u a (4)
= u a + (u a u w ) (2) 3
where
In terms of volumetric strain equation (3) reads
: total stress e& p& * s&
& v = & ev = = *+ s (5)
ua : pore air pressure 1+ e 1+ e p 1 + e s + p atm
uw : pore water pressure
where compressive strains are considered positive.
: factor related to degree of saturation
For primary loading both elastic and plastic strains develop.
The plastic component of volumetric strain is given by
where = 0 for dry soil and = 1 for saturated soil.
According to Bishop the effective stress always decreases 0 p& p 0
on wetting under constant total stress. As the effective stress & pv = ( 6)
1 + e p p0
decreases an increase in the volume of the soil should be
observed in accordance with the above definition of where 0 is the compression index and p p 0 is the
effective stress. However, experimental data often shows preconsolidation pressure in saturated state. The above
additional compression on wetting which is opposite to the equation is in accordance with critical state soil mechanics.
prediction based on Bishops definition of effective stress. The difference with the critical state soil mechanics is the
Many critics were expressed regarding the use of a single yield function
effective stress measure for unsaturated soil and there has
been a gradual change towards the use of two independent f = p* p p (7)
stress state variables.
with 0
It was proposed by Fredlund et al. [5] to use the net stress p p0
c
-ua and the suction s as two independent stress state pp = p ( ) (8)
variables to describe the mechanical behaviour of the pc
unsaturated soil, where s = uauw. Considering the two = ( 0 ) e s (9 )
 NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF UNSATURATED SOIL BEHAVIOUR

where and pp are the compression index and the suction 1

E
dependent preconsolidation pressure respectively. Hence, D ij = 1 (17)
for full saturation we have s = 0, = 0 and pp = p p 0 . The (1 2 ) (1 + )
larger the suction the smaller the compression index . In 1
the limit for s = the above expression yields = .
where is the elastic Poisson ratio. Young modulus is
The index ratio / 0 is typically in the range between 0.2
stress dependent
and 0.8. The constant pc is mostly in the range from 10 to 50
[kPa]. The constant controls the rate of decrease of the 1+ e *
compression index with suction; it is typically in the range E = 3 (1 2 ) K with K= p (18 )

between 0.01 and 0.03 [kPa-1]. The monotonic increase of
soil stiffness with suction is associated with an increase of The term K s1 j s& in Equation 15 represents the
the preconsolidation pressure p p according to Equation 8. contribution of suction loading-unloading (drying-wetting)
to the elastic strain rates, whereas the other term represents
In order to study Equation 6 in more detail, we consider
the net stresses loading-unloading contribution.
the consistency equation f& = 0 , as it finally leads to
Equation 6. In terms of partial derivatives the consistency For formulating the plastic rate of strain, both the plastic
equation reads potential and the yield function have to be consider. For the
BB-model the yield function reads
f p p p p
f& = p& * s& p & pv = 0 (10 )
p * s v ( )(
f = q 2 M 2 p* + ps p p p* ) (19 )
with
where M is the slope of the critical state line, as also
indicated in Figure 2, and
f
= 1 (11)
p *
1
p p pp q= (1 2 ) 2 + ( 2 3 ) 2 + ( 3 1 ) 2 (20)
= p p ln c (12) 2
s p
p p 1+ e ps = a . s (21)
= pp (13)
pv
It can be observed from Figure 2 that ps reflects the
It follows from the above equations that extension of the yield surface in the direction of tension part
due to apparent cohesion. The constant a determines the rate
pp
& pv = ln c s& + 1 p& * (14 ) of ps increase with suction.
1+ e p 1 + e pp
The yield function (19) reduces to the Modified Cam Clay
This equation is in full agreement with Equation 6, but (MCC) yield function at full saturation with s = 0. In
instead of pp0 it involves the stress measures s and p * . contrast to the MCC-model, the BB-model has a non-
Equation 14 shows the so-called soil collapse upon wetting. associated flow rule, which may be written as
In deed, upon wetting we have s& < 0 and the above
equation yields an increase of volumetric strain, i.e. & pv > 0 g
& ip = (i = 1,2,3) ( 22)
even at constant load, i.e. for p& * = 0 . i

3.2 More general states of stress

For the sake of convenience, the elastic strains will not be

formulated for rotating principal axes of stress and strain.
Instead, restriction is made to non- rotating principal s=s1
stresses. For such situation Equation 5 can be generalized to
become
s=0
(
& *i = D ij & ej K s1 j s& ) for i, j = 1,2,3 (15)

*
where & ie is a principal elastic strain rate, i is a principal
net stress, j = 1 for j=1,2,3 and
s Figure 2 Yield surface of Barcelona Basic Model
K s1 = (16 )
3 (1 + e ) (s + p atm )
 A. A. ABED AND P. A. VERMEER
p
where & i stands for a principal rate of plastic strain, is a Table 1 Material and model parameters
multiplier and g is the plastic potential function

(
g = q 2 M 2 p* + ps p p p* )( ) (23)

The flow rule becomes associated for = 1, but Gens et al.

[7] recommend to use

M ( M 9)( M 3) 0
= (24)
9( 6 M ) 0
For uw < 0 the linear increase of uw implies a decreasing
In this way the crest of the plastic potential in p*-q-plane is
degree of saturation, as also indicated in Figure 3. In fact,
increased. Finally it leads to realistic K0-values in one-
the degree of saturation is not of direct impact to the present
dimensional compression, whereas the associated MCC-
settlement analysis, as transient suction due to deformation
model has the tendency to overestimate K0-values [8].
and changing degrees of saturation are not be considered.
In combination with Equation 15 and 22 the consistency The distribution of saturation being shown in Figure 3, was
condition f& = 0 yields the following expression for the computed using the van Genuchten model [10] together
plastic multiplier with additional data for the silt. Using the empirical van
Genuchten relationship the soil is found to be saturated up
1 f T 1 f f T to some 50 cm above the phreatic line. For the sake of
= * D ij & j + K s1 * D ij j s&
H i H s i
convenience, however, a constant (mean) value of 17.1
kN/m3 has been used for the soil weight above the phreatic
with
f g f T g line. For the initial net stresses the K0-value of 1 has been
H= + D ij (25) used. The finite element mesh consists of 6-noded triangles
pv p *
*i *j for the soil and 3-noded beam element for the strip footing.
The flexural rigidity of the beam was taken to be EI = 10
MN.m2 per meter footing length. This value is
representative for a reinforced concrete plate with a
4 SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS thickness of roughly 20 cm.
Figure 3 shows the geometry, the boundary conditions and Computed load-settlement curves, are shown in Figure 4
the finite element mesh for the problem of a rough strip both for the Barcelona Basic model and the Modified Cam
footing resting on partially saturated soil. The material Clay model. For the latter MCC-analysis, suction was fully
properties shown in Table 1 are the same as those given by neglected. In fact it was set equal to zero above the phreatic
Compas and Vargas [9] for a particular collapsible silt. line. On the other hand suction is accounted for in the BB-
However, as they did not specify the M-value, we assumed analysis, but we simplified the analysis by assuming no
a critical state friction angle of 31o, which implies M = 1.24. change of suction during loading. In reality, footing loading
will introduce a soil compaction and thus some change of
The ground water table is at a depth of 2 m below the both the degree of saturation and suction. As yet this has not
footing. The initial pore water pressures are assumed to be been taken into account.
hydrostatic, with tension above the phreatic line. For the
suction, this also implies a linear increase with height above Up to an average footing pressure of 80 kPa both analyses
the phreatic line, as in this zone the pore air pressure ua is yield the same load-displacement curve. This relates to the
assumed to be atmospheric, i.e. s = ua-uw = -uw. Below the adoption of preconsolidation pressure pp0 = 80 kPa. For
phreatic line pore pressures are positive and we set ua = uw, pressures beyond 80 kPa, Figure 4 shows a considerable
as also indicated in Figure 3. difference between the results from the BB-analysis and the

Figure 3 Geometry, boundary conditions and finite element mesh

NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF UNSATURATED SOIL BEHAVIOUR
Figure 4 Footing pressure-settlement curves
MCC-analysis. Indeed, the BB-analysis yields much smaller
settlements than the MCC-model. Hence settlements are
tremendously overestimated when suction is not taken into
account. The impact of suction is also reflected in the
development of the plastified zone below the footing. For
the BB-analysis the plastic zone with f = 0 is indicated in
Figure 5a. The MCC-analysis shows a larger plastic zone
underneath the footing, as shown in Figure 5b.
5 INCREASE OF GROUND WATER LEVEL
Having loaded the footing up to an average pressure of
150 kPa, we will now consider the effect of soil wetting by
increasing the ground water table up to ground surface. This
implies an increase of pore water pressures and thus a
decrease of effective stresses, being associated with soil
heave. On simulating this raise of the ground water level by
the MCC-model, both the footing and the adjacent soil
surface is heaving, as plotted in Figure 6. Due to the fact
that we adopted an extremely low swelling index of only
0.006 (see Table 1) heave is relatively small, but for other
(expansive) clays it may be five times as large.
Similar to the MCC-analysis, the BB-analysis yields soil
heave as also shown in Figure 6. In contrast to the MCC-
150 kPa 150 kPa
(a) (b)
Figure 5 The plastic zones from BB and MCC model for footing
pressure of 150 kPa
Figure 6 Vertical displacement of soil surface due to wetting
analysis, however, the footing shows additional settlements.
Here it should be realised that Figure 6 shows vertical
displacements due to wetting only, i.e. an extra footing
settlement of about 25 mm. The BB-analysis yields this
considerable settlement of the footing, as it accounts for the
loss of so-called capillary cohesion as soon as the suction
reduces to zero. In text books [11] this phenomenon is
referred to as soil (structure) collapse.
The different performance of both models is nicely
observed in Figure 4. Here the BB-analysis yields a
relatively stiff soil behaviour when loading the footing up to
150 kPa, followed by considered additional settlement upon
wetting. In contrast, the MCC-model yields a relatively soft
response upon loading and footing heave due to wetting.
Finally both models yield nearly the same final settlement
of about 49 mm.
6 GROUND WATER FLOW
Ground water flow is governed by the ground water head
h = y + uw / w , where y is the geodetic head and w is the
unit pore water weight. In most practical cases there will not
be a constant ground water head, but a variation with depth
and consequently ground water flow. Indeed, in reality there
will be a transient ground water flow due to varying rainfall
and evaporation at the soil surface. This implies transient
suction fields and footing settlements that vary with time.
For most footing, settlements variations will be extremely
small, but they will be significant for expansive clays as
well as collapsible subsoil. In order to analyse such
problems, we will have to incorporate ground water flow.
Flow in an isotropic soil is described by the Darcy equation
h
q i = k rel k sat ( 26 )
x i
where qi is a Cartesian component of the specific discharge
water, ksat is the well-known permeability of a saturated soil
and krel is the suction-dependent relative permeability.
 A. A. ABED AND P. A. VERMEER

7 BEARING CAPACITY

From Figure 4 it might seen that the bearing capacity of

the footing is nearly reached, at least for the MCC-analysis
without suction. However, the collapse load is far beyond
the applied footing pressure of 150 kPa, at least for a
Drucker-Prager type generalization of the Modified Cam
Clay model and a CSL-slope of M=1.24. The applied
Drucker-Prager generalization involves circular yield
surfaces in a deviatoric plane of the principle stress space,
Figure 7 Simplified van Genuchten model which is realistic for small friction angels rather than large
ones. For this reason we will analyse the bearing capacity of
a strip footing for a relatively low CSL-slope of M = 0.62.
A simplification of the van Genuchten model [13] leads to Under triaxial compression conditions we have M =
the equation .6 sin cs / (3 sin cs ) and we get a friction angle of cs =
4s 16.4o . However, we consider the plane strain problem of a
sk (27) strip footing. For planar deformation it yields
k rel = 10 for 0 s < sk
.M = 3 sin cs [14], and it follows that cs = 21o. Table
2 gives the soil parameters. Figure 8, shows the boundary
where sk is a soil-dependent constant which is related to the conditions and the finite element mesh for the bearing
extent hk of the unsaturated zone under hydrostatic capacity problem of shallow footing on unsaturated soil.
conditions. It yields hk = sk / w. For the saturated zone this
equation yields krel = 1 and for s = sk it gives krel = 10-4. In In this analysis, the soil has been loaded up to failure
numerical analyses 10-4 is a suitable threshold value that using again both the BB-model and the MCC-model. In
may be used for s > sk. Figure 7 shows a graphical order to be able to compare the numerical results with
representation of Equation 27 for sk = 50 kPa , i.e. a theoretical values, we used a uniform distribution for
capillary height of hk = 5 m. suction in the unsaturated part of s = 20 kPa. The soil is
considered to be weightless and the surcharge soil load is
In order to do ground water flow calculations, one has to replaced by a distributed load of 25 kN/m2 per unit length
supplement Darcys equation 26 with a continuity equation which is equal to a foundation depth of about 1.5 m. A value
of the form of K0 = 1 is used to generate the initial net stresses. The
q i same finite element types as in the previous problem are
h
+C =0 ( 28) used here for the soil and the footing.
x i t
According to Prandtl, the bearing capacity is given by
where repeated subscripts stand for summation. C is the
qf = c Nc + q0 Nq + b N (30 )
effective storage capacity, which is often expressed as
where c is the soil cohesion, q0 is the surcharge load at
dS r
C = C sat + n ( 29 ) footing level and b is the footing width.
ds

where Csat is the saturated storage capacity, n the porosity

and Sr the degree of saturation. The latter is a function of
saturation and one often adopts the van Genuchten
relationship [10].
Strictly speaking soil deformation implies changing soil
porosity n and pore fluid flow cannot be separated from soil
deformation. For many practical problems, however, the soil
porosity remains approximately constant and flow problems
may be simulated without consideration of coupling terms.
In order to solve the differential equations 26 and 28,
boundary conditions are required. For studying footing
problems, one would need the water infiltration or the rate
of evaporation at the soil surface, qsurface, as a function of
time. For the footing in section 4, the surface discharge was
taken to be zero, being accounted for by a constant ground
Figure 8 Finite element mesh and boundary conditions for the
water head.
bearing capacity problem
NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF UNSATURATED SOIL BEHAVIOUR

Table 2 Soil properties

The factors Nc, Nq and N are functions of the soil friction Figure 10 Incremental shear strain at failure for
angle
s = 20 kPa

Nq =
1 + sin tan
1 sin
e , ( )
N c = N q 1 cot ( 31)

In the present analysis is taken equal to zero and the

corresponding N-factor is not needed. For the zero-suction
case we have c = 0 and the bearing capacity qf is found to
be 177 kPa.
According to BB-model, the cohesion c increases with
suction s linearly, according to the formula
c = a s tan (32)
On using a = 1.24 and s = 20 kPa we find c = 9.5 kPa. For
this capillary cohesion of 9.5 kPa the Prandtl equation yields
qf =327 kPa. Figure 9 shows the calculated load-
displacement curves using the BB-model and the MCC-
model. The figure shows that an increase of suction value
by 20 kPa was enough to double the soil bearing capacity.
Shear bands at failure as shown in Figure 10 are typically
according to the solution by Prandtl. In Figure 11, the
displacement increments show the failure mechanism
represented by footing sinking which is associated with soil
heave at the edges. By comparing the theoretical bearing
capacity values with the computed ones (Table 3), it is clear
that the results are quite satisfactory with relatively small
error.
It is believed that we can capture better bearing capacity
values by adopting more advanced failure criterion than the
Drucker-Prager criterion being used in this analyses.
Figure 9 Loading curves for BB- and MCC-analysis
Figure 11 Total displacement increments for
s = 20 kPa
One can use a modified version of the well-known Mohr-
Coulomb failure criterion which accounts for suction
effects, or Matsuoka et al. criterion [15] which offers us a
failure surface without singular boundaries and as a
consequence a more suitable criterion for numerical
implementation.
8 CONCLUSION
The present study illustrates the possibility of simulating
the mechanical behaviour of unsaturated soil using the finite
element method with a suitable constitutive model. On
incorporating suction, soil behaviour was shown to be much
stiffer than without suction. Moreover, it has been shown
that soil collapse was well simulated. This phenomenon is
well-known from laboratory tests, but it also applies to
footings as shown in this study.
In general shallow foundations will not be build on
collapsible soils, but many footings have been constructed
on swelling clays and this will also be done in the future.
From an engineering point of view, pile foundations may be
preferred, but they are often too costly for low-rise
buildings. Therefore heave and settlement of shallow
foundations on expansive clays will have to be studied in
full detail. At this point, a one dimensional transient flow
calculations for an infiltration and evaporation processes
can be very helpful. By applying transient boundary
conditions one can simulate the variation of a suction profile
with time; typically for two or three years.
 A. A. ABED AND P. A. VERMEER

Table 3 Bearing capacity values Engineering Division, Proceedings, American Society of

Civil Engineering (GT5), 1977
[6] E. E. Alonso, A. Gens, and D. W. Hight, Special
Problem Soils, General report, Proc. 9th Eur. Conf. Soil
Mech., Dublin, 1987.
[7] E. E. Alonso, A. Gens, and A. Josa, A constitutive
model for partially saturated soils. Geotechnique (40), 1990
Depending on the results, the designer can pick the lowest
and the highest suction values in the studied period. With [8] K.H. Roscoe, and J.B. Burland, On the generalized
these information in hand, deformation analyses for these stress-strain behaviour of wet clay. Engineering Plasticity,
cases can be done to determine the absolute foundation Cambridge University Press, 1968.
deformation variations as well as the differential settlements
[9] T. M. de Compas, E. A. Vargas, Discussion : A
with respect to neighbouring footings. Such movements due
constitutive model for partially saturated soils.
to suction variations can introduce quite high bending
Geotechnique (41), 1991.
moments in the beams, columns and walls of
superstructures if they have not been considered in design. [10] M. Th. Van Genuchten, A closed-form equation for
predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils.
Another important application of unsaturated soil
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J (44), 1980.
mechanics is seen in the field of slope stability. Many
natural slopes have low factors of safety and slope failures [11] D.G. Fredlund, and H. Rahardjo, Soil Mechanics for
are especially imminent after wetting by rainfall. Hence, soil Unsaturated Soils, John Wiley & Sons, 1993.
collapse computations would seem to be of greater interest
[12] P. A. Vermeer, R. Brinkgreve, PLAXIS Finite
to slopes than to footings, as considered in this study. Not
element code for soil and rock analysis, Balkema,
only natural slopes suffer upon wetting, but also river
Rotterdam, 1995.
embankments. High river water levels tend to occur for
relative short period of time, so that there is partial wetting. [13] R. Brinkgreve, R. Al-Khoury and J. van Esch,
This offers also a challenging topic of transient ground PLAXFLOW User Manual, Balkema, Rotterdam, 2003.
water flow and deformations in unsaturated ground.
[14] W.F. Chen, G.Y. Baladi, Soil Plasticity, Elsevier, 1985
[15] H. Matsuoka, D. Sun, A. Kogane, N. Fukuzawa and W.
Ichihara, Stress-Strain behaviour of unsaturated soil in true
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT triaxial tests, Can. Geotech. J. (39), 2002.
We are grateful for GeoDelft, the Netherlands, for
providing support for this study. Special thanks are due to
Mr. John van Esch of GeoDelft and to Prof. Antonio Gens
from the University of Catalunia and Dr. Klaas Jan Bakker
of the Plaxis company for fruitful discussions on
unsaturated soil behaviour.

REFERENCES

[1] J.D. Nelson, D.J. Miller, Expansive Soils, John Wiley &
Sons, 1992.
[2] A. Djedid, A. Bekkouche, S.M. Mamoune, Identification
and prediction of the swelling behaviour of some soils from
the Telmcen region of Algeria, Bulletin des Laboratories
des Ponts et Chaussees , (233), July August, 2001.
[3] Issa.D. Kusa, Ayman.A.Abed, The effect of swelling
pressure on the soil bearing capacity, Master thesis, Al-
Baath University, Syria, 2003.
[4] A. W. Bishop, The principle of effective stress. Teknisk
Ukeblad 39, 1959.
[5] D.G. Fredlund, and N.R. Morgenstern, Stress state
variables for unsaturated soils. Journal of the Geotechnical