Engineering Geology 141142 (2012) 124140

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Engineering Geology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enggeo

Variability of residual soil properties

Harianto Rahardjo a,, Alfrendo Satyanaga b, Eng-Choon Leong c, Yew Song Ng d, Henry Tam Cheuk Pang d
a

School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Block N1, 01b-36, Nanyang Avenue, 639798, Singapore
School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Block N1, B4c-10, Nanyang Avenue, 639798, Singapore
c
School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Block N1, 01c-80, Nanyang Avenue, 639798, Singapore
d
Building Technology Department, Housing & Development Board, HDB Hub 480, Lorong 6, Toa Payoh, 310480, Singapore
b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 28 February 2012
Received in revised form 15 May 2012
Accepted 19 May 2012
Available online 28 May 2012
Keywords:
Residual soil
Coefcient of variation
Particle size distribution
Soilwater characteristic curve
Shear strength

a b s t r a c t
Rainfall-induced slope failures are commonly observed in residual soil. Due to weathering, the residual soil
properties vary with depths, especially in tropical countries, such as: Singapore. Therefore, it is important
to characterize the properties of residual soil with depth. Index properties, soilwater characteristic curve
and saturated and unsaturated shear strength tests were carried out on residual soils from sedimentary
Jurong Formation, Bukit Timah Granite and Old Alluvium in Singapore. The variations of residual soil properties in Singapore were determined from the laboratory test results and evaluated as a function of soil inherent
variability. Typical, upper and lower bounds of soil properties for the residual soils in Singapore were
described using condence interval approach and coefcient of variation (COV) in this paper. The variations in
residual soil properties can be incorporated in design based on risk or reliability approach. The COV of index
and engineering properties of residual soils in Singapore indicate that residual soils from Bukit Timah Granite
and Old Alluvium are coarser than residual soil from sedimentary Jurong Formation. The particle size distribution
of residual soil from Old Alluvium is more uniform than that from Bukit Timah Granite. On the other hand, the
particle size distribution of residual soil from Bukit Timah Granite is more uniform than that from sedimentary
Jurong Formation. The shear strengths of residual soils from Bukit Timah Granite and Old Alluvium are higher
than that from sedimentary Jurong Formation.
2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Residual soils can be found in many parts of the world especially
in those areas where slope failures due to rainfall frequently happen.
Thick layers of residual soil are commonly found in tropical regions
with warm to hot climate. The residual soil is the nal product of the
in-situ mechanical and chemical weathering of underlying rocks,
which have lost their original rock fabrics (Wesley, 1990). The most
important characteristic of residual soils is the low strength due to the
destruction of the bonds and the cementation of the material from the
weathering processes. Residual soils are also difcult to test due to
their heterogeneity (Lumb, 1965; Wesley, 1990; Faisal, 2000; Brand,
1985). Residual soils are usually found unsaturated, since they are
often observed above the ground water table where the pore water
pressures are negative (Rahardjo et al., 1995). In certain cases, they
appear to have high shear strength, but as they reach saturation the
shear strength reduces signicantly with zero or very small effective
cohesion (Lumb, 1965). Residual soils also tend to have higher porosity
and higher permeability as compared to their parental rock materials.
The characteristics of residual soils often cause instability of slopes

Corresponding author. Tel.: + 65 67905246; fax: + 65 67910676.

E-mail address: chrahardjo@ntu.edu.sg (H. Rahardjo).
0013-7952/$ see front matter 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2012.05.009

during inltration, especially in tropical areas where severe rainfall

events are common (Lumb, 1965; Brand, 1985; Rahardjo et al., 2007).
The characteristics of residual soil tend to vary with depths due to the
different degrees of weathering and the variation in properties of residual
soil with depth becomes unpredictable (Faisal, 2000). The variability
of soil properties also causes difculty in slope stability analyses where
soil data are limited. Therefore, it is desirable to have tools to estimate
soil heterogeneity in a quantitative scheme which is appropriate for engineering design. In addition, it is important to develop a guideline to
estimate the variability of residual soil with depth. Classical statistical
procedures have been widely used to assess the variability of soil properties from multiple point eld measurements (Biggar and Nielsen, 1976;
Bresler, 1989; Brejda et al., 2000). Statistical characterization involves
parameter estimation such as the mean, distribution and variance.
The use of these techniques assumes that observations in the eld are
independent of one another, regardless of their location. However,
many studies in various disciplines such as hydrology (Holawe and
Dutter, 1999; Ali et al., 2000), geology (Davis, 1986), mining (Isaaks and
Srivastava, 1989), environmental science (Vereeckern et al., 2000) and
soil science (Bhatti et al., 1991; Dasselaar, et al., 1998), showed that
variability of soil data tends to be correlated across the area. Therefore,
classical statistical methods may be inadequate for the establishment of
probable range of soil properties relative to the location of samples
(Vauclin et al., 1983; Goderya et al., 1996).

H. Rahardjo et al. / Engineering Geology 141142 (2012) 124140

Fig. 1. Location of investigated slopes in Singapore for the period of 2006 until 2009.

Phoon and Kulhawy (1999a) developed a method to quantify the

variability of soil across space. They observed that the uncertainties
in the variability of soil are caused by three factors, i.e. inherent
variability, measurement error and transformation uncertainty. The
inherent variability results from the geological processes (weathering
process). The measurement error is related to equipment, operator
and testing procedure. The uncertainties due to these two factors
can be minimized by collecting more samples (Kulhawy, 1992). The
transformation uncertainty occurs during analyses of eld or laboratory test results using empirical methods. The method has been evaluated and veried that it can be used to quantify the variability of soil
properties for geotechnical design (Phoon and Kulhawy, 1999b). The
most important property in unsaturated soil is soilwater characteristic curve (SWCC) (Fredlund and Rahardjo, 1993). Measurement of
SWCC is time-consuming, especially for clayey soils. Therefore,
many attempts have been carried out to estimate SWCC from soil

125

properties (e.g. Chin et al., 2010) or using a probabilistic model of

the SWCC tting parameters (e.g. Phoon et al., 2010).
In Singapore, residual soils are also characterized based on rock
formation and degree of weathering (Winn et al., 2001; Leong et al.,
2002). Residual soils from Bukit Timah Granite have mainly silty particles with clay material and they are usually medium to highly plastic. On the other hand, residual soils from sedimentary Jurong
Formation have mainly clayey particles with sand or silt material
and they are usually medium to highly plastic. The density of residual
soil from Bukit Timah Granite ranges from 1.6 to 2.4 Mg/m 3, with an
average density of 1.8 Mg/m 3, whereas the density of residual soil
from sedimentary Jurong Formation ranges from 1.6 to 2.2 Mg/m 3,
with an average density of 2.0 Mg/m 3. The specic gravity of the residual soils can range from as low as 2.4 to as high as 2.75.
Based on a study by Leong et al. (2002), residual soils from Bukit
Timah Granite have a narrow range of average effective angle of shearing
resistance, , from 29 to 30 whereas the range of average of residual
soils from sedimentary Jurong Formation is larger, from 27 to 35. The
larger range of average of residual soils from sedimentary Jurong
Formation is attributed to the more variable parent rock types. The b
values for residual soils from sedimentary Jurong Formation are in the
range of 23 to 35 (Lim et al., 1996; Winn et al., 2001). The ranges of
saturated coefcients of permeability for residual soils from Bukit Timah
Granite and sedimentary Jurong Formation are in the order of 10 10 to
10 5 m/s and 10 11 to 10 6 m/s, respectively (Leong et al., 2002).
The main objective of this paper is to discuss the variability of
saturated and unsaturated soil properties with depth for residual soils
in Singapore. The range of soil properties (index and engineering properties) that can be used for geotechnical engineering design is presented in this paper. Techniques from Phoon and Kulhawy (1999a) are
adopted and modied to be applicable to residual soils in Singapore.
In addition, the range of soilwater characteristic curve (SWCC)
variables and properties for residuals soil in Singapore is presented in
this paper. The SWCC variables are calculated from SWCC tting parameters using Zhai and Rahardjo (2012) equation.
2. Geology of Singapore
The Singapore island is situated around 15 m above sea level (PWD,
1976). The climatic condition of Singapore is characterized by uniform

Fig. 2. Grain size distribution of residual soil from sedimentary Jurong Formation.

126

H. Rahardjo et al. / Engineering Geology 141142 (2012) 124140

Fig. 3. Grain size distribution of residual soil from Bukit Timah Granite.

temperature and pressure, high humidity and particularly, abundant

rainfalls. The tropical climate of this island can be divided into two
main seasons, the wetter Northeast Monsoon season from December
to March and the drier Southwest Monsoon season from June to
September (National Environment Agency, 2011). During the Northeast
Monsoon season, moderate to heavy rainfalls usually occur between
December and January, lasting from 1 to 3 days at a stretch. The weather
is relatively drier in February until end of March. The maximum rainfall
usually occurs between December and January, whereas July is noted as
the driest month (National Environment Agency, 2011).

The geology of Singapore consists essentially of three formations:

(i) igneous rocks of granite (Bukit Timah Granite) in the center and
northwest, (ii) sedimentary rocks (Jurong Formation) in the west, and
(iii) a semi-hardened alluvium (Old Alluvium) which covers older
rocks beneath in the east of Singapore (PWD, 1976). Fig. 1 shows a
simplied geology map that outlines the distribution of the three major
geological formations of Singapore. The oldest rocks in Singapore probably come from the Palaeozoic era, which ended about 225 million years
ago (PWD, 1976). Granite occurs in two separate masses. The larger
one is found in the central and northern areas, the smaller one in north

Fig. 4. Grain size distribution of residual soil from Old Alluvium.

H. Rahardjo et al. / Engineering Geology 141142 (2012) 124140

127

Fig. 5. Distribution of soil particle with depth for residual soil from A. sedimentary Jurong Formation, B. Bukit Timah Granite and C. Old Alluvium.

eastern parts of Singapore. Granite or igneous rocks underlie the Bukit

Timah Nature Reserve and the Central Catchment Area in the center of
the island. The granite in Singapore, according to radioactive age determination, is more than 200 million years old. The sedimentary rocks of
Jurong Formation form extensive areas in southern, south western and
western parts of Singapore. These variations of conglomerate, sandstone
and shale are also observed on the islands to the south and west. The
semi-hardened Old Alluvium was deposited by an ancient river system,
probably in the Pleistocene epoch, during a low stand of the sea.
According to PWD (1976), Old Alluvium contains a clayey coarse angular
sand with stringers of subrounded pebbles up to 4 cm in diameter. Finegrained beds are also present, usually as small lenticular bodies. The
pebbles within the Old Alluvium are mainly quartz, but rhyolite, chert,
and argillite pebbles are also observed.

3. Soil investigation
Soil samples were collected from 30 slopes in Singapore. The soil
samplings were divided into three batches. Each batch consisted of 10
numbers of sampling from 10 different slopes. The slopes are located
in three different rock formations in Singapore, i.e.: sedimentary Jurong
Formation, Bukit Timah Granite and Old Alluvium (Figure 1). Soil

Fig. 6. Coefcient of variation of inherent variability (COVw) of soil particle distribution

with depth for residual soil from Jurong Formation, Bukit Timah Granite and Old
Alluvium.

128

H. Rahardjo et al. / Engineering Geology 141142 (2012) 124140

samples were collected using a Mazier sampler. The drillings of each

borehole were carried out by rotary boring with foam to obtain the
high quality Mazier samples. PVC tubes are used to store the samples.
There were two criteria for ending the drillings. Firstly, if the SPT
of the soil within the borehole was higher than 50, the drilling was
stopped. Secondly, if the drillings already achieved 5 m depth below
the reduced level at the toe of the slope, the drilling was also stopped.
Rock coring must be performed if the sampler hit the hard layer
(SPT > 50). The samples were waxed properly to maintain the natural
water content inside the PVC tube. All samples were stored inside
a curing room with constant humidity to maintain the natural condition of the soil samples.
All samples were extruded from PVC tube and trimmed according
to the required dimension. Index and engineering property tests
were carried out only for selected depths due to time limitation.
Index properties consisted of specic gravity (ASTM D854-02, 2002),
Atterberg limits (ASTM D4318-00, 2000), and grain size distribution
tests (ASTM D422-63, 2002). The engineering properties consisted of
saturated and unsaturated tests, such as soilwater characteristic
curve (SWCC) tests; saturated and unsaturated triaxial tests. Consolidated undrained triaxial tests with porewater pressure measurements
were selected for saturated triaxial tests (ASTM D4767-04, 2004).

SWCC is an important soil property in unsaturated soil mechanics.

It relates water content to the matric suction (uauw) of a soil. Matric
suction is applied to the specimen using the axis-translation technique (Hilf, 1956). The magnitude of the matric suction is the difference between the applied air pressure and water pressure on the
specimen. SWCC tests were performed in Tempe cell and pressure
plate (ASTM D6838-02, 2008) apparatuses. The main part of the
Tempe cell and pressure plate is the high-air entry ceramic plate.
Prior to the test, the ceramic plate needs to be saturated in a desiccator with de-aired distilled water. There must be a good contact
between the soil specimen and the ceramic plate to ensure the
water ow between specimen and the plate is continuous. When
equilibrium is reached, that is, when the change in weight of the
soil specimen is negligible, a higher poreair pressure is then applied.
The test using the Tempe cell can be performed up to a matric suction
of 100 kPa because the maximum air-entry value of the ceramic disk
is 1 bar or 100 kPa. The pressure plate is used for the application of
matric suction up to 1500 kPa.
Consolidated drained triaxial tests on unsaturated soil specimens were carried out using the modied triaxial cell (Fredlund
and Rahardjo, 1993). The modied triaxial apparatus is capable of
controlling poreair and porewater pressures in the soil specimen

Fig. 7. Distribution of liquid limit with depth for residual soil from A. sedimentary Jurong Formation, B. Bukit Timah Granite and C. Old Alluvium.

H. Rahardjo et al. / Engineering Geology 141142 (2012) 124140

independently using the axis-translation technique in order to

achieve the desired matric suction. Porewater pressure was measured and controlled through a saturated ceramic disk with a 5 bar of
air-entry value. The triaxial cell was connected to a GDS digital pressure/volume control (DPVC) for applying the cell pressure, pore
water pressure and axial strain. A low shearing rate of 0.0009 mm/
min was adopted to ensure fully drained conditions for both the air
and water phases, and to prevent porewater pressure from building
up (Rahardjo et al., 2004a).

129

variability (SDw) for every depth. In this study, the inherent soil variability was obtained by calculating the mean of soil properties for
every depth. Then standard deviation of the inherent soil variability
(SDw) for every depth was calculated using Eq. (1) (Phoon and
Kulhawy, 1999a). The soil properties for residual soil used in this
study are summarized in Appendices 1 to 3.
v
u
1
u 1 X
SDw t
wzi 2
n1 in

4. Mathematical model
Due to the weathering process, soil properties vary vertically and
horizontally. However, Elkateb et al. (2003) observed that the variability of soil properties is not random, but is gradual and it follows
a pattern that can be quantied using certain relationships, where
soil properties are treated as random variables. As described, one factor that causes the uncertainty of soil variability is the inherent soil
variability. The probable range of soil properties with depth can be
obtained by calculating the standard deviation of the inherent soil

where:
SDw
n
w(zi)

standard deviation of the inherent soil variability

number of data points
uctuation at depth zi

The comparison of the variability of residual soil from different formation was carried out by comparing the coefcient of variation of the

Fig. 8. Distribution of plastic limit with depth for residual soil from A. sedimentary Jurong Formation, B. Bukit Timah Granite and C. Old Alluvium.

130

H. Rahardjo et al. / Engineering Geology 141142 (2012) 124140

inherent soil variability (COVw) of each formation. The calculation of

COVw is useful because it can describe the characteristics of residual soil
provided the residual soil is located in the same geological formation
(Tang, 1984; Phoon and Kulhawy, 1999a). The COVw was obtained by
normalizing SDw with respect to the mean of soil properties (Phoon
and Kulhawy, 1999a) as follows:

COV w

SDw
t

where:
COVw
t

coefcient of variation of the inherent soil variability

mean of soil properties

In this paper, the inherent soil variability was also called typical
soil properties. The upper and lower bounds of soil properties with
depth were obtained using condence interval approach (Harr,
1987). The selection of design parameters associated with a 90%
level of condence are commonly used in practice (Elkateb et al.,
2003). Therefore, this approach was also used in this study. The lower
and upper bounds of the soil properties were associated with a 90%
level of condence from typical soil property variation with depth for residual soils in Singapore.

5. Index properties
5.1. Grain size distribution
Grain size distributions (GSD) of residual soils from sedimentary
Jurong Formation (JF), Bukit Timah Granite (BTG) and Old Alluvium
(OA) were compiled according to their formation. The lower and upper
bound GSD data from each formation were tted using Fredlund's
(2000) equation for unimodal grain size distribution (Eq. (1)). Typical
GSD data were calculated based on the average of percentage passing
of each particle diameter and tted using Fredlund's (2000) equation.
 17 3
2
32
0 
dr
ln
1

7
6
76
B
1
d C
6
 n m 7
C 7
F d 6
1B
3
7
4 
@ 
agr gr gr 56
4
dr A 5
ln exp1
ln 1
d
dm
where:
d
agr
ngr
mgr
dr
dm

particle diameter (mm)

the point of inection in the Fredlund equation
parameter related to the steepest slope
the shape of the curve near the nes region
amount of ne particles
minimum diameter (mm)

Fig. 9. Distribution of natural water content with depth for residual soil from A. sedimentary Jurong Formation, B. Bukit Timah Granite and C. Old Alluvium.

H. Rahardjo et al. / Engineering Geology 141142 (2012) 124140

Fig. 10. Coefcient of variation (COV) of liquid limit and plastic limit for residual soil
from Jurong Formation, Bukit Timah Granite and Old Alluvium.

131

Fig. 12. Coefcient of variation (COV) of void ratio for residual soil from Jurong Formation,
Bukit Timah Granite and Old Alluvium.

Fig. 11. Distribution of void ratio with depth for residual soil from A. sedimentary Jurong Formation, B. Bukit Timah Granite and Old Alluvium.

132

H. Rahardjo et al. / Engineering Geology 141142 (2012) 124140

Fig. 13. Distribution of effective cohesion with depth for residual soil from A. sedimentary Jurong Formation, B. Bukit Timah Granite and C. Old Alluvium.

Typical upper and lower bounds of GSD for residual soils from JF,
BTG and OA are shown in Figs. 2 to 4. The minimum percentage of
ne particles for residual soils from JF, BTG and OA are 38%, 20% and

Fig. 14. Coefcient of variation (COVw) of inherent variability of effective cohesion for
residual soil from Jurong Formation, Bukit Timah Granite and Old Alluvium.

23%, respectively. The maximum percentages of ne particles for

residual soils from JF, BTG and OA are similar, which are about 95%.
Typical percentages of ne particles for residual soils from JF, BTG
and OA are 65%, 58% and 60%. In general, residual soils from BTG
and OA are coarser than residual soils from JF. The distribution of
ne particles for residual soils from BTG and OA is similar with only
small percentages of gravel being observed in the GSD from these
two residual soils. However, more percentages of clay particles and
less percentages of silt particles are found in residual soils from OA
as compared with those from BTG. Some residual soils from BTG
also have GSD with bimodal characteristics (gap-graded soils).
The distribution of soil particles for various depths of residual soils
from JF, BTG and OA is also plotted and shown in Fig. 5. Typical, upper
and lower bounds of the soil particle distributions are calculated following procedures explained in Section 4. Fig. 5A shows that the typical
percentage of sand and ne particles for residual soils from JF increases
linearly with depth from ground surface (silty clay) until 7 m depth
(clayey sand). However, the percentages of sand and ne particles for
residual soils from JF are about constant for depths from 7 m to 14 m.
Fig. 5A also shows that the typical residual soil from JF is classied as
a coarse-grained soil (i.e., percentage of sand is higher than 50%) for
depths greater than 7 m.
The percentage of sand increases non-linearly with depth in a similar trend with the percentage of ne particles for residual soil from BTG
(Figure 5B). The percentage of sand for residual soil from BTG increases

H. Rahardjo et al. / Engineering Geology 141142 (2012) 124140

133

Fig. 15. Distribution of effective friction angle with depth for residual soil from A. sedimentary Jurong Formation, B. Bukit Timah Granite and C. Old Alluvium.

signicantly from ground surface until 2 m depth and starts to increase

gradually at greater depths. Similar to residual soils from JF, typical residual soils from BTG are also classied as a coarse-grained soil for
depths greater than 7 m (Figure 5B). However, the percentage of sand
for residual soils from BTG increases at depths greater than 7 m. Therefore, typical residual soils from BTG at various depths are coarser than
typical residual soils from JF.
The percentage of sand also increases non-linearly for residual
soils from OA (Figure 5C). However, the percentage of sand increases
more drastically with depth as compared with the percentage of clay.
On the other hand, the percentage of silt for residual soils from OA decreases with depth. As it can be seen in Fig. 5C, the percentages of
sand and clay for residual soils from OA are higher at greater depths.
In addition, typical residual soils from OA are classied as a ne-grained
soil from ground surface until 14 m depth. Fig. 5C also shows that the
percentage of clay for residual soils from OA is higher than that for
residual soils from JF and BTG.
The variation of the COV of inherent variability (COVw) of soil
particle distribution is plotted versus the mean of soil particle distribution (percentage of sand and clay) as shown in Fig. 6. The COVw of all
residual soils relatively decrease with increasing mean of soil particle
distribution. Typical ranges of COVw for residual soils from JF, BTG and
OA are 347%, 534% and 1538%, respectively. The range of COVw for

residual soils from BTG is narrower than that for residual soils from JF.
This indicates that the particle size distribution of residual soils from
BTG is more uniform than that from JF.
The heterogeneity of residual soils from JF is also indicated in
Fig. 5A where the boundary of soil particle distribution for residual
soils from JF varies with depth. This happens because residual soils
from BTG were formed only from one type of rock, granite. On the
other hand, residual soils from JF were formed from different types
of rock, i.e. mudstone, siltstone, sandstone, shale and conglomerate.
Fig. 6 also shows that the COVw for residual soils from OA is narrower
than that for residual soils from BTG. This indicates that the particle
size distribution of residual soils from OA is more uniform than that
from BTG. This can be attributed to the fact that residual soil from
BTG is older than that from OA (Dames and Moore, 1983).
5.2. Water content, liquid limit and plastic limit
The distribution of liquid limit (LL), plastic limit (PL) and natural
water content (w) of residual soils from JF, BTG and OA at various
depths is plotted and shown in Figs. 7, 8 and 9, respectively. Typical,
upper and lower bounds of the LL, PL and wn are calculated following
the procedures explained in Section 4. Figs. 7 to 9 show that typical
LL, PL and wn for residual soils from JF, BTG and OA decrease non-

134

H. Rahardjo et al. / Engineering Geology 141142 (2012) 124140

Fig. 16. Coefcient of variation of inherent variability (COVw) of effective friction angle
for residual soil from Jurong Formation, Bukit Timah Granite and Old Alluvium.

linearly with depth from ground surface until 14 m depth. These can
be understood since the percentages of clay for residual soils from JF,
BTG and OA decrease with depth from ground surface until 14 m
depth. However, the decrease in LL, w and PL with depth for
residual soil from JF is not as signicant as that for residual soils from
BTG and OA. This may be caused by the less weathering of residual
soils from JF as compared to that of residual soils from BTG and OA.
Similar observation was also shown in the study by Rahardjo et al.
(2004b). Figs. 7A, 8A and 9A show that the boundaries of LL, PL and
w for residual soils from JF vary with depth. These trends are not observed in residual soils from BTG and OA (Figures 7B, 7C, 8B, 8C, 9B
and 9C). These are related to the fact that the boundary of soil particle
distribution for residual soils from JF also varies with depth. Figs. 8
and 9 show that natural water contents of residual soils from JF, BTG
and OA are very close to their plastic limits throughout the depth indicating the unsaturated condition of the residual soils (Fredlund and
Rahardjo, 1993).
The variations of COVw of LL and PL for residual soils from JF, BTG
and OA are plotted and shown in Fig. 10. No trends are observed for
the mean of LL and PL in Fig. 10. The mean values of LL for residual
soils from JF, BTG and OA vary from 41% to 45%, from 41% to 51%

Fig. 17. Distribution of b angle with depth for residual soil from A. sedimentary Jurong Formation and B. Bukit Timah Granite and C. Old Alluvium.

H. Rahardjo et al. / Engineering Geology 141142 (2012) 124140

Fig. 18. Coefcient of variation (COV) of b angle for residual soil from Jurong Formation, Bukit Timah Granite and Old Alluvium.

and from 51% to 55%, respectively. The mean values of PL for residual
soils from JF, BTG and OA vary from 20% to 22%, from 31% to 37% and
from 36% to 40%, respectively. The typical ranges of COVw of LL (5% to
33%) and PL (12% to 30%) for residual soils from JF are wider than the
typical ranges of COVw of LL (15% to 32%) and PL (24% to 31%) for
residual soils from BTG. These indicate that the variabilities of LL and
PL, which correspond to the boundary of LL and PL, are higher for residuals soil from JF than those for residual soil from BTG. The typical ranges
of COVw of LL (5% to 33%) and PL (12% to 31%) for residual soils from JF,
BTG and OA are in agreement with the typical ranges of COVw of LL (7%
to 39%) and PL (6% to 34%) for ne-grained soils as shown in Phoon and
Kulhawy (1999a).

135

of residual soils from JF, BTG and OA is high near ground surface and
decreases with depth. As a result, total density increases with depth
since water and air occupy more space in the upper part of residual
soils from JF, BTG and OA. The decreasing void ratio with depth for
all residual soils is non-linear as shown in Fig. 11. The typical and
the boundary values of void ratio for various depths are calculated
following the procedure in Section 4.
The variation of void ratio also reects the variation of degree of
weathering. As shown in Fig. 11, the decreasing trend of void ratio
of residual soils from JF is not as obvious as that of residual soils
from BTG. On the other hand, the void ratio of residual soils from
BTG decreases in a less signicant manner as compared to that of
residual soils from OA. This corresponds to the decreasing trends of
soil particle distribution of residual soils from JF, BTG and OA which
occur due to the fact that the residual soil from JF is the weathering
product of different types of rock. Fig. 11 also shows that the range
in void ratio for residual soils from OA (0.47 to 0.75) is higher than
that for residual soils from JF (0.3 to 0.78) and BTG (0.3 to 0.75).
These can be attributed to the higher percentage of clay for residual
soils from OA than that for residual soils from JF and BTG.
The variations of the COVw of void ratio for residual soils from JF, BTG
and OA are plotted in Fig. 12. No trends are observed for the mean of
void ratio in Fig. 12. The mean values of void ratio for residual soils
from BTG and OA vary from 0.49 to 0.6 and from 0.5 to 0.8, respectively.
The mean value of void ratio for residual soils from JF is relatively
constant around 0.52. The typical ranges of COVw of void ratio for residual soils from JF (15% to 44%) are wider than the typical ranges of COVw
of void ratio for residual soils from BTG (16% to 33%). These indicate that
the variabilities of void ratio for residual soils from JF are higher than
those for residual soils from BTG. On the other hand, the typical ranges
of COVw of void ratio for residual soils from BTG are wider than the
typical ranges of COVw of void ratio for residual soils from OA (3% to
10%). These also indicate that the variabilities of void ratio for residual
soils from BTG are higher than those for residual soils from OA.
6. Shear strength of residual soil
6.1. Effective cohesion

5.3. Void ratio

Weathering process of rock formation in Singapore resulted in the
porous structure of residual soil. Fig. 11 shows that typical void ratio

Shear strength properties are important geotechnical parameters.

However, the weathering process resulted in the variation of effective
cohesion (c), effective friction angle () and b angle with depth for

Fig. 19. Drying soilwater characteristic curve of residual soil from sedimentary Jurong Formation.

136

H. Rahardjo et al. / Engineering Geology 141142 (2012) 124140

Fig. 20. Drying soilwater characteristic curve of residual soil from Bukit Timah Granite.

Fig. 21. Drying soilwater characteristic curve of residual soil from Old Alluvium.

residual soils in Singapore. Therefore, it is important to quantify

the shear strength properties of residual soils at various depths. The
typical and the boundary values of the c, and b are plotted in
Figs. 13, 15 and 17, respectively. Typical c of residual soils from JF
decreases with depth although the decrease in c for residual soils
from JF is not as signicant as that of residual soils from BTG and OA

(Figure 13). This occurs since the percentages of ne particles for residual soils from JF, BTG and OA also decrease with depth. The typical c
value of residual soils from BTG is higher than that of residual soils
from JF since residual soils from BTG are coarser than that from JF.
The relationships between COVw and mean of c for residual soils
from JF, BTG and OA are shown in Fig. 14. The mean c values for

Table 1
Range of SWCC properties of residual soil in Singapore calculated using the Zhai and Rahardjo (2012) equation.
Soil

Air-entry value (kPa)

Saturated water content

Residual suction (kPa)

Residual water content

Sedimentary Jurong Formation

Bukit Timah Granite
Old Alluvium

1 to 116
0.8 to 25
5 to 25

0.3 to 0.60
0.21 to 0.61
0.24 to 0.5

1500 to 18,000
106 to 12,000
42 to 12,000

0.025 to 0.100
0.015 to 0.098
0.009 to 0.098

H. Rahardjo et al. / Engineering Geology 141142 (2012) 124140

residual soils from JF, BTG and OA vary from 11 kPa to 14 kPa, 8 kPa to
12.5 kPa and 18 kPa to 24 kPa, respectively. The COVw of c for
residual soils from JF is wider than that for residual soils from BTG and
OA. This can happen because the degree of weathering for residual
soils from JF is more variable than that for residual soils from BTG and
OA. Fig. 14 shows that the range of COVw of c for residual soils from
BTG is similar to that for residual soils from OA.
6.2. Effective friction angle

137

residual soils from JF, BTG and OA. The range of COVw of b for residual
soils from JF is wider than that for residual soils from BTG (Figure 18).
This can be attributed to the higher variability of degree of weathering
of residual soils from JF as compared to that of residual soils from BTG.
6.4. Soilwater characteristic curve
Soilwater characteristic curve (SWCC) denes the relationship
between water content and suction of soil. The SWCC of residual soils
from JF, BTG and OA are compiled and shown in Figs. 19, 20 and 21,
respectively. The SWCCs of residual soils were plotted in terms of normalized volumetric water content (w) versus matric suction (uauw).
The normalized volumetric water content can be dened with respect
to the residual water content of residual soil as shown in Eq. (1).

The effective friction angle () of residual soils from JF, BTG and
OA increases with depth (Figure 15) as the percentage of sand
increases with depth (Figure 5). The increasing trend of for residual
soils from JF is similar to that for residual soils from BTG and OA. This
trend is different from the trend observed in Fig. 13 where the decrease
in c for residual soils from JF is not as signicant as that of residual soils
from BTG and OA. This can be attributed to the fact that the effective
friction angle is affected by texture, size and distribution of particles in
soil. The typical mean line and the upper and lower boundaries of the
effective friction angle for residual soils from BTG are higher than
those for residual soils from JF. These are due to the fact that the particle
sizes of residual soil from BTG are larger than those of residual soils from
JF. Fig. 15 also shows that the particle size of residual soil from OA is
similar to that of residual soil from BTG since the typical mean line
and boundaries of residual soils from OA are similar to that of residual
soils from BTG.
Fig. 16 shows that the range of mean for residual soils from JF
(28 to 35) is lower than that for residual soils from BTG (33 to
42). This suggests that the particle size of residual soils from JF is
ner than that of residual soils from BTG. On the other hand, the
range of mean value of for residual soils from BTG is similar to
that for residual soils from OA (35 to 41). This indicates that there
is similarity in the majority of particle size distribution between
residual soils from BTG and those from OA. The range of COVw for
residual soils from JF is much wider than that for residual soils
from BTG (Figure 16). This veries the fact that the shear strength
of residual soils from JF in a saturated condition is more diverse
than that of residual soils from BTG. In other words, residual soils
from JF are more heterogeneous in nature. The ranges of COVw of
for residual soils from JF (4 to 14) are in agreement with the ranges
of COVw of for silt and clay (4 to 12) as observed in Phoon and
Kulhawy (1999a). On the other hand, the ranges of COVw of for
residual soils from BTG and OA (7 to 15) are in agreement with
the ranges of COVw of for sand (5 to 11) as shown in Phoon
and Kulhawy (1999a).

where w is the calculated volumetric water content, C() is correction factor, (uauw) is matric suction (kPa), and e is natural number
(2.71828).
The a, n, and m are tting parameters. Leong and Rahardjo (1997)
suggested using a correction factor C() of 1. The upper and lower
bounds of normalized SWCC together with the typical SWCC for each
formation were subsequently drawn based on Eq. (2) with C() = 1.
The typical SWCC was obtained by taking a mean value of volumetric
water content for each matric suction within the upper bound and
lower bound of SWCC for residual soils in Singapore. Then, the mean
value of volumetric water content was tted using Fredlund and Xing
(1994) equation with a correction factor C() = 1 as suggested by
Leong and Rahardjo (1997). Zhai and Rahardjo (2012) developed equations to describe the SWCC parameters (air-entry value or AEV, residual
suction, and residual water content) without using the graphical method. Therefore, the SWCC parameters for the residual soils from JF, BTG
and OA are determined using the Zhai and Rahardjo (2012) equations
(Eqs. (6) to (8)).

6.3. Angle indicating the rate of increase in shear strength relative to

matric suction

AEV a  0:1

The variations of typical b angle with depth for residual soils

(Figure 17) show a similar trend with those observed in the variations
of (Figure 15). Typical b angle for all residual soils increases with
depth due to the higher contents of coarser particles in the greater
depths. Typical b angle for residual soils from BTG is slightly higher
than that for residual soils from JF, indicating that b angle of soils
with a high percentage of coarse particles (residual soil from BTG)
is higher than that of soils with a high percentage of ne particles
(residual soil from JF). On the other hand, typical b angle for residual
soils from OA is similar to that for residual soils from BTG, which is
similar to the trend observed in the comparison of the variation of
between residual soils from BTG and JF.
Fig. 18 shows that the range of mean value of b for residual soils
from JF (25 to 31) is lower than that for residual soils from BTG (28
to 32.5). On the other hand, the range of mean value of for residual soils from BTG is similar to that for residual soils from OA (30 to
32.5). These correspond to the variation of mean value of for

w r
s r

where w is the normalized volumetric water content, w is the volumetric water content at particular matric suction, r is the residual volumetric
water content and s is the saturated volumetric water content.
The following equation (Fredlund and Xing, 1994) was used to
best t the SWCC data:

w C n h
u su n iom
w
ln e a
a

n1
3:72 1:31

r 10

m
1e 3:67

n m  ln10

i w s1  log as2  log

s1 s2

r i s1  logr loga


6
7
8

where:
i

s
1:313m

s1

i r
logr loga

10

s2

r w
log logr

11

r is residual suction, s is saturated volumetric water content and r is

residual volumetric water content.

138

H. Rahardjo et al. / Engineering Geology 141142 (2012) 124140

and JF increases with depth resulting in the lower value of void ratio in
a greater depth for residual soils in Singapore.
The variations of engineering properties (effective cohesion, effective friction angle and b) with depth for residual soils from JF,
BTG and OA indicate that typical pore size of residual soils from
BTG is similar to that of residual soils from OA, but is larger than
that of residual soils from JF. Residual soils from BTG and OA are
also observed to have a higher shear strength than that of residual
soils from JF. The COV of typical engineering properties of residual
soils from JF is wider than that of residual soils from BTG, whereas
the COV of typical engineering properties of residual soils from OA
are shown to be similar to that for residual soils from BTG. These
trends indicate that the distribution of pore size within residual
soils from BTG is similar to that within residual soils from OA, but
it is more uniform than that within residual soils from JF.

The SWCC parameters are summarized in Table 1. It can be observed

that the ranges of AEV for residual soils from BTG and OA are wider than
those for residual soils from JF. It can be attributed to the greater variation of pore sizes of residual soils from BTG and OA as compared to that
of residual soils from JF. Typical AEVs of residual soils from BTG and OA
are lower than that of residual soils from JF indicating the pore size of
residual soils from BTG and OA is bigger than that observed in residual
soils from JF. This is also supported by the lower saturated water content and the steeper slope of SWCC of residual soils from BTG and OA
than those of residual soils from JF. Table 1 also shows that typical residual water content and suction of residual soils from BTG and JF are lower
than those of residual soils from JF.
7. Conclusions
In general, the COV of typical index properties (soil particle size,
liquid limit, plastic limit and void ratio) for residual soils from JF is
wider than that for residual soils from BTG, whereas the COV of typical
index properties of residual soils from BTG is wider than those of residual
soils from OA. These trends indicate that the particle size distribution of
residual soils from OA is more uniform than that of residual soils from
BTG and JF. The variation of index properties with depth also indicates
that residual soils from OA and BTG are coarser than residual soils from
JF. In addition, the percentage of sand for residual soils from OA, BTG

Acknowledgements
This work was supported by a research grant from a collaboration
project between the Housing and Development Board and Nanyang
Technological University (NTU), Singapore. The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the Geotechnical Laboratory staff, School
of Civil and Environmental Engineering, NTU, Singapore during the
experiments and data collections.

Appendix 1. Summary of soil properties for residual soils from sedimentary Jurong Formation in Singapore
Depth
(m)

Soil type

USCS

% Sand

% Silt

% Clay

w (%)

PL (%)

LL (%)

c (kPa)

(o)

b(o)

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
9
9
9
12
14
14
14

Silty clay
Silty clay
Silty clay
Silty clay
Silty clay
Silty clay
Silty clay
Silty clay
Silty clay
Silty clay
Silty clay
Silty clay
Silty clay
Sandy clay
Silty clay
Silty clay
Silty clay
Clayey silt
Clayey silt
Silty clay
Silty clay
Sandy clay
Silty clay
Silty clay
Silty clay
Silty clay
Silty clay
Clayeysilt
Sandy clay
Sandy clay
Sandy clay
Clayey silt
Sandy silt
Sandy silt
Sandy clay
Sandy clay
Sandy silt
Silty sand
Sandy silt
Sandy clay
Sandy silt
Silty sand

CL
CH
CL
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
CL
NA
CL
CH
CL
CL
CL
CL
NA
NA
CH
CL
CL
CH
CL
CL
CH
CL
NA
NA
CL
NA
NA
NA
NA
CL
NA
NA
NA
CL
CL
CH
SM

0
4
2
2
10
8
12
15
14
16
8
17
13
28
25
17
22
22
23
24
21
36
28
24
33
19
20
24
35
44
47
29
45
47
47
40
48
51
47
42
44
53

48
30
41
37
35
31
30
30
28
35
42
32
31
25
32
35
39
41
46
35
37
31
35
40
31
40
42
43
31
25
27
38
34
30
25
29
33
27
35
29
35
25

52
66
57
61
55
61
58
55
58
49
50
51
56
47
43
48
39
37
31
41
42
33
37
36
36
41
38
33
34
31
26
33
21
23
28
31
19
22
18
29
21
22

20
29
12
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
19
NA
10
28
18
10
18
17
NA
NA
20
16
18
22
14
17
23
13
NA
NA
18
NA
NA
NA
NA
18
NA
NA
NA
13
8
24
18

23
27
16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
21
NA
20
26
17
15
20
24
NA
NA
23
18
21
27
15
21
25
16
NA
NA
21
NA
NA
NA
NA
21
NA
NA
NA
16
14
26
20

48
53
37
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
36
NA
32
55
45
39
46
43
NA
NA
54
32
41
50
38
47
51
31
NA
NA
43
NA
NA
NA
NA
43
NA
NA
NA
32
41
54
30

0.32
0.53
0.76
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.52
NA
NA
NA
0.69
0.37
0.48
0.31
0.42
0.55
0.44
0.57
NA
NA
0.43
0.52
0.58
0.31
0.58
0.61
NA
NA
0.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.5
NA
NA
NA
0.34
0.41
0.52
0.55

9
14
19
NA
NA
NA
NA
13
NA
NA
NA
8
12
18
8
9
11
10
14
NA
NA
10
11
14
7
12
16
NA
NA
12
NA
NA
NA
NA
12
NA
NA
NA
8
6
9
16

33
30
25
NA
NA
NA
NA
32
NA
NA
NA
36
31
29
33
30
29
35
31
NA
NA
37
33
29
35
33
31
NA
NA
34
NA
NA
NA
NA
34
NA
NA
NA
35
38
32
31

33
NA
18
NA
NA
NA
NA
20
34
NA
NA
36
26
22
NA
NA
NA
35
23
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
24
34
25
34
NA
NA
NA
26
35
NA
23
38
23
NA

H. Rahardjo et al. / Engineering Geology 141142 (2012) 124140

139

Appendix 2. Summary of soil properties for residual soils from Bukit Timah Granite in Singapore
Depth (m)

Soil type

USCS

% Sand

% Silt

% Clay

w (%)

PL (%)

LL (%)

c (kPa)

(o)

b(o)

5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
10
10
12
12
14
14
14
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
10
10
12
12
14
14
14

Sandysilt
Sandy silt
Sandy silt
Sandy silt
Sandy silt
Sandy silt
Silty sand
Silty sand
Sandy silt
Silty sand
Silty sand
Sandy silt
Silty sand
Silty sand
Silty sand
Silty sand
Silty sand
Silty sand
Silty sand
Sand ysilt
Sand ysilt
Sand ysilt
Sand ysilt
Sand ysilt
Sand ysilt
Siltysand
Siltysand
Sand ysilt
Siltysand
Siltysand
Sand ysilt
Silty sand
Silty sand
Silty sand
Silty sand
Silty sand
Silty sand
Silty sand

MH
ML
ML
ML
NA
NA
SM
NA
NA
NA
NA
ML
NA
SM
SM
SM
SM
SM
SM
MH
ML
ML
ML
NA
NA
SM
NA
NA
NA
NA
ML
NA
SM
SM
SM
SM
SM
SM

43
44
43
52
51
43
51
53
49
54
55
45
59
55
60
56
61
58
55
43
44
43
52
51
43
51
53
49
54
55
45
59
55
60
56
61
58
55

35
35
34
23
26
33
30
25
30
30
25
34
30
27
32
31
31
29
34
35
35
34
23
26
33
30
25
30
30
25
34
30
27
32
31
31
29
34

22
21
23
25
23
24
19
22
21
16
20
21
11
18
8
13
8
13
11
22
21
23
25
23
24
19
22
21
16
20
21
11
18
8
13
8
13
11

43
21
34
41
NA
NA
32
NA
NA
NA
NA
31
NA
31
25
36
16
30
44
43
21
34
41
NA
NA
32
NA
NA
NA
NA
31
NA
31
25
36
16
30
44

45
23
36
42
NA
NA
33.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
32
NA
34
26
38
22
31
42
45
23
36
42
NA
NA
33.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
32
NA
34
26
38
22
31
42

54
35
45
52
NA
NA
43.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
43
NA
42
37
46
28
41
54
54
35
45
52
NA
NA
43.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
43
NA
42
37
46
28
41
54

0.61
0.42
0.55
0.58
NA
0.52
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.51
NA
0.49
0.37
0.59
0.32
0.49
0.63
0.61
0.42
0.55
0.58
NA
0.52
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.51
NA
0.49
0.37
0.59
0.32
0.49
0.63

15
5
8
14
NA
9
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9
NA
8
4
12
2
8
12
15
5
8
14
NA
9
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9
NA
8
4
12
2
8
12

40
31
35
41
NA
36
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
36
NA
37
34
40
32
39
41
40
31
35
41
NA
36
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
36
NA
37
34
40
32
39
41

38
NA
NA
NA
NA
39
23
24
29
30
41
31
22
37
24
40
22
33
41
38
NA
NA
NA
NA
39
23
24
29
30
41
31
22
37
24
40
22
33
41

Appendix 3. Summary of soil properties for residual soils from old alluvium in Singapore
Depth (m)

Soil type

USCS

% Sand

% Silt

% Clay

w (%)

PL (%)

LL (%)

e c (kPa)

(o)

b(o)

0.5
0.5
2
2
3.5
3.5
3.5
4.5
5
5
6.5
6.5
6.5
8
8
8.5
8.5
8.5
9.5
9.5
13.5
13.5

Clayey silt
Clayey silt
Clayey silt
Clayey silt
Sandy clay
Clayey silt
Clayey silt
Clayey silt
Clayey silt
Clayey silt
Silty sand
Clayey silt
Sandy silt
Sandy silt
Clayey silt
Sandy clay
Silty sand
Silty sand
Sandy clay
Sandy silt
Silty sand
Sandy silt

MH
MH
MH
MH
CH
MH
NA
CH
NA
NA
SM
MH
MH
NA
NA
CL
SM
SM
CH
MH
SM
MH

3
8
17
30
37
25
33
34
30
43
50
32
39
36
41
45
51
35
42
48
56
49

41
47
45
22
33
24
28
27
25
25
22
18
28
28
16
27
16
20
19
21
13
11

56
45
38
48
30
51
39
39
45
32
28
50
33
36
43
28
33
45
39
31
31
40

25
40
28
46
25
47
NA
21
NA
NA
25
31
48
NA
NA
24
36
42
28
40
21
34

29
41
30
48
27
50
NA
26
NA
NA
28
35
48
NA
NA
27
39
45
29
45
26
36

53
65
53
68
52
66
NA
51
NA
NA
48
56
68
NA
NA
49
56
65
50
63
45
58

0.76
0.81
0.65
0.71
0.62
0.64
NA
0.57
NA
NA
0.53
0.53
0.56
NA
NA
NA
0.51
0.55
0.58
0.51
0.47
0.50

15
33
15
28
13
27
NA
9
NA
NA
12
20
26
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
21
23

30
41
31
40
34
38
NA
34
NA
NA
33
36
39
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
36
42

21
41
24
38
25
38
NA
NA
NA
NA
22
NA
39
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
23
42

140

H. Rahardjo et al. / Engineering Geology 141142 (2012) 124140

References
Ali, A., Abtew, W., Van Horn, S., Khanal, N., 2000. Temporal and spatial characterization
of rainfall over Central and South Florida. Journal of the American Water Resources
Association 36 (4), 833848.
ASTM D422-63, 2002. Standard Test Method for Particle Size Analysis of Soils.
ASTM D431800, 2000. Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity
Index of Soils.
ASTM D4767-04, 2004. Standard test method for consolidated undrained triaxial
compression test for cohesive soils.
ASTM D6838-02, 2008. Standard Test Methods for the SoilWater Characteristic Curve
for Desorption Using Hanging Column, Pressure Extractor, Chilled Mirror Hygrometer,
or Centrifuge.
ASTM D85402, 2002. Standard Test Methods for Specic Gravity of Soil Solids by
Water Pycnometer.
Bhatti, A.U., Mulla, D.J., Koehler, F.E., Gurmani, A.H., 1991. Identifying and removing
spatial correlation from yield experiment. Soil Science Society of America Journal
55, 15231528.
Biggar, J.W., Nielsen, D.R., 1976. Spatial variability of the leaching characteristics of a
eld soil. Water Resources Research 12 (1), 7884.
Brand, E.W., 1985. Geotechnical engineering in tropical residual soils. Proc. 1st International conference Geomechanics in Tropical Lateritic and Saprolitic Soils, Brazilia,
Brazil, 3, pp. 2391.
Brejda, J.J., Moorman, T.B., Smith, J.L., Karlen, D.L., Allan, D.L., Dao, T.H., 2000. Distribution
and variability of surface soil properties at a regional scale. Soil Science Society of
America Journal 64, 974982.
Bresler, E., 1989. Estimation of statistical moments of spatial eld averages for soil
properties and crop yields. Soil Science Society of America Journal 53, 16451653.
Chin, K.B., Leong, E.C., Rahardjo, H., 2010. A simplied method to estimate the soilwater
characteristic curve. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 47 (12), 13821400.
Dames, Moore, 1983. Mass rapid transit system Singapore. Detailed Geotechnical Study
Interpretative Report. 204 pp.
Dasselaar, A.P., Corre, W.J., Prieme, A., Klemedtsson, A.K., Weslien, P., Stein, A.,
Klemedtsson, L., Oenema, O., 1998. Spatial variability of methane, nitrous oxide and
carbon dioxide emissions from drained grasslands. Soil Science Society of America
Journal 62, 810817.
Davis, J., 1986. Statistics and Data Analysis in Geology. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Elkateb, T., Chalaturnyk, R., Robertson, P.K., 2003. An overview of soil heterogeneity:
quantication and implications on geotechnical eld problems. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal 40, 115.
Faisal, H.A., 2000. Unsaturated tropical residual soils and rainfall induced slope failures
in Malaysia. Unsaturated Soils for Asia. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 4152.
Fredlund, D.G., 2000. The 1999 R.M. Hardy Lecture: The implementation of unsaturated
soil mechanics into geotechnical engineering. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 37,
963986.
Fredlund, D.G., Rahardjo, H., 1993. Soil Mechanics for Unsaturated Soils. John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., New York. 517 pp.
Fredlund, D.G., Xing, A., 1994. Equations for the soilwater characteristic curve. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 31, 533546.
Goderya, F.S., Dhab, M.F., Woldt, W.E., Bogradi, I., 1996. Spatial patterns analysis of eld
measured soil nitrate. In: Rouhani, S., Srivastava, R.M., Desbaratas, A.J., Cromer, M.V.,
Jonson, A.I. (Eds.), Geostatistics for Environmental and Geotechnical Applications:
ASTM Publications, STP 1283, pp. 248261.
Harr, M.E., 1987. Reliability-based design in civil engineering. McGraw-Hill Book
Company, New York, N.Y.

Hilf, J.W., 1956. An investigation of porewater pressure in compacted cohesive soils.

PhD Dissertation, Tech. Memo. No. 654, U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau
of Reclamation, Design and Construction Div., Denver, CO, 654 pp.
Holawe, F., Dutter, R., 1999. Geostatistical study of precipitation in Austria: time and
space. Journal of Hydrology 219, 7082.
Isaaks, E.H., Srivastava, R.M., 1989. An Introduction to Applied Geostatistics. Oxford
University Press, New York.
Kulhawy, F.H., 1992. On evaluation of static soil properties. In: Seed, R.B., Boulanger, R.W.
(Eds.), Stability and Performance of Slopes and Embankments II (GSP 31). American
Society of Civil Engineers, New York, pp. 95115.
Leong, E.C., Rahardjo, H., 1997. Review of soilwater characteristic curve equations.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 123 (12), 11061117.
Leong, E.C., Rahardjo, H., Tang, S.K., 2002. Characterisation and engineering properties
of Singapore residual soils. Proc. International Workshop on Characterisation and
Engineering Properties of Natural Soils, Singapore, 2, pp. 12791304.
Lim, T.T., Rahardjo, H., Chang, M.F., Fredlund, D.G., 1996. Effect of rainfall on matric
suction in a residual soil slope. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 33, 618628.
Lumb, P., 1965. The residual soils of Hong Kong. Geotechnique 15, 180194.
National Environment Agency, 2011. Meteorological Services Data. National Environment
Agency, Singapore.
Phoon, K.K., Kulhawy, F.H., 1999a. Characterization of geotechnical variability. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 36 (4), 612624.
Phoon, K.K., Kulhawy, F.H., 1999b. Evaluation of geotechnical variability. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 36, 625639.
Phoon, K.K., Santoso, A., Quek, S.T., 2010. Probabilistic analysis of soilwater characteristic
curves. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE 136 (3),
445455.
PWD, 1976. Geology of the Republic of Singapore. Public Works Department, Singapore.
Rahardjo, H., Lim, T.T., Chang, M.F., Fredlund, D.G., 1995. Shear strength characteristics
of a residual soil in Singapore. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 32, 6077.
Rahardjo, H., Ong, B.H., Leong, E.C., 2004a. Shear strength of a compacted residual soil
from consolidated drained and constant water content triaxial tests. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 41 (3), 421436.
Rahardjo, H., Aung, K.K., Leong, E.C., Rezaur, R.B., 2004b. Characteristics of residual soils
in Singapore as formed by weathering. Engineering Geology 73 (12), 157169.
Rahardjo, H., Satyanaga, A., Leong, E.C., Ng, Y.S., Foo, M.D., Wang, C.L., 2007. Slope
failures in Singapore due to rainfall. Proc. 10th Australia New Zealand Conference
on Geomechanics, Brisbane, Australia, 2, pp. 704709.
Tang, W.H., 1984. Principles of probabilistic characterization of soil properties. In: Bowles,
D.D., Ko, H.-Y. (Eds.), Probabilistic Characterization of Soil Properties: Bridge Between
Theory and Practise. American Society of Civil Engineers, Atlanta, pp. 7489.
Vauclin, M., Vieira, S.R., Vachaud, G., Nielsen, D.R., 1983. The use of co-kriging with limited
eld soil observation. Soil Science Society of America Journal 47, 175184.
Vereeckern, H., Doring, U., Handelauf, H., Jaekel, U., Hasagen, U., Neuendorf, O.,
Schwarze, H., Seidemann, R., 2000. Analysis of solute transport in a heterogeneous
aquifer: the Krauthausen eld experiment. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 45,
329358.
Wesley, L.D., 1990. Inuence of structure and composition on residual soils. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering 116, 589603.
Winn, K.K., Rahardjo, H., Peng, S.C., 2001. Characterization of residual soils in Singapore.
Journal of the Southeast Asian Geotechnical Society 1, 113.
Zhai, Q., Rahardjo, H., 2012. Determination of soilwater characteristic curve variables.
Computer and Geotechnics. 42, 3743.