Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.

com to:
IP: 139.82.115.33
On: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 22:10:19
Effect of strength anisotropy on undrained slope stability in clay
S. F. SU

and H. J. LI AO{
The inuence of strength anisotropy on the two-
dimensional undrained slope stability analysis in
soft clay is evaluated herein. Because of the
inherent anisotropy of clay, the mobilized un-
drained shear strength tends to vary as the
inclination of the failure surface changes. To
deal with this problem, the limit state analysis
and a total stress strength criterion, which re-
presents the anisotropic undrained shear
strength along the slip surface, are used to
calculate the anisotropic factor of safety against
sliding (F
s,A
). However, since it is too compli-
cated in practice for engineers to directly apply
the anisotropic shear strength to the slope stabi-
lity analysis, a method is proposed here to
calculate the anisotropic factor of safety in
terms of the location of the slip surface and the
soil strength anisotropy ratio (A
r
S
ue
=S
uc
) ob-
tained from the CK
0
U triaxial extension and
compression tests, respectively. For any given
slip surface, its F
s,A
can be calculated from the
F
s,A
=F
s,I
ratio determined with the proposed
method, where the isotropic factor of safety
(F
s,I
) can be determined from the routine iso-
tropic slope stability analysis. However, it should
be borne in mind that the slip surface with the
lowest F
s,I
may not necessarily be the same slip
surface with the lowest F
s,A
. Therefore, the
methods used to determine the slip surface of
the lowest F
s,I
should be adopted to locate the
slip surface with the lowest F
s,A
. Finally, the
inuences of slip surface location and strength
anisotropy ratio on the F
s,A
are also evaluated.
KEYWORDS: slopes; shear strength; anisotropy; limit
state analysis; clays.
Nous evaluons ici l'inuence de l'anisotropie de
resistance sur l'analyse bi-dimensionnelle de la
stabilite de pentes non drainees dans de l'argile
tendre. En raison de l'anisotropie inherente de
l'argile, la resistance au cisaillement non drainee
et mobilisee tend a varier a mesure que l'incli-
naison de la surface d'affaissement change. Pour
regler ce probleme, nous utilisons l'analyse
d'etat limite et un critere de resistance a la
contrainte totale, qui represente la resistance au
cisaillement non drainee et anisotrope le long de
la surface de glissement, pour calculer le facteur
anisotrope de protection contre le glissement
(F
s,A
). Cependant, comme dans la pratique il est
trop complique, pour les ingenieurs, d'appliquer
directement la resistance au cisaillement aniso-
trope a l'analyse de stabilite de pente, nous
proposons une methode pour calculer le facteur
de securite anisotrope en termes de localisation
de la surface de glissement et de rapport d'ani-
sotropie de resistance du sol (A
r
S
ue
=S
uc
) ob-
tenus a partir, respectivement, de l'extension
triaxale CK
0
U et des tests de compression. Pour
toute surface de glissement donnee, le F
s,A
peut
etre calcule a partir du rapport F
s,A
=F
s,I
deter-
mine avec la methode proposee, la ou le facteur
isotrope de securite (F
s,I
) peut etre determine a
partir de l'analyse de routine de la stabilite de
pente isotrope. Pourtant, il faut garder a l'esprit
que la surface de glissement ayant le F
s,I
le plus
bas, n'est pas necessairement la surface de glis-
sement ayant le F
s,A
le plus bas. Ainsi, il faudra
adopter les methodes utilisees pour determiner
la surface de glissement du F
s,I
le plus bas, pour
situer la surface de glissement ayant le F
s,A
le
plus bas. Enn, nous evaluons aussi les inu-
ences de l'emplacement de la surface de glisse-
ment et du rapport d'anisotropie de resistance
sur le F
s,A
.
INTRODUCTION
Because of the effect of particle orientation and
K
0
consolidation history, cohesive soil generally
has a signicant inherent anisotropic nature
(Sivakugan et al., 1993) commonly known as
cross-anisotropy. Such a nature results in rather
Su, S. F. & Liao, H. J. (1999). Geotechnique 49, No. 2, 215230
215
Manuscript received 13 November 1997; revised manu-
script accepted 9 September 1998.
Discussion on this paper closes 2 July 1999; for further
details see p. ii.

Tung-Nan Junior College of Technology, Taiwan.

{National Taiwan University of Science and Technology.
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 139.82.115.33
On: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 22:10:19
complicated behaviour when soil is subjected to
loading. So far, many efforts have been made to
study the total stress model for anisotropic un-
drained shear strength of saturated cohesive soil
(Bishop, 1966; Lumb & Schmertmann, 1966;
Prevost, 1979). However, none of them can com-
pletely dene a criterion which is able to satisfac-
torily describe the undrained shear strength of soil
under various loading conditions. In addition, the
same soil specimens tested with different testing
devices are likely to generate different shear
strengths, and it is not easy to establish a correla-
tion among the shear strengths obtained from dif-
ferent testing apparatus. Without a proper strength
criterion, the undrained stability of a slope in clay
is difcult to evaluate accurately.
Although many analytical methods and computer
programs based on limit state analysis are available
for analysing the undrained stability of a slope
(Duncan, 1992), an assumed circular slip surface
together with an undrained shear strength (S
u,I
),
which is unrelated to the inclination of the failure
plane, is by far the most commonly used approach
for isotropic slope stability analysis in clay. Nor-
mally, S
u,I
is obtained from a particular type of
laboratory test, such as the triaxial CIU test, triaxial
CK
0
U test, or direct simple shear test. However, it
is understood that the undrained shear strength S
u,I
is not representative of the shear strength actually
developed along the slip surface. Many attempts
have been made since the 1960s to study the effect
of strength anisotropy on slope stability. Lo (1965)
established an empirical anisotropic strength criter-
ion based on the unconned compressive strengths
for soil specimens sampled at different orientations.
However, such a criterion cannot take into account
the inuence of intermediate principal stress or the
inuence of K
0
consolidation-induced stress aniso-
tropy. Ladd & Foott (1974) suggested that the
undrained shear strength along a failure surface
should be determined from different laboratory
tests which can better represent the loading condi-
tions at different locations of the slip surface. To
better simulate the shear strength and soil deforma-
tion along the slip surface, Koutsoftas & Ladd
(1985) had suggested that the undrained shear
strengths obtained from three different types of
tests, namely the plane strain compression test, the
plane strain extension test, and the direct simple
shear test, should be used; and a strain compatibil-
ity technique is applied to account for the effects
of strength anisotropy and progressive failure along
the failure surface. Theoretically, this is a proper
approach to be taken for the slope stability analy-
sis. However, it may not be easy for most of the
slope stability analysis to obtain such test data. So,
if an undrained strength criterion which can repre-
sent the shear strength of clay along the circular
failure surface is established, and the factors of
safety against sliding calculated from isotropic and
anisotropic slope stability analyses are correlated,
then the effect of strength anisotropy on the un-
drained slope stability can be evaluated. This paper
will discuss the process involved in deriving the
correlation between the isotropic and anisotropic
factors of safety against slope sliding. In addition,
the inuence of strength anisotropy on the result of
anisotropic slope stability analysis will be evalu-
ated.
STRENGTH CRITERION FOR PLANE STRAIN
CONDITION
Considering the K
0
consolidation effect, materi-
al anisotropy, and strength difference between com-
pression and extension, a simple, but general,
undrained strength criterion for saturated clay has
been proposed by Su & Liao (1997). This criterion
is derived by combining the criteria proposed by
Lumb & Schmertmann (1966) and Prevost (1979)
and simplifying for practical purposes (see Appen-
dix). Since most of the slope stability problems are
analysed under plane strain conditions, the criterion
derived in the Appendix (equation (14)) is modied
here before it is used for the two-dimensional slope
stability analysis.
According to the nested yield surface models
proposed by Mroz (1967) and Prevost (1979), the
yielding function ( f ) at critical state is equal to
the failure function (F) in stress space. If the
associated ow rule is applied, the plastic strain
increment at failure in the y-direction (d
p
y
) under
the plane strain condition (i.e. no strain in the y-
direction) can be computed by neglecting the elas-
tic contribution to the total strain increment (i.e.
d
y
d
p
y
) (Prevost, 1979):
d
y
d
p
y
d
@ f
@
y
d
@F
@
y
0 (1)
where d is a proportionality scalar function of the
material's past stressstrain history. Since the
yielding function at critical state is equal to the
failure function (i.e. f F), equation (14) can be
substituted in equation (1) and the strength criter-
ion for the plane strain condition can be written as:
F
(ps)

1
6
1 2A
r
1 A
r
_ _
[(
z

x
) ]
2
A
1=4
r

2
zx
K
2
0 (2)
where
S
uc
S
ue
(1 A
r
)S
uc
(2a)
K
2

(S
uc
S
ue
)
2
3

(1 A
r
)
2
3
S
2
uc
(2b)
216 SU AND LIAO
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 139.82.115.33
On: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 22:10:19
A
r

S
ue
S
uc
(2c)
F
(ps)
failure function for plane strain condi-
tion
S
uc
undrained shear strength obtained from
CK
0
UC triaxial test
S
ue
undrained shear strength obtained from
CK
0
UE triaxial test

x
,
z
normal stresses in x- and z-directions
The normal stress (
y
) in the zero strain direction
( y-direction) at failure can be written as:

y

1
1 A
r
(A
r

z
) (2d)
Since
zx
is equal to 0 for the plane strain test,
the axial compression and axial extension un-
drained shear strengths under the plane strain con-
dition (S
uc(ps)
and S
ue(ps)
) can be determined from
equation (2):
S
uc(ps)
S
uc

(1 A
r
)
3
2(1 2A
r
)
_ _
1=2

2
(3a)
S
ue(ps)
S
uc

(1 A
r
)
3
2(1 2A
r
)
_ _
1=2

2
(3b)
where
1 A
r
(3c)
To verify the suitability of equation (2), the calcu-
lated results of equations (3a) and (3b) are com-
pared with the laboratory test results in Table 1.
As shown in Table 1, the maximum difference
between calculated and laboratory results is only
14%. This indicates that this total stress strength
criterion can satisfactorily represent the undrained
shear strength of soil under the plane strain condi-
tion. Therefore, this plane strain strength criterion
is proposed here to study the inuence of strength
anisotropy on slope stability.
For convenience,
z
,
x
and
zx
of equation (2)
are changed to
v
,
h
and respectively, and
equation (2) is rewritten as:

S
uc
_ _
2
A
1=4
r
K
2

1
6
1 2A
r
1 A
r
_ _ _
2

v

h
2S
uc
_ _

_ _
2
_
(4)
K
2

(1 A
r
)
2
3
(4a)
where
v
is the vertical stress acting on the soil
element,
h
is the horizontal stress acting on the
soil element, and is the shear stress acting on the
soil element.
By plotting the calculated results of equation (4)
on the =S
uc
and (
v

h
)=2S
uc
axes, an elliptical
shear strength envelope can be established for soils
with different strength anisotropy ratios (A
r
)
(Fig. 1). The elliptical envelope is unsymmetrical
to the =S
uc
axis and its long axis is on the
(
v

h
)=2S
uc
axis. The size of the elliptical
envelope increases with the strength anisotropy
ratio A
r
, but the difference between the long axis
and the short axis of the envelope decreases with
increasing A
r
. When A
r
is equal to unity, the
envelope becomes a circle.
FACTORS OF SAFETY FOR ANISOTROPIC AND
ISOTROPIC SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES
Although the strength anisotropy is inherent for
most clays, it is not easy for engineers to directly
apply the anisotropic strength, which changes with
the inclination of the failure plane, to the slope
stability analysis. Therefore, it may be more feasi-
ble in practice to use an undrained shear strength
S
u,I
, which is independent of the inclination of the
failure plane and can be determined from certain
types of testing method, to calculate the factor of
safety F
s,I
against sliding, and then to calculate the
factor of safety F
s,A
of the anisotropic analysis
Table 1. Comparison of total stress strength criterion calculated and laboratory-measured undrained shear
strengths under the plane strain condition for K
0
-consolidated soils
Types of soil Triaxial test Plane strain test References
S
uc
=9
vc
S
ue
=9
vc
S
uc(ps)
=9
vc
S
ue(ps)
=9
vc
Lab. Calc. Lab. Calc.
Haney sensitive clay 0268 0168 0296 0312 0211 0212 Vaid & Campanella (1974)
Boston blue clay 0330 0155 0340 0386 0190 0211 Ladd et al. (1971)
AGS plastic clay 0315 0195 0370 0367 0235 0247 Koutsoftas & Ladd (1985)
Conn. Valley Varved clay 0250 0210 0279 0290 0250 0250 Ladd et al. (1977)
Sapporo clay 0309 0192 0350 0360 0257 0243 Mitachi & Kitago (1980)
Note: Undrained shear strength determined from the laboratory test is taken at peak shear stress.
UNDRAINED SLOPE STABILITY IN CLAY 217
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 139.82.115.33
On: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 22:10:19
through certain correlation between F
s,I
and F
s,A
.
This section will demonstrate how the correlation
between F
s,I
and F
s,A
is established.
Since the majority of slip surfaces under un-
drained conditions in clay are circular in shape, a
circular failure surface and a limit equilibrium
method are used for the slope stability analysis in
this paper. For a potential circular failure surface
within a slope (Fig. 2), is dened as the angle
between the major principal stress and the vertical
direction; ( 458 9=2) is dened as the angle
between the failure plane and the major principal
stress. The anisotropic undrained shear strength
under the plane strain condition S
u,A(ps)
of any
element along this failure surface can be repre-
sented by the Mohr circle and expressed as:
S
u,A(ps)

h
2
_ _
2

2
_ _
(5)
and
tan 2
2

h
(5a)
458
9
2
_ _
(5b)
where 9 is the effective friction angle of soil.
Since the shear strength of soil elements along
the slip surface is represented by the plane strain
strength criterion, the ratio between the plane strain
shear strength S
u,A(ps)
calculated from this proposed
total stress strength criterion and S
uc
obtained from
the CK
0
UC triaxial test can be determined by
equation (6), which is established by substituting
equations (4) and (5a) for equation (5):
S
u,A(ps)
S
uc
g(2)

ncos 2
p
[A
1=4
r
(4K
2
n
2
)
sin
2
2 4nK
2
cos
2
2]
2(A
1=4
r
sin
2
2 n cos
2
2)
% 2 % 1808 (6)
where
n
2(1 2A
r
)
3(1 A
r
)
(6a)
The calculated results of equation (6) are plotted in
Fig. 3 in terms of shear strength ratio of
S
u,A(ps)
=S
uc
, angle, and strength anisotropy ratio
A
r
( S
ue
=S
uc
). The ratio of S
u,A(ps)
=S
uc
decreases
from 116, 117 and 117 at 08 to 096, 077
and 057 at 908 for A
r
0
:
8, 06 and 04
respectively. (Note: 08 and 908 correspond
to the axial compression and extension conditions.)
More specically, the ratio of S
u,A(ps)
=S
uc
becomes
A
r
(1
.
0)
(0
.
9)
(0
.
8)
(0
.
7)
(0
.
6)
(0
.
5)
(0
.
4)
1
.
0
1
.
0 1
.
0
1
.
0

S
uc

v

h
2S
uc
Fig. 1. Envelopes of the plane strain strength criterion with different
strength anisotropy ratios (A
r
) on the normalized shear stress axes
218 SU AND LIAO
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 139.82.115.33
On: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 22:10:19
less than 1 when is larger than 188, 2558 and
4758 for A
r
0
:
4, A
r
0
:
6, and A
r
0
:
8. In
other words, the undrained shear strength under the
plane strain condition S
u,A(ps)
is not always larger
than S
uc
. It can be smaller than S
uc
when in-
creases beyond a certain critical value.
However, equation (6) is too complicated to be
directly used in the slope stability analysis. To
make it practically acceptable, the following equa-
tion is established to calculate the ratio between
the factors of safety determined from isotropic and
anisotropic slope stability analyses in terms of
resisting moment:
F
S,A
F
S,I

M
r,A
M
r,I

1
S
u,A(ps)
r
2
d
_

1
S
u,I
r
2
d
(7)
where M
r,A
is the resisting moment against sliding
for anisotropic analysis, M
r,I
is the resisting mo-
ment against sliding for isotropic analysis, F
s,A
is
the factor of safety determined from anisotropic
analysis, F
s,I
is the factor of safety determined
from isotropic analysis, S
u,A(ps)
is the anisotropic
shear strength under the plane strain condition, S
u,I
is the undrained shear strength from a particular
Fig. 2. (a) Schematic diagram of a potential slip surface. (b) Symbols used
for soil element on slip surface
C
B
A

1
(a)

Slip surface
(b)
Direction of major
principal stress
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
1
.
4
1
.
2
1
.
0
0
.
8
0
.
6
0
.
4
0
.
2
A
r
0
.
8
A
r
0
.
6
A
r
0
.
4 S
u
,
A
(
p
s
)
/
S
u
c
: degrees
Fig. 3. Relationship between S
u,A(ps)
=S
uc
of plane
strain strength criterion and under various strength
anisotropy ratios (A
r
)
UNDRAINED SLOPE STABILITY IN CLAY 219
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 139.82.115.33
On: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 22:10:19
type of test, which can be the triaxial, plane strain,
true triaxial, or direct simple shear test (when used
in an isotropic analysis it is assumed to be the
same for all inclinations of the failure plane), r is
the radius of slip surface, and
1
and
2
are the
angles dened in Fig. 2.
If the slip surface is circular in shape, the radius
r of equation (7) becomes a constant and can be
removed from the equation. Substituting equation
(5b) in equation (7), the following equation can be
obtained:
F
S,A
F
S,I

_
2
2
2
1
S
u,A(ps)
d2
_
2
2
2
1
S
u,I
d2
(7a)
As shown in equations (7) and (7a), the F
s,A
=F
s,I
ratio is equal to the ratio between resisting mo-
ments along the slip surface calculated from the
anisotropic and isotropic slope stability analyses
and is also equal to the ratio of corresponding arc
lengths along the strength envelopes of S
u,A(ps)
and
S
u,I
(equation (7a)). This statement will be ex-
plained as follows.
As shown in Fig. 4, the radial distance between
the origin and the strength envelope of a homo-
geneous soil (i.e. soil strength does not vary with
depth) represents the anisotropic strength of a soil
element whose major principal stress is 8 off the
vertical direction. For a potential slip surface with
the angle changing from
1
to
2
(arc ABC of
Fig. 2), the shear strength mobilized along the slip
surface can be represented by arc a
A
b
A
c
A
(Fig. 4),
with the corresponding angle increasing from
1
to
2
(note: (458 9=2) as dened in
equation (5b)). The arc a
A
b
A
c
A
represents the inte-
gral
_
2
2
2
1
S
u,A(ps)
d2. For an anisotropic soil, its
anisotropic strength envelope is an unsymmetrical
ellipse. In comparison, if shear strength is assumed
to be the same for all inclinations of the failure
plane, its strength envelope becomes a symmetrical
circle and the undrained shear strength S
u,I
is
applied to the entire slip surface. However, the
undrained shear strength S
u,I
determined in the
laboratory will vary from one test to another. As a
result, the sizes of the failure envelopes are differ-
ent for the CK
0
UC triaxial test (S
uc
), the CK
0
U
plane strain compression test (S
uc(ps)
), and the
CK
0
U plane strain extension test (S
ue(ps)
) (Fig. 4).
The mobilized undrained shear strength along the
slip surface arc ABC can be represented by either
arc a
I1
b
I1
c
I1
, arc a
I2
b
I2
c
I2
, or arc a
I3
b
I3
c
I3
if the
undrained shear strength S
u,I
of integral
_
2
2
2
1
S
u,I
d2 is substituted by S
uc(ps)
, S
uc
, or S
ue(ps)
,
respectively (Fig. 4). However, none of these shear
strengths can fully represent the undrained shear
strength development along the slip surface. The
2
2 2
2
1
a
z3
a
z2
a
z1
a
A
b
z3
b
z2
b
A
b
z1
S
u,A(ps)
/S
uc
S
ue(ps)
1
.
0 1
.
0
c
z1
c
z2
c
z3
c
A
S
uc
S
uc(ps)
S
uc

1
.
0
1
.
0
2S
uc

v

h
Fig. 4. Envelopes for anisotropic undrained shear strength S
u,A(ps)
and
undrained shear strength S
u,I
used for the slope stability analysis (refer
to Fig. 2)
220 SU AND LIAO
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 139.82.115.33
On: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 22:10:19
mobilized undrained shear strength along the slip
surface is closer to S
uc(ps)
around the top, but it is
closer to S
ue(ps)
around the bottom. So, if S
u,I
is
equal to S
uc(ps)
, it tends to overestimate the average
shear strength along the slip surface and the factor
of safety against sliding (F
s,I
) as well. Similarly, if
S
u,I
is equal to S
ue(ps)
, then it will underestimate
the mobilized shear strength and the factor of
safety (F
s,I
). To deal with this problem, the factor
of safety determined from isotropic analysis should
be modied with equation (7) or equation (7a) to
account for the effect of changing the inclination
of the failure plane on the undrained shear
strength.
The integration result of equation (7) is ex-
pressed as follows:
F
s,A
F
s,I

[S
uc(0)
Sr sin
1
][E(
2
) E(
1
)] Sr[G(
2
) G(
1
)]
[S
u,I(0)
Sr sin
1
](
2

1
) Sr(cos
1
cos
2
)
(8)
where S
uc(0)
and S
u,I(0)
are the S
uc
and S
u,I
at
the top (i.e. z 0, z is the depth); S is the change
rate of undrained shear strength with depth; E()
is equal to
_

08
g() d and E(
2
) E(
1
)
_

1
g() d; G()
_

08
sin g() d; and G(
2
)
G(
1
)
_

1
sin g() d. g() can be deter-
mined from equation (6), whose independent vari-
able is obtained by substituting in equation (5b).
However, it must be pointed out that equation
(8) is only good for the condition when the un-
drained shear strength increases linearly with depth
or does not change with the depth. If the variation
of undrained shear strength with depth is different
from the above, then equation (8) should be mod-
ied. For example, if the undrained shear strength
maintains a constant value until a certain depth
and then increases linearly with depth (Fig. 5), the
F
s,A
=F
s,I
ratio can be determined by dividing the
integration range (
1
,
2
) into two subranges (
1
,

12
) and (
12
,
2
):
F
s,A
F
s,I

12

1
S
u,A(ps)
r
2
d
_

12
S
u,A(ps)
r
2
d
_

12

1
S
u,I
r
2
d
_

12
S
u,I
r
2
d

S
uc(0)
[E(
12
) E(
1
)] [S
uc(0)
Sr sin
12
]
[E(
2
) E(
12
)] Sr[G)
2
) G(
12
)]
S
u,I(0)
(
12

1
) [S
u,I(0)
Sr sin
12
]
(
2

12
) Sr(cos
12
cos
2
)
(8a)
Similarly, for any other variations of undrained
shear strength with depth, their F
s,A
=F
s,I
ratio can
also be modied accordingly from equation (8).
As shown in equation (8), E() and G() are
indirectly related to the effective friction angle 9,
which tends to change with the orientation of
major principal stress. To evaluate the inuence of
9 on E() and G(), the following three exam-
ples are given.
Case 1
As indicated by Jamiolkowski et al. (1985), 9
tends to change with the orientation of major
principal stress. So, for case 1, 9 is assumed to
increase from 9
c
when under axial compression to
9
e
when under axial extension, and can be ex-
pressed as
9 9
c
(9
e
9
e
) sin
2
(9)
where is dened in Fig. 2 as the angle between
major principal stress and vertical.
Case 2
9 is assumed to be a constant value and it does
not change with the orientation of major principal

12

1
S
1
Undrained shear strength
D
e
p
t
h
Fig. 5. Non-linear change of undrained shear strength with depth for equation (8a)
UNDRAINED SLOPE STABILITY IN CLAY 221
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 139.82.115.33
On: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 22:10:19
stress. In other words, 9 does not vary with the
angle of . For case 2, 9 is assumed to be equal
to (9
c
9
e
)=2.
Case 3
Similar to case 2, 9 is assumed to be a
constant value but is equal to 9
c
. This implies that
9 of case 3 is deliberately underestimated.
Let 9
c
288 and 9
e
428; the variations of 9
with angle (ranging from 208 to 1308) for these
three cases are shown in Fig. 6 (note: the relation-
ship between and can be found in equation
(5b)). By substituting the 9 of cases 1, 2 and 3
into
_

1
g() d and
_

1
sin g() d, the values
of these two integrals can be determined. By
normalizing the integrals of cases 1 and 3 with
those of case 2, the inuence of 9 on
_

1
sin g() d and
_

1
g() d under different
strength anisotropy ratios A
r
can be compared. As
shown in Fig. 7, 9 has very little effect on
_

1
sin g() d and
_

1
g() d. A less than 1%
difference is found between the integrals for case 1
and those for case 2 when A
r
decreases from 09
to 04. Even for a 20% difference in 9 between
case 2 and case 3, a less than 3% difference in the
values of integrals is observed.
In summary, although the effective friction angle
9 appears in this total stress analysis, it has been
shown that variation of 9 has very little inuence
on equation (8). So, to simplify the calculation, 9
used in this study is assumed to be equal to the
average of 9
c
and 9
e
(i.e. 9 (288 428)=
2 358). The values of E() and G() for dif-
ferent and anisotropy strength ratio A
r
are given
in Tables 2 and 3 (note: 9 is assumed to be equal
to 358).
The following example is given to demonstrate
the procedure needed for determining the F
s,A
=F
s,I
ratio from equation (8) and Tables 2 and 3.
EXAMPLE 1
For the slope shown in Fig. 8, the factors of
safety against sliding for three potential slip sur-
faces are rst calculated with the PC STABL 5M
program by using an undrained shear strength S
u,I
which is the same for all inclinations of failure
plane.
Let S
u,I
S
uc
and be equal to 40 kPa. The
calculated factors of safety F
s,I
are equal to 1536,
1538 and 1583 for slip surfaces 1, 2 and 3,
respectively. To take into account the effect of
strength anisotropy on factor of safety, the follow-
ing steps are taken to calculate F
s,A
. Slip surface 1
is used here as an example:
(a) Measure
1
and
2
of the potential slip
surface. For slip surface 1,
1
178 and

2
1188.
(b) Determine E(
2
) and E(
1
) from Table 2. For
the strength anisotropy ratio A
r
of 06, the
value of 1951 can be obtained for E(1188) by
interpolation between E(1208) ( 1
:
978) and
E(1158) ( 1911). Similarly, E(178) 0
:
314
can be obtained. Since the undrained shear
strength of soil does not vary with the depth
(i.e. S 0) in this example, there is no need to
obtain G(
2
) and G(
1
).
(c) Substitute E(
2
), E(
1
) and S
u,I
( S
uc
) into
equation (8) and calculate the F
s,A
=F
s,I
ratio.
F
s,A
=F
s,I
(1
:
951 0
:
314)=((1188 178) 3
=1808) 0
:
929. So, F
s,A
0
:
929 31
:
536
1
:
427.
Similarly, F
s,A
1
:
453 and 1450 for slip sur-
faces 2 and 3 can also be calculated. By comparing
F
s,I
with F
s,A
for these three slip surfaces, it can
be found that the F
s,I
values of slip surfaces 1, 2
and 3 are in the order slip surface 3 . slip surface
2 . slip surface 1. However, the order for the F
s,A
changes to slip surface 2 . slip surface 3 . slip
surface 1. Such a change in the order of factor of
safety is mainly caused by the difference in the
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
Case 2
Case 3
Case 1
0 25 50 75 100 125 150
E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e

f
r
i
c
t
i
o
n

a
n
g
l
e

:

d
e
g
r
e
e
s
: degrees
Fig. 6. Changes of effective friction angle 9 with
angle for cases 1, 2 and 3
0
.
0 0
.
2 0
.
4 0
.
6 0
.
8 1
.
0
1
.
04
1
.
03
1
.
02
1
.
01
1
.
00
Strength anisotropy ratio A
r
R
a
t
i
o

2
sing()d

2

g()d

1
Case 1
{
Case 2
Case 3
{
Case 2
Fig. 7. Inuences of effective friction angle on inte-
grals
_
2
1
g() d and
_
2
1
sin g() d at various strength
anisotropy ratios (A
r
)
222 SU AND LIAO
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 139.82.115.33
On: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 22:10:19
T
a
b
l
e
2
.
E
(

)
f
o
r
s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
a
n
i
s
o
t
r
o
p
y
r
a
t
i
o
A
r
o
f
0

4
0
t
o
0

9
5
a
n
d

a
n
g
l
e
o
f
5
8
t
o
1
7
5
8
(

3
5
8
)

A
r
0

4
0
0

4
5
0

5
0
0

5
5
0

6
0
0

6
5
0

7
0
0

7
5
0

8
0
0

8
5
0

9
0
0

9
5
5
0

0
7
8
0

0
8
1
0

0
8
3
0

0
8
5
0

0
8
8
0

0
9
0
0

0
9
1
0

0
9
3
0

0
9
5
0

0
9
7
0

0
9
8
0

0
9
9
1
0
0

1
6
2
0

1
6
7
0

1
7
2
0

1
7
6
0

1
7
9
0

1
8
3
0

1
8
6
0

1
8
9
0

1
9
2
0

1
9
4
0

1
9
7
0

1
9
9
1
5
0

2
5
3
0

2
5
9
0

2
6
5
0

2
7
0
0

2
7
5
0

2
7
9
0

2
8
3
0

2
8
7
0

2
9
0
0

2
9
4
0

2
9
7
0

3
0
0
2
0
0

3
5
0
0

3
5
7
0

3
6
3
0

3
6
8
0

3
7
3
0

3
7
8
0

3
8
2
0

3
8
7
0

3
9
0
0

3
9
4
0

3
9
7
0

4
0
0
2
5
0

4
5
1
0

4
5
8
0

4
6
4
0

4
6
9
0

4
7
4
0

4
7
9
0

4
8
3
0

4
8
7
0

4
9
1
0

4
9
5
0

4
9
8
0

5
0
1
3
0
0

5
5
3
0

5
6
0
0

5
6
6
0

5
7
1
0

5
7
6
0

5
8
0
0

5
8
5
0

5
8
9
0

5
9
2
0

5
9
6
0

5
9
9
0

6
0
2
3
5
0

6
5
4
0

6
6
0
0

6
6
6
0

6
7
2
0

6
7
7
0

6
8
1
0

6
8
5
0

6
8
9
0

6
9
3
0

6
9
6
0

7
0
0
0

7
0
3
4
0
0

7
5
1
0

7
5
8
0

7
6
4
0

7
7
0
0

7
7
5
0

7
8
0
0

7
8
5
0

7
8
9
0

7
9
3
0

7
9
7
0

8
0
0
0

8
0
3
4
5
0

8
4
2
0

8
5
0
0

8
5
8
0

8
6
5
0

8
7
1
0

8
7
7
0

8
8
2
0

8
8
7
0

8
9
1
0

8
9
6
0

9
0
0
0

9
0
3
5
0
0

9
2
6
0

9
3
7
0

9
4
6
0

9
5
5
0

9
6
3
0

9
7
0
0

9
7
6
0

9
8
3
0

9
8
8
0

9
9
4
0

9
9
9
1

0
0
3
5
5
1

0
0
4
1

0
1
7
1

0
2
9
1

0
4
0
1

0
5
0
1

0
5
9
1

0
6
8
1

0
7
6
1

0
8
3
1

0
9
0
1

0
9
7
1

1
0
3
6
0
1

0
7
6
1

0
9
2
1

1
0
7
1

1
2
1
1

1
3
4
1

1
4
6
1

1
5
6
1

1
6
7
1

1
7
6
1

1
8
5
1

1
9
4
1

2
0
2
6
5
1

1
4
3
1

1
6
3
1

1
8
1
1

1
9
8
1

2
1
4
1

2
2
8
1

2
4
2
1

2
5
5
1

2
6
7
1

2
7
9
1

2
9
0
1

3
0
0
7
0
1

2
0
6
1

2
2
9
1

2
5
1
1

2
7
1
1

2
9
0
1

3
0
8
1

3
2
5
1

3
4
1
1

3
5
7
1

3
7
1
1

3
8
5
1

3
9
8
7
5
1

2
6
5
1

2
9
2
1

3
1
8
1

3
4
2
1

3
6
4
1

3
8
6
1

4
0
6
1

4
2
6
1

4
4
4
1

4
6
2
1

4
7
9
1

4
9
6
8
0
1

3
2
1
1

3
5
2
1

3
8
2
1

4
1
0
1

4
3
6
1

4
6
2
1

4
8
6
1

5
0
9
1

5
3
1
1

5
5
2
1

5
7
3
1

5
9
3
8
5
1

3
7
5
1

4
1
1
1

4
4
4
1

4
7
6
1

5
0
6
1

5
3
5
1

5
6
3
1

5
9
0
1

6
1
7
1

6
4
2
1

6
6
6
1

6
9
0
9
0
1

4
2
8
1

4
6
7
1

5
0
5
1

5
4
1
1

5
7
5
1

6
0
8
1

6
4
0
1

6
7
1
1

7
0
1
1

7
3
1
1

7
5
9
1

7
8
7
9
5
1

4
7
9
1

5
2
3
1

5
6
5
1

6
0
5
1

6
4
3
1

6
8
0
1

7
1
6
1

7
5
2
1

7
8
6
1

8
1
9
1

8
5
2
1

8
8
3
1
0
0
1

5
3
0
1

5
7
8
1

6
2
4
1

6
6
8
1

7
1
0
1

7
5
2
1

7
9
2
1

8
3
1
1

8
7
0
1

9
0
7
1

9
4
4
1

9
8
0
1
0
5
1

5
8
1
1

6
3
2
1

6
8
2
1

7
3
1
1

7
7
7
1

8
2
3
1

8
6
8
1

9
1
1
1

9
5
4
1

9
9
5
2

0
3
6
2

0
7
6
1
1
0
1

6
3
1
1

6
8
7
1

7
4
1
1

7
9
3
1

8
4
4
1

8
9
4
1

9
4
3
1

9
9
0
2

0
3
7
2

0
8
3
2

1
2
8
2

1
7
3
1
1
5
1

6
8
1
1

7
4
1
1

7
9
9
1

8
5
6
1

9
1
1
1

9
6
5
2

0
1
8
2

0
7
0
2

1
2
1
2

1
7
1
2

2
2
1
2

2
6
9
1
2
0
1

7
3
1
1

7
9
5
1

8
5
8
1

9
1
8
1

9
7
8
2

0
3
6
2

0
9
3
2

1
4
9
2

2
0
5
2

2
5
9
2

3
1
3
2

3
6
6
1
2
5
1

7
8
1
1

8
4
9
1

9
1
6
1

9
8
1
2

0
4
5
2

1
0
7
2

1
6
8
2

2
2
9
2

2
8
8
2

3
4
7
2

4
0
5
2

4
6
2
1
3
0
1

8
3
1
1

9
0
4
1

9
7
4
2

0
4
4
2

1
1
1
2

1
7
8
2

2
4
4
2

3
0
8
2

3
7
2
2

4
3
5
2

4
9
7
2

5
5
9
1
3
5
1

8
8
1
1

9
5
8
2

0
3
3
2

1
0
6
2

1
7
8
2

2
4
9
2

3
1
9
2

3
8
8
2

4
5
6
2

5
2
3
2

5
9
0
2

6
5
5
1
4
0
1

9
3
2
2

0
1
3
2

0
9
2
2

1
7
0
2

2
4
6
2

3
2
1
2

3
9
5
2

4
6
8
2

5
4
0
2

6
1
1
2

6
8
2
2

7
5
2
1
4
5
1

9
8
4
2

0
6
9
2

1
5
2
2

2
3
3
2

3
1
4
2

3
9
3
2

4
7
1
2

5
4
8
2

6
2
4
2

7
0
0
2

7
7
5
2

8
4
9
1
5
0
2

0
3
7
2

1
2
5
2

2
1
3
2

2
9
8
2

3
8
3
2

4
6
6
2

5
4
8
2

6
2
9
2

7
0
9
2

7
8
9
2

8
6
7
2

9
4
5
1
5
5
2

0
9
1
2

1
8
4
2

2
7
5
2

3
6
4
2

4
5
3
2

5
4
0
2

6
2
6
2

7
1
1
2

7
9
5
2

8
7
8
2

9
6
1
3

0
4
2
1
6
0
2

1
4
7
2

2
4
4
2

3
3
9
2

4
3
2
2

5
2
4
2

6
1
5
2

7
0
5
2

7
9
3
2

8
8
1
2

9
6
8
3

0
5
4
3

1
4
0
1
6
5
2

2
0
6
2

3
0
7
2

4
0
6
2

5
0
3
2

5
9
8
2

6
9
3
2

7
8
6
2

8
7
8
2

9
6
9
3

0
5
9
3

1
4
9
3

2
3
7
1
7
0
2

2
6
9
2

3
7
3
2

4
7
6
2

5
7
6
2

6
7
5
2

7
7
3
2

8
6
9
2

9
6
4
3

0
5
8
3

1
5
2
3

2
4
4
3

3
3
5
1
7
5
2

3
3
6
2

4
4
4
2

5
4
9
2

6
5
3
2

7
5
5
2

8
5
6
2

9
5
5
3

0
5
3
3

1
4
9
3

2
4
5
3

3
4
0
3

4
3
4
UNDRAINED SLOPE STABILITY IN CLAY 223
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 139.82.115.33
On: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 22:10:19
T
a
b
l
e
3
.
G
(

)
f
o
r
s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
a
n
i
s
o
t
r
o
p
y
r
a
t
i
o
A
r
o
f
0

4
0
t
o
0

9
5
a
n
d

a
n
g
l
e
o
f
5
8
t
o
1
7
5
8
(

3
5
9
)

A
r
0

4
0
0

4
5
0

5
0
0

5
5
0

6
0
0

6
5
0

7
0
0

7
5
0

8
0
0

8
5
0

9
0
0

9
5
5
0

0
0
3
0

0
0
4
0

0
0
4
0

0
0
4
0

0
0
4
0

0
0
4
0

0
0
4
0

0
0
4
0

0
0
4
0

0
0
4
0

0
0
4
0

0
0
4
1
0
0

0
1
5
0

0
1
5
0

0
1
5
0

0
1
6
0

0
1
6
0

0
1
6
0

0
1
6
0

0
1
7
0

0
1
7
0

0
1
7
0

0
1
7
0

0
1
7
1
5
0

0
3
4
0

0
3
5
0

0
3
5
0

0
3
6
0

0
3
7
0

0
3
7
0

0
3
7
0

0
3
8
0

0
3
8
0

0
3
8
0

0
3
9
0

0
3
9
2
0
0

0
6
3
0

0
6
4
0

0
6
5
0

0
6
6
0

0
6
6
0

0
6
7
0

0
6
7
0

0
6
8
0

0
6
8
0

0
6
9
0

0
6
9
0

0
6
9
2
5
0

1
0
2
0

1
0
3
0

1
0
4
0

1
0
4
0

1
0
5
0

1
0
5
0

1
0
6
0

1
0
6
0

1
0
7
0

1
0
7
0

1
0
8
0

1
0
8
3
0
0

1
4
9
0

1
5
0
0

1
5
1
0

1
5
1
0

1
5
2
0

1
5
2
0

1
5
3
0

1
5
3
0

1
5
3
0

1
5
4
0

1
5
4
0

1
5
4
3
5
0

2
0
3
0

2
0
4
0

2
0
5
0

2
0
5
0

2
0
6
0

2
0
6
0

2
0
7
0

2
0
7
0

2
0
8
0

2
0
8
0

2
0
8
0

2
0
9
4
0
0

2
6
2
0

2
6
3
0

2
6
4
0

2
6
5
0

2
6
6
0

2
6
7
0

2
6
7
0

2
6
8
0

2
6
8
0

2
6
9
0

2
6
9
0

2
7
0
4
5
0

3
2
3
0

3
2
6
0

3
2
7
0

3
2
9
0

3
3
0
0

3
3
2
0

3
3
3
0

3
3
4
0

3
3
5
0

3
3
6
0

3
3
7
0

3
3
7
5
0
0

3
8
6
0

3
8
9
0

3
9
2
0

3
9
5
0

3
9
8
0

4
0
0
0

4
0
2
0

4
0
4
0

4
0
6
0

4
0
8
0

4
1
0
0

4
1
1
5
5
0

4
4
8
0

4
5
3
0

4
5
8
0

4
6
3
0

4
6
7
0

4
7
1
0

4
7
5
0

4
7
8
0

4
8
2
0

4
8
5
0

4
8
7
0

4
9
0
6
0
0

5
0
8
0

5
1
7
0

5
2
4
0

5
3
1
0

5
3
8
0

5
4
4
0

5
5
0
0

5
5
5
0

5
6
0
0

5
6
5
0

5
6
9
0

5
7
3
6
5
0

5
6
8
0

5
7
9
0

5
9
0
0

5
9
9
0

6
0
9
0

6
1
7
0

6
2
6
0

6
3
3
0

6
4
1
0

6
4
8
0

6
5
4
0

6
6
1
7
0
0

6
2
5
0

6
4
0
0

6
5
4
0

6
6
7
0

6
8
0
0

6
9
1
0

7
0
2
0

7
1
3
0

7
2
3
0

7
3
3
0

7
4
2
0

7
5
1
7
5
0

6
8
2
0

7
0
0
0

7
1
8
0

7
3
4
0

7
5
0
0

7
6
5
0

7
8
0
0

7
9
4
0

8
0
7
0

8
2
0
0

8
3
2
0

8
4
4
8
0
0

7
3
7
0

7
5
9
0

7
8
0
0

8
0
1
0

8
2
0
0

8
3
9
0

8
5
7
0

8
7
5
0

8
9
1
0

9
0
8
0

9
2
4
0

9
3
9
8
5
0

7
9
0
0

8
1
7
0

8
4
2
0

8
6
6
0

8
9
0
0

9
1
2
0

9
3
4
0

9
5
6
0

9
7
6
0

9
9
6
1

0
1
6
1

0
3
5
9
0
0

8
4
3
0

8
7
3
0

9
0
3
0

9
3
1
0

9
5
8
0

9
8
5
1

0
1
1
1

0
3
6
1

0
6
1
1

0
8
5
1

1
0
9
1

1
3
2
9
5
0

8
9
5
0

9
2
9
0

9
6
2
0

9
9
5
1

0
2
6
1

0
5
7
1

0
8
7
1

1
1
6
1

1
4
5
1

1
7
3
1

2
0
1
1

2
2
8
1
0
0
0

9
4
5
0

9
8
3
1

0
2
1
1

0
5
7
1

0
9
3
1

1
2
8
1

1
6
2
1

1
9
5
1

2
2
8
1

2
6
1
1

2
9
3
1

3
2
4
1
0
5
0

9
9
4
1

0
3
7
1

0
7
8
1

1
1
9
1

1
5
8
1

1
9
7
1

2
3
6
1

2
7
3
1

3
1
0
1

3
4
7
1

3
8
3
1

4
1
8
1
1
0
1

0
4
2
1

0
8
8
1

1
3
4
1

1
7
8
1

2
2
2
1

2
6
5
1

3
0
7
1

3
4
9
1

3
9
0
1

4
3
1
1

4
7
1
1

5
1
0
1
1
5
1

0
8
8
1

1
3
9
1

1
8
8
1

2
3
6
1

2
8
4
1

3
3
1
1

3
7
7
1

4
2
2
1

4
6
7
1

5
1
2
1

5
5
6
1

6
0
0
1
2
0
1

1
3
2
1

1
8
7
1

2
4
0
1

2
9
2
1

3
4
3
1

3
9
4
1

4
4
3
1

4
9
3
1

5
4
2
1

5
9
0
1

6
3
8
1

6
8
5
1
2
5
1

1
7
5
1

2
3
2
1

2
8
9
1

3
4
4
1

3
9
9
1

4
5
3
1

5
0
7
1

5
6
0
1

6
1
2
1

6
6
4
1

7
1
5
1

7
6
6
1
3
0
1

2
1
4
1

2
7
5
1

3
3
5
1

3
9
4
1

4
5
2
1

5
1
0
1

5
6
7
1

6
2
3
1

6
7
9
1

7
3
4
1

7
8
9
1

8
4
3
1
3
5
1

2
5
2
1

3
1
5
1

3
7
8
1

4
4
0
1

5
0
2
1

5
6
2
1

6
2
2
1

6
8
2
1

7
4
0
1

7
9
9
1

8
5
7
1

9
1
4
1
4
0
1

2
8
6
1

3
5
3
1

4
1
8
1

4
8
3
1

5
4
7
1

6
1
1
1

6
7
3
1

7
3
5
1

7
9
7
1

8
5
8
1

9
1
9
1

9
7
9
1
4
5
1

3
1
7
1

3
8
6
1

4
5
5
1

5
2
2
1

5
8
9
1

6
5
4
1

7
2
0
1

7
8
4
1

8
4
8
1

9
1
2
1

9
7
5
2

0
3
8
1
5
0
1

3
4
6
1

4
1
7
1

4
8
7
1

5
5
7
1

6
2
5
1

6
9
3
1

7
6
1
1

8
2
8
1

8
9
4
1

9
6
0
2

0
2
5
2

0
9
0
1
5
5
1

3
7
1
1

4
4
4
1

5
1
6
1

5
8
7
1

6
5
8
1

7
2
8
1

7
9
7
1

8
6
5
1

9
3
3
2

0
0
1
2

0
6
8
2

1
3
5
1
6
0
1

3
9
2
1

4
6
7
1

5
4
1
1

6
1
3
1

6
8
5
1

7
5
7
1

8
2
7
1

8
9
7
1

9
6
7
2

0
3
6
2

1
0
4
2

1
7
2
1
6
5
1

4
1
0
1

4
8
6
1

5
6
1
1

6
3
4
1

7
0
8
1

7
8
0
1

8
5
1
1

9
2
2
1

9
9
3
2

0
6
3
2

1
3
2
2

2
0
1
1
7
0
1

4
2
3
1

5
0
0
1

5
7
6
1

6
5
0
1

7
2
4
1

7
9
7
1

8
6
9
1

9
4
1
2

0
1
2
2

0
8
3
2

1
5
3
2

2
2
3
1
7
5
1

4
3
2
1

5
0
9
1

5
8
5
1

6
6
0
1

7
3
4
1

8
0
8
1

8
8
1
1

9
5
3
2

0
2
4
2

0
9
5
2

1
6
6
2

2
3
5
224 SU AND LIAO
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 139.82.115.33
On: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 22:10:19
locations of slip surfaces. If a large portion of the
slip surface locates in the area subjected to passive
lateral loading (i.e. deep base failure), the inuence
of undrained strength under extension will become
signicant in determining the F
s,A
=F
s,I
ratio. This
is because the undrained strength under extension
is generally smaller than that under compression.
The larger the portion of the slip surface located in
the lateral compression area, the smaller the F
s,A
may be. In comparison, if the slip surface is
mainly located in the axial compression area (i.e.
toe failure or face failure), then the undrained
shear strength under compression will be dominant.
So, the inuence of strength anisotropy is not as
obvious as the base failure case if S
u,I
S
uc
is
used to calculate the factor of safety.
In addition, it should be noted that the slip
surface with the lowest F
s,I
may not necessarily be
the same slip surface with the lowest F
s,A
, because
the F
s,A
of a potential slip surface is affected not
only by the factor of safety F
s,I
but also by the
strength anisotropy ratio and its location as indi-
cated in equation (8). To locate the slip surface
with the lowest F
s,A
, methods used to locate the
slip surface of the lowest F
s,I
can be adopted.
One may also note that the difference between
the F
s,I
and F
s,A
of this given example is less than
10%. This is because the average undrained
strength actually mobilized along the slip surface is
close to the S
u,I
( S
uc
, which is the undrained
shear strength obtained from the CK
0
UC triaxial
test) used to calculate F
s,I
(Fig. 8). For a plane
strain slope stability analysis, the undrained
strength mobilized at the top of slope (S
uc(ps)
) is
larger than S
uc
, while the undrained strength mobi-
lized around the toe (S
ue(ps)
) is smaller than S
uc
.
But the S
uc
used to calculate the F
s,I
is close to
the average S
u,A(ps)
mobilized along the slip sur-
face. Therefore, the calculated F
s,A
is not much
different from F
s,I
. However, the difference be-
tween F
s,I
and F
s,A
can become signicant if the
strength anisotropy becomes obvious, for example
if A
r
,0
:
5 and a deep base failure occurs in the
slope.
As shown in Fig. 9, if S
u,I
S
ue(ps)
, then F
s,I
will underestimate F
s,A
(i.e. F
s,A
=F
s,I
.1). In com-
parison, if S
u,I
S
uc(ps)
, then F
s,I
will overestimate
F
s,A
(i.e. F
s,A
=F
s,I
,1). The smaller the A
r
, the
more signicant the difference between F
s,A
and
F
s,I
will be. However, if an undrained shear
strength between S
ue(ps)
and S
uc(ps)
is chosen, say
S
u,I
S
uc
, then F
s,I
is overestimated when A
r
,
0
:
724 or underestimated when A
r
.0
:
724 for slip
surface 1 of this example. This phenomenon can
be explained by the change in undrained shear
strength along the slip surface. The curves of Fig.
10 indicate the change in undrained shear strength
along the slip surface for A
r
0
:
4, 0724 and 09,
30
20
10
0
Distance: m
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
:

m
0 10 20 30 40 50
A
r
0
.
6
S
uc
40 kPa

t
18 kN/m
3
S
uc(ps)
S
uc
S
ue(ps)
S
u,A(ps)
S
u
/
S
u
c
1
.
3
1
.
0
0
.
7
Slip surface
1
2
3
17
19
10
1
.
536
1
.
538
1
.
583
1
.
427
1
.
453
1
.
450

1
()
2
() F
s,I
F
s,A
118
107
135
1
3
2
Fig. 8. Calculated F
s,I
and F
s,A
for example 1 and the distribution of anisotropic undrained shear
strength S
u,A(ps)
along slip surface 1
UNDRAINED SLOPE STABILITY IN CLAY 225
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 139.82.115.33
On: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 22:10:19
respectively. The dotted line stands for the case of
S
u,I
S
uc
constant. As shown in equation (7),
the F
s,A
=F
s,I
ratio is equal to the area ratio be-
tween the areas under the curves of S
u,A(ps)
and
S
u,I
. So, for any given slip surface, if the value of
S
uc
, which is in between S
ue(ps)
and S
uc(ps)
), is used
for the analysis, F
s,A
may be smaller than F
s,I
if
A
r
is small, or larger than F
s,I
if A
r
is large.
EXAMPLE 2
If the undrained shear strength increases linearly
with depth at a rate of 2 kN=m
2
per metre (i.e.
S 2 kN=m
3
), then G() of equation (8) must be
taken into account. As in example 1, the PC
STABL 5M program is used rst to obtain the F
s,I
values of three slip surfaces shown in Fig. 11. The
calculated F
s,I
values of three slip surfaces are
equal to 1486, 1488 and 1526 for slip surfaces 1,
2 and 3, respectively. To explain the procedure
needed to calculate F
s,A
, slip surface 1 is used as
example:
(a) Measure
1
,
2
and r of the potential slip
surface. For slip surface 1,
1
198,
2

1078, and r 15
:
72 m.
(b) Determine E() and G() from Tables 2 and
3. For the strength anisotropy ratio A
r
of 06, a
value of 0353 can be obtained for E(198) by
interpolation between E(158) ( 0
:
275) and
E(208) ( 0
:
373). Similarly, E(1078) 1
:
804,
G(198) 0
:
060, and G(1078) 1
:
184 can be
obtained.
(c) Calculate the F
s,A
=F
s,I
ratio with equation (8).
Substitute S 2 kN=m
3
, S
uc(0)
25 kPa and
the E(
2
), E(
1
), G(
2
) and G(
1
) obtained
above into equation (8); then F
s,A
=F
s,I
f(25
15
:
72 3 2 3 sin 198)(1
:
804 0
:
353)
15
:
72 3 2 3 (1
:
184 0
:
060)g=f(25 15
:
72
3 2 3 sin 198) 3[(1078 198) 3 =180]
15
:
72 3 2 3 (cos 198 cos 1078)g 0922.
So, F
s,A
0
:
922 31
:
486 1
:
370.
Similarly, the F
s,A
values of 1370 and 1377 for
slip surfaces 2 and 3 can also be determined. As
shown in Fig. 11, the average undrained shear
strength S
u,A(ps)
mobilized along the slip surface is
close to the S
u,I
value ( S
uc
) (note: slip surface 1
is used as an example). In addition, all the poten-
tial slip surfaces are basically undergoing toe fail-
ure. So, the integral of
_
2
2
2
1
S
u,A(ps)
d2 over the
1
to
2
range is close to the integral of
_
2
2
2
1
S
u,I
d2
(refer to Fig. 10 and equation (7a)). Therefore, F
s,I
is not much different from F
s,A
.
Finally, it should be pointed out that F
s,I
may
vary with the undrained shear strengths S
u,I
used in
the isotropic slope stability analysis. But there is
only one F
s,A
for any specic slip surface and soil
strength anisotropy. The difference between F
s,I
and F
s,A
changes with the location of the slip
surface and the strength anisotropy ratio A
r
. So, to
make the factor of safety meaningful, it is F
s,A
which should be used to evaluate the stability of
slope in clay.
CONCLUSIONS
To evaluate the inuence of strength anisotropy
in the plane strain slope stability analysis, two types
of undrained shear strength are used: one is the
undrained shear strength S
u,I
, which is unrelated to
the inclination of the failure plane; the other is the
anisotropic shear strength S
u,A(ps)
, which is related
to the inclination of the failure surface. The aniso-
tropic factor of safety F
s,A
of a circular-type slope
failure in clay can be obtained by calculating the
isotropic factor of safety F
s,I
with any commercially
available program and an undrained shear strength
S
u,I
, and then calculating F
s,A
from the F
s,A
=F
s,I
ratio calculated from the method proposed in this
paper. However, it should be noted that the
F
s,A
=F
s,I
ratio is affected by three factors:
1
.
6
1
.
4
1
.
2
1
.
0
0
.
8
0
.
6
0
.
4
F
s
,
A
/
F
s
,
I
Strength anisotropy ratio A
r
0
.
4 0
.
6 0
.
8 1
.
0 0
.
2
S
u,I
S
uc
S
u,I
S
uc(ps)
S
u,I
S
ue(ps)
Fig. 9. Changes of F
s,A
/F
s,I
ratio with A
r
for different
S
u,I
inputs (note: slip surface 1 of Fig. 8 is used as an
example)
1
.
5
1
.
0
0
.
5
0
.
0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150
: degrees
S
u
/
S
u
c
S
u,A(ps)
d
S
uc
S
u,I
d
S
uc
A
r
(0
.
900)
(0
.
724)
(0
.
400)
Fig. 10. Distributions of undrained shear strengths
(S
u,A(ps)
and S
u,I
) along slip surface at various strength
anisotropy ratios (A
r
) (note: slip surface 1 of Fig. 8 is
used as an example)
226 SU AND LIAO
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 139.82.115.33
On: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 22:10:19
(a) Strength anisotropy ratio A
r
. A
r
S
ue
=S
uc
,
where S
uc
is the undrained shear strength
obtained from the CK
0
UC triaxial test and S
ue
is the undrained shear strength obtained from
the CK
0
UE triaxial test. The smaller the A
r
,
the more signicant is the strength anisotropy.
For soils with low A
r
(say ,0
:
5), such as
Boston blue clay and Bothkennar clay of
Scotland, the inuence of A
r
on F
s,A
=F
s,I
will
become signicant and needs to be taken into
account.
(b) Undrained shear strength S
u,I
. If a larger S
u,I
,
such as the axial compression undrained shear
strength under plane strain condition S
uc(ps)
, is
used to calculate F
s,I
, it will overestimate the
factor of safety. In comparison, if a smaller
S
u,I
, such as the axial extension undrained
shear strength S
ue(ps)
, is used to calculate F
s,I
,
it will underestimate the factor of safety.
However, if an S
u,I
between S
uc(ps)
and S
ue(ps)
is used, then the calculated F
s,I
can over-
estimate or underestimate the factor of safety,
F
s,A
, depending on the strength anisotropy
ratio A
r
.
(c) Location of slip surface. If there is large
portion of the slip surface located in the lateral
compression area (i.e. deep base failure), then
the inuence of undrained shear strength under
extension will become signicant. So, the
effect of strength anisotropy is obvious.
Therefore, the slip surface with the lowest F
s,I
may not necessarily be the same slip surface with
the lowest F
s,A
. However, for any slip surface,
there will be a unique F
s,A
. So, the slip surface
with the lowest F
s,A
can be located following the
same method used to determine the slip surface of
the lowest F
s,I
.
APPENDIX: ANISOTROPIC STRENGTH CRITERION
For a cross-anisotropic clay, its failure function F on the
stress space can be modied from those proposed by
Lumb & Schmertmann (1966) and Prevost (1979) and
expressed as follows (note: z-axis of the Cartesian
coordinate is in the gravity direction):
F
1
6
fA
1
(
x

y
)
2
[(
y

z
) ]
2
[(
z

x
) ]
2
g
A
2

2
xy
A
3
(
2
yz

2
zx
) K
2
0 (10)
In total, there are ve parameters in equation (10), namely
, K, A
1
, A
2
, and A
3
. Among these, and K can be
determined from axial compression (
z
.
y

x
,
xy

yz

zx
0) and axial extension (
z
,
y

x
,
xy

Distance: m
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
:

m
0 10 20 30 40 50
A
r
0
.
6
S
uc
(kPa) 25 2Z

t
18 kN/m
3
S
u,A(ps)
S
u
:

k
P
a
Slip surface
1
()
2
() F
s,I
F
s,A
1
3
2
30
20
10
0
50
40
30
20
S
u,I
S
uc
r : m
27 1
.
526 1
.
377 106 3 19
.
65
16 1
.
488 1
.
370 110 2 15
.
14
19 1
.
486 1
.
370 107 1 15
.
72
Fig. 11. Calculated F
s,I
and F
s,A
for example 2 and the distributions of undrained shear strengths (S
u,A(ps)
and S
u,I
) along slip surface 1
UNDRAINED SLOPE STABILITY IN CLAY 227
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 139.82.115.33
On: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 22:10:19

yz

zx
0) traditional CK
0
U triaxial tests with the
following equations:
S
uc
S
ue
(1 A
r
)S
uc
(10a)
K
2

(S
uc
S
ue
)
2
3

(1 A
r
)
2
3
S
2
uc
(10b)
A
r

S
ue
S
uc
(10c)
Although the parameters A
1
, A
2
and A
3
can also be
determined from laboratory tests such as the true triaxial
test, hollow cylinder torsional shear test, or directional
shear cell test, these tests are not commonly carried out in
the laboratory. To simplify the problem, it is proposed to
correlate A
1
, A
2
and A
3
with the strength anisotropy ratio
A
r
( S
ue
=S
uc
) determined from CK
0
UC and CK
0
UE
triaxial tests.
Parameter A
3
Compared with the results of the hollow cylinder torsional
shear test (Hong & Lade, 1989) on Edgar plastic kaolinite
clay (A
r
S
ue
= S
uc
0
:
437), the results calculated from
equation (10) by assuming A
3
A
1=4
r
are in good
agreement (Fig. 12). So, the value of A
3
is taken to be
equal to A
1=4
r
in this strength criterion.
Parameter A
1
For a horizontal compression condition (
y
.
z

9
vc
.
x
K
0
9
vc
),
z
and
x
remain the same as they
were at the end of consolidation;
y
increases until failure
occurs; 9
vc
is the effective vertical consolidation stress.
By substituting the above stress state at failure in equation
(10), A
1
can be expressed as follows:
A
1

1
4S
2
uhc
f6K
2
4S
uhc
[9
vc
(1 K
0
) ]
2[9
vc
(1 K
0
) ]
2
g 1 (11)
where S
uhc
is the undrained shear strength of the CK
0
U
true triaxial test when subjected to horizontal compression.
If we let K
0
1 and A
r
1, then A
1

2(S
uc
=S
uhc
)
2
1, which is identical to that suggested by
Lumb & Schmertmann (1966); in comparison, Prevost
(1979) suggested A
1
1.
To verify the suitability of equation (11), the test data of
two remoulded clays presented by Sivakugan et al. (1993)
are used for back-calculation here. As shown in Table 4,
the A
1
values calculated from equation (11) do not have a
clear relationship with A
r
. The A
1
=A
r
ratios for these two
remoulded clays are equal to 0802 and 1752, respec-
tively. However, if we let A
1
A
r
and substitute it in
equation (11) to calculate the S
uhc
values of these two
remoulded clays, it can be found that the calculated results
are close to the laboratory test results (Fig. 13). The
calculated S
uhc
=9
vc
( 0
:
277) of kaolinite clay is 4%
lower than the test result; the calculated S
uhc
=9
vc
( 0
:
326) of K50 clay is 12% higher than the test result.
It indicates that a reasonable undrained shear strength for
clay can be generated by assuming A
1
A
r
.
Parameter A
2
For a cross-anisotropic material, the plane of isotropy is
the horizontal plane (x y plane). In other words, the stress
state at failure under shear loading is equal to that under
tension and compression loading (Fig. 14):
(a)
z
9
vc
,
y

x
K
0
9
vc
,
xy

vf
,
yz

zx
0, where
vf
is equal to
xy
at failure, while the
three normal stresses are kept equal to the stresses at
the end of consolidation.
(b)
z
9
vc
,
y
K
0
9
vc

vf
,
x
K
0
9
vc

vf
,

xy

yz

zx
0.
If the stress states of (a) and (b) are substituted into
equation (10), the following equation is obtained:
1
3
[9
vc
(1 K
0
) ]
2
A
2

2
vf

1
6
fA
1
(2
vf
)
2
[9
vc
(1 K
0
)
vf
]
2
[9
vc
(1 K
0
)
vf
]
2
g (12)
It can be determined from equation (12) that A
2

(2A
1
1)=3. By substituting A
1
1 into it, A
2
1 can
be obtained. A
1
A
2
1 is proposed by Prevost (1979). If
we let A
1
A
r
as suggested here, then A
2
can be written as
A
2

2A
r
1
3
(13)
In summary, by substituting parameters A
1
, A
2
and A
3
determined as above into equation (10), it can be written
as follows:
F
1
6
fA
r
(
x

y
)
2
[(
y

z
) ]
2
[(
z

x
) ]
2
g

2A
r
1
3

2
xy
A
1=4
r
(
2
yz

2
zx
) K
2
0 (14)
Equation (14) is the anisotropic strength criterion used in
this paper for the K
0
consolidated clays. The parameters
in equation (14) are all related to the undrained shear
strengths S
uc
and S
ue
obtained from CK
0
UC and CK
0
UE
triaxial tests. To verify the applicability of this strength
criterion to the soft clay, the calculated results are veried
(Su & Liao, 1997) with the results of a directional shear
cell test (O'Neill, 1985; Seah, 1990), a true triaxial test
(Su & Liao, 1997), and a plane strain test (Vaid &
Campanella, 1974; Mitachi & Kitago, 1980). However, the
150
100
50
0
100 50 0 50 100 150 200
Experimental data
Calculated

:

k
P
a
(
z

): kPa
Fig. 12. Comparison of calculated strength envelope
and stresses measured at failure from torsional shear
test (data from Hong & Lade, 1989)
228 SU AND LIAO
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 139.82.115.33
On: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 22:10:19
suitability of this strength criterion for soils with a high
liquid limit (.100%), a high plasticity index (.50%), or
a small strength anisotropy ratio A
r
(,0
:
3) still needs to
be further investigated.
NOTATION
A
r
strength anisotropy ratio ( S
ue
=S
uc
)
E()
_

08
g() d
F yielding function at failure failure function
F
s,A
factor of safety of slope calculated from
anisotropic analysis
F
s,I
factor of safety of slope calculated from
isotropic analysis
F
(ps)
failure function for plane strain condition
f yielding function
G()
_

08
sin g() d
g() determined from equation (6), whose
independent variable can be obtained by
substituting in equation (5b)
K
0
coefcient of lateral earth pressure at rest
M
r,A
resisting moment against sliding for
anisotropic analysis
M
r,I
resisting moment against sliding for isotropic
analysis
r radius of slip surface
S rate of undrained shear strength change with
depth
S
u
undrained shear strength
S
u,A
anisotropic undrained shear strength
S
u,A(ps)
anisotropic undrained shear strength under
plane strain condition
S
uc
undrained shear strength obtained from
CK
0
UC triaxial test
S
ue
undrained shear strength obtained from
CK
0
UE triaxial test
S
u,I
undrained shear strength from a particular
type of test, which can be the triaxial, plane
strain, true triaxial, or direct simple shear
tests; when used in an isotropic analysis it is
assumed to be the same for all inclinations of
the failure plane
S
uc(ps)
axial compression undrained shear strength
under plane strain condition
S
ue(ps)
axial extension undrained shear strength
under plane strain condition
S
uhc
undrained shear strength of CK
0
U true
triaxial test when subjected to horizontal
compression
angle between major principal stress and
vertical direction
angle between failure plane and major
principal stress ( 458 9=2)
d
p
y
plastic strain increment in the y direction
d proportionality scalar function of the material
past stressstrain history
9 effective friction angle

x
,
y
,
z
normal stresses in x-, y- and z-directions

v
,
h
normal stresses in vertical and horizontal
directions
9
vc
effective vertical consolidation pressure
shear stress

zx
,
yz
,

xy
shear stresses in zx, yz and x y planes

vf

xy
at failure
an angle dened in Fig. 2
REFERENCES
Bishop, A. W. (1966). The strength of soils as engineer-
ing materials. Geotechnique 17, No. 2, 91130.
Duncan, J. M. (1992). State-of-the-art: static stability and
deformation analysis. Stability and Performance of
Slopes and Embankments II, Proceedings of a
specialty conference sponsored by the Geotechnical
Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 1, pp. 222266.
Hong, W. P. & Lade, P. V. (1989). Elasto-plastic behavior
Table 4. Test results for two remoulded clays tested under horizontal compression
(data from Sivakugan et al., 1993)
Types of soil K
0
S
uc
=9
vc
S
uhc
=9
vc
A
r
A
l
/A
r
Kaolinite 05 027 029 0344 0802
K50 05 032 029 0303 1752
Symmetrical axis Symmetrical axis
Fig. 14. Two equivalent stress states for cross-aniso-
tropic material
Kaolinite clay
K50 clay
10%
10%
0
.
40
0
.
35
0
.
30
0
.
25
0
.
20
0
.
20 0
.
25 0
.
30 0
.
35 0
.
40
(S
uhc
/
vc
)
cal
(
S
u
h
c
/

v
c
)
l
a
b
Fig. 13. Comparison of calculated and measured
normalized strengths for kaolinite and K50 clays (data
from Sivakugan et al., 1993)
UNDRAINED SLOPE STABILITY IN CLAY 229
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 139.82.115.33
On: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 22:10:19
of K
0
-consolidated clay in torsion shear tests. Soils
Found. 29, No. 2, 5770.
Jamiolkowski, M., Ladd, C. C., Germaine, J. T. & Lancel-
lotta, R. (1985). New developments in eld and
laboratory testing of soils. Proc. 11th ICSMFE, San
Francisco 1, 57157.
Koutsoftas, D. C. & Ladd, C. C. (1985). Design strengths
for an offshore clay. J. Geotech. Engng, ASCE 111,
No. 3, 337355.
Ladd, C. C., Bovee, R. B., Edgers, L. & Rixiner, J. J.
(1971). Consolidated-undrained plane strain shear test
on Boston blue clay, Research Report R7113, No.
273, Cambridge, MA: Department of Civil Engineer-
ing, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Ladd, C. C. & Foott, R. (1974). New design procedure
for stability of soft clay. J. Geotech. Engng Div.,
ASCE 100, No. 7, 763786.
Ladd, C. C., Foott, R., Ishihara, K., Schlosser, F. &
Poulos, H. G. (1977). Stress-deformation and strength
characteristics. State-of-the-art Report. Proc. 9th
ICSMFE, Tokyo 2, 421494.
Lo, K. Y. (1965). Stability of slopes in anisotropic soils.
J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., ASCE 91, No. SM4,
85106.
Lumb, P. & Schmertmann, J. H. (1966). Stability of
slopes in anisotropic soils. Discussion. J. Soil Mech.
Found. Div., ASCE 92, No. SM1, 199203.
Mitachi, T. & Kitago, S. (1980). Undrained triaxial and
plane strain behavior of saturated remolded clay. Soils
Found. 20, No. 1, 1328.
Mroz, A. (1967). On the description of anisotropic work
hardening. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 15, 163175.
O'Neill, D. A. (1985). Undrained strength anisotropy of
an overconsolidated thixotropic clay. SM thesis, Mas-
sachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Prevost, J. H. (1979). Undrained shear tests on clays.
J. Geotech. Engng Div., ASCE 105, No. 1, 4964.
Seah, T. H. (1990). Anisotropy of normally consolidated
Boston blue clay. ScD thesis, Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Sivakugan, N., Chameau, J. L. & Holtz, R. D. (1993).
Anisotropic studies on cuboidal shear device. J. Geo-
tech. Engng, ASCE 119, No. 6, 973983.
Su, S. F. and Liao, H. J. (1997). Anisotropic undrained
strength criterion for saturated cohesive soil. J. Chin-
ese Inst. Civ. Hydraulic Engng 9, No. 1, 5764 (in
Chinese).
Vaid, Y. P. & Campanella, R. G. (1974). Triaxial and
plane strain behavior of natural clay. J. Geotech.
Engng Div., ASCE 100, No. GT3, 207224.
230 SU AND LIAO