Modeling The Unsaturated Soil Zone in Slope Stability Analysis

Page 1 of 61
For personal use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from the final official version of record.
Modeling the Unsaturated Soil Zone in Slope Stability Analysis
L. L. Zhang1, Delwyn G. Fredlund2, Murray D. Fredlund3, and G. Ward Wilson4

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14
1
*Corresponding author, Associate Professor, Center for Marine Geotechnical
Engineering, State Key Laboratory of Ocean Engineering, Shanghai Jiaotong
University, 800 Dongchuan Road, Shanghai, China. E-mail: lulu_zhang@sjtu.edu.cn.
Currently, Visiting Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB. Canada.

2
Senior Geotechnical Engineering Specialist, Golder Associates Ltd., 1721 – 8th
Street East, Saskatoon, SK., Canada, S7H 0T4, Tel: 306-261-8629, Fax:
306-665-3342, Email: del_fredlund@golder.com

3
President, CEO, SoilVision Systems Ltd., Suite 02, 640 Broadway Avenue,
Saskatoon, SK., Canada, S7N 1A9, Canada Tel: 306-477-3324; Fax: 306-955-4575.
Email: murray@soilvision.com
4
Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
Alberta, Edmonton, AB. Canada, Tel: 780-492-2534. Fax: 780-492-8198. Email:
wwilson2@ualberta.ca
1
For personal use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. It may differ from the final official version of record. Page 2 of 61
1 Abstract:
2 The linear form of the extended Mohr-Coulomb shear strength equation uses a φ b
3 parameter to quantify the rate of increase in shear strength relative to matric suction.
4 When the φ b value is unknown, a φ b equal to 15 degree is sometimes used in the
5 slope stability study to assess the influence of matric suction on the stability of a slope.
6 In many cases, however, a φ b value of zero is used, signifying that the effect of matric
7 suction is ignored. Experiment results have shown that the relationship between shear
8 strength of an unsaturated soil and matric suction is nonlinear. Several semi-empirical
9 estimation equations have been proposed relating the unsaturated shear strength to the
10 soil-water characteristic curve. In this paper, the results of a study using
11 two-dimensional slope stability analysis along with an estimated nonlinear shear
12 strength equations is presented. The effects of using an estimated nonlinear shear
13 strength equation for the unsaturated soils are illustrated using three example
14 problems. Several recommendations are made for engineering practice based on the
15 results of the example problems. If the air-entry value (AEV) of a soil is smaller than
16 1 kPa, the effect of matric suction on the calculated factor of safety is trivial and the
17 φ b value can be assumed to be zero. If the AEV of a soil is between 1 kPa to 20 kPa,
18 the nonlinear equations of unsaturated shear strength should be adopted. For soils
19 with a AEV value between 20 kPa to 200 kPa, an assumed φ b value of 15° provides a
20 reasonable estimation of the effects of unsaturated shear strength in most cases. Soils
21 with an AEV greater than 200 kPa, φ b can generally be assumed to be equal to φ’ in
22 applications where geotechnical structures have matric suctions around 100 kPa.
23
24 Key words:
25 Slope stability analysis, factor of safety, unsaturated shear strength function, matric
2
26
suction, air-entry value
3
1 1. Introduction
2 A linear equations for the shear strength of an unsaturated soil was proposed in
3 the 1970’s (Fredlund et al. 1978). Initially the shear strength of the unsaturated soil
4 was defined in terms of a linear increase with respect to matric suction. The linear
5 increase in shear strength was designated using an angle, φ b , which had the character
6 of a friction angle. Subsequent analyses of datasets published in the research literature
7 seemed to support an average φ b angle around 15 degrees (Fredlund and Rahardjo
8 1993).
9 Re-derivation of the limit equilibrium analysis for calculating the factor of safety
10 of an unsaturated slope proved to be straight forward as long as a mathematical
11 equation was available to describe the shear strength of an unsaturated soil (Fredlund
12 et al. 1978). With time, designation of an estimated linear φ b angle for an unsaturated
13 soil (e.g., φ b equal to 15 degree) became a quite common practice. Subsequent
14 parametric studies provided a rough guide regarding the influence of matric suction
15 on the stability of a slope (Ng and Shi 1998; Tsaparas et al. 2002; Rahardjo et al. 2007)
16 and illustrated that matric suction maintained relatively consistent with time under
17 certain boundary conditions (Zhang et al., 2004).
18 The linear increase in unsaturated shear strength in accordance with the angle φ b
19 had been based on a limited number of datasets that were available in the research
20 literature in the 1970s. Over time it was found that the shear strength of an
21 unsaturated soil had a nonlinear form for soils tested over a wide range of soil
22 suctions. There had been one set of shear strength measurements on sands by Donald
23 (1956) that had shown the unsaturated shear strength envelope to be highly nonlinear.
24 Later there were other experimental results that showed that the relationship between
25 shear strength of an unsaturated soil and soil suction can be nonlinear for all soils
4
Page 5 of 61
26 tested over a wide range of suction values (Escario and Saez 1986; Fredlund et al.,
27 1987).
28 The experimental determination of the shear strength of unsaturated soils is quite
29 demanding, time consuming, and relatively expensive to test in the laboratory. There
30 had been reasonable success in estimating unsaturated soil property functions for the
31 hydraulic flow properties of unsaturated soils when using the SWCC (i.e.,
32 permeability function). The nonlinearity of the shear strength curve was also noticed
33 to bear a clear relationship with the soil-water characteristic curve (SWCC) (Fredlund
34 et al. 1996; Vanapalli et al. 1996). Several empirical estimation equations have been
35 proposed relating the unsaturated shear strength to the soil-water characteristic curve
36 (Fredlund et al. 1996; Vanapalli et al. 1996; Oberg and Sallfours 1997). Other
37 unsaturated shear strength equations such as those proposed by Khalili and Khabbaz
38 (1998), Bao et al. (1998), Vilar (2006), and Sheng et al. (2008) make use of the
39 air-entry value of the soil but not the entire soil-water characteristic curve.
40 Numerous slope stability research studies have been conducted considering a
41 constant φ b value for the unsaturated shear strength (Ng and Shi 1998; Tsaparas et al.
42 2002; Rahardjo et al. 2007; Blatz et al. 2004; Cascini et al. 2010), however, an
43 investigation of factors of safety calculated using unsaturated shear strength equations
44 based on the SWCC, had not been undertaken. The use of a nonlinear shear strength
45 for the unsaturated soil should provide a more realistic simulation of field conditions.
46 An investigation involving nonlinear shear strength functions is important for both
47 slope design and the back-analysis of failed slopes. Guidance should be provided
48 regarding the conditions under which the assumption of φ b equal to 15 degree can be
49 used and under what condition a nonlinear estimated shear strength equations should
50 be used when calculation the factor of safety of a slope. When performing a
5
51 back-analysis of a failed slope, it is important to use a realistic unsaturated shear
52 strength representation of the unsaturated soil properties. Otherwise, the
53 back-calculated soil shear parameters will not be representative of field conditions.
54 The objectives of this paper are: 1) to present a methodology for slope stability
55 analysis based on an estimated nonlinear shear strength equation; 2) to illustrate the

56 effect of an estimated nonlinear shear strength equation on the stability of a slope.
57 Three example problems are presented; one involving an infinite slope, a second
58 involving a two-dimensional steep slope with a low water table, and a third with a low
59 angle slope and a shallow water table. The scope of this paper is limited to
60 2-dimensional slope stability analyses conducted under hydrostatic pore-water
61 pressure conditions.
62
63 2. Theory of unsaturated soil shear strength
64 Both linear and nonlinear forms of the unsaturated shear strength equation will be
65 used in the study of the effect of unsaturated shear strength on the computed factor of
66 safety of a slope.
67 2.1 Linear unsaturated shear strength envelope
68 The shear strength of an unsaturated soil can be expressed as an extended
69 Mohr-Coulomb shear strength equation (Fredlund et al. 1978):
70 τ f = c '+ (σ n − ua ) tan φ '+ (ua − uw ) tan φ b [1]
71 where: τf is the shear strength; c' is the effective cohesion intercept for a saturated soil;
72 (σn − ua) is the net normal stress on the failure plane where σn is total normal stress
73 and ua is pore air pressure; φ’ is effective angle of internal friction; (ua-uw) is matric
74 suction where uw is pore-water pressure. Matric suction is used to represent soil
75 suction in the low suction range and total suction is used in the high suction range (i.e.,
6
Page 7 of 61
76 beyond residual conditions). Matric suction can also be represented using the symbol
77 ψ. The angle, φ b represents the rate of increase in shear strength relative to the matric
78 suction.
79 The linear increase of unsaturated shear strength by φ b , commonly in the order of
80 15 degree was based on a limited number of datasets available in the 1970’s.

81 2.2 Relationship between the SWCC and unsaturated shear strength envelope
82 The accumulation of published experiment data on unsaturated soil shear strength
83 has shown significant nonlinearity in the shape of the shear strength envelope with
84 respect to soil suction (Escario and Saez 1986; Fredlund et al. 1987; Gan and
85 Fredlund, 1988). Based on experimental results, it became clear that there was a
86 general relationship between the SWCC and the unsaturated shear strength curve of a
87 soil (Fredlund et al. 2012). Figure 1 shows a schematic of the general anticipated
88 unsaturated shear strength envelopes for a typical soil. The shear strength envelope for
89 all soil types appears to respond as a saturated soil when the matric suction is less than
90 the air-entry value of the soil. The shear strength function begins to curve once the
91 air-entry value is exceeded. In most cases there is an increase in shear strength with an
92 increase in soil suction beyond the air-entry value. The unsaturated shear strength
93 envelope bends towards a near horizontal line at the residual suction for soils with
94 considerable silt or clay content. Sandy soils generally show a leveling off in strength
95 even prior to the residual suction being reached and can tend to decrease in strength at
96 higher soil suctions.
97 2.3 Estimation equations relating unsaturated shear strength to the SWCC
98 A few of the numerous equations proposed for the estimation of the unsaturated
99 shear strength of a soil have been selected to illustrate the relative difference in
100 calculated factors of safety that can be anticipated when analyzing the stability of a
7
101 slope.
102 2.3.1 Fredlund et al. (1996) nonlinear shear strength equation
103 Fredlund et al. (1996) proposed a nonlinear shear strength equation, which
104 incorporated the soil-water characteristic curve written in terms of dimensionless
105 water content, Θd , as follows:

106 τ f = c ′ + (σ n − u a ) tan φ ′ + ( u a − u w ) Θ κd tan φ ′ [2]
107 where: Θd is dimensionless water content defined as (θw/θs), where θw is volumetric
108 water content and θs is the saturated volumetric water content; and κ is a fitting
109 parameter.
110 Garven and Vanapalli (2006) established the correlation between the fitting
111 parameter, κ, and the plastic index I p of a soil based on 10 datasets of statically
112 compacted soils:
113 κ = −0.0016 I p2 + 0.0975 I p + 1 [3]
114 where: I p is the plasticity index (%). Once the κ parameter is estimated, the Fredlund
115 et al. (1996) equation can be used to describe the unsaturated shear strength.
116 2.3.2 Vanapalli et al. (1996) nonlinear shear strength equation
117 Vanapalli et al. (1996) proposed a nonlinear shear strength equation using a
118 normalization of the SWCC between the saturated and residual soil conditions.
  θw − θr 
119 τ f = c′ + (σ n − ua ) tan φ ′ + (ua − uw ) (tan φ ′)   [4]
  θs − θr 
120 or
  S − Sr 
121 τ f = c′ + (σ n − ua ) tan φ ′ + (ua − uw ) (tan φ ′)   [5]
  100 − Sr 
122 where: θr is residual volumetric water content, S is degree of saturation, and Sr is
123 residual degree of saturation. The shear strength equation shows a nonlinear reduction
8
Page 9 of 61
124 from the saturated to residual soil conditions. According to Eqs. [4] and [5], the shear
125 strength contributed by soil suction becomes zero once soil suction is greater than the
126 residual suction.
127 2.3.3 Vilar (2006) nonlinear shear strength equation
128 Vilar (2006) proposed the use of an empirical hyperbolic function to fit
129 experimental data of saturated and unsaturated shear strength. The total cohesion of
130 the soil (i.e., effective cohesion plus apparent cohesion due to matric suction) was
131 assumed to be a hyperbolic equation of matric suction as follows:
ua − u w
132 ctot = c′ + [6]
a + b ( ua − u w )
133 where: ctot is the total cohesion, and a, b are fitting parameters.
134 Let us assume that the slope of the shear strength envelope is equal to tanφ’ when
135 matric suction approaches zero and that there is no significant change in the shear
136 strength when the soil suction is greater than the residual suction. The fitting
137 parameters (a, and b) can then be obtained as follows:
dc 1
138 = = tan φ ′ [7]
dψ ψ →0
a
1
139 lim c = cult = c′ + [8]
ψ →∞ b
140 where cult is the ultimate undrained shear strength of air-dried soil sample.
141 The b parameter can also be evaluated using a soil sample under a known high
142 suction near 1500 kPa:
1 a
143 b= − [9]
cmeasured − c ' ψ measured
144 where: cmeasured is the measured shear strength at high suction conditions, ψmeasured .
145 It should be noted that soil parameters from the SWCC are not directly used in
9
146 the Vilar (2006) model. One shear strength test on a soil specimen that is at or above
147 the residual suction state together with saturated shear strength parameters are all
148 required for the Vilar (2006) model. The Vilar (2006) model is initially presented as a
149 fitting model, but with a measured or reasonably assumed cult value, the model can be
150 used for estimation of unsaturated shear strength.

151 2.3.4 Khalili and Khabbaz (1998) nonlinear shear strength equation
152 Khalili and Khabbaz (1998) assumed the suction component of shear strength
153 was reduced by multiplying soil suction by the variable λ´, and the shear strength
154 equation was written as:
155 τ = c′ + (σ n − ua ) tan φ ′ + (ua − u w ) [ λ ′] tan φ ′ [10]
156 The parameter λ´ was defined as
157 λ ′ = 1.0 (ua − uw ) ≤ AEV
−0.55
u −u
158 λ ′ =  a w  (ua − uw ) > AEV [11]
 AEV 
159 where: AEV is the air-entry suction of the soil, which is a suction value beyond which
160 the soil starts to desaturate. According to Eq. [11], the λ´ value is 1.0 for shear
161 strengths up to the air-entry value and then decreases without any influence from
162 residual suction. Therefore, the soil behaved as a saturated soil as long as the matric
163 suction was less than the air-entry suction value. Once the air-entry value was
164 exceeded, soil suction always provides a positive increase in strength up to 106 kPa as
165 λ´ is always greater than zero. The rate of increasing of shear strength due to soil
166 suction is simply influenced by the air-entry value of the soil.
167 2.3.5 Bao et al. (1998) nonlinear shear strength equation
168 The Bao et al. (1998) nonlinear shear strength equation can be expressed as
169 follows:
10
Page 11 of 61
170 τ = c′ + (σ n − ua ) tan φ ′ + (u a − u w ) [ζ ] tan φ ′ [12]
171 The parameter ζ was defined based on the air-entry value and residual suction of
172 an unsaturated soil:
173 ζ = 1.0 (ua − uw ) ≤ AEV
log(ua − uw )r − log(ua − uw )
ζ= AEV < (ua − uw ) < ψ r
174
log(ua − uw )r − log(AEV)
175 ζ =0 (ua − uw ) ≥ ψ r [13]
176 where ψr is the residual suction.
177 According to Eq. [13], the soil behaved as a saturated soil as long as the matric
178 suction was less than the air-entry value of the soil. The influence of soil suction on
179 the shear strength of an unsaturated soil was normalized between the air-entry value
180 and residual suction. The shear strength of the soil remained constant beyond residual
181 suction.
182
183 3. Slope stability analysis using extended shear strength method
184 Long-hand calculations are first used to study the influence of various unsaturated
185 shear strength functions when performing an infinite slope analysis. The computer
186 software program, SVSlope (Fredlund, 2009), which has incorporated a variety of
187 unsaturated soil shear strength equations into the commonly used limit equilibrium
188 methods of analysis, is then used to calculate the factors of safety for other example
189 problems.
190 3.1 Infinite slope stability analysis
191 The first example problem consists of the manual calculation of the factor of
192 safety of an infinite slope with the slip surface at various depths. Based on the
193 extended Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion (Fredlund et al. 1978), the safety factor of
11
194 an unsaturated uniform soil slope for the slip surface at depth H (Fig. 2) can be
195 expressed as follows (Cho and Lee 2002):
c '+ (σ n − ua ) tan φ '+ (ua − uw ) tan φ b

196 Fs = [14]
γ t H sin α inf cos α inf
197 where: Fs is factor of safety; αinf is the angle between slip surface and the horizontal
198 line, which is assumed to be equal to the slope angle for the infinite slope; γt is total
199 unit weight of the soil; and H is the depth of the slip surface. Assume the normal
200 stress on the slip surface can be computed from the weight of the soil:
201 (σ n − ua ) = γ t H cos 2 α inf [15]
202 The factor of safety Fs, can be written as:
c' tan φ ' c(ψ )

203 Fs = + + [16]
γ t H sin α inf cos α inf tan α γ t H sin α inf cos α inf
204 where: c (ψ ) or c(ua − uw ) is the function of apparent cohesion due to soil suction.
205 The equations of apparent cohesion due to soil suction corresponding to the different
206 shear strength models are presented in Table 1. For steady-state water flow condition,
207 water flows through both saturated and unsaturated zones and is parallel to the
208 phreatic line. Hence, the hydraulic head gradient is equal to zero in a direction
209 perpendicular to the phreatic line. The matric suction along the slip surface at depth of
210 H (e.g., points A and B, as shown in Figure 2) can be expressed as follows
211 (Fredlund et al. 2012):
212 ψ = γ w z cos 2 α inf = γ w ( L − H ) cos 2 α inf [17]
213 where z is the vertical coordinate with the origin from phreatic line, L is the vertical
214 depth of water table, as shown in Figure 2. Hence, the factor of safety for the slip
215 surface at depth of H is:
12
Page 13 of 61
tan φ ' c γ w ( L − H ) cos α inf 

2
c'
216 Fs = + + [18]
γ t H sin α inf cos α inf tan α inf γ t H sin α inf cos α inf
217 3.2 Factor of safety equations for two-dimensional slope stability analysis
218 Conventional limit equilibrium method of slice for slope stability can be extended
219 to incorporate matric suction by using the linear or nonlinear shear strength equations
220 for an unsaturated soil. The following formulations summarize the GLE (General
221 Limit Equilibrium) method, which incorporates the shear strength contribution from
222 matric suction based on the extended Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion (Fredlund and
223 Krahn 1977) and satisfy both force and moment equilibrium. The formulations are
224 modified to incorporate various unsaturated shear strength models.
225 The mobilized shear force, Sm, at the base of a slice can be written as follows:
β
226 Sm =
Fs
{c '+ (σ n − ua ) tanφ '+ ( ua − uw ) tan φ b } [19]
227 where: Sm is the mobilized shear force at the base of a slice; and β is the base length of
228 the slice. In accordance of conventional limit equilibrium methods of slices, the
229 factors of safety are assumed to be equal for all parameters and for all slices.
230 The total normal force on the base of the slice, N, can be written as follows:
β sin α
W − ( X R − X L ) +  − c '+ ua tan φ '− (ua − uw ) tan φ b 
Fs
231 N= [20]
mα
232 where: X is the vertical interslice normal forces (the "L" and "R" subscripts designate
233 the left and right sides of the slice, respectively); mα = cos α + ( sin α tan φ ' ) / Fs ; α is
234 the angle between the tangent to the base of slice and the horizontal. The interslice
235 shear force, X, are computed by the interslice function (Morgenstern and Price 1965):
236 X = λ f ( x) E [21]
237 where: E is the interslice normal force; f(x) is a functional relationship that describes
13
238 the magnitude of X/E varies across the slip surface; and λ is a scaling constant that
239 represents the percentage of the function, f(x), used for solving the factor of the safety
240 equations. The interslice normal forces are then computed from the summation of the
241 horizontal forces on each slice starting from left to right.
242 The factors of safety with respect to moment and force equilibriums can then be
243 formulated as follows:
  tan φ b  
c ' β R +  N − ua β + (ua − uw ) β  R tan φ ' 
 tan φ ' 
244 ( Fs )m = ∑   [22]
( ∑ Wx − ∑ Nf )
245 where: (Fs)m is the factor of safety with respect to moment equilibrium; W is the total
246 weight of the slice; R is the radius of a circular slip surface or the moment arm
247 associated with the mobilized shear force; f is the perpendicular offset of the normal
248 force from the center of moments; and x is the horizontal distance from the center line
249 of each slice to the center of moments.
  tan φ b  
c ' β cos α + ( N − ua β ) + (ua − uw )  tan φ ' cos α 
 tan φ ' 
250 ( Fs ) f = ∑   [23]
∑ N sin α
251 where: (Fs)f is factor of safety with respect to force equilibrium.
252 The above formulations can be revised to incorporate the nonlinear unsaturated
253 shear strength equations using the apparent cohesion due to matric suction, c (ψ ) .
254 The mobilized shear force, Sm, at the base of a slice can be written as:
β
255 Sm =
Fs
{c '+ (σ n − ua ) tan φ '+ c(ψ )} [24]
256 The total normal force on the base of the slice, N, can be written as follows:
β sin α β sin α
W − ( X R − X L ) + ua tan φ ' − [ c '+ c (ψ ) ]
Fs Fs
257 N= [25]
mα
14
Page 15 of 61
258 The factors of safety with respect to moment equilibrium and force equilibrium,
259 respectively, (Fredlund and Rahardjo 1993), using the nonlinear unsaturated shear
260 strength equations can be revised as follows:
∑ {[ c '+ c (ψ ) ] β R + ( N − ua β ) tan φ ' R}

261 ( Fs ) m = [26]
∑ Wx − ∑ Nf
∑ {[ c '+ c(ψ )] β cos α + [ N − ua β ] cos α tan φ '}

262 ( Fs ) f = [27]
∑ N sin α
263 The c (ψ ) function for various nonlinear models as shown in Table 1 can then be
264 substituted into the above revised formulations. For a saturated soil condition, the
265 cohesion as a function of matric suction, ( c (ψ ) ) value becomes equal to zero and Eqs.
266 [26] and [27] revert to the conventional slope stability formulation. For the linear
267 extended Mohr-Coulomb shear strength equation (Fredlund et al. 1978), c (ψ ) is
268 equal to (ua − uw ) tan φ b and Eqs. [26] and [27] revert to Eqs. [22] and [23].
269 Therefore, Eqs. [26] and [27] can be considered as a general formulation that is
270 applicable to both linear and nonlinear unsaturated shear strength equations.
271
272 4. Example of an infinite slope
273 4.1 Slope geometry and estimated unsaturated shear strength envelopes for
274 typical soils
275 Let us consider an infinite slope with a soil layer 10 m thick. The slope angle is
276 taken to be 40 degrees. The groundwater table is 10 m below the slope surface and the
277 pore water pressure distribution in the slope is hydrostatic. The unit weight of the soil
278 in the slope is assumed to be 20 kN/m3. The effective angle of internal friction, φ’ and
279 effective cohesion intercept, c’ are 34 degrees and 10 kPa, respectively.
280 The Fredlund and Xing (1994) SWCC model was used to represent the soil-water
15
281 characteristic curve for the unsaturated soil:
  ψ 
 ln 1 +  
ψr   θs
282 θ w = 1 −  [28]
  10    
6 nf
 
mf
 ln  1 +   ψ 
  ψ r   ln  exp(1) +  a  

   f   
where: af is the matric suction value at the inflection point and is closely related to the
283
284 air-entry value of the soil; nf is the slope of the soil-water characteristic curve at the
285 inflection point; and mf is a fitting parameter related to residual water content. Four
286 types of SWCC curves (Figure 3) were selected to investigate the effect of nonlinear
287 shear strength models for different type of soils. The parameters of the four SWCC
288 curves are listed in Table 2. The four SWCCs with different values of af and ψr cover
289 the general ranges of SWCCs associated with various types of soils. A soil with
290 SWCC No.1 represents a sandy soil. A soil with SWCC No.2 represents a
291 fine-grained soil such as silt. SWCC No. 3 represents clays. SWCC No.4 represents
292 extremely fine-grained soils. The parameters nf and mf are assumed to be constant
293 values because previous studies of seepage and infiltration in unsaturated soil slopes
294 have shown that the saturated permeability and air-entry value are the most important
295 parameters related with unsaturated soil (Ng and Shi, 1998; Tsaparas et al., 2002;
296 Zhang et al., 2004; Rahimi et al., 2010).
297 The estimated nonlinear unsaturated shear strength curves for the four SWCC
298 curves are shown in Fig. 4. The range of soil suctions shown on the shear strength
299 function is plotted up to a maximum value of 140 kPa. This corresponds to a negative,
300 hydrostatic pressure of 14 meters. The analysis can be extended to large suction
301 values; however, around one hundred kPas illustrates the range of conditions most
302 likely to be maintained in engineering practice. The fitting parameters κ (Fredlund et
16
Page 17 of 61
303 al. 1996), for the estimation shear strength equation for soils with the four SWCCs are
304 assumed to be 1.0, 1.8, 2.2 and 2.5, respectively. The AEV values in Khalili and
305 Khabbaz (1998) model and Bao et al. (1998) model are estimated from the SWCC
306 curves shown in Fig. 4 using the graphical construction method (Fredlund et al. 2012).
307 The AEV values for the four SWCC curves are approximately 0.5 kPa, 5 kPa, 50 kPa
308 and 500 kPa, respectively. The ultimate cohesion, cult in the Vilar (2006) model is
309 taken to be equal to the shear strength at the residual state based on the Fredlund et al.,
310 (1996) equation.
311 As shown in Fig. 4(a), when af equals to 1 and the residual suction is 10 kPa, the
312 estimated unsaturated shear strength curves are much lower than the commonly
313 assumed unsaturated shear strength with φ b equal to 15 degree. The differences
314 among different nonlinear models are somewhat limited.
315 When af is equal to 10 and the residual suction is 100 kPa (Fig. 4(b)), the
316 nonlinear shear strength envelopes are quite close to the line representing a φ b value
317 equal to 15 degree. When the af value is greater than 100 kPa (Figs. 4(c) and (d)), the
318 estimated nonlinear unsaturated shear strength curves approach the φ’ line. In Fig.
319 4(d), the four shear strength curves by Fredlund et al. (1996), Vanapalli et al. (1996),
320 Bao et al. (1998) and Khalili and Khabbaz (1998) overlap the φ’ line within the
321 suction range of 0-140 kPa.
322 It should be noted that when a soil is drier than the residual state the shear
323 strength due to matric suction becomes zero for the Vanapalli et al. (1996) and the
324 Bao et al. (1998) nonlinear shear strength equations (see Eqs. [4] and [12]). This may
325 not be realistic for some soil conditions and may produce unreasonable results in
326 estimating shear strength (Kim and Borden 2011). Direct shear tests on various
327 gradations of Frankston sand (Donald 1956) showed that the shear strength due to soil
17
328 suction does not increase but is not reduced to zero beyond residual suction conditions.
329 The shear strength due to soil suction for clay soils generally continue to increase as
330 soil suction is greater than residual suction condition (Fredlund et al. 2012).
331 Nishimura and Fredlund (2002) performed unconfined compression tests on a
332 nonplastic silt soil and kaolin at high total suction values well beyond the residual
333 suction condition ( >105 kPa) and found that the shear strength envelope with respect
334 to soil suction was essentially horizontal in the total suction range beyond residual
335 suction. Fredlund et al. (2012) suggested that it would be reasonable to assume the
336 increase of shear strength associated with soil suction is zero beyond residual suction
337 conditions. Except for the study by Nishimura and Fredlund (2002), limited test
338 results are available to confirm the accuracy of the estimation equation of unsaturated
339 shear strength at high suction range.
340 4.2 Results of slope stability analysis of an infinite slope
341 Figure 5 presents the factor of safety of the infinite slope with different nonlinear
342 shear strength models. The x axis represents the depth of slip surface (H in Eq. [18]).
343 The y axis represents the factor of safety. For comparison purpose, the factors of
344 safety when ignoring matric suction (i.e., φ b = 0), and φ b equal to 15 degrees and φ b
345 equal to φ’ are shown in the presentation graphs.
346 For the infinite slope, the matric suction at ground surface is estimated to be 57.5
347 kPa using Eq. [17] ( 9.8 ×10 × cos 2 (40°) ). The graphs show that the factors of safety of
348 the infinite slope decrease with depth of soil. The difference of factor of safety
349 between the cases of ignoring matric suction (i.e., φ b = 0) and the case assuming φ b =
350 15° is significant, especially for shallow slip surfaces. For example, when the slip
351 surface is at a depth of 2 m, the factor of safety when ignoring matric suction (i.e., φ b
352 = 0) is only 1.31 while the assumption of φ b equal to 15 degrees yields a factor of
18
Page 19 of 61
353 safety of 1.94.
354 As shown in Figure 5(a), for soils with af value equals to 1 (i.e., AEV around 0.5
355 kPa, usually sandy soils), the assumption of φ b equal to 15° can significantly
356 over-estimate the slope stability particularly when the slip surface is shallower than 5
357 m. As the matric suction in the slope is greater than the residual suction value of the
358 soil, the differences among various nonlinear shear strength models are not significant
359 (as shown in Fig. 4(a)). The two factor of safety curves by the Vanapalli et al. (1996)
360 model and the Bao et al. (1996) model overlap with the φ b = 0 line because the shear
361 strength due to matric suction beyond residual suction is zero for the two nonlinear
362 models. The graph shows that ignoring matric suction is acceptable for sandy soils as
363 a conservative assumption.
364 For silty soils with af value equals to 10 (air-entry value around 5 kPa) as shown
365 in Fig. 5(b), the differences among various shear strength models are pronounced. The
366 three curves by the Fredlund et al. (1996), the Vanapalli et al. (1996) model and the
367 Vilar (2006) model are overlapped, which agrees with the shear strength curves shown
368 in Fig. 4(a). The Khalili and Khabbaz (1998) model yields the highest factor of safety
369 because the shear strength continues to increase beyond AEV value and is not
370 restricted by the residual suction in the Khalili and Khabbaz (1998) model.
371 Figure 5(c) shows that for fine soils with air-entry value around 50 kPa (af equals
372 to 100), the factor of safety using the Bao et al. (1998) and the Khalili and Khabbaz
373 (1998) models essentially overlap with the φ b = φ’ line. The Vilar (2006) model yields
374 the lowest factor of safety.
375 For extreme fine-grained soils with an air-entry value greater than 500 kPa (af
376 equals to 1000) as shown in Fig. 5(d), the Vilar (2006) model yields the lowest factor
377 of safety among all the five nonlinear models. The other four nonlinear models give
19
378 the same value for the factor of safety, which agrees with the shear strength curves in
379 Fig. 4(d). The shear strength curve using the assumption of φ b equal to 15 degrees is
380 well below results of all nonlinear models, which implies that the assumption of φ b
381 equal to 15 degrees gives a conservative factor of safety for extremely fine soils.
382 4.3 Effect of nf value on estimated shear strength curves and slope stability
383 To further study the effect of other parameters in the Fredlund and Xing (1994)
384 SWCC model on the estimated shear strength curves and the factor of safety of the
385 infinite slope, three different nf values, (i.e., 1.0, 2.0 and 4.0) are selected for a
386 parametric study. As SWCC No. 2 represents a common situation in geotechnical
387 engineering, the values of θs, af, mf, and ψr are taken to be the same values as those of
388 SWCC No. 2.
389 Figure 6 presents the three SWCC curves with different nf values. The air-entry
390 values for in the Khalili and Khabbaz (1998) model and the Bao et al. (1998) model
391 are estimated to be 2.0 kPa, 5.0 kPa and 7.0 kPa for nf values equal to 1.0, 2.0 and 4.0,
392 respectively.
393 The estimated nonlinear shear strength curves are presented in Fig. 7. With the
394 increase of nf value, the AEV value of the unsaturated soil increases. The shear
395 strength curve by the Khalili and Khabbaz (1998) model and the Bao et al. (1998)
396 model are also increased because the nonlinearity of these two models depends mostly
397 on the air-entry value. The shear strength curves by the Fredlund et al. (1996) model
398 and the Vanapalli et al. (1996) model are influenced by the volumetric water content
399 and hence the shape of the SWCC. With the increase of nf value, the SWCC curve is
400 steeper and the volumetric water content is smaller for the same soil suction.
401 Therefore, the estimated shear strength curves by the Fredlund et al. (1996) model and
402 the Vanapalli et al. (1996) model is reduced with the increase of nf value.
20
Page 21 of 61
403 Figure 8 compares the factor of safety of the infinite slope with different nf values.
404 With the increase of nf value, the factors of safety of the slope are reduced with the
405 Fredlund et al. (1996) model, the Vanapalli et al. (1996) model and the Vilar (2006)
406 model. However, the factors of safety are slightly increased with the nf value for the
407 Khalili and Khabbaz (1998) model and the Bao et al. (1998) model. Comparing Fig. 8
408 with Fig. 5, in general the influence of nf value on the factor of safety of the infinite
409 slope is less significant than the effects of af and ψ r values. Therefore, in the
410 following sections, the stability analyses mainly focus on the soils with four types of
411 SWCCs in Figure 3.
412
413 5. Example of a steep slope with low water table
414 5.1 Slope geometry and soil properties
415 The steep slope is 30 meters high at a slope angle of 50 degrees (Fig. 9). The unit
416 weight of the soil is 18.0 kN/m3. The cohesion is 10 kPa and the effective angle of
417 internal friction is 34 degree. The groundwater table is on average more than 10
418 meters below the surface of the slope. Four SWCC curves (Fig. 3) together with the
419 nonlinear unsaturated shear strength models (Fig. 4) from the previous infinite slope
420 example were adopted in this example.
421 5.2 Slope stability for a selected slip surface
422 5.2.1 Shear resistance along the slip surface
423 The various shear strength functions result in varying amounts of shear force
424 mobilized along the slip surface. A specific slip surface is selected for comparison
425 purpose. Illustration of the mobilized shear force along the selected slip surface can be
426 seen in Fig. 10. The case of φ b = 0 results in no shear force mobilized due to matric
427 suction. The case of φ b = φ’ gives the maximum mobilized shear force along the slip
21
428 surface. Using the assumption of φ b equal to 15° produces intermediate shear forces
429 mobilized. The nonlinear shear strength equations proposed by Fredlund et al. (1996)
430 and Vanapalli et al. (1996) produce a more realistic distribution of the shear force
431 mobilized because these equations are based on the SWCC for the unsaturated soil.
432 5.2.2 Factor of safety of the slope

433 Table 3 summarizes the factor of safety values of the steep slope for the specific
434 slip surface. Figure 11 presents the relationship between the factor of safety and the
435 air-entry value. Here, the air-entry values are the estimated values based on the
436 SWCC curves using the graphical method (Reference, 19??). The findings for the
437 steep slope are similar to those obtained for the infinite slope example. The results in
438 Figure 11 show that for soils with an air-entry value less than 20 kPa, the factor of
439 safety of the slope can be over-estimated using the assumption that the φ b angle is
440 equal to 15 degrees. If the air-entry values of a soil are in the range of 20 kPa to 200
441 kPa, the difference among various nonlinear unsaturated soil shear strength models is
442 significant. The Bao et al. (1998) model yields the highest factor of safety and the
443 Vilar (2006) produces a lowest factor of safety. The assumption of φ b equal to 15
444 degrees generally yields an average factor of safety compared with the results of
445 different nonlinear models. When the AEV value of a soil is greater than 200 kPa, the
446 φ b value can be assumed to be equal to φ’.
447 5.3 Slope stability for critical slip surface
448 Table 4 summarizes the minimum factor of safety values for the steep slope.
449 Figures 12 to 15 present the critical slip surfaces for different soils. As shown in Fig.
450 12, for sandy soils (i.e., af value equals to 1 and AEV around 0.5 kPa), the critical slip
451 surfaces obtained from different nonlinear models basically overlap and the minimum
452 safety factor varies within a small range. This is mainly because the difference in the
22
Page 23 of 61
453 unsaturated shear strength is not significant for different nonlinear models as shown
454 previously in Figure 4(a). The critical slip surface with the assumption of φ b equal to
455 15 degrees is much deeper than those obtained when using nonlinear models.
456 As shown in Fig. 13, for silt soils (i.e., af value equals to 10, AEV around 5 kPa),
457 the differences among various shear strength models are more pronounced. The
458 critical slip surfaces obtained when using the Fredlund et al. (1996) model, the
459 Vanapalli et al. (1996) model and the Vilar (2006) model are overlapped. The Bao et
460 al. (1998) model yields the shallowest critical slip surface. The Khalili and Khabbaz
461 (1998) model yields the highest factor of safety and the deepest critical slip surface.
462 Based on the results in Figures 12 and 13, for a steep slope with low groundwater
463 table, composed with soil of low AEV (less than 10 kPa) such as sandy soils or silty
464 soils, the assumption of φ b equal to 15 degrees can over-estimate factor of safety.
465 Figure 14 illustrates the critical slip surface for clayey soils (i.e., af value equals
466 to 100, AEV around 50 kPa). The Vilar (2006) model generally yields the lowest
467 factor of safety and the shallowest slip surface among all the five nonlinear models.
468 The Fredlund et al. (1998) model produces a slip surface that is almost the same as
469 that obtained with the assumption of φ b equal to 15 degrees. The slip surface obtained
470 using the Vanapalli et al. (1996), the Bao et al. (1998) and the Khalili and Khabbaz
471 (1998) model yields the deepest critical slip surface among the nonlinear models. This
472 agrees with the relationships among the nonlinear shear strength curves in Fig. 4(c).
473 Based on the result in Fig. 14, the assumption of φ b equal to 15 degrees can be
474 generally adopted for the clayey soils with intermediate air-entry value.
475 As shown in Figure 15, for extremely fine-grained soils with an air-entry value
476 around 500 kPa, ignoring the matric suction (i.e., setting φ b = 0) produces an
477 extremely shallow slip surface and an unreasonable low factor of safety. The Vilar
23
478 (2006) model generally yields the smallest factor of safety and the shallowest slip
479 surface among all the five nonlinear models. The critical slip surface by the Bao et al.
480 (1998) and the Khalili and Khabbaz (1998) model yields the deepest critical slip
481 surface, which is the same one obtained using the assumption of φ b equal to φ’. Based
482 on the results in Fig. 15, the assumption of φ b equal to 15 degrees would yield a
483 conservative factor of safety for extremely fine-grained soils with large air-entry
484 values.
485 Figure 16 summarizes the relationship between the minimum safety factor and
486 the AEV values of unsaturated soils for the steep slope. The factor of safety obtained
487 using various nf values are also presented in the graph. As shown in Fig. 16, the
488 relationship of the minimum safety factor to the AEV values are similar to the result
489 shown in Figure 11. When the AEV of a soil is smaller than 1 kPa, the effect of matric
490 suction on slope stability is trivial and the φ b value can be assumed to be zero. When
491 the AEV of a soil is between 1 kPa to 20 kPa, the assumption of φ b equals to 15
492 degrees will yield a non-conservative factor of safety. Hence, the nonlinear estimation
493 equations of unsaturated shear strength should be adopted. Otherwise, the effect of
494 matric suction on shear strength can be ignored as a conservative assumption. For
495 soils with an AEV value between 20 kPa to 200 kPa, a φ b value of 15°can generally
496 be assumed for unsaturated shear strength to represent the average factor of safety
497 among different nonlinear models. For soils with an AEV greater than 200 kPa, φ b
498 can be assumed to be φ’.
499
500 6. Example of a low angle slope with high water table
501 6.1 Slope geometry and soil properties
24
Page 25 of 61
502 The low angle slope is 20 meters high and the slope angle is 30 degree (Fig. 17).
503 The unit weight of the soil is 18.0 kN/m3. The cohesion is 10 kPa and the effective
504 friction angle is 24 degree. The groundwater table is on average 5 meters below the
505 surface of the slope. The four types SWCC curves (Fig. 3) were adopted in this
506 example. The estimated nonlinear unsaturated shear strength curves based on the
507 previous described five nonlinear models will not be presented here due to page
508 limitation.
509 6.2 Result of slope stability analysis
510 Table 5 summarizes the minimum factor of safety values for the low angle slope.
511 Compared with the results of the steep slope with a low water table, the differences of
512 safety factor and critical slip surface for analyses using different assumption of
513 unsaturated soil shear strength models are not significant for a low angle slope.
514 Therefore, only the results for soils with intermediate AEV values (SWCC No. 1 and
515 No. 3) are presented.
516 Figure 18 illustrate the effect of unsaturated shear strength models on the critical
517 slip surfaces of the slope for an unsaturated soil with SWCC No. 1 (i.e., af = 1 and ψ r
518 = 10). In the graph, the locations of the critical slip surfaces for the cases of φ b equal
519 to 15 degrees and φ b equal to φ’ are the same. The assumption of φ b equal to 15
520 degrees yields a non-conservative safety factor. All the critical slip surfaces obtained
521 using different nonlinear models overlap with that obtained when ignoring matric
522 suction. Hence, the assumption of φ b being equal to zero can be adopted for a low
523 angle slope with sandy soils.
524 Figure 19 shows the critical slip surface for the low angle slope with clay soils
525 (i.e., AEV about 50 kPa). All the slip surfaces obtained using different nonlinear
526 models except the Vilar (2006) model are overlapped with the slip surface obtained
25
527 when using assumption of φ b equal to 15 degrees. Hence, for a low angle slope with
528 clay soils, the assumption of φ b equal to 15 degrees is acceptable.
529 Figure 20 summarizes the relationship between the minimum safety factor and
530 the AEV values of unsaturated soils for the relatively low angle slope. Similar to the
531 result shown in Figures 8 and 16 for the infinite slope and the steep slope, two
532 boundary values of 10 kPa and 200 kPa can be found. The results and findings for
533 different types of soils will not be repeated here due to the page limit.
534
535 7. Conclusions and suggestions for modeling unsaturated shear
536 strength
537 The assumption of using negligible matric suction effect on shear strength (i.e.,
538 (φ b equal to 0) or (φ b equal to 15°)) is not applicable to all types of soils. The
539 following recommendations are made for engineering practice when modeling
540 unsaturated shear strength: if the AEV of a soil is smaller than 1 kPa, the effect of
541 matric suction on slope stability is trivial and the φ b value can be assumed to be zero;
542 if the AEV of a soil is between 1 kPa to 10 kPa, the nonlinear estimation equations of
543 unsaturated shear strength should be adopted and a φ b value of 15° is not a
544 conservative assumption; for soils with a AEV value between 10 kPa to 200 kPa, a φ b
545 value of 15°can generally be assumed for unsaturated shear strength. For soils with an
546 AEV greater than 200 kPa, φ b can be assumed to be φ’ in applications where
547 geotechnical structures have matric suctions around 100 kPa.
548 It should be noted that while the soil-water characteristic curve is commonly
549 quantified from zero to 1,000,000 kPa on a log scale, the entire range of suctions is
550 not of interest in quantifying the shear strength of common geotechnical engineering
26
Page 27 of 61
551 problem. Usually the shear strength only needs to be quantified from zero to a few
552 hundred kilopascals.
553
554 8. Limitations
555 This study undertakes a realistic simulation of field conditions where unsaturated
556 soils constitute a portion of the slopes. However, it is important to also recognise
557 some limitations in the study. Slopes with unsaturated zone usually fail as a result of
558 moisture infiltration and a gradual increase in the degree of saturation of the soil.
559 Consequently, the matric suction in the soil gradually decreases. The stability of an
560 unsaturated soil slope changes as water is transmitted through the unsaturated zone to
561 the saturated zone (Casini et al. 2013). Slope instability often results in rapid failure
562 and may be catastrophic (Cascini et al. 2010 and 2013). Crack may develop in the
563 unsaturated clayey soils (Li et al. 2009; Micalowski 2013) and interaggregate
564 macro-pores (Zhang and Li, 2010) may become preferential flow channels for rain
565 water infiltration which, in turn, can significantly reduce the stability of a slope.
566 Another issue when considering unsaturated soil slope stability is the in situ
567 suction profile which is not easy to obtain. In this study, the suction conditions in the
568 slopes were assumed to be hydrostatic. The effect of various suction profiles during
569 transient condition of rainfall infiltration needs to be a part of a future study.
570 There are several ways of determination of the air-entry value, AEV. In this study,
571 the graphical construction method proposed by Fredlund et al., (2012) was used to
572 determine AEV from the SWCC in a consistent manner. The AEV determination is
573 approximate but the conclusions and suggestions arrived at in this study should be
574 generally acceptable.
575 For a soil with bi-modal SWCC, the estimation of unsaturated shear strength is
27
576 even more complex. It should be noted that the nonlinear unsaturated shear strength
577 equations applied in this study are for soils with uni-modal SWCCs. Further
578 research studies should be conducted to investigate the effect of unsaturated soil shear
579 strengths for soils with bi-modal SWCCs.
580
581 Acknowledgements
582 The work in this paper was substantially supported by the Natural Science
583 Foundation of China (Project No. 41172252) and National Basic Research Program of
584 China (973 Program, Project No. 2014CB049100). The authors are grateful for the
585 supports from the BaJian Talent Program by the Organization Department of the
586 Central Committee of the CPC and the Shanghai Rising-Star Program (Project No.
587 12QA1401800).
588
589 References
590 Bao, C., Gong, B., and Zhan, L. 1998. Properties of unsaturated soils and slope
591 stability of expansive soils. In Proceedings of the Second International
592 Conference on Unsaturated Soils (UNSAT 98), Beijing. Vol. 1, pp. 71-98.
593 Blatz, J.A., Ferreira, N.J., and Graham, J. 2004. Effects of near-surface environmental
594 conditions on instability of an unsaturated soil slope. Canadian Geotechnical
595 Journal. 41(6): 1111-1126.
596 Cascini, L., Cuomo, S., Pastor, M., and Sorbin, G. 2010. Modelling of
597 rainfall-induced shallow landslides of the flow-type. Journal of Geotechnical and
598 Geoenvironmental Engineering. 136(1): 85-98.
599 Cascini, L., Cuomo, S., Pastor, M., and Sacco, C. 2013. Modelling the post-failure
28
Page 29 of 61
600 stage of rainfall-induced landslides of the flow type. Canadian Geotechnical
601 Journal. 50(9): 924-934. doi: 10.1139/cgj-2012-0375
602 Casini, F., Serri, V., and Springman, S.M. 2013. Hydromechanical behaviour of a
603 silty sand from a steep slope triggered by artificial rainfall: from unsaturated to
604 saturated conditions. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. 50(1): 28-40. doi:
605 10.1139/cgj-2012-0095
606 Cho, S.E. and Lee, S.R. 2002. Evaluation of surficial stability for homogeneous
607 slopes considering rainfall characteristics. Journal of Geotechnical and
608 Geoenvironmental Engineering, 128(9): 756-763.
609 Donald, I.B. 1956. Shear strength measurements in unsaturated non-cohesive soils
610 with negative pore pressures. In Proceedings of the Second Australia-New
611 Zealand Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
612 Christchurch, New Zealand, pp. 200-205.
613 Escario, V., and Saez, J. 1986. The shear strength of partly saturated soils,
614 Geotechnique. 36(3): 453-456.
615 Fredlund, D.G., and Krahn, J. 1977. Comparison of slope stability methods analysis.
616 Canadian Geotechnical Journal. 14(3): 429-439.
617 Fredlund, D.G., Morgenstern, N.R., and Widger, R.A. 1978. The shear strength of
618 unsaturated Soils. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. 15(3): 313-321.
619 Fredlund, D.G., and Rahardjo, H. 1993. Soil Mechanics for Unsaturated Soils. Wiley,
620 New York.
621 Fredlund, D.G., Rahardjo, H., and Fredlund, M.D. 2012. Unsaturated Soil Mechanics
622 in Engineering Practice. John Wiley & Sons.
623 Fredlund, D.G., Rahardjo, H., and Gan, J.K.-M. 1987. Nonlinearity of strength
29
624 envelope for unsaturated soils. In Proceedings of the Sixth International
625 Conference on Expansive Soils, New Delhi, Vol. 1, pp. 49-54.
626 Fredlund, D.G., and Xing, A. 1994. Equations for the soil-water characteristic curve,
627 Canadian Geotechnical Journal. 31(3): 521-532.
628 Fredlund, D.G., Xing, A., Fredlund, M.D., and Barbour, S.L. 1996. The relationship of
629 the unsaturated soil shear strength to the soil water characteristic curve. Canadian
630 Geotechnical Journal. 32(3): 440-448. doi:10.1139/t96-065.
631 Fredlund, M.D. 2009. SVSlope User’s Manual. SoilVision System Ltd, Saskatoon,
632 Canada.
633 Gan, J. K.-M, and Fredlund, D. G. 1988. Multistage direct shear strength testing of
634 unsaturated soils.Geotechnical Engineering Testing Journal, ASTM, Vol. 11, No.
635 2, pp. 132-138.
636 Garven, E.A., and Vanapalli, S.K. 2006. Evaluation of empirical procedures for
637 predicting the shear strength of unsaturated soils. In Proceedings of the Fourth
638 International Conference on Unsaturated Soils. GSP 147. Edited by G.A. Miller,
639 C.E. Zapata, S.L Houston, and D.G. Fredlund. American Society of Civil
640 Engineers, Reston, Va. Vol. 2, pp. 2570-2581.
641 Khalili, N., and Khabbaz, M.H. 1998. A unique relationship for χ for the
642 determination of the shear strength of unsaturated soils. Geotechnique. 48(5):
643 681–687. doi:10.1680/geot.1998.48.5.681.
644 Kim, W.S., and Borden, R.H. 2011. Influence of soil type and stress state on
645 predicting shear strength of unsaturated soils using the soil-water characteristic
646 curve. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. 48(12): 1886-1900.
647 Li, J.H., Zhang, L.M., Wang, Y. and Fredlund, D.G. 2009. Permeability tensor and
648 representative elementary volume of saturated cracked soil. Canadian
30
Page 31 of 61
649 Geotechnical Journal. 46(8): 928-942.
650 Michalowski, R.L. 2013. Stability assessment of slopes with cracks using limit
651 analysis. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. 50(10): 1011-1021. doi:
652 10.1139/cgj-2012-0448
653 Morgenstern, N.R., and Price, V.E. 1965. The analysis of the stability of general slip
654 surfaces. Geotechnique. 15(1):79–93.
655 Nishimura, T., and Fredlund, D.G. 2002. Hysteresis effects resulting from drying and
656 wetting under relatively dry conditions, In Proceedings of the Third International
657 Conference on Unsaturated Soils, UNSAT 2002, Recife, Brazil, pp. 301–305.
658 Ng, C.W.W., and Shi, Q. 1998. Numerical investigation of the stability of unsaturated
659 soil slopes subjected to transient seepage. Computers and Geotechnics. 22(1):
660 1-28.
661 Oberg, A., and Sallfours, G. 1997. Determination of shear strength parameter of
662 unsaturated silts and sands based on the water retention curve. Geotechnical
663 Testing Journal. 20(1): 40-48. doi:10.1520/GTJ11419J.
664 Rahardjo, H., Fredlund, D.G., and Vanapalli, S.K. 1992. Use of linear and non-linear
665 shear strength versus matric suction relations in slope stability analysis. In
666 Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Landslides, Christchurch,
667 New Zealand, pp. 531-537.
668 Rahardjo, H., Ong, T.H., Rezaur, R.B., and Leong, E.C. 2007. Factors controlling
669 instability of homogeneous soil slopes under rainfall. Journal of Geotechnical
670 and Geoenvironmental Engineering. 133(12): 1532-1543.
671 Rahimi, A., Rahardjo, H. and Leong, E.C. 2010. Effect of hydraulic properties of soil
672 on rainfall-induced slope failure. Engineering Geology. 114(3-4), 135-143.
673 Sheng, D., Fredlund, D.G., and Gens, A. 2008. A new modelling approach for
31
674 unsaturated soils using independent stress variables, Canadian Geotechnical
675 Journal. 45(4): 511-534.
676 Tsaparas, I., Rahardjo, H., Toll, D.G., and Leong, E.C. 2002. Controlling parameters
677 for rainfall-induced landslides. Computers and Geotechnics. 29(1): 1-27.
678 Vanapalli, S.K., Fredlund, D.G., Pufahl, D.E., and Clifton, A.W. 1996. Model for the
679 prediction of shear strength with respect to soil suction. Canadian Geotechnical
680 Journal. 33(3): 379-392. doi:10.1139/t96-060.
681 Vilar, O.M. 2006. A simplified procedure to estimate the shear strength envelope of
682 unsaturated soil, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 43(10): 1088-1095.
683 Zhang, L.L., Fredlund, D.G., Zhang, L.M., and Tang, W.H. 2004. Numerical study of
684 soil conditions under which matric suction can be maintained. Canadian
685 Geotechnical Journal. 41(4): 569-582.
686 Zhang, L.M., and Li, X. 2010. Micro-porosity structure of coarse granular soils.
687 Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. 136(10):
688 1425-1436.
689
690
32
Page 33 of 61
List of Tables
Table 1. Apparent cohesion ( c(ua − uw ) or c(ψ ) ) contributed by soil suction
Table 2. Fredlund and Xing (1994) SWCC parameters and parameters for estimation
of unsaturated shear strength equations
Table 3. Factor of safety of the steep slope for a selected slip surface
Table 4. Minimum factors of safety of the steep slope by GLE methods
Table 5. Minimum factors of safety of the relatively flat slope by GLE methods
List of Figures
Figure 1. Relationship between the unsaturated shear strength envelope and the
soil-water characteristic curve; (a) typical unsaturated shear strength envelopes, (b)
soil-water characteristic curve for a typical soil
Figure 2. Schematic of an infinite slope
Figure 3. Four selected SWCC curves with different air-entry values, (θs = 0.4, nf = 2,
mf = 1)
Figure 4. Shear strength envelopes (c’ = 10 kPa, φ’ = 34°) from 0 to 140 kPa for (a)
SWCC No. 1; (b) SWCC No. 2; (c) SWCC No. 3; (d) SWCC No. 4
Figure 5. Factor of safety of the infinite slope for (a) SWCC No. 1; (b) SWCC No. 2;
(c) SWCC No. 3; (d) SWCC No. 4
Figure 6. SWCC curves with various nf values (θs = 0.4, af = 10, mf = 1, ψr = 100)
Figure 7. Shear strength envelopes (c’ = 10 kPa, φ’ = 34°) from 0 to 140 kPa for soils
with various nf values (a) nf = 1.0; (b) nf = 2.0; (c) nf = 4.0
Figure 8. Factor of safety of the infinite slope for soils with various nf values (a) nf =
1.0; (b) nf = 2.0; (c) nf = 4.0
Figure 9. Geometry of a steep slope and location of a selected slip surface used for the
comparative analysis
Figure 10. Mobilized shear force along the selected slip surface (SWCC No. 3)
Figure 11. Factor of safety of the selected slip surface versus air-entry value of
unsaturated soils for the steep slope
Figure 12. Comparison of critical slip surfaces for the steep slope (SWCC No. 1) with
af = 1 and ψr = 10
af = 10 and ψr = 100
af = 100 and ψr = 1000
af = 1000 and ψr = 10,000
Page 35 of 61
Figure 16. Minimum factor of safety versus air-entry value of unsaturated soils for the
steep slope with low water table
Figure 17. Geometry of a relatively flat slope with high water table
Figure 18. Comparison of critical slip surfaces for the relatively flat slope (SWCC No.
1) with af = 1 and ψr = 10
3) with af = 100 and ψr = 1000
relatively flat slope with high water table
Table 1. Apparent cohesion ( c(ua − uw ) or c(ψ ) ) contributed by soil suction
Unsaturated shear strength equation Apparent cohesion due to soil suction

Fredlund et al. (1978)
c(ua − uw ) = (ua − uw ) tan φ b
Fredlund et al. (1996)

c(ua − uw ) = (ua − uw )Θκd tan φ ′
Vanapalli et al. (1996)

  θ − θr 
c(ua − uw ) = (ua − uw ) (tan φ ′)  w 
  θs − θr 
  S − Sr 
c(ua − uw ) = (ua − uw ) (tan φ ′)  
  100 − S r  
Vilar (2006)
ua − u w
c ( ua − u w ) =
a + b ( ua − u w )
1 1
where a = , b= or
tan φ ′ (cult − c′)
1 a
b= −
cmeasured − c ' ψ measured
Khalili and Khabbaz (1998)

c(ua − uw ) = (ua − uw ) [ λ ′] tan φ ′
where λ ′ = 1.0 if (ua − uw ) ≤ AEV

−0.55
u − u 
λ′ =  a w  if ( ua − uw ) > AEV
 AEV 
Bao et al. (1998) c(ua − uw ) = ( ua − uw ) [ζ ] tan φ ′
where ζ = 1.0 if ( ua − uw ) ≤ AEV
log(ua − uw ) r − log(ua − uw )
ζ =
log(ua − uw ) r − log(AEV)
if AEV < ( ua − uw ) < ψ r
ζ =0 if ( ua − uw ) ≥ ψ r
Note: θw is volumetric water content; θr is residual volumetric water content; θs is the

saturated volumetric water content; S is degree of saturation, and Sr is residual degree
of saturation; Θd is dimensionless water content defined as (θw/θs); cult is the ultimate
undrained shear strength of air-dried soil sample; AEV is the air-entry suction of the
soil; ψr is the residual suction.
Page 37 of 61
Table 2. Fredlund and Xing (1994) SWCC parameters and parameters for estimation
of unsaturated shear strength equations
SWCC θs af nf mf ψr AEV θr κ cult

No. (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa)
1 0.4 1 2 1 10 0.5 0.081 1.0 11.4 kPa
2 0.4 10 2 1 100 5 0.080 1.8 13.7 kPa
3 0.4 100 2 1 1000 50 0.078 2.2 28.4 kPa
4 0.4 1000 2 1 10,000 500 0.073 2.5 107.3 kPa
Table 3. Factor of safety of the steep slope for a selected slip surface
SWCC
No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 No. 4
φ =0
b
1.005 1.005 1.005 1.005
Linear φ b = 15° 1.430 1.430 1.430 1.430
Linear φ b = φ’ 2.118 2.118 2.118 2.118
Fredlund et al. (1996) 1.089 1.056 1.440 2.080
Vanapalli et al. (1996) 1.005 1.020 1.605 2.099
Vilar (2006) 1.023 1.051 1.195 1.562
Bao et al. (1998) 1.005 1.041 1.730 2.118
Kahlili & Kahbbaz (1998) 1.055 1.185 1.656 2.118
Table 4. Minimum factors of safety of the steep slope by GLE methods
SWCC
No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 No. 4
φ =0
b
0.898 0.898 0.898 0.898
Linear φ b = 15° 1.414 1.414 1.414 1.414
Linear φ b = φ’ 1.920 1.920 1.920 1.920
Fredlund et al. (1996) 1.032 0.975 1.443 1.903
Vanapalli et al. (1996) 0.898 0.911 1.595 1.908

Vilar (2006) 0.924 0.968 1.167 1.548
Bao et al. (1998) 0.898 0.927 1.685 1.920
Kahlili & Kahbbaz (1998) 0.978 1.160 1.638 1.920
Table 5. Minimum factors of safety of the relatively flat slope by GLE methods
SWCC
No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 No. 4
φ =0
b
1.086 1.086 1.086 1.086
Linear φ b = 15° 1.133 1.133 1.133 1.133
Linear φ b = φ’ 1.159 1.159 1.159 1.159
Fredlund et al. (1996) 1.098 1.103 1.147 1.159
Vanapalli et al. (1996) 1.086 1.103 1.151 1.159
Vilar (2006) 1.092 1.099 1.118 1.143
Bao et al. (1998) 1.087 1.11 1.155 1.159
Kahlili & Kahbbaz (1998) 1.095 1.114 1.154 1.159
(a)
(b)
soil-water characteristic curve for a typical soil

Figure 1. Relationship between the unsaturated shear strength envelope and the
soil-water characteristic curve; (a) typical unsaturated shear strength envelopes, (b)
Phreatic line
Ground surface
at various depths
Selecting slip surfaces
Water flow
Water flow
Figure 2. Schematic of an infinite slope

ψ = γwzcos2αinf
O
z
A
B
H
αinf
αinf
αinf
Equipotential line
Soil
Page 40 of 61
Page 41 of 61
0.50
af
af == 1, ψr==10
1,hr 10
Volumetric water content af == 10,
af ψr==100
10,hr 100
0.40
af == 100,
af ψr==1000
100,hr 1000
a ψr==10000
1000,hr
aff = 1000, 10000
0.30
0.20
No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 No. 4

0.10
AEV = 0.5 kPa
0.00
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Soil suction (kPa)
Figure 3. Four selected SWCC curves with different air-entry values, (θs = 0.4, nf = 2,
mf = 1)
Shear strength (kPa)
(a)
(b)
0
20
40
60
0
20
40
60
0
0
20
20
40
40
60
60
φ’ = 34°
φ’ = 34°
80
80
Soil suction (kPa)
Soil suction (kPa)

af = 1, nf = 2, mf = 1, ψr = 10 kPa, κ = 1.0, cult = 11.4 kPa
af = 10, nf = 2, mf = 1, ψr = 100 kPa, κ = 1.8, cult = 13.7 kPa

100
100
φb = 15°
φb = 15°
120
120
140
140
Page 42 of 61
Page 43 of 61
(c)
60
φ’ = 34°
40
φ b = 15°
20
af = 100, nf = 2, mf = 1, ψr = 1000 kPa
κ = 2.2, cult = 28.4 kPa
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Soil suction (kPa)
(d)
60
φ’ = 34°
40
φ b = 15°
20
af = 1000, nf = 2, mf = 1, ψr = 10,000 kPa
κ = 2.5, cult = 107.3 kPa
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Soil suction (kPa)
Linear (φ b = 15°)
Fredlund et al. (1996) model
Vanapalli et al. (1996) model
Vilar (2006) model
Bao et al. (1998) model
Khalili and Khabbaz (1998) model
Figure 4. Shear strength envelopes, (c’ = 10 kPa, φ’ = 34°) from 0 to 140 kPa for (a)
SWCC No. 1; (b) SWCC No. 2; (c) SWCC No. 3; (d) SWCC No. 4
(a)
(b)
Factor of safety Factor of safety
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
0.0
0.0
φb = 0
φb = 0
1.0
1.0
φ b = 15°
φ b = 15°
2.0
φ b = φ’
2.0
φ b = φ’
Depth of slip surface (m)

af = 10, ψr = 100, c’ = 10 kPa, φ’ = 34°, κ = 1.8
af = 1, ψr = 10, c’ = 10 kPa, φ’ = 34°, κ = 1.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
Page 44 of 61
Page 45 of 61
(c) φ b = 15°
4.0
φ b = φ’
3.0
Factor of safety
φb = 0
2.0
1.0
af = 100, ψr = 1000, c’ = 10 kPa, φ’ = 34°, κ = 2.2
0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
(d)
4.0
φ b = φ’
3.0
φ b = 15°
Factor of safety
2.0 φb = 0
1.0
af = 1000, ψr = 10000, c’ = 10 kPa, φ’ = 34°, κ = 2.5
0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
phiφ b = 0 phi φbb==phi

φ’
b
0.0phi bb = 15
φ = 15° Fredlund et al. (1996) model
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Vanapalli et al. (1996) model Vilar (2006) model
Bao et al. (1998) model Depth of soil (m) and Khabbaz (1998) model
Khalili
Figure 5. Factor of safety of the infinite slope for (a) SWCC No. 1; (b) SWCC No. 2;
(c) SWCC No. 3; (d) SWCC No. 4

Page 46 of 61
Volumetric water content
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.1
1
10
AEV = 2.0 kPa 5 kPa
7 kPa
100
Soil suction (kPa)
1000
系列
系列
系列
nf = 5
nf = 1
nf = 2
10000
4.0
1.0
2.0
100000
Figure 6. SWCC curves with various nf values (θs = 0.4, af = 10, mf = 1, ψr = 100)
(a)
60
Shear strength (kPa) nf = 1.0
40
φ’ = 34° φ b = 15°
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Soil suction
Soil suction (kPa)
(kPa)
(b)
60
nf = 2.0
φ’ = 34°
40
φ b = 15°
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Soil suction (kPa)
(c)
60
nf = 4.0
φ’ = 34°
40
φ b = 15°
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Soil suction (kPa)
Linear
Vilar (2006) model
Figure 7. Shear strength envelopes (c’ = 10 kPa, φ’ = 34°) from 0 to 140 kPa for soils
with various nf values (a) nf = 1.0; (b) nf = 2.0; (c) nf = 4.0
Page 49 of 61
(a) φ b = 15°
4.0
φ b = φ’ nf = 1.0
Factor of safety
3.0
2.0
φb = 0
1.0
0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
(b) φ b = 15°
4.0
nf = 2.0
Factor of safety
3.0 φ = φ’
b
2.0
φb = 0
1.0
0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
(c) φ b = 15°
4.0
φ b = φ’ nf = 4.0
Factor of safety
3.0
2.0
φb = 0
1.0
0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
phiφ bb == 0 phi φbb==phi

φ’
4.0
φ bb== 15°
phi 15 Fredlund et al. (1996) model
Factor of safety
3.0
Bao et al. (1998) model Khalili and Khabbaz (1998) model
Figure 8. Factor of safety of the infinite slope for soils with various nf values (a) nf =
1.0; (b) nf = 2.0; (c) nf = 4.0
Elevation (m)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
comparative analysis
10
φ’ = 34°
c’ = 10 kPa
Crest
γ = 18 kN/m3
20
30
50°
40
Distance (m)
Toe
50
60
70
Figure 9. Geometry of a steep slope and location of a selected slip surface used for the
Page 50 of 61
Page 51 of 61
250
Crest
Shear force mobilized (kN)
200 φ b = φ’
150
100
50 Toe
0
0 φb = 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Slice no.
φ b b==00
phi
φ b = 15
Linear ° b=15)
(phi
φ = φ’ b = phi)
b
Linear (phi
Vilar (2006) model
Figure 10. Mobilized shear force along the selected slip surface (SWCC No. 3)
2.5
Factor of safety φ b = φ’
2.0
1.5 φ b = 15°
1.0 φb = 0
0.5
~20 kPa ~200 kPa

0.0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
AEV (kPa)
phiφbb =
= 00 phiφ bb = 15
15°
phiφbb ==phi'
φ’ Fredlund et al. (1996) model

Bao et al. (1998) model Kahlili & Kahbbaz (1998) model
Figure 11. Factor of safety of the selected slip surface versus air-entry value of
unsaturated soils for the steep slope
Page 53 of 61
60 φ bb==00
phi
φ b b==15
phi 15°
φ b b==φphi
phi ’
50 Fredlund et al. (1996) model
FS = 0.898 ~ 1.032
FS = 1.414
Vilar (2006) model
40
Elevation (m)

Khalili & Khabbaz (1998) model
30
Fs = 1.920 φ b = 15°
20
φ b = φ’
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Distance (m)
af = 1 and ψr = 10
60 φ bb== 00
phi
φ bb==15
phi 15°
phiφbb == phi
φ’
50 FS = 0.911 ~ 0.975 Fredlund et al. (1996) model
1.160 Vanapalli et al. (1996) model
40 Vilar (2006) model
Elevation (m)

FS =1.920 Khalili & Khabbaz (1998) model

30
FS =1.414
20 φ b = 15°
φ b = φ’
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Distance (m)
af = 10 and ψr = 100
Page 55 of 61
φ bb== 00
phi
60 φ b==15
b
phi 15°
φ b==φphi
b
phi ’
50 1.167
FS =1.443
0.898 Vanapalli et al. (1996) model
Vilar (2006) model
40
Elevation (m)

30 FS = 1.920
φb = 0
20 φ b = 15°
Fs =1.414
φ b = φ’
10
FS =1.595~1.685
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Distance (m)
af = 100 and ψr = 1000
φ bb==00
phi
60
φ bb==15
phi 15°
φ bb==φphi
phi ’
FS =1.903~1.908
Vilar (2006) model
40
Elevation (m)

30
1.920
0.898
1.548 φb = 0
20
φ b = 15° φ b = φ’
Fs =1.414
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Distance (m)
af = 1000 and ψr = 10,000
Page 57 of 61
2.0
φ b = φ’
Minimum factor of safety nf = 1.0 ~ 4.0

1.5
φ b = 15°
1.0
φb = 0
0.5
~20 kPa ~200 kPa

0.0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
AEV (kPa)
phiφbb = 00 φ bb==15
phi 15°
phiφbb == phi'
φ’ Fredlund et al. (1996) model
steep slope with low water table
Elevation (m)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0
10
φ’ = 24°
Crest
c’ = 10 kPa
20
γ = 18.0 kN/m3
30
40
Distance (m)
30°
50
Toe
Figure 17. Geometry of a relatively flat slope with high water table
60
70
Page 58 of 61
Page 59 of 61
60 φ bb==00
phi
φ bb==15
phi 15°
φ bb==φphi
phi ’
FS = 1.086 ~ 1.098
Elevation (m)

30
φb = 0
20
10 FS = 1.133, 1.159
φ b = 15° φ b = φ’
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Distance (m)
1) with af = 1 and ψr = 10
phi
φ bb == 00
60
φ bb==15
phi 15°
φ bb==φphi
phi ’
50
FS =1.118~ 1.159
Elevation (m)

30 Khalili & Khabba. (1998) model
φb = 0
20 FS = 1.086
10
φ b = 15°
φ b = φ’
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Distance (m)
3) with af = 100 and ψr = 1000
Page 61 of 61
1.20
Minimum factor of safety φ b = φ’

1.15
φ b = 15°
1.10
φb = 0
1.05
~20 kPa ~200 kPa

1.00
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
AEV (kPa)
phiφbb = 0 phiφ bb == 15
15°
phiφb = phi'
φ’
b
relatively flat slope with high water table

Modeling The Unsaturated Soil Zone in Slope Stability Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Modeling The Unsaturated Soil Zone in Slope Stability Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1 of 61

Modeling the Unsaturated Soil Zone in Slope Stability Analysis

L. L. Zhang1, Delwyn G. Fredlund2, Murray D. Fredlund3, and G. Ward Wilson4

Engineering, State Key Laboratory of Ocean Engineering, Shanghai Jiaotong

University, 800 Dongchuan Road, Shanghai, China. E-mail: lulu_zhang@sjtu.edu.cn.

Currently, Visiting Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,

University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB. Canada.

306-665-3342, Email: del_fredlund@golder.com

Alberta, Edmonton, AB. Canada, Tel: 780-492-2534. Fax: 780-492-8198. Email:

4 When the φ b value is unknown, a φ b equal to 15 degree is sometimes used in the

8 strength of an unsaturated soil and matric suction is nonlinear. Several semi-empirical

10 soil-water characteristic curve. In this paper, the results of a study using

11 two-dimensional slope stability analysis along with an estimated nonlinear shear

12 strength equations is presented. The effects of using an estimated nonlinear shear

6 of a friction angle. Subsequent analyses of datasets published in the research literature

7 seemed to support an average φ b angle around 15 degrees (Fredlund and Rahardjo

10 of an unsaturated slope proved to be straight forward as long as a mathematical

13 soil (e.g., φ b equal to 15 degree) became a quite common practice. Subsequent

17 certain boundary conditions (Zhang et al., 2004).

28 The experimental determination of the shear strength of unsaturated soils is quite

40 Numerous slope stability research studies have been conducted considering a

43 investigation of factors of safety calculated using unsaturated shear strength equations

46 An investigation involving nonlinear shear strength functions is important for both

50 be used when calculation the factor of safety of a slope. When performing a

51 back-analysis of a failed slope, it is important to use a realistic unsaturated shear

52 strength representation of the unsaturated soil properties. Otherwise, the

53 back-calculated soil shear parameters will not be representative of field conditions.

55 analysis based on an estimated nonlinear shear strength equation; 2) to illustrate the

56 effect of an estimated nonlinear shear strength equation on the stability of a slope.

60 2-dimensional slope stability analyses conducted under hydrostatic pore-water

63 2. Theory of unsaturated soil shear strength

67 2.1 Linear unsaturated shear strength envelope

68 The shear strength of an unsaturated soil can be expressed as an extended

69 Mohr-Coulomb shear strength equation (Fredlund et al. 1978):

70 τ f = c '+ (σ n − ua ) tan φ '+ (ua − uw ) tan φ b [1]

74 suction where uw is pore-water pressure. Matric suction is used to represent soil

79 The linear increase of unsaturated shear strength by φ b , commonly in the order of

80 15 degree was based on a limited number of datasets available in the 1970’s.

82 The accumulation of published experiment data on unsaturated soil shear strength

96 higher soil suctions.

97 2.3 Estimation equations relating unsaturated shear strength to the SWCC

102 2.3.1 Fredlund et al. (1996) nonlinear shear strength equation

104 incorporated the soil-water characteristic curve written in terms of dimensionless

105 water content, Θd , as follows:

106 τ f = c ′ + (σ n − u a ) tan φ ′ + ( u a − u w ) Θ κd tan φ ′ [2]

107 where: Θd is dimensionless water content defined as (θw/θs), where θw is volumetric

112 compacted soils:

113 κ = −0.0016 I p2 + 0.0975 I p + 1 [3]

116 2.3.2 Vanapalli et al. (1996) nonlinear shear strength equation

122 where: θr is residual volumetric water content, S is degree of saturation, and Sr is

126 residual suction.

127 2.3.3 Vilar (2006) nonlinear shear strength equation

131 assumed to be a hyperbolic equation of matric suction as follows:

137 parameters (a, and b) can then be obtained as follows:

142 suction near 1500 kPa:

150 used for estimation of unsaturated shear strength.

154 equation was written as:

155 τ = c′ + (σ n − ua ) tan φ ′ + (ua − u w ) [ λ ′] tan φ ′ [10]

156 The parameter λ´ was defined as

157 λ ′ = 1.0 (ua − uw ) ≤ AEV

166 suction is simply influenced by the air-entry value of the soil.

167 2.3.5 Bao et al. (1998) nonlinear shear strength equation

170 τ = c′ + (σ n − ua ) tan φ ′ + (u a − u w ) [ζ ] tan φ ′ [12]