You are on page 1of 61

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.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14

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

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14
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 3 of 61

26
suction, air-entry value

3

2002. φ b equal to 15 degree) became a quite common practice. Geotech. Rahardjo et al.. It may differ from the final official version of record. 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. 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. 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. Tsaparas et al. Page 4 of 61 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. φ b . Downloaded from www.. 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. 2007) 16 and illustrated that matric suction maintained relatively consistent with time under 17 certain boundary conditions (Zhang et al. which had the character Can. 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). 2004). J. With time. 1978).nrcresearchpress. designation of an estimated linear φ b angle for an unsaturated 13 soil (e.g. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. 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 .com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14 6 of a friction angle. 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.For personal use only. 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).

. Several empirical estimation equations have been 35 proposed relating the unsaturated shear strength to the soil-water characteristic curve 36 (Fredlund et al. Vanapalli et al. Geotech. When performing a 5 . It may differ from the final official version of record. 1996. Bao et al. 1996. 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. 2004. 27 1987). 32 permeability function). This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. (2008) make use of the 39 air-entry value of the soil but not the entire soil-water characteristic curve. 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. 28 The experimental determination of the shear strength of unsaturated soils is quite 29 demanding. 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. (1998). and Sheng et al. Cascini et al. Rahardjo et al.nrcresearchpress. Tsaparas et al. There 30 had been reasonable success in estimating unsaturated soil property functions for the Can. Blatz et al. Vilar (2006). 1996. Fredlund et al.e. and relatively expensive to test in the laboratory. Downloaded from www.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14 31 hydraulic flow properties of unsaturated soils when using the SWCC (i. Vanapalli et al. 2007. 1996). time consuming. 42 2002. Other 37 unsaturated shear strength equations such as those proposed by Khalili and Khabbaz 38 (1998). 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. 26 tested over a wide range of suction values (Escario and Saez 1986. however. 2010). J. had not been undertaken. Oberg and Sallfours 1997). Page 5 of 61 For personal use only.. an 43 investigation of factors of safety calculated using unsaturated shear strength equations 44 based on the SWCC.

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. 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.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14 56 effect of an estimated nonlinear shear strength equation on the stability of a slope. J. 62 63 2. 67 2. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. a second 58 involving a two-dimensional steep slope with a low water table. Geotech. 2) to illustrate the Can. Page 6 of 61 51 back-analysis of a failed slope. φ’ is effective angle of internal friction. Otherwise.e. 57 Three example problems are presented. 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. and a third with a low 59 angle slope and a shallow water table. the 53 back-calculated soil shear parameters will not be representative of field conditions. c' is the effective cohesion intercept for a saturated soil.nrcresearchpress. 1978): 70 τ f = c '+ (σ n − ua ) tan φ '+ (ua − uw ) tan φ b [1] 71 where: τf is the shear strength. It may differ from the final official version of record. Downloaded from www. it is important to use a realistic unsaturated shear 52 strength representation of the unsaturated soil properties.. The scope of this paper is limited to 60 2-dimensional slope stability analyses conducted under hydrostatic pore-water 61 pressure conditions. one involving an infinite slope. 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. 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. (ua-uw) is matric 74 suction where uw is pore-water pressure. 6 .For personal use only.

commonly in the order of 80 15 degree was based on a limited number of datasets available in the 1970’s.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 . It may differ from the final official version of record. 2012). 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.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14 81 2. Based on experimental results. J. Page 7 of 61 For personal use only. Can. 79 The linear increase of unsaturated shear strength by φ b . Gan and 85 Fredlund. 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. 1988). Matric suction can also be represented using the symbol 77 ψ. 76 beyond residual conditions). 97 2. φ b represents the rate of increase in shear strength relative to the matric 78 suction. 1987.nrcresearchpress. The angle. Fredlund et al. 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. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. Downloaded from www. The shear strength function begins to curve once the 91 air-entry value is exceeded. Geotech. Figure 1 shows a schematic of the general anticipated 88 unsaturated shear strength envelopes for a typical soil. In most cases there is an increase in shear strength with an 92 increase in soil suction beyond the air-entry value.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. 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.

116 2. and κ is a fitting 109 parameter. Downloaded from www. 102 2. (1996) equation can be used to describe the unsaturated shear strength.0016 I p2 + 0. as follows: Can. (1996) nonlinear shear strength equation 103 Fredlund et al. Once the κ parameter is estimated. Θd . The shear strength equation shows a nonlinear reduction 8 .com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14 106 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). 110 Garven and Vanapalli (2006) established the correlation between the fitting 111 parameter. which 104 incorporated the soil-water characteristic curve written in terms of dimensionless 105 water content. κ. (1996) nonlinear shear strength equation 117 Vanapalli et al.2 Vanapalli et al. and the plastic index I p of a soil based on 10 datasets of statically 112 compacted soils: 113 κ = −0. and Sr is 123 residual degree of saturation.1 Fredlund et al. It may differ from the final official version of record.3. (1996) proposed a nonlinear shear strength equation. J.For personal use only.nrcresearchpress. Page 8 of 61 101 slope. Geotech.   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. (1996) proposed a nonlinear shear strength equation using a 118 normalization of the SWCC between the saturated and residual soil conditions. the Fredlund 115 et al.3. where θw is volumetric 108 water content and θs is the saturated volumetric water content. S is degree of saturation. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition.0975 I p + 1 [3] 114 where: I p is the plasticity index (%).

127 2. Geotech. 124 from the saturated to residual soil conditions.nrcresearchpress.3 Vilar (2006) nonlinear shear strength equation 128 Vilar (2006) proposed the use of an empirical hyperbolic function to fit Can. J.e. 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. It may differ from the final official version of record. the shear 125 strength contributed by soil suction becomes zero once soil suction is greater than the 126 residual suction. [4] and [5]. The fitting 137 parameters (a. Page 9 of 61 For personal use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition.3. The total cohesion of 130 the soil (i. According to Eqs. ψmeasured . b are fitting parameters. 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. 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. Downloaded from www. 145 It should be noted that soil parameters from the SWCC are not directly used in 9 ..com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14 129 experimental data of saturated and unsaturated shear strength. 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.

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. It may differ from the final official version of record. Geotech.0 for shear 161 strengths up to the air-entry value and then decreases without any influence from 162 residual suction. (1998) nonlinear shear strength equation can be expressed as 169 follows: 10 . Can.55 u −u 158 λ ′ =  a w  (ua − uw ) > AEV [11]  AEV  159 where: AEV is the air-entry suction of the soil.5 Bao et al. (1998) nonlinear shear strength equation 168 The Bao et al.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´. The rate of increasing of shear strength due to soil 166 suction is simply influenced by the air-entry value of the soil. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. soil suction always provides a positive increase in strength up to 106 kPa as 165 λ´ is always greater than zero. 167 2. but with a measured or reasonably assumed cult value. Page 10 of 61 146 the Vilar (2006) model. The Vilar (2006) model is initially presented as a 149 fitting model.3. Downloaded from www. the model can be 150 used for estimation of unsaturated shear strength. Once the air-entry value was 164 exceeded. J. the soil behaved as a saturated soil as long as the matric 163 suction was less than the air-entry suction value. which is a suction value beyond which 160 the soil starts to desaturate.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14 151 2.For personal use only. 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. Therefore.3. According to Eq.0 (ua − uw ) ≤ AEV −0.nrcresearchpress. [11]. the λ´ value is 1.

J. Geotech. 2009). is then used to calculate the factors of safety for other example 189 problems.nrcresearchpress. 190 3. SVSlope (Fredlund. 182 183 3.0 (ua − uw ) ≤ AEV log(ua − uw )r − log(ua − uw ) ζ= AEV < (ua − uw ) < ψ r Can.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14 174 log(ua − uw )r − log(AEV) 175 ζ =0 (ua − uw ) ≥ ψ r [13] 176 where ψr is the residual suction. the safety factor of 11 . 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 shear strength of the soil remained constant beyond residual 181 suction. It may differ from the final official version of record.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. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. 177 According to Eq. 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. Downloaded from www. Page 11 of 61 For personal use only. The computer 186 software program. 1978). the soil behaved as a saturated soil as long as the matric 178 suction was less than the air-entry value of the soil. which has incorporated a variety of 187 unsaturated soil shear strength equations into the commonly used limit equilibrium 188 methods of analysis. [13]. Based on the 193 extended Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion (Fredlund et al. 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.

γt is total 199 unit weight of the soil. 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. as shown in Figure 2) can be expressed as follows 211 (Fredlund et al. Page 12 of 61 194 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. Hence.. 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. J. αinf is the angle between slip surface and the horizontal Can. Geotech. the hydraulic head gradient is equal to zero in a direction 209 perpendicular to the phreatic line.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14 198 line. which is assumed to be equal to the slope angle for the infinite slope. 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. and H is the depth of the slip surface. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. the factor of safety for the slip 215 surface at depth of H is: 12 . points A and B. 205 The equations of apparent cohesion due to soil suction corresponding to the different 206 shear strength models are presented in Table 1. as shown in Figure 2. For steady-state water flow condition.g. 207 water flows through both saturated and unsaturated zones and is parallel to the 208 phreatic line. Downloaded from www. L is the vertical 214 depth of water table.For personal use only.nrcresearchpress. It may differ from the final official version of record. The matric suction along the slip surface at depth of 210 H (e. Hence.

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. Geotech. Downloaded from www. 225 The mobilized shear force. Page 13 of 61 For personal use only. and β is the base length of 228 the slice. the 229 factors of safety are assumed to be equal for all parameters and for all slices. respectively). 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 following formulations summarize the GLE (General 221 Limit Equilibrium) method. The interslice 235 shear force. 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. α is 234 the angle between the tangent to the base of slice and the horizontal.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 Can.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14 220 for an unsaturated soil. 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. It may differ from the final official version of record. In accordance of conventional limit equilibrium methods of slices. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. Sm. The formulations are 224 modified to incorporate various unsaturated shear strength models. mα = cos α + ( sin α tan φ ' ) / Fs . X. J. N. 230 The total normal force on the base of the slice. 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.nrcresearchpress. f(x) is a functional relationship that describes 13 .

N. Geotech. Sm.   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. f is the perpendicular offset of the normal 248 force from the center of moments. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress. f(x). 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. c (ψ ) . R is the radius of a circular slip surface or the moment arm 247 associated with the mobilized shear force. J. and λ is a scaling constant that 239 represents the percentage of the function. 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.For personal use only. 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 . W is the total 246 weight of the slice. Page 14 of 61 238 the magnitude of X/E varies across the slip surface. 242 The factors of safety with respect to moment and force equilibriums can then be Can. used for solving the factor of the safety 240 equations.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14 243 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. The interslice normal forces are then computed from the summation of the 241 horizontal forces on each slice starting from left to right. 254 The mobilized shear force. 252 The above formulations can be revised to incorporate the nonlinear unsaturated 253 shear strength equations using the apparent cohesion due to matric suction. and x is the horizontal distance from the center line 249 of each slice to the center of moments.

258 The factors of safety with respect to moment equilibrium and force equilibrium. J. 271 272 4. Geotech. The unit weight of the soil 278 in the slope is assumed to be 20 kN/m3. 269 Therefore. Downloaded from www. The effective angle of internal friction. [26] and [27] can be considered as a general formulation that is 270 applicable to both linear and nonlinear unsaturated shear strength equations. [26] and [27] revert to Eqs. 1978). Example of an infinite slope 273 4. 280 The Fredlund and Xing (1994) SWCC model was used to represent the soil-water 15 . The slope angle is 276 taken to be 40 degrees. For a saturated soil condition. respectively. φ’ and 279 effective cohesion intercept. 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 Can. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. Eqs. c’ are 34 degrees and 10 kPa. 259 respectively. For the linear 267 extended Mohr-Coulomb shear strength equation (Fredlund et al. (Fredlund and Rahardjo 1993).nrcresearchpress.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14 ∑ {[ 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. ( c (ψ ) ) value becomes equal to zero and Eqs. Page 15 of 61 For personal use only.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. 266 [26] and [27] revert to the conventional slope stability formulation. the 265 cohesion as a function of matric suction. c (ψ ) is 268 equal to (ua − uw ) tan φ b and Eqs. [22] and [23]. The groundwater table is 10 m below the slope surface and the 277 pore water pressure distribution in the slope is hydrostatic. It may differ from the final official version of record.

Rahimi et al. 2002. 297 The estimated nonlinear unsaturated shear strength curves for the four SWCC 298 curves are shown in Fig. 2004. Tsaparas et al.For personal use only..1 represents a sandy soil. and mf is a fitting parameter related to residual water content. Geotech.. The analysis can be extended to large suction 301 values.4 represents 292 extremely fine-grained soils. 296 Zhang et al. This corresponds to a negative. 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. 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.nrcresearchpress. Downloaded from www. 4.2 represents a 291 fine-grained soil such as silt. 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. 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. 300 hydrostatic pressure of 14 meters. J.. A soil with SWCC No. around one hundred kPas illustrates the range of conditions most 302 likely to be maintained in engineering practice. nf is the slope of the soil-water characteristic curve at the 285 inflection point. The range of soil suctions shown on the shear strength 299 function is plotted up to a maximum value of 140 kPa. however. 1998. SWCC No. A soil with 290 SWCC No. SWCC No. 3 represents clays.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14 283 284 air-entry value of the soil. 2010). The fitting parameters κ (Fredlund et 16 . Page 16 of 61 281 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 Can.

310 (1996) equation. 50 kPa Can. This may 325 not be realistic for some soil conditions and may produce unreasonable results in 326 estimating shear strength (Kim and Borden 2011).com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14 308 and 500 kPa. the 318 estimated nonlinear unsaturated shear strength curves approach the φ’ line. 303 al. 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.nrcresearchpress. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition..8. 2012). 5 kPa. (1996). 4(c) and (d)). (1998) and Khalili and Khabbaz (1998) overlap the φ’ line within the 321 suction range of 0-140 kPa. [4] and [12]). Geotech. The AEV values in Khalili and 305 Khabbaz (1998) model and Bao et al. It may differ from the final official version of record.5 kPa. The ultimate cohesion. 311 As shown in Fig. the four shear strength curves by Fredlund et al. In Fig. When the af value is greater than 100 kPa (Figs. Vanapalli et al.0. 319 4(d). 307 The AEV values for the four SWCC curves are approximately 0. 2. Page 17 of 61 For personal use only. Downloaded from www. 4 using the graphical construction method (Fredlund et al. (1998) model are estimated from the SWCC 306 curves shown in Fig. 4(a). the 316 nonlinear shear strength envelopes are quite close to the line representing a φ b value 317 equal to 15 degree. 320 Bao et al. 1996). 1. respectively. 4(b)). (1996) and the 324 Bao et al. respectively. The differences 314 among different nonlinear models are somewhat limited. (1998) nonlinear shear strength equations (see Eqs.5. (1996). Direct shear tests on various 327 gradations of Frankston sand (Donald 1956) showed that the shear strength due to soil 17 . 315 When af is equal to 10 and the residual suction is 100 kPa (Fig. J. 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. for the estimation shear strength equation for soils with the four SWCCs are 304 assumed to be 1. 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.2 and 2. when af equals to 1 and the residual suction is 10 kPa.

e. 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 Can. Except for the study by Nishimura and Fredlund (2002). especially for shallow slip surfaces. and φ b equal to 15 degrees and φ b 345 equal to φ’ are shown in the presentation graphs. Geotech. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition.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 factors of 344 safety when ignoring matric suction (i. The x axis represents the depth of slip surface (H in Eq. The difference of factor of safety 349 between the cases of ignoring matric suction (i.e. Page 18 of 61 328 suction does not increase but is not reduced to zero beyond residual suction conditions. 340 4. (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. 343 The y axis represents the factor of safety.5 347 kPa using Eq. Fredlund et al. the factor of safety when ignoring matric suction (i. J.nrcresearchpress. φ b 352 = 0) is only 1. the matric suction at ground surface is estimated to be 57.8 ×10 × cos 2 (40°) ). Downloaded from www. It may differ from the final official version of record. [17] ( 9. 346 For the infinite slope. limited test 338 results are available to confirm the accuracy of the estimation equation of unsaturated 339 shear strength at high suction range. For example. The graphs show that the factors of safety of 348 the infinite slope decrease with depth of soil.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14 333 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. φ b = 0) and the case assuming φ b = 350 15° is significant. For comparison purpose. φ b = 0).31 while the assumption of φ b equal to 15 degrees yields a factor of 18 . when the slip 351 surface is at a depth of 2 m. 2012). 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..For personal use only.e... [18]).

e. 5(b). 4(a)). Page 19 of 61 For personal use only. 354 As shown in Figure 5(a). (1996). the factor of safety using the Bao et al.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14 358 soil. 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. The other four nonlinear models give 19 . 364 For silty soils with af value equals to 10 (air-entry value around 5 kPa) as shown 365 in Fig. It may differ from the final official version of record. (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.5 355 kPa. J. AEV around 0. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. the Vanapalli et al. 5(d). Downloaded from www. usually sandy soils). Geotech. The 366 three curves by the Fredlund et al. 4(a).nrcresearchpress. (1998) and the Khalili and Khabbaz 373 (1998) models essentially overlap with the φ b = φ’ line. for soils with af value equals to 1 (i. 375 For extreme fine-grained soils with an air-entry value greater than 500 kPa (af 376 equals to 1000) as shown in Fig. The two factor of safety curves by the Vanapalli et al. As the matric suction in the slope is greater than the residual suction value of the Can. (1996) 360 model and the Bao et al. 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. the differences among various shear strength models are pronounced. The Vilar (2006) model yields 374 the lowest factor of safety.. the differences among various nonlinear shear strength models are not significant 359 (as shown in Fig.94. (1996) model and the 367 Vilar (2006) model are overlapped. The graph shows that ignoring matric suction is acceptable for sandy soils as 363 a conservative assumption. the Vilar (2006) model yields the lowest factor 377 of safety among all the five nonlinear models. 353 safety of 1. which agrees with the shear strength curves shown 368 in Fig. 371 Figure 5(c) shows that for fine soils with air-entry value around 50 kPa (af equals 372 to 100).

e.. 20 . (1996) model is reduced with the increase of nf value. Page 20 of 61 378 the same value for the factor of safety. The air-entry 390 values for in the Khalili and Khabbaz (1998) model and the Bao et al. the AEV value of the unsaturated soil increases. The shear strength curve using the assumption of φ b equal to 15 degrees is 380 well below results of all nonlinear models.0. 2 represents a common situation in geotechnical 387 engineering.0 kPa for nf values equal to 1. 7. With the increase of nf value. (1996) model 398 and the Vanapalli et al.0. Downloaded from www. With the 394 increase of nf value.0. (1998) 396 model are also increased because the nonlinearity of these two models depends mostly 397 on the air-entry value. 2.0 and 4. (1996) model and 402 the Vanapalli et al. the SWCC curve is 400 steeper and the volumetric water content is smaller for the same soil suction. which agrees with the shear strength curves in 379 Fig. 2. (i. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition.3 Effect of nf value on estimated shear strength curves and slope stability Can.0) are selected for a 386 parametric study. 4(d). 392 respectively. 5. which implies that the assumption of φ b 381 equal to 15 degrees gives a conservative factor of safety for extremely fine soils.0 kPa and 7. As SWCC No. 401 Therefore. 393 The estimated nonlinear shear strength curves are presented in Fig. three different nf values. 2.For personal use only.nrcresearchpress. It may differ from the final official version of record. the estimated shear strength curves by the Fredlund et al.0 kPa. The shear strength curves by the Fredlund et al. The shear 395 strength curve by the Khalili and Khabbaz (1998) model and the Bao et al. af.0 and 4. 389 Figure 6 presents the three SWCC curves with different nf values. 1. the values of θs. 382 4. Geotech. (1996) model are influenced by the volumetric water content 399 and hence the shape of the SWCC. and ψr are taken to be the same values as those of 388 SWCC No. (1998) model 391 are estimated to be 2. mf.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14 383 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. J.

10. Page 21 of 61 For personal use only. The groundwater table is on average more than 10 418 meters below the surface of the slope. The case of φ b = φ’ gives the maximum mobilized shear force along the slip 21 . 4) from the previous infinite slope 420 example were adopted in this example. Downloaded from www. It may differ from the final official version of record. (1996) model and the Vilar (2006) 406 model.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14 408 with Fig. 5. 403 Figure 8 compares the factor of safety of the infinite slope with different nf values. 404 With the increase of nf value. Therefore. the stability analyses mainly focus on the soils with four types of 411 SWCCs in Figure 3. J. (1998) model. 8 Can. However. 9).2. 3) together with the 419 nonlinear unsaturated shear strength models (Fig. 421 5. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition.nrcresearchpress. The case of φ b = 0 results in no shear force mobilized due to matric 427 suction. in the 410 following sections. Comparing Fig.2 Slope stability for a selected slip surface 422 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.0 kN/m3. the factors of safety of the slope are reduced with the 405 Fredlund et al. A specific slip surface is selected for comparison 425 purpose.1 Slope geometry and soil properties 415 The steep slope is 30 meters high at a slope angle of 50 degrees (Fig. Four SWCC curves (Fig.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. The unit 416 weight of the soil is 18. (1996) model. The cohesion is 10 kPa and the effective angle of 417 internal friction is 34 degree. Example of a steep slope with low water table 414 5. Geotech. 412 413 5. Illustration of the mobilized shear force along the selected slip surface can be 426 seen in Fig. the Vanapalli et al. the factors of safety are slightly increased with the nf value for the 407 Khalili and Khabbaz (1998) model and the Bao et al.

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.3 Slope stability for critical slip surface 448 Table 4 summarizes the minimum factor of safety values for the steep slope. af value equals to 1 and AEV around 0. Using the assumption of φ b equal to 15° produces intermediate shear forces 429 mobilized. The Bao et al. the critical slip 451 surfaces obtained from different nonlinear models basically overlap and the minimum 452 safety factor varies within a small range. The nonlinear shear strength equations proposed by Fredlund et al.e. 432 5. 19??). This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition.5 kPa). The results in 438 Figure 11 show that for soils with an air-entry value less than 20 kPa. As shown in Fig. 449 Figures 12 to 15 present the critical slip surfaces for different soils. the difference among various nonlinear unsaturated soil shear strength models is 442 significant.. If the air-entry values of a soil are in the range of 20 kPa to 200 441 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. for sandy soils (i.nrcresearchpress. (1998) model yields the highest factor of safety and the 443 Vilar (2006) produces a lowest factor of safety. The findings for the 437 steep slope are similar to those obtained for the infinite slope example. (1996) 430 and Vanapalli et al. Here.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14 433 Table 3 summarizes the factor of safety values of the steep slope for the specific 434 slip surface. Geotech. When the AEV value of a soil is greater than 200 kPa. Figure 11 presents the relationship between the factor of safety and the 435 air-entry value. the air-entry values are the estimated values based on the 436 SWCC curves using the graphical method (Reference. 447 5. Downloaded from www. Page 22 of 61 428 surface.For personal use only.2. the 446 φ b value can be assumed to be equal to φ’. This is mainly because the difference in the 22 . J. It may differ from the final official version of record. 450 12.2 Factor of safety of the slope Can. (1996) produce a more realistic distribution of the shear force 431 mobilized because these equations are based on the SWCC for the unsaturated soil.

the 459 Vanapalli et al. The Bao et 460 al. af value equals 466 to 100.e. for a steep slope with low groundwater 463 table. the assumption of φ b equal to 15 degrees can be 474 generally adopted for the clayey soils with intermediate air-entry value. 473 Based on the result in Fig. 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. for extremely fine-grained soils with an air-entry value 476 around 500 kPa. J. It may differ from the final official version of record. 13. 4(c). af value equals to 10. 465 Figure 14 illustrates the critical slip surface for clayey soils (i. (1996) model. The Vilar (2006) model generally yields the lowest 467 factor of safety and the shallowest slip surface among all the five nonlinear models.e. 462 Based on the results in Figures 12 and 13.e. 468 The Fredlund et al. The Can. (1996) model and the Vilar (2006) model are overlapped.nrcresearchpress. the Bao et al. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. Page 23 of 61 For personal use only.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14 458 critical slip surfaces obtained when using the Fredlund et al. the assumption of φ b equal to 15 degrees can over-estimate factor of safety. 453 unsaturated shear strength is not significant for different nonlinear models as shown 454 previously in Figure 4(a). The slip surface obtained 470 using the Vanapalli et al. 475 As shown in Figure 15. Downloaded from www.. 457 the differences among various shear strength models are more pronounced.. (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. This 472 agrees with the relationships among the nonlinear shear strength curves in Fig. AEV around 50 kPa). ignoring the matric suction (i. AEV around 5 kPa). The Vilar 23 . (1998) model yields the shallowest critical slip surface. for silt soils (i.. 456 As shown in Fig. (1996). The Khalili and Khabbaz 461 (1998) model yields the highest factor of safety and the deepest critical slip surface. Geotech. setting φ b = 0) produces an 477 extremely shallow slip surface and an unreasonable low factor of safety. 14. composed with soil of low AEV (less than 10 kPa) such as sandy soils or silty 464 soils. (1998) and the Khalili and Khabbaz 471 (1998) model yields the deepest critical slip surface among the nonlinear models.

the nonlinear estimation 493 equations of unsaturated shear strength should be adopted. the 488 relationship of the minimum safety factor to the AEV values are similar to the result 489 shown in Figure 11. the assumption of φ b equals to 15 492 degrees will yield a non-conservative factor of safety.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14 483 conservative factor of safety for extremely fine-grained soils with large air-entry 484 values. Hence. As shown in Fig. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. 485 Figure 16 summarizes the relationship between the minimum safety factor and 486 the AEV values of unsaturated soils for the steep slope. When 491 the AEV of a soil is between 1 kPa to 20 kPa. the effect of matric 490 suction on slope stability is trivial and the φ b value can be assumed to be zero. Otherwise. For 495 soils with an AEV value between 20 kPa to 200 kPa. Page 24 of 61 478 (2006) model generally yields the smallest factor of safety and the shallowest slip 479 surface among all the five nonlinear models. The factor of safety obtained 487 using various nf values are also presented in the graph. φ b 498 can be assumed to be φ’. It may differ from the final official version of record. 480 (1998) and the Khalili and Khabbaz (1998) model yields the deepest critical slip 481 surface. 15. J.nrcresearchpress. For soils with an AEV greater than 200 kPa. the effect of 494 matric suction on shear strength can be ignored as a conservative assumption. Downloaded from www. Geotech. the assumption of φ b equal to 15 degrees would yield a Can. 499 500 6.For personal use only. The critical slip surface by the Bao et al.1 Slope geometry and soil properties 24 . When the AEV of a soil is smaller than 1 kPa. which is the same one obtained using the assumption of φ b equal to φ’. Example of a low angle slope with high water table 501 6. Based 482 on the results in Fig. 16. 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.

e. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition.e. 1 and 515 No. 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.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14 507 previous described five nonlinear models will not be presented here due to page 508 limitation. It may differ from the final official version of record. 509 6.. The assumption of φ b equal to 15 520 degrees yields a non-conservative safety factor. 17). Downloaded from www. The four types SWCC curves (Fig. 3) are presented. Geotech. af = 1 and ψ r 518 = 10). 514 Therefore. 503 The unit weight of the soil is 18.2 Result of slope stability analysis 510 Table 5 summarizes the minimum factor of safety values for the low angle slope.0 kN/m3. 511 Compared with the results of the steep slope with a low water table. 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 cohesion is 10 kPa and the effective 504 friction angle is 24 degree. the assumption of φ b being equal to zero can be adopted for a low 523 angle slope with sandy soils. 1 (i. In the graph. All the slip surfaces obtained using different nonlinear 526 models except the Vilar (2006) model are overlapped with the slip surface obtained 25 .. Hence. All the critical slip surfaces obtained 521 using different nonlinear models overlap with that obtained when ignoring matric 522 suction. AEV about 50 kPa). 502 The low angle slope is 20 meters high and the slope angle is 30 degree (Fig. Page 25 of 61 For personal use only. 524 Figure 19 shows the critical slip surface for the low angle slope with clay soils 525 (i. The groundwater table is on average 5 meters below the 505 surface of the slope.nrcresearchpress. J. The estimated nonlinear unsaturated shear strength curves based on the Can. 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. only the results for soils with intermediate AEV values (SWCC No. 3) were adopted in this 506 example.

. 538 (φ b equal to 0) or (φ b equal to 15°)) is not applicable to all types of soils.For personal use only. Conclusions and suggestions for modeling unsaturated shear 536 strength 537 The assumption of using negligible matric suction effect on shear strength (i. Downloaded from www. the entire range of suctions is 550 not of interest in quantifying the shear strength of common geotechnical engineering 26 .nrcresearchpress.e. φ b can be assumed to be φ’ in applications where 547 geotechnical structures have matric suctions around 100 kPa. The results and findings for 533 different types of soils will not be repeated here due to the page limit. 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 an 546 AEV greater than 200 kPa. for a low angle slope with 528 clay soils. the assumption of φ b equal to 15 degrees is acceptable. a φ b 545 value of 15°can generally be assumed for unsaturated shear strength. 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. 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. J.000. It may differ from the final official version of record. Geotech. two Can. the effect of 541 matric suction on slope stability is trivial and the φ b value can be assumed to be zero.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14 532 boundary values of 10 kPa and 200 kPa can be found. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. Hence. Similar to the 531 result shown in Figures 8 and 16 for the infinite slope and the steep slope. 534 535 7. for soils with a AEV value between 10 kPa to 200 kPa. Page 26 of 61 527 when using assumption of φ b equal to 15 degrees. 548 It should be noted that while the soil-water characteristic curve is commonly 549 quantified from zero to 1. 542 if the AEV of a soil is between 1 kPa to 10 kPa.000 kPa on a log scale.

com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14 556 soils constitute a portion of the slopes.nrcresearchpress. Downloaded from www. 566 Another issue when considering unsaturated soil slope stability is the in situ 567 suction profile which is not easy to obtain. 559 Consequently. Limitations 555 This study undertakes a realistic simulation of field conditions where unsaturated Can. the suction conditions in the 568 slopes were assumed to be hydrostatic. (2012) was used to 572 determine AEV from the SWCC in a consistent manner. AEV. 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. Micalowski 2013) and interaggregate 564 macro-pores (Zhang and Li. Page 27 of 61 For personal use only. The AEV determination is 573 approximate but the conclusions and suggestions arrived at in this study should be 574 generally acceptable. 570 There are several ways of determination of the air-entry value. 2010 and 2013). in turn. The effect of various suction profiles during 569 transient condition of rainfall infiltration needs to be a part of a future study. 571 the graphical construction method proposed by Fredlund et al. J. it is important to also recognise 557 some limitations in the study.. 551 problem. However. 2010) may become preferential flow channels for rain 565 water infiltration which. In this study. Slope instability often results in rapid failure 562 and may be catastrophic (Cascini et al. Crack may develop in the 563 unsaturated clayey soils (Li et al. Geotech. Usually the shear strength only needs to be quantified from zero to a few 552 hundred kilopascals. 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. 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. can significantly reduce the stability of a slope. In this study. 2009. the estimation of unsaturated shear strength is 27 . the matric suction in the soil gradually decreases. 553 554 8. 575 For a soil with bi-modal SWCC. 2013).

J. L. It should be noted that the nonlinear unsaturated shear strength 577 equations applied in this study are for soils with uni-modal SWCCs. M. Downloaded from www. 587 12QA1401800). pp. 580 Can.. and Sorbin. Modelling of 597 rainfall-induced shallow landslides of the flow-type. Properties of unsaturated soils and slope 591 stability of expansive soils. 2013..com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14 581 Acknowledgements 582 The work in this paper was substantially supported by the Natural Science 583 Foundation of China (Project No. Beijing. Vol. Cuomo. In Proceedings of the Second International 592 Conference on Unsaturated Soils (UNSAT 98).. Journal of Geotechnical and 598 Geoenvironmental Engineering. 596 Cascini. 588 589 References 590 Bao... 41172252) and National Basic Research Program of 584 China (973 Program. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. Pastor. 2010. B. Effects of near-surface environmental 594 conditions on instability of an unsaturated soil slope. Modelling the post-failure 28 . 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. C. 593 Blatz. L. and Sacco. N. It may differ from the final official version of record. 1.. L. Gong. 71-98. S.. Page 28 of 61 576 even more complex.For personal use only. 2014CB049100). 599 Cascini. 1998.. Cuomo. J. S. Pastor. Project No. 41(6): 1111-1126. Canadian Geotechnical 595 Journal.nrcresearchpress. G.A. 136(1): 85-98. Ferreira. Geotech. J. Further 578 research studies should be conducted to investigate the effect of unsaturated soil shear 579 strengths for soils with bi-modal SWCCs. C. 2004..J. and Graham. and Zhan.. M.

128(9): 756-763.. 1977.G.. and Springman.D.K.G. M. 1987.. John Wiley & Sons. 615 Fredlund. 619 Fredlund. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. 2002. J.G. D. 600 stage of rainfall-induced landslides of the flow type. Wiley. D. 609 Donald. Shear strength measurements in unsaturated non-cohesive soils 610 with negative pore pressures.nrcresearchpress. S. 623 Fredlund. 1986. doi: 10. Downloaded from www. 621 Fredlund..G. V. 50(9): 924-934. R. V. 50(1): 28-40.. Comparison of slope stability methods analysis. doi: 605 10. 614 Geotechnique.R.R. Morgenstern.A.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14 604 saturated conditions. D..1139/cgj-2012-0375 602 Casini. The shear strength of partly saturated soils. 15(3): 313-321. H. Journal of Geotechnical and 608 Geoenvironmental Engineering. D.. 14(3): 429-439. 617 Fredlund. 2013. and Gan. Geotech.G. and Saez. Rahardjo. D. Nonlinearity of strength 29 .. N.-M. Serri. J..M. S. Hydromechanical behaviour of a 603 silty sand from a steep slope triggered by artificial rainfall: from unsaturated to Can. 613 Escario. I. Evaluation of surficial stability for homogeneous 607 slopes considering rainfall characteristics. 1978.E. It may differ from the final official version of record. H. and Fredlund. and Widger.. The shear strength of 618 unsaturated Soils. 620 New York. H. pp. J. Soil Mechanics for Unsaturated Soils.1139/cgj-2012-0095 606 Cho. 1993. 200-205. New Zealand. 1956. and Rahardjo. and Krahn. S. and Lee.B. Unsaturated Soil Mechanics 622 in Engineering Practice. 616 Canadian Geotechnical Journal. Page 29 of 61 For personal use only. F. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. Canadian Geotechnical 601 Journal. J. In Proceedings of the Second Australia-New 611 Zealand Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Rahardjo. 612 Christchurch.. 2012. 36(3): 453-456.

2011. R. and Xing. Geotech. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. Edited by G. GSP 147. and Barbour.S.D. Evaluation of empirical procedures for 637 predicting the shear strength of unsaturated soils. A. N. G. Vol. Page 30 of 61 624 envelope for unsaturated soils.A. 2006. and Khabbaz. pp. 1994. Equations for the soil-water characteristic curve.-M..48.H... and Borden.1139/t96-065. 2570-2581. Downloaded from www. 641 Khalili. 49-54.. 48(12): 1886-1900. New Delhi. It may differ from the final official version of record. A. No.L Houston. D. and Fredlund. pp.G. ASTM. The relationship of Can. J. Reston. L. Geotechnique. Miller. Xing. and Vanapalli. 31(3): 521-532.H.. 647 Li. Fredlund. J. 626 Fredlund.L. 636 Garven. Zhang. S. SVSlope User’s Manual. Wang.D. 1996. K.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14 629 the unsaturated soil shear strength to the soil water characteristic curve. Zapata.G.For personal use only. Influence of soil type and stress state on 645 predicting shear strength of unsaturated soils using the soil-water characteristic 646 curve. Saskatoon. American Society of Civil 640 Engineers.E. W.. Multistage direct shear strength testing of 634 unsaturated soils. 1998.. 11.A. 1988. M.5. pp.M. 48(5): 643 681–687. 2. 2009. Vol. doi:10.. In Proceedings of the Fourth 638 International Conference on Unsaturated Soils.G.1998. 628 Fredlund. and D.681. 32(3): 440-448. D. 627 Canadian Geotechnical Journal. Vol. M. M. Permeability tensor and 648 representative elementary volume of saturated cracked soil. 639 C.nrcresearchpress. and Fredlund. Fredlund. In Proceedings of the Sixth International 625 Conference on Expansive Soils.Geotechnical Engineering Testing Journal. A unique relationship for χ for the 642 determination of the shear strength of unsaturated soils.H. E. D. D. 2009. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. Canadian 30 . 132-138. S. doi:10.G. Va. J. 633 Gan.1680/geot.K. 632 Canada. Canadian 630 Geotechnical Journal. 644 Kim.. Y. S. 631 Fredlund. 635 2. 1. SoilVision System Ltd.

G. Christchurch. Geotechnique. R.. 20(1): 40-48. and Gens. It may differ from the final official version of record... H. and Shi. N. D. Engineering Geology. Downloaded from www. 301–305. and Price. G. 673 Sheng.K.1520/GTJ11419J. Rezaur. 531-537. V. A. Factors controlling 669 instability of homogeneous soil slopes under rainfall. T. 135-143.. The analysis of the stability of general slip Can. 664 Rahardjo. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition.G. 649 Geotechnical Journal. 22(1): 660 1-28.. 1965.W.W.. A new modelling approach for 31 . D. Effect of hydraulic properties of soil 672 on rainfall-induced slope failure. and Sallfours. Fredlund. Q. S. 114(3-4). 1998.C. H. Brazil. A. 133(12): 1532-1543. Geotech. and Vanapalli. 658 Ng.B.nrcresearchpress. 1992. 2013.. 2010.. 671 Rahimi.1139/cgj-2012-0448 653 Morgenstern. In 666 Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Landslides.. 46(8): 928-942. UNSAT 2002. Canadian Geotechnical Journal.L. Numerical investigation of the stability of unsaturated 659 soil slopes subjected to transient seepage.E.G. 1997. J. Geotechnical 663 Testing Journal. H. Fredlund. Hysteresis effects resulting from drying and 656 wetting under relatively dry conditions. C. In Proceedings of the Third International 657 Conference on Unsaturated Soils.. pp. 667 New Zealand. and Leong.R. A. Recife.H. Page 31 of 61 For personal use only. 15(1):79–93. Determination of shear strength parameter of 662 unsaturated silts and sands based on the water retention curve.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14 654 surfaces. Computers and Geotechnics. 661 Oberg. doi:10.C. Stability assessment of slopes with cracks using limit 651 analysis. pp.. 2007. E. Journal of Geotechnical 670 and Geoenvironmental Engineering. 668 Rahardjo. Ong. 655 Nishimura. T. 650 Michalowski. 50(10): 1011-1021. and Leong.. D. 2002. 2008. D. and Fredlund. Use of linear and non-linear 665 shear strength versus matric suction relations in slope stability analysis. doi: 652 10. R. Rahardjo. E.

Canadian Geotechnical 680 Journal. and Li. 33(3): 379-392.nrcresearchpress. D. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. 2010. 41(4): 569-582. 2006.E. doi:10.. 29(1): 1-27.. It may differ from the final official version of record.G. Downloaded from www.. 136(10): 688 1425-1436.M. Micro-porosity structure of coarse granular soils.M. H. Fredlund. 678 Vanapalli..1139/t96-060. Model for the Can.K. 1996. L. Zhang. Geotech. 681 Vilar. Numerical study of 684 soil conditions under which matric suction can be maintained. 689 690 32 . D.G. J..W. A simplified procedure to estimate the shear strength envelope of 682 unsaturated soil. X.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14 679 prediction of shear strength with respect to soil suction. Canadian 685 Geotechnical Journal. E. Page 32 of 61 674 unsaturated soils using independent stress variables. 687 Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering.For personal use only. and Clifton. I.C. 683 Zhang. D. Toll.. 2002. and Leong. D. L.L. 676 Tsaparas. 43(10): 1088-1095. 686 Zhang. 45(4): 511-534.H. S.G. Rahardjo. L.M. Computers and Geotechnics. Controlling parameters 677 for rainfall-induced landslides. A. Fredlund. Canadian Geotechnical 675 Journal. and Tang... Pufahl... O. W. 2004. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition.

List of Tables Table 1. Downloaded from www. Factor of safety of the steep slope for a selected slip surface Can. J. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. Apparent cohesion ( c(ua − uw ) or c(ψ ) ) contributed by soil suction Table 2. 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 . Geotech. Fredlund and Xing (1994) SWCC parameters and parameters for estimation of unsaturated shear strength equations Table 3.nrcresearchpress.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14 Table 4. It may differ from the final official version of record. Page 33 of 61 For personal use only.

Comparison of critical slip surfaces for the steep slope (SWCC No.4. Factor of safety of the selected slip surface versus air-entry value of unsaturated soils for the steep slope Figure 12. (b) SWCC No. Downloaded from www. SWCC curves with various nf values (θs = 0. Comparison of critical slip surfaces for the steep slope (SWCC No.0.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14 mf = 1) Figure 4. 4 Figure 5.0. (c) nf = 4. φ’ = 34°) from 0 to 140 kPa for (a) SWCC No. (d) SWCC No. J. Factor of safety of the infinite slope for (a) SWCC No. (c) nf = 4.For personal use only.nrcresearchpress. Relationship between the unsaturated shear strength envelope and the soil-water characteristic curve. mf = 1. (c) SWCC No. (θs = 0.4. Geotech. 4) with af = 1000 and ψr = 10. (b) nf = 2. (b) soil-water characteristic curve for a typical soil Figure 2. Shear strength envelopes (c’ = 10 kPa. 3. Four selected SWCC curves with different air-entry values.000 . (d) SWCC No. Comparison of critical slip surfaces for the steep slope (SWCC No. af = 10. 3. Geometry of a steep slope and location of a selected slip surface used for the comparative analysis Figure 10. Comparison of critical slip surfaces for the steep slope (SWCC No. 2. 2) with af = 10 and ψr = 100 Figure 14. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. (c) SWCC No. Factor of safety of the infinite slope for soils with various nf values (a) nf = 1. (b) SWCC No. 3) with af = 100 and ψr = 1000 Figure 15. 4 Figure 6. 1) with af = 1 and ψr = 10 Figure 13. nf = 2. 2.0 Figure 8. (a) typical unsaturated shear strength envelopes.0. Can. It may differ from the final official version of record. ψr = 100) Figure 7. Page 34 of 61 List of Figures Figure 1. Shear strength envelopes (c’ = 10 kPa. 1. (b) nf = 2. 3) Figure 11. Mobilized shear force along the selected slip surface (SWCC No. Schematic of an infinite slope Figure 3.0.0 Figure 9. φ’ = 34°) from 0 to 140 kPa for soils with various nf values (a) nf = 1. 1.

Comparison of critical slip surfaces for the relatively flat slope (SWCC No. J. Geometry of a relatively flat slope with high water table Figure 18. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. Minimum factor of safety versus air-entry value of unsaturated soils for the relatively flat slope with high water table . 1) with af = 1 and ψr = 10 Can. Minimum factor of safety versus air-entry value of unsaturated soils for the steep slope with low water table Figure 17. Comparison of critical slip surfaces for the relatively flat slope (SWCC No. Geotech. Figure 16. Page 35 of 61 For personal use only. Downloaded from www.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14 Figure 19.nrcresearchpress. It may differ from the final official version of record. 3) with af = 100 and ψr = 1000 Figure 20.

Downloaded from www.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14   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 = . and Sr is residual degree of saturation.nrcresearchpress. cult is the ultimate undrained shear strength of air-dried soil sample. 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.For personal use only. Θd is dimensionless water content defined as (θw/θs). J. θr is residual volumetric water content. . (1996) c(ua − uw ) = (ua − uw )Θκd tan φ ′ Vanapalli et al. 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.55 u − u  λ′ =  a w  if ( ua − uw ) > AEV  AEV  Bao et al. AEV is the air-entry suction of the soil. It may differ from the final official version of record. (1998) c(ua − uw ) = ( ua − uw ) [ζ ] tan φ ′ where ζ = 1.0 if (ua − uw ) ≤ AEV −0. S is degree of saturation. Geotech. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. Page 36 of 61 Table 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. θs is the saturated volumetric water content. (1996) Can. (1978) c(ua − uw ) = (ua − uw ) tan φ b Fredlund et al. ψr is the residual suction.

4 φ =0 b 1.4 1 2 1 10 0. 2 No. 3 No.118 .195 1.nrcresearchpress. It may differ from the final official version of record. (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) 1 0. (1996) 1.0 11. Geotech.4 10 2 1 100 5 0.073 2.4 100 2 1 1000 50 0.4 1000 2 1 10. (1998) 1.118 2.005 1.005 Linear φ b = 15° 1.118 Kahlili & Kahbbaz (1998) 1.118 Fredlund et al.3 kPa Table 3. 1 No.051 1. Downloaded from www.8 13.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14 4 0. Table 2.4 kPa 2 0.056 1.041 1.656 2.4 kPa Can.7 kPa 3 0.118 2.430 Linear φ b = φ’ 2.430 1.5 107.099 Vilar (2006) 1.089 1.005 1.020 1.2 28.078 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.430 1.080 1.440 2.023 1. (1996) 1.005 1.730 2.055 1.185 1.430 1.605 2. J.562 Bao et al.000 500 0.5 0.118 2.080 Vanapalli et al. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition.005 1. Factor of safety of the steep slope for a selected slip surface SWCC No.081 1.005 1. Page 37 of 61 For personal use only.

3 No.920 1.595 1.151 1.133 1.133 Linear φ b = φ’ 1. Minimum factors of safety of the steep slope by GLE methods SWCC No.086 1.159 .159 1. (1998) 1.103 1.924 0.147 1.086 1.898 0.908 Vilar (2006) 0.443 1.920 1. (1998) 0.975 1.968 1. (1996) 0.414 1.133 1.For personal use only.978 1. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. 2 No.118 1.086 1.159 Vanapalli et al.098 1.11 1.898 0.903 Can.159 Fredlund et al.167 1.638 1.898 0.086 Linear φ b = 15° 1. 4 φ =0 b 1.548 Bao et al.086 1. 4 φ =0 b 0.099 1.920 Table 5.133 1. Downloaded from www. (1996) 1.092 1.160 1.898 Linear φ b = 15° 1.927 1. 2 No.898 0.103 1.685 1. (1996) 1.095 1.159 Kahlili & Kahbbaz (1998) 1.032 0.911 1. 1 No.nrcresearchpress.414 Linear φ b = φ’ 1. It may differ from the final official version of record.920 1.159 Vilar (2006) 1.155 1.159 1.414 1.898 0. Geotech. (1996) 1.087 1.920 Kahlili & Kahbbaz (1998) 0. 3 No.159 1.154 1.920 Fredlund et al. Minimum factors of safety of the relatively flat slope by GLE methods SWCC No.114 1. 1 No.414 1.143 Bao et al. Page 38 of 61 Table 4. J.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14 Vanapalli et al.

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14
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 39 of 61

(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)

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14
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.

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

L

αinf
αinf
αinf
Equipotential line

Soil
Page 40 of 61

Page 41 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.

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
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14

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)

7 kPa 100 100 φb = 15° φb = 15° 120 120 140 140 Page 42 of 61 .4 kPa af = 10.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14 For personal use only. Geotech. mf = 1. It may differ from the final official version of record.8. Downloaded from www. cult = 11. ψr = 10 kPa. ψr = 100 kPa. κ = 1.0. cult = 13. Shear strength (kPa) (a) (b) Shear strength (kPa) 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. J. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. κ = 1. mf = 1. nf = 2.nrcresearchpress. Can.

(c’ = 10 kPa. ψr = 1000 kPa κ = 2. Downloaded from www. 2.000 kPa κ = 2. (b) SWCC No.nrcresearchpress. cult = 28. (1998) model Khalili and Khabbaz (1998) model Figure 4. (c) 60 φ’ = 34° Shear strength (kPa) 40 φ b = 15° Can. (1996) model Vilar (2006) model Bao et al. ψr = 10.2. It may differ from the final official version of record. 3. mf = 1. (1996) model Vanapalli et al. Page 43 of 61 For personal use only. nf = 2. (d) SWCC No. nf = 2.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14 20 af = 100. mf = 1.4 kPa 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Soil suction (kPa) (d) 60 φ’ = 34° Shear strength (kPa) 40 φ b = 15° 20 af = 1000. J. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. 1. Geotech.5. φ’ = 34°) from 0 to 140 kPa for (a) SWCC No. (c) SWCC No. cult = 107.3 kPa 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Soil suction (kPa) Linear (φ b = 15°) Fredlund et al. Shear strength envelopes. 4 .

0 2.0 3. κ = 1.0 4. c’ = 10 kPa.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14 For personal use only.0 φ b = φ’ Depth of slip surface (m) af = 10. ψr = 100. Can.0 Page 44 of 61 . κ = 1. φ’ = 34°.0 φ b = 15° φ b = 15° 2.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 3. Downloaded from www.0 2.0 4. J.0 1.8 Depth of slip surface (m) af = 1.nrcresearchpress. ψr = 10. It may differ from the final official version of record. φ’ = 34°.0 0. c’ = 10 kPa.0 1. Geotech. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 1.0 φb = 0 φb = 0 1.0 φ b = φ’ 2. (a) (b) Factor of safety Factor of safety 0.

c’ = 10 kPa.0 1.0 0. Geotech.0 Can. (c) φ b = 15° 4.0 3. κ = 2. J.0 af = 1000.0 Vanapalli et al. κ = 2.0 4.0 0. .0phi bb = 15 φ = 15° Fredlund et al. (b) SWCC No.2 0.0 2. φ’ = 34°. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. (1996) model Vilar (2006) model Bao et al.0 Factor of safety φb = 0 2.0 4.0 3. 1. ψr = 10000. (1998) model Depth of soil (m) and Khabbaz (1998) model Khalili Figure 5.0 φ b = 15° Factor of safety 2. c’ = 10 kPa.0 1. Downloaded from www.0 Depth of slip surface (m) phiφ b = 0 phi φbb==phi φ’ b 0. 2.0 3.0 Depth of slip surface (m) (d) 4. It may differ from the final official version of record.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 af = 100.0 φb = 0 1.0 4.5 0. φ’ = 34°.nrcresearchpress.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14 1. Page 45 of 61 For personal use only. Factor of safety of the infinite slope for (a) SWCC No. ψr = 1000.0 φ b = φ’ 3.0 φ b = φ’ 3. (1996) model 0.

This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition.nrcresearchpress.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14 For personal use only. Can. Geotech. J. 3. Downloaded from www. 4 Page 46 of 61 . It may differ from the final official version of record. (d) SWCC No. (c) SWCC No.

0 2.1 1 10 AEV = 2. af = 10.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14 For personal use only. It may differ from the final official version of record. J.40 0.0 1. Page 47 of 61 Volumetric water content 0.10 0. mf = 1.20 0. Can.0 kPa 5 kPa 7 kPa 100 Soil suction (kPa) 1000 系列 系列 系列 nf = 5 nf = 1 nf = 2 10000 4.4. ψr = 100) . Geotech. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition.50 0.0 100000 Figure 6. SWCC curves with various nf values (θs = 0.00 0. Downloaded from www.30 0.nrcresearchpress.

nrcresearchpress. Page 48 of 61 (a) 60 Shear strength (kPa) nf = 1. (c) nf = 4.0 Shear strength (kPa) φ’ = 34° 40 φ b = 15° 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Soil suction (kPa) Linear Fredlund et al.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Soil suction Soil suction (kPa) (kPa) (b) 60 Shear strength (kPa) 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.For personal use only. φ’ = 34°) from 0 to 140 kPa for soils with various nf values (a) nf = 1. Shear strength envelopes (c’ = 10 kPa. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition.0. (b) nf = 2.0. (1996) model Vilar (2006) model Bao et al. Geotech.0 . It may differ from the final official version of record. Downloaded from www. (1998) model Khalili and Khabbaz (1998) model Figure 7. (1996) model Vanapalli et al. J.0 40 φ’ = 34° φ b = 15° 20 Can.

J.0 Depth of slip surface (m) (b) φ b = 15° 4. It may differ from the final official version of record.0 Factor of safety 3.0 φb = 0 1.0 0. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition.0 2.0 2.0.0 φb = 0 1.0 3.0 Bao et al.0 4.0 Depth of slip surface (m) (c) φ b = 15° 4.0 Factor of safety 3. Page 49 of 61 For personal use only.0 1.0 2.0 φ b = φ’ nf = 4.0 0.0 φ bb== 15° phi 15 Fredlund et al.0 φb = 0 1.0 0.0 φ b = φ’ nf = 1. Geotech. (b) nf = 2.0 φ = φ’ b 2. (1996) model Vilar (2006) model Factor of safety 3.0 2.0 nf = 2.0 Can. (1996) model Vanapalli et al.0.0 1.0 3.0 Factor of safety 3.0 3.0 .0 2.0 4. (a) φ b = 15° 4.0 0.0 Depth of slip surface (m) phiφ bb == 0 phi φbb==phi φ’ 4. Factor of safety of the infinite slope for soils with various nf values (a) nf = 1. Downloaded from www.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14 0. (c) nf = 4.nrcresearchpress.0 4.0 0.0 1. (1998) model Khalili and Khabbaz (1998) model Figure 8.

Elevation (m) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 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. Can. J.nrcresearchpress. 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. Geotech.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14 For personal use only. Geometry of a steep slope and location of a selected slip surface used for the Page 50 of 61 . Downloaded from www.

Downloaded from www. (1998) model Khalili and Khabbaz (1998) model Figure 10. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. J. Mobilized shear force along the selected slip surface (SWCC No. Page 51 of 61 For personal use only. Geotech. (1996) model Vanapalli et al. 250 Crest Shear force mobilized (kN) 200 φ b = φ’ 150 Can. It may differ from the final official version of record.nrcresearchpress. (1996) model Vilar (2006) model Bao et al. φ b b==00 phi φ b = 15 Linear ° b=15) (phi φ = φ’ b = phi) b Linear (phi Fredlund et al.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14 100 50 Toe 0 0 φb = 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Slice no. 3) .

Downloaded from www.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14 1. Geotech.0 1.5 ~20 kPa ~200 kPa 0.nrcresearchpress. (1996) model Vilar (2006) model Bao et al. (1998) model Kahlili & Kahbbaz (1998) model Figure 11. (1996) model Vanapalli et al.5 φ b = 15° Can.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 AEV (kPa) phiφbb = = 00 phiφ bb = 15 15° phiφbb ==phi' φ’ Fredlund et al.0 0.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. J.0 φb = 0 0. Page 52 of 61 2.5 Factor of safety φ b = φ’ 2. Factor of safety of the selected slip surface versus air-entry value of unsaturated soils for the steep slope .

414 Vilar (2006) model 40 Elevation (m) Bao et al.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14 30 Fs = 1. Page 53 of 61 For personal use only. (1998) model Khalili & Khabbaz (1998) model Can.032 Vanapalli et al. Geotech. 60 φ bb==00 phi φ b b==15 phi 15° φ b b==φphi phi ’ 50 Fredlund et al.898 ~ 1. 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.920 φ b = 15° 20 φ b = φ’ 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Distance (m) Figure 12.nrcresearchpress. Downloaded from www. (1996) model FS = 0. J. Comparison of critical slip surfaces for the steep slope (SWCC No. (1996) model FS = 1. 1) with af = 1 and ψr = 10 .

For personal use only.nrcresearchpress.920 Khalili & Khabbaz (1998) model 30 FS =1. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. (1996) model 1.911 ~ 0. Downloaded from www.160 Vanapalli et al. Geotech.414 20 φ b = 15° φ b = φ’ 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Distance (m) Figure 13. (1998) model Can.975 Fredlund et al.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14 FS =1. 2) with af = 10 and ψr = 100 . (1996) model 40 Vilar (2006) model Elevation (m) Bao et al. It may differ from the final official version of record. J. Comparison of critical slip surfaces for the steep slope (SWCC No. Page 54 of 61 60 φ bb== 00 phi φ bb==15 phi 15° phiφbb == phi φ’ 50 FS = 0.

920 φb = 0 20 φ b = 15° Fs =1. φ bb== 00 phi 60 φ b==15 b phi 15° φ b==φphi b phi ’ 50 1. (1996) model FS =1.167 Fredlund et al.443 0. Downloaded from www. (1998) model Elevation (m) Khalili & Khabbaz (1998) model Can. Comparison of critical slip surfaces for the steep slope (SWCC No. (1996) model Vilar (2006) model 40 Bao et al. Page 55 of 61 For personal use only. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. Geotech.685 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Distance (m) Figure 14. J.898 Vanapalli et al. It may differ from the final official version of record.595~1.414 φ b = φ’ 10 FS =1. 3) with af = 100 and ψr = 1000 .com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14 30 FS = 1.nrcresearchpress.

It may differ from the final official version of record.000 . Page 56 of 61 φ bb==00 phi 60 φ bb==15 phi 15° φ bb==φphi phi ’ 50 Fredlund et al.903~1. (1996) model Vilar (2006) model 40 Bao et al.nrcresearchpress. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. (1998) model Elevation (m) Khalili & Khabbaz (1998) model Can. Comparison of critical slip surfaces for the steep slope (SWCC No.920 0. Downloaded from www.For personal use only. J. Geotech.414 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Distance (m) Figure 15. 4) with af = 1000 and ψr = 10. (1996) model FS =1.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14 30 1.548 φb = 0 20 φ b = 15° φ b = φ’ Fs =1.898 1.908 Vanapalli et al.

1 1 10 100 1000 10000 AEV (kPa) phiφbb = 00 φ bb==15 phi 15° phiφbb == phi' φ’ Fredlund et al.nrcresearchpress. It may differ from the final official version of record. 2. Page 57 of 61 For personal use only.0 0. Geotech.0 φ b = φ’ Minimum factor of safety nf = 1.5 φ b = 15° 1.5 ~20 kPa ~200 kPa 0.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14 0.0 1. (1996) model Vanapalli et al.0 φb = 0 Can. Minimum factor of safety versus air-entry value of unsaturated soils for the steep slope with low water table .0 ~ 4. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. (1998) model Kahlili & Kahbbaz (1998) model Figure 16. (1996) model Vilar (2006) model Bao et al. Downloaded from www. J.

0 kN/m3 30 40 Distance (m) 30° 50 Toe Figure 17. Geotech. Downloaded from www. Geometry of a relatively flat slope with high water table 60 70 Page 58 of 61 .com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14 For personal use only. Elevation (m) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 φ’ = 24° Crest c’ = 10 kPa 20 γ = 18.nrcresearchpress. It may differ from the final official version of record. J. Can. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition.

Comparison of critical slip surfaces for the relatively flat slope (SWCC No.nrcresearchpress. 1. (1996) model Vanapalli et al. (1998) model Khalili & Khabbaz (1998) model 30 φb = 0 20 10 FS = 1.086 ~ 1. 60 φ bb==00 phi φ bb==15 phi 15° φ bb==φphi phi ’ 50 Fredlund et al. Geotech. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. Downloaded from www. J. It may differ from the final official version of record. (1996) model 40 Vilar (2006) model FS = 1.133.159 φ b = 15° φ b = φ’ 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Distance (m) Figure 18. 1) with af = 1 and ψr = 10 . Page 59 of 61 For personal use only.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14 Bao et al.098 Elevation (m) Can.

com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14 30 Khalili & Khabba. Downloaded from www. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition. (1996) model 40 Vilar (2006) model FS =1. (1998) model Can. (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) Figure 19. It may differ from the final official version of record.nrcresearchpress. J. Page 60 of 61 phi φ bb == 00 60 φ bb==15 phi 15° φ bb==φphi phi ’ 50 Fredlund et al.159 Elevation (m) Bao et al. 3) with af = 100 and ψr = 1000 .118~ 1. (1996) model Vanapalli et al. Comparison of critical slip surfaces for the relatively flat slope (SWCC No. Geotech.For personal use only.

Downloaded from www. Minimum factor of safety versus air-entry value of unsaturated soils for the relatively flat slope with high water table . Geotech. It may differ from the final official version of record.15 φ b = 15° 1.20 Minimum factor of safety φ b = φ’ 1. Page 61 of 61 For personal use only. J.05 ~20 kPa ~200 kPa 1. (1996) model Vanapalli et al.10 φb = 0 Can.00 0.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/14/14 1. 1. (1998) model Kahlili & Kahbbaz (1998) model Figure 20. (1996) model Vilar (2006) model Bao et al. This Just-IN manuscript is the accepted manuscript prior to copy editing and page composition.nrcresearchpress.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 AEV (kPa) phiφbb = 0 phiφ bb == 15 15° phiφb = phi' φ’ b Fredlund et al.