Zdravković, L., Potts, D. M. & Hight, D. W. (2002). Géotechnique 52, No.
6, 447–457
The effect of strength anisotropy on the behaviour of embankments on
soft ground
L . Z D R AV KOV I Ć ,
D. M . P OT T S
a n d D. W. H I G H T {
The need to build embankments on soft clay deposits is
widespread, including flood defences, rail and motorway
embankments. The difficulties in constructing embank-
ments on these deposits are well known. The permeability
of the ground is usually low, so that construction is
generally performed under undrained conditions and, as
a consequence of the low undrained shear strength of the
clay, these structures are of a limited height, usually only
3–4 m. The classical design of an embankment is often
based on a limit equilibrium approach, in which the soil
is considered as an isotropic material. However, soft clays
are almost always anisotropic, having both stiffness and
strength dependent on the orientation of principal stres-
ses. This complicates any design analysis, and as suffi-
cient data are not usually available to define the
magnitude of anisotropy, empirical factors are introduced
into conventional design procedures. This paper attempts
to demonstrate the effect of soil strength anisotropy on
the behaviour of soft clay embankments through finite
element analysis using an anisotropic soil model. The
finite element predictions are compared with data from a
full-scale test embankment brought to failure. The dan-
gers of ignoring anisotropy, or treating it empirically, are
highlighted.
KEYWORDS: anisotropy; embankments; failure; numerical
modelling; analysis
INTRODUCTION
Earth embankments are widespread geotechnical structures,
often built on soft deposits in river estuaries, where their
typical use is for flood defences, or for carrying roads and
railways. Because of the low permeability of these deposits,
the relatively fast construction of an embankment usually
imposes undrained conditions in the foundation soil. Also,
the embankment structure imposes large rotations of princi-
pal stresses in the foundation soil, and if the soil is
anisotropic, the available undrained strength will vary along
the potential failure surface. Fig. 1 indicates appropriate
laboratory experiments that can be performed to obtain the
variation of undrained strength along the slip surface
(Bjerrum, 1973; Graham, 1979). These conditions often limit
the height of an embankment to only 3–4 m. If a higher
embankment is required then either staged construction is
employed, drains are installed, or the embankment is re-
inforced at its base.
Manuscript received 21 November 2001; revised manuscript
accepted 18 April 2002.
Discussion on this paper closes 2 March 2003; for further details
see p. ii.

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial
College, London, UK.
{ Geotechnical Consulting Group, London, UK; also Visiting
Professor at Imperial College, London, UK.
447
Il est souvent nécessaire de construire des talus dans des
dépôts d’argile tendre notamment pour empêcher les
inondations, pour longer les voies ferrées ou les auto-
routes. Ces travaux présentent des difficultés qui sont bien
connues. Comme, en général, la perméabilité du sol est
faible, la construction se fait habituellement en conditions
non drainées; à cause de la faible résistance au cisaille-
ment non drainé de l’argile, la hauteur de ces structures
est généralement limitée, ne dépassant pas 3 ou 4 mètres.
La conception classique d’un talus est souvent basée sur
une méthode d’équilibre limite selon laquelle le sol est
considéré comme un matériau isotrope. Cependant, les
argiles tendres sont presque toujours anisotropes, leur
rigidité et leur résistance dépendant de l’orientation des
contraintes principales. Ceci complique les analyses con-
ceptuelles et, comme l’on ne dispose pas toujours de
données suffisantes pour définir la magnitude de l’aniso-
tropie, des facteurs empiriques sont introduits dans les
procédés de conception conventionnels. Cet exposé tente
de démontrer l’effet de l’anisotropie de la résistance du
sol sur le comportement des talus en argile tendre en
utilisant une analyse d’éléments finis basée sur un modèle
de sol anisotrope. Les prévisions des éléments finis sont
comparées avec les données venant d’un talus d’essai
grandeur nature dont on a provoqué la rupture. Nous
soulignons les dangers qui existent à ne pas tenir compte
de l’anisotropie ou à la traiter de manière empirique.
Embankment
Compression
Extension
Failure surface
Simple shear
Fig. 1. Laboratory experiments that resemble stress conditions
along the failure surface beneath an embankment (after
Bjerrum, 1973)
Most analyses of embankments use the limit equilibrium
approach, in which the strength of the foundation soil is
considered to be isotropic. However, soft clays are generally
inherently anisotropic, both in strength and in stiffness. This
implies that strength and stiffness will have different magni-
tudes depending on the orientation, Æ, of the major principal
stress to the vertical when the soil is sheared. This orienta-
tion will vary along the potential slip surface. Most soils
exhibit maximum strength when Æ ¼ 08, and this then
decays as Æ increases (Symes et al., 1984, 1988; Seah,
1990; Jardine et al., 1997; Jardine & Menkiti, 1999;
Zdravković & Jardine, 2000). The usual site investigation,
however, does not give enough information as to the magni-
tude of this anisotropy. Therefore only empirical correlations
448 ZDRAVKOVIĆ, POTTS AND HIGHT
can be used for conventional design (Hight et al., 1987;
Jardine & Hight, 1987), and consequently the prediction of
embankment failure height is less certain (Bjerrum, 1973;
Tavenas & Leroueil, 1980).
Being aware of these facts, and faced with the need to
build large embankments on soft Champlain deposits in
eastern Canada, the geotechnical group of Laval University
decided in 1972 to undertake a research programme into the
behaviour of embankments on soft clays, which involved the
construction of test embankments on these soft deposits. In
total four fully instrumented test embankments were con-
structed at the Saint-Alban site in Quebec. The first one,
test embankment A, whose analysis is the subject of this
paper, was built to failure (La Rochelle et al., 1974). The
three others (B, C and D) were built to smaller heights
and with different slope angles (Tavenas et al., 1979), in
order to investigate the deformational characteristics of
embankments.
This paper presents finite element analyses of test em-
bankment A. The aim of the paper is to identify the effect
of soil strength anisotropy on the behaviour of embank-
ments, by comparing results from analyses performed using
the anisotropic MIT soil model (Whittle & Kavvadas, 1994)
and analyses performed using the isotropic modified Cam
clay soil model, MCC (Roscoe & Burland, 1968), to model
the foundation soil. The procedure used to accomplish this
aim was as follows:
(a) The magnitude of soil strength anisotropy was estab-
lished from the comprehensive site investigation data,
and the necessary parameters for both the anisotropic
MIT and the isotropic MCC soil models were
evaluated.
(b) A finite element analysis of test embankment A was
then performed using the MIT model, in which the
embankment was built until failure occurred; the
predicted embankment height was in excellent agree-
ment with that observed in the field.
(c) The undrained strength profile in triaxial compression
was then adopted in a further analysis using the
isotropic MCC model, and this prediction significantly
overestimated the observed failure height; on the other
hand, an analysis with the undrained strength profile
corresponding to the direct simple shear strength
underestimated the observed failure height.
(d) Back-analysis was then performed to establish the
necessary undrained strength profile for the isotropic
model.
(e) Further analyses were then performed with both
models, but with a different geometry of the em-
bankment.
GROUND CONDITIONS AT SAINT-ALBAN
As part of the original project, a substantial geotechnical
investigation of Champlain clays was carried out at the
Saint-Alban site, with both field and laboratory experiments
being performed. The majority of the field experiments, for
investigating the mechanical behaviour of the clay, were
vane tests, whereas the laboratory experiments were mainly
isotropically consolidated undrained (CIU) and unconsoli-
dated undrained (UU) triaxial tests, as well as direct simple
shear (DSS) tests. Details of the results of all experiments
are given by Sarrailh & Tavenas (1972), Tavenas & Chapeau
(1973), Trak (1980), Leroueil et al. (1983), Tavenas et al.
(1983), Lefebvre et al. (1988), Lefebvre & Pfendler (1996)
and others. Lefebvre et al. (1988) found that the DSS tests
and the field vane tests gave almost identical values of
undrained shear strength for Champlain clays.
In general, the soil profile at the site has a weathered clay
crust extending to approximately 2 m depth, below which
there is a soft silty marine clay deposit to approximately
13·7 m depth. Beneath the clay there is a layer of dense fine
to medium sand, followed by bedrock. The groundwater
table is at 0·7 m below the ground surface. The clay below
the crust is lightly overconsolidated, with an overconsolida-
tion ratio, OCR, of 2·2. The bulk unit weight of the soil in
the crust is estimated to be 19 kN=m3 , whereas that of the
soil below the crust is 16 kN=m3 . Fig. 2 presents the
undrained strength profiles measured from the field vane
tests (shaded area) and from the triaxial CIU tests (solid
triangles) (Trak et al., 1980). It is clear from the vane tests
that the crust has relatively high strength, as a result of
weathering. It is also clear that the soil has significant
strength anisotropy, with triaxial compression strength
(where Æ ¼ 08) being on average up to 50% higher than the
vane strength (where Æ  458).
Leroueil (1977) established limit-state curves for natural
samples from two different depths (3 m and 5·7 m), by
performing probing triaxial tests. Fig. 3 shows a limit-state
curve for samples from 5·7 m depth. The critical-state angle
of shearing resistance in triaxial compression, 9TC , is 278
and in triaxial extension, 9TE , is 258. The estimated coeffi-
cient of earth pressure at rest, K 0 , for normally consolidated
material is 0·49.
The permeability of Champlain clays is in the range 1010
to 109 m=s (Tavenas et al., 1983), depending on the void
ratio, which indicates that normal construction activities on
these deposits will result in the generation of undrained
conditions in the foundation soil.
The embankment fill material is a uniform medium to
coarse sand, containing about 10% fine sand and 10%
gravel. Triaxial tests performed on samples compacted at
Undrained strength, Su: kPa
0 10 20 30 40 50
0
1
Crust
2
OCR = 2·2
3
TXC - MIT-E3 prediction
Depth: m
DSS - MIT-E3 prediction
4
PSC - MIT-E3 prediction
PSE - MIT-E3 prediction
5 CIU - MIT-E3 prediction
CIU - experimental
Range of vane tests
6
7
8
Fig. 2. Undrained strength profiles for soft Champlain clay at
Saint-Alban (experimental data after Trak et al., 1980)

Experimental
limit-state curve
30
(σ1′ – σ3′)/2: kPa
20
7˚
=2
DSS
φ′ TC (MIT-E3 prediction)
10
0 d
0 20 40
TXE (MIT-E3 prediction)
φ′
TE =2
5˚
Fig. 3. Comparison of experimental limit-state curve with
theoretical undrained stress paths (experimental data after
Leroueil, 1977)
densities comparable to field densities, and at confining
pressures equal to the average pressure in the fill, gave an
angle of shearing resistance, 9TC , of 448.
GEOMETRY AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE SAINT-
ALBAN EMBANKMENT
A plan view of the embankment is given in Fig. 4,
together with a typical cross-section. The planned length of
the crest was 30·5 m, and its width 7·6 m. This was based
on the predicted collapse height of the embankment, from
conventional analysis, of 4·6 m. Three sides of the embank-
ment had a slope of 2 : 1 (horizontal to vertical). The
stability of this slope was also enhanced by placing a 1·5 m
high berm, so that any failure was forced onto the fourth
side of the embankment, where the slope was steeper, with
1·5 : 1 inclination. The embankment was well instrumented
with settlement gauges and deformation markers, some of
which are indicated in Fig. 4.
The construction sequence was such that the first 0·6 m of
embankment fill was placed in the first day, followed by
layers of 0·3 m per day until a height of 1·5 m was reached.
After that two 0·3 m layers were placed per day until failure
occurred at an embankment height of about 3·9 m, which
was less than the 4·6 m predicted by conventional analysis.
The total period from the start of construction to collapse
was 10 days. It is clear that the construction rate was such
as to ensure undrained conditions in the foundation soil.
CHOICE OF CONSTITUTIVE MODELS AND SOIL
PARAMETERS
MIT-E3 model
As stated in the introduction, the aim of the study
described in this paper was to investigate the effect of soil
strength anisotropy on the behaviour of embankments on
soft ground, using the finite element method. To achieve this
it was necessary to employ a constitutive model that could
satisfactorily model soil strength anisotropy. A suite of such
models has been developed at MIT (Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, USA), and the model MIT-E3 (Whittle &
Kavvadas, 1994) was used in this study. A full description
of this model, as implemented for the present research, is
given in Potts & Zdravković (1999), but the basic details
can also be found in Zdravković et al. (2001).
A summary of soil parameters for the MIT-E3 model,
EMBANKMENTS ON SOFT GROUND 449
TXC (MIT-E3 prediction) A
9
0·4
K0 =
30·5 m
7·6 m
R23
R18
oa R6 R9
60
p′: kPa s sr
ce
Ac
A
Settlement gauges
Horizontal markers
(a)
7·6 m
2:1
:1
4·6 m
1·5
1·5 m
23·7 m 4·6 m
Cross-section A–A
(b)
Fig. 4. Saint-Alban test embankment A: (a) plan view; (b) cross-
section A–A
determined from the available test data, is given in Table 1.
These parameters were chosen to accurately simulate the
undrained strength profiles determined experimentally and
shown in Fig. 2. The theoretical prediction of the undrained
strength profile from triaxial CIU tests (open circles) is in
very good agreement with the experimental CIU profile. In
the same way, the theoretical DSS profile matches closely
the average experimental vane strength. The magnitude of
strength anisotropy is therefore reproduced very well with
the MIT-E3 model. Fig. 5 shows, as an example, the experi-
mental shear stress–shear strain curve obtained from a DSS
test on a natural sample from 5·7 m depth (broken line),
taken from Lefebvre & Pfendler (1996). In the same figure
the solid line shows the finite element prediction of this test
using the MIT-E3 model, with the parameters from Table 1.
The match is excellent, and similar agreements were ob-
served when simulating the stress–strain curves in CIU
tests.
The remaining three theoretical undrained strength profiles
in Fig. 2 represent profiles in triaxial compression (TXC)
and plane-strain compression and extension (PSC and PSE),
as predicted with the MIT-E3 model on samples at their in-
situ stress states. The usual problem with the surface crust is
to estimate the strength in the upper half of the crust,
because if this strength is too high, then the crust can totally
dominate the embankment behaviour. Therefore the adopted
strength in this area is usually smaller than measured. This
is justified by considering the top part of the crust to be
fissured, which, for a large-scale field test, would mobilise
lower strength than a small intact sample of the same soil
(Lo, 1970). One rule that is often used in practice is to take
the strength in the upper crust to be constant and equal to
the strength measured at mid-depth of the crust. La Rochelle
et al. (1974) performed limit equilibrium analyses of this
test embankment, taking the observed failure surface and
450 ZDRAVKOVIĆ, POTTS AND HIGHT
Table 1. MIT-E3 parameters for soft Champlain clays
Parameter Description Value
v100 Specific volume for a K 0 normally consolidated sample 2·65
at p9 ¼ 100 kPa
K nc
0 Coefficient of earth pressure at rest in normal 0·49
consolidation
9TC Critical-state angle of shearing resistance in triaxial 278
compression
9TE Critical-state angle of shearing resistance in triaxial 258
extension
c Ratio of semi-axes of the bounding surface ellipsoid 0·7
ł Parameter affecting rotation of bounding surface 100
º Slope of the virgin compression line in –ln p9 space 0·565
k0 Initial slope of a swelling line in –ln p9 space 0·03
 Poisson’s ratio 0·3
St Parameter affecting the degree of strain softening 10
C Parameter affecting the hysteretic elasticity 1
n Parameter affecting the hysteretic elasticity 1·5
ø Parameter affecting the hysteretic elasticity 0·1

18 The undrained triaxial compression and extension stress

paths for a sample normally consolidated at 5·7 m depth, as
16
predicted theoretically using the MIT-E3 model, are shown
14 in Fig. 3 together with the limit-state curve. Since this curve
Shear stress, τxy: kPa

Theoretical can be partially mapped by these two undrained stress paths,

12
MIT-E3 prediction Experimental the experimental and theoretical match is again encouraging.
10

6 Modified Cam clay model

4
2 cial software would be performed using such a model, the
0
0 2 4 6
Shear strain, γxy: %
Fig. 5. Comparison between experimental and theoretical
stress–strain curve in the DSS test (experimental data after
Lefebvre & Pfendler, 1996)
varying the magnitude of the constant strength in the upper
half of the crust. Adopting the full average vane strength
resulted in a factor of safety at failure of 1·26, with the mid-
depth vane strength it was 1·18, while adopting the mini-
mum vane strength (strength at the bottom of the crust) the
factor of safety was 0·89. Clearly, for the embankment to be
on the verge of limit equilibrium stability the undrained
strength in the upper half of the crust should be constant
and equal to the mid-height strength, or slightly smaller.
This was used as guidance in the finite element study
presented here, and hence the undrained TXC and PSC
strengths in the upper half of the crust were limited to the
mid-height strengths (i.e. at 1 m depth) of each particular
strength profile.
For the crust to have high strength it must be heavily
overconsolidated. Based on the soil parameters given in
Table 1, the necessary OCR profile to produce the undrained
strength profiles in Fig. 2 is shown in Fig. 6(a). It reduces
from the ground surface to a depth of 2 m, after which it
stays constant at a value of 2·2. The corresponding K 0
profile, calculated from the Mayne & Kulhawy (1982) for-
mula (K oc nc
0 ¼ K 0 OCR
sin j9
) is given in Fig. 6(b).
Since most of the currently existing soil models are
isotropic, and many finite element analyses using commer-
idea of this paper was to make a comparison of the predic-
8 10 tions obtained using the anisotropic MIT-E3 soil model
described above with a simpler isotropic MCC model that is
likely to be used in practice.
In this study a form of the MCC model was used in
which the shapes of the yield and plastic potential surfaces
in the deviatoric plane are given by a Mohr–Coulomb
hexagon and a circle respectively (Potts & Gens, 1984; Gens
& Potts, 1988). A full description of the model is given in
Potts & Zdravković (1999), but the basic details can also be
found in Zdravković et al. (2001).
The parameters that describe this model are summarised
in Table 2. It can be seen that the undrained strength, Su , is
not an input parameter for this model, but it can be
calculated from the parameters in Table 2 by using the
equations derived in Potts & Zdravković (1999). With these
equations any of the individual profiles predicted by the
MIT-E3 model in Fig. 2 can be simulated with the MCC
model. As an example, Fig. 7 shows the necessary OCR and
K 0 profiles for the MCC model to fit the TXC undrained
strength profile in Fig. 2. To fit any of the other strength
profiles (e.g. DSS), the distribution of OCR, and conse-
quently K0 (using the Mayne & Kulhawy (1982) equation),
was adjusted accordingly.
Mohr–Coulomb model
The drained, granular fill material was modelled using a
simple Mohr–Coulomb model (Potts & Zdravković, 1999).
The cohesion was assumed to be zero, the angle of shearing
resistance 9TC ¼ 448, and the angle of dilation, , was
assumed as half of 9TC (i.e. 228).
 EMBANKMENTS ON SOFT GROUND 451
OCR K0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0 2·5 3·0 3·5 4·0 4·5
0 0

1 1

Crust Crust

2 2

3 3
Depth: m

Depth: m
4 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

8 8
(a) (b)

Fig. 6. Necessary K 0 and OCR profiles to fit the undrained strength profiles in Fig. 2 with the MIT-E3 model

Table 2. Modified Cam clay parameters for soft Champlain clays

Parameter Description Value
v1 Specific volume for a K 0 normally consolidated sample 3·2
at p9 ¼ 1 kPa
9TC Critical-state angle of shearing resistance in triaxial 278
compression
º Slope of the virgin compression line in –ln p9 space 0·565
k Slope of the swelling line in –ln p9 space 0·03
 Poisson’s ratio 0·3

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSES AND RESULTS
Analyses of the original geometry
The finite element mesh for the plane-strain analysis of
the cross-section presented in Fig. 4 is shown in Fig. 8. All
analyses were performed using the Imperial College Finite
Element Program (ICFEP). Eight-noded isoparametric quad-
rilateral elements were used, with reduced (2 3 2) inte-
gration. The modified Newton–Raphson scheme, with a
sub-stepping stress point algorithm, was used as a non-linear
solver. The boundary conditions applied to the mesh were
such that the two vertical sides were restrained from moving
in the horizontal direction, while the bottom boundary was
restrained from moving in both the vertical and the horizon-
tal directions. The same construction sequence was simu-
lated as that implemented on site, assuming that failure
occurred under undrained conditions. Each layer was con-
structed over two increments, until the height of 2·7 m was
reached, after which each successive layer was constructed
over four increments until failure occurred.
MIT-E3 analysis. The first analysis of embankment con-
struction was performed using the MIT-E3 soil model, with
the model parameters given in Table 1, and the magnitude of
strength anisotropy as indicated in Fig. 2. The embankment
failed at 3·9 m height, which is the height that was observed
on site. Fig. 9 shows vertical settlements of the embankment
measured at settlement gauges R18 and R23 (see Fig. 4; La
Rochelle et al., 1974). Also shown with the solid line is the
settlement predicted from the finite element analysis, for
point A in Fig. 9. The agreement between the observed and
predicted settlement is excellent, and both confirm the
findings of Tavenas et al. (1974) of a critical height of about
2·4 m, after which the deformation accelerates. Note that the
settlement gauges were installed in trenches on the clay
surface after the first 0·6 m of fill was constructed. Hence
zero displacement is taken at the first 0·6 m of embankment
height in Fig. 9.
The solid line in Fig. 10 presents the predicted horizontal
displacement, u, at the toe of the embankment against the
452 ZDRAVKOVIĆ, POTTS AND HIGHT
OCR K0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0 0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0 2·5 3·0 3·5
0 0

1 1

Crust Crust

2 2

3 3
Depth: m

Depth: m
4 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

8 8
(a) (b)

Fig. 7. Necessary K 0 and OCR profiles to fit the TXC undrained strength profile with the MCC model

13·7 m

Fig. 8. Finite element mesh for the original geometry of Saint-Alban embankment

Embankment height: m 0·30

0 0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0 2·5 3·0 3·5 4·0
0 Finite element prediction of
0·25
movement at embankment toe
Horizontal displacement, u: m

0·02
Finite element 0·20
0·04
prediction
Vertical settlement: m

0·06 0·15 u
R18
Finite element prediction of
0·08 0·10
R6, R9 movement at R6 and R9 position
0·10 R23
0·05
R18 R23 R6
0·12 R9
0·14 A 0

0·16 –0·05
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0 2·5 3·0 3·5 4·0
0·18 Embankment height: m

Fig. 9. Comparison between observed and predicted vertical Fig. 10. Comparison between observed and predicted horizontal
settlement of embankment (observed data after La Rochelle et displacement of embankment (observed data after La Rochelle
al., 1974) et al., 1974)
 EMBANKMENTS ON SOFT GROUND 453
1·5
embankment height. The acceleration of movement is again

Normalised horizontal displacement, u/umax

obvious after around 2·4 m height, leading to failure at MIT-E3
MCC-TXC
3·9 m. The observed horizontal movements from gauges R6 MCC-1·25 × DSS
and R9 (see Fig. 4; La Rochelle et al., 1974) are much
smaller, because these gauges happened to be outside the 1·0
region of the failing soil mass. The finite element prediction
of horizontal movement at the position of gauges R6 and R9
u
is also small for the same reason.
At a height of 3·9 m the finite element analysis was still
0·5
stable (i.e. equilibrium was satisfied), although the displace-
ments were accelerating rapidly. Any attempt to construct
further elements (0·3 m in height) led to instability (i.e.

3·9 m

4·9 m
failure to satisfy equilibrium), which was associated with
very large displacements. This occurred even if the new 0
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0 2·5 3·0 3·5 4·0 4·5 5·0
elements were constructed over several increments. Conse- Embankment height: m
quently, the failure height was taken as the last stable
increment (equilibrium satisfied) of the analysis, which in Fig. 12. Comparison of failure heights from different analyses
this case was 3·9 m.
The vectors of incremental displacement at failure are
shown in Fig. 11. These vectors show the directions of
movement of the failing soil mass, and it is their relative displacement, umax , predicted just before the embankment
magnitude that defines the mechanism of failure. Therefore failed. Also shown is the prediction from the analysis using
their absolute values are not important. A failure surface has the MIT-E3 model.
been estimated from the contours of plastic shear strain A further MCC analysis with the isotropic undrained
developed in the foundation soil when the embankment strength being set equal to the DSS profile in Fig. 2, which
height reached 3·9 m. This failure surface is shown in is what some design practice suggests, was conservative,
Fig. 11, together with the failure arc observed on site (La predicting failure at only 3·3 m embankment height. Further
Rochelle et al., 1974). There is a slight discrepancy between back-analysis using the MCC model to achieve a failure
the two surfaces, which may be attributed to the three- height of 3·9 m with an isotropic strength resulted in the
dimensionality of the real embankment, as opposed to the necessary strength being 1·25 times the DSS strength.
analysed plane-strain one.
Overall, the prediction of embankment height and defor-
mation using the anisotropic MIT-E3 model agrees very well Analyses of a new geometry
with the observed behaviour of the failed embankment. A further set of analyses was performed where the
embankment geometry was altered to have berms on both
Modified Cam clay analysis. A second analysis was then sides of the embankment (see Fig. 13). The finite element
performed in which the constitutive model was isotropic (i.e. mesh was similar to the one presented in Fig. 8, and the
MCC), as would be the case in most classical analyses. The same construction procedure as in the original embankment
isotropic undrained strength profile was chosen to correspond
to the TXC profile in Fig. 2, because this is the most
common experiment performed as part of any site investiga- 7·6 m
tion. The predicted embankment height from this analysis
1·5:1 2:1
4·6 m

was 4·9 m, a full 1 m more than in the MIT-E3 analysis.

1·5 m

Because this failure height exceeds 4·6 m, which is the

geometry for which the mesh was generated, additional layers 5·0 m 23·7 m 4·6 m
up to 4·9 m were simulated by applying stress increments on
the crest to represent the weight of these layers. Fig. 12
shows the development of horizontal displacement, u, of the
embankment toe with the embankment height. This horizon- Fig. 13. Geometry of Saint-Alban embankment with additional
tal displacement is normalised by the maximum horizontal berm

Observed failure arc on site Failure line from the analysis

(after La Rochelle et al., 1974)

Fig. 11. Vectors of incremental displacements at failure

454
was implemented. Both MIT-E3 and MCC models were
used, with the same parameters as given in Tables 1 and 2
respectively. The aim of this set of analyses was to investi-
gate the merits of back-analysis using the isotropic un-
drained strength profile.
The analysis using the MIT-E3 model, with the same
anisotropic undrained strength profile as in Fig. 2, predicted
the failure height of the new embankment to be 4·4 m. This
height was larger than 3·9 m, as expected, because of the
presence of the new berm. A plot of the normalised horizon-
tal displacement at the embankment toe against the embank-
ment height is given in Fig. 14. Fig. 15 shows vectors of
incremental displacement at failure as obtained from the
analysis, together with the failure surface derived on the
basis of contours of plastic shear strain in the foundation
soil.
Assuming that the MIT-E3 prediction can be taken as
correct, since the previous MIT-E3 analysis agreed very well
with the observed behaviour, the new embankment geometry
was analysed using the MCC model, with the isotropic
undrained strength back-calculated from the previous ana-
lysis of the original geometry of the embankment (i.e. 1·25
times the DSS). This analysis predicted the embankment
height at failure of 4·9 m and hence over-predicted that
obtained from the analysis with the MIT-E3 model by
0·5 m. A new analysis to obtain the same failure height of
4·4 m, as in the MIT-E3 analysis, required the isotropic
undrained strength to be only 1·15 times the DSS strength
(see Fig. 14).
The inference from the analyses of the altered embank-
ment geometry is that, in conditions of anisotropic founda-
tion soil, if an isotropic strength profile is back-calculated
from the observed behaviour of a certain embankment
ZDRAVKOVIĆ, POTTS AND HIGHT
geometry, it is not necessarily appropriate if the embankment
geometry becomes altered.
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Original embankment geometry
Figure 16 shows the mobilised undrained strength at fai-
lure along the failure surface in the foundation soil, from the
analysis in which the undrained strength was dependent on
the orientation of the principal stresses (i.e. the MIT-E3
model). For comparison, the distributions of the available
PSC, PSE and DSS strengths, along the same failure surface,
are also shown. The distance along the failure surface is
measured from left (in front of the toe) to right (underneath
the body of the embankment). From this it can be seen that
the strength mobilised in the crust underneath the embank-
ment is equivalent to the PSC strength, while that in the
crust beneath the toe is equivalent to the PSE strength.
Between these two areas the mobilised undrained strength
reduces nearly linearly from PSC to PSE, but is significantly
higher than the DSS strength over most of the surface. This
is why the isotropic analysis with the DSS profile under-
estimated the embankment height (3·3 m).
Figure 17 shows the comparison of mobilised undrained
strength along the failure surface from the anisotropic MIT-
E3 analysis with that from the isotropic MCC analysis, with
the isotropic strength being 1·25 times the DSS strength.
Such comparison is possible because both analyses predicted
a similar location for the failure surface. It can be seen that
this mobilised isotropic strength averages better the actual
mobilised anisotropic strength and hence gave a better
prediction of embankment height (3·9 m).

35
Crust Crust
1·5 0 16

4m
30
Normalised horizontal displacement, u/umax

MIT-E3
Undrained strength: kPa

MCC-1·25 × DSS 25
MCC-1·15 × DSS
PSC
1·0 20

15 Mobilised

u DSS
10
0·5
PSE
5
4·4 m

4·9 m

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0 2·5 3·0 3·5 4·0 4·5 5·0 Distance along failure line: m
Embankment height: m
Fig. 16. Mobilised and available undrained strength along
Fig. 14. Comparison of failure heights from different analyses failure surface of original embankment geometry (anisotropic
(altered geometry) analysis)

Fig. 15. Vectors of incremental displacement at failure for embankment with additional berm
 EMBANKMENTS ON SOFT GROUND 455
35 35

0 16 0 20

4m
30 30 Crust Crust

4m
Crust Crust
Undrained strength: kPa

Undrained strength: kPa

25 25
PSC
20 20
MCC (1·25 × DSS) MIT
15 15
Mobilised

10 10 DSS

5 5 PSE

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Distance along failure line: m Distance along failure line: m

Fig. 17. Comparison between mobilised anisotropic and isotro- Fig. 19. Mobilised and available undrained strength along
pic strengths along failure surface for original embankment failure surface of altered embankment geometry (anisotropic
geometry analysis)

Observing the Æ directions of the major principal stress in 35

Fig. 18, it is clear that a significant change in the inclination
of this stress is happening along the failure surface and 30
Mobilised undrained strength: kPa
0 20
hence the change in the mobilised undrained strength in Fig.

4m
Crust Crust
16. It is clear from Fig. 18 that a very short part of the 25
failure surface close to the embankment toe has the major
principal stress orientation of between 358 and 558, and 20
therefore very little DSS strength (i.e. Æ  458) is mobilised MIT
MCC (1·15 × DSS)
in Fig. 16. 15

10
New embankment geometry with the additional berm
Figure 19 presents the mobilised undrained strength in the 5
foundation soil along the failure surface for the embankment
with an additional berm on the side of the steeper slope. 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Again the length of the failure surface is measured from left Distance along failure line: m
(i.e. in front of the toe of a berm) to right (i.e. underneath
the embankment body). In a similar manner as in Fig. 16, Fig. 20. Comparison between mobilised anisotropic and isotro-
the mobilised strength from the anisotropic analysis is pic strengths along failure surface for altered embankment
plotted together with the available PSC, PSE and DSS geometry
strengths. In the soil below the crust the variation in strength
is similar to that observed for the original embankment in
Fig. 16. However, it can be seen that, while the mobilised
strength in the crust underneath the embankment is again Directions of the major principal stress in Fig. 21 reveal that
close to the PSC strength, in the crust beneath the berm the there is now a proportionally larger part of the failure
mobilised strength is between the DSS and PSE strengths surface underneath the new berm that has a principal stress
and therefore higher than in Fig. 16. Consequently, an orientation, Æ, between 358 and 558, which helps to explain
isotropic strength lower than 1·25 times the DSS strength (as the mobilised strength profile in Fig. 19.
estimated with the original geometry) was required to give
the same prediction of 4·4 m embankment failure height, as
in the anisotropic analysis. This isotropic strength was 1·15 CONCLUSIONS
times the DSS strength, and Fig. 20 shows its comparison This paper has presented finite element analyses of an
with the mobilised anisotropic strength. embankment on soft clay. The embankment analysed was
part of a research programme at the University of Laval, and

α σ1′ α σ1′

80˚
90˚ 70˚ 0˚
4m

0˚ 5˚
80˚ 4˚ 59˚41˚ 15˚
50˚ 37˚ 30˚ 20˚
24˚ 18˚ 12˚
35˚–55˚ zone 35˚–55˚ zone

Fig. 18. Inclinations of major principal stress to the vertical Fig. 21. Inclinations of major principal stress to the vertical
along failure surface of original embankment geometry along failure surface of altered embankment geometry
456 ZDRAVKOVIĆ, POTTS AND HIGHT
was constructed to failure on the soft Champlain deposits of
eastern Canada. The analyses were performed using both an
anisotropic soil model, which allows the anisotropic strength
of the soil to be simulated, and an isotropic model, in which
the soil strength is independent of the orientation of the
major principal stress. Where possible, the predictions from
the anisotropic analysis were compared with the measure-
ments on site. Several conclusions can be drawn from this
embankment study:
(a) An analysis of an embankment that assumes isotropic
soil behaviour and takes either the triaxial compression
strength profile (TXC) or the direct simple shear
strength profile (DSS) is likely to either overestimate
or underestimate the embankment failure height respec-
tively. The reason for this is that large variation of the
inclination of the major principal stress to the vertical
occurs along the failure surface, and if the soil is
anisotropic, as in this case, there will be large
differences in the mobilised undrained strength along
the failure surface.
(b) Taking account of soil anisotropy, observed through
laboratory and field experiments, makes possible a
more accurate prediction of embankment failure height.
(c) The recommendation of some design guides, based on
the usual assumption of an isotropic soil, that the DSS
strength should be used for embankment design, can
underpredict embankment failure heights if the side
slope of the embankment is relatively steep. If the side
slope of an embankment is fairly flat, as was the case
when an additional berm was considered, then the DSS
strength becomes closer to the average strength
mobilised along the failure surface. The reason for this
is again the inclination of the major principal stress
to the vertical, which will be around 458 (i.e. 35–558)
underneath a larger part of the slope.
(d ) Another important issue for design purposes is the
back-analysis of the embankment problem. What this
case study has shown is that, in the isotropic analysis
of an embankment, if the isotropic strength profile is
back-calculated from the observed behaviour of a
certain embankment geometry (e.g. 1·25 times the
DSS strength for the original embankment), this
strength is not necessarily appropriate if the embank-
ment geometry becomes even slightly altered (e.g. 1·15
times the DSS strength was required for the embank-
ment with an additional berm). This implies that the
failure height can be either overpredicted or under-
predicted, depending on which geometry was back-
analysed.
NOTATION
K0coefficient of earth pressure at rest
K nc
0coefficient of earth pressure at rest in normal consolida-
tion
K oc
0 coefficient of earth pressure at rest in overcon-
solidation
p9 mean effective stress
Su undrained strength
u horizontal displacement of embankment
umax maximum horizontal displacement of embankment
Æ orientation of major principal stress to vertical
ªxy shear strain
xy shear stress
9TC critical-state angle of shearing resistance in triaxial
compression
9TE critical-state angle of shearing resistance in triaxial
extension
REFERENCES
Bjerrum, L. (1973). Problems of soil mechanics and construction
on soft clays and structurally unstable soils (collapsible, expan-
sive and others): state-of-the-art report. Proc. 8th Int. Conf. Soil
Mech. Found. Engng, Moscow 3, 109–159.
Gens, A. & Potts, D. M. (1988). Critical state model in computa-
tional geomechanics. Engng Comput. 5, 178–197.
Graham, J. (1979). Embankment stability on anisotropic soft clays.
Can. Geotech. J. 16, 295–308.
Hight, D. W., Jardine, R. J. & Gens, A. (1987). The behaviour of
soft clays. In Embankments on soft clays. Bulletin of the Public
Works Research Centre, Athens, 33–158.
Jardine, R. J. & Hight, D. W. (1987). The behaviour and analysis of
embankments on soft clay. In Embankments on soft clays.
Bulletin of the Public Works Research Centre, Athens, 159–244.
Jardine, R. J. & Menkiti, C. O. (1999). The undrained anisotropy of
K 0 consolidated sediments. Proc. 12th Eur. Conf. Soil Mech.
Found. Engng, Amsterdam 2, 1101–1108.
Jardine, R. J., Zdravković, L. & Porović, E. (1997). Anisotropic
consolidation, including principal stress axis rotation: experi-
ments, results and practical implications. Proc. 14th Int. Conf.
Soil Mech. Found. Engng, Hamburg 4, 2165–2168.
La Rochelle, P., Trak, B., Tavenas, F. & Roy, M. (1974). Failure of
test embankment on sensitive Champlain clay deposit. Can.
Geotech. J. 11, 142–164.
Lefebvre, G. & Pfendler, P. (1996). Strain rate and pre-shear effects
in cyclic resistance of soft clay. ASCE J. Geotech. Engng 122,
No. 1, 21–26.
Lefebvre, G., Ladd, C. C. & Pare, J. J. (1988). Comparison of field
vane and laboratory undrained shear strength in soft sensitive
clays. In Vane shear strength testing in soils (ed. A. F. Richard),
ASTM STP 1014, pp. 233–246. Philadelphia, American Society
for Testing and Materials.
Leroueil, S. (1977). Quelques considérations sur le comportement
des argiles sensibles. PhD thesis, University of Laval, Quebec,
Canada.
Leroueil, S., Tavenas, F., Samson, L. & Morin, P. (1983). Precon-
solidation pressure of Champlain clays. Part II: Laboratory
determination. Can. Geotech. J. 20, 803–816.
Lo, K. Y. (1970). The operational strength of fissured clays.
Géotechnique 20, No. 1, 57–75.
Mayne, P. W. & Kulhawy, F. H. (1982). K 0 –OCR relationship in
soils. ASCE J. Geotech. Engng 108, No. 6, 851–872.
Potts, D. M. & Gens, A. (1984). The effect of the plastic potential
in boundary value problems involving plane strain deformation.
Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 8, 259–286.
Potts, D. M. & Zdravković, L. (1999). Finite element analysis in
geotechnical engineering: Theory. London: Thomas Telford.
Roscoe, K. H. & Burland, J. B. (1968). On the generalised stress–
strain behaviour of ‘wet’ clay. In Engineering plasticity (eds J.
Heyman and F. A. Leckie), pp. 535-609. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Sarrailh, J. & Tavenas, F. (1972). Etude géotechnique préliminaire
du site de Saint-Alban, Internal report GCN-72–09–02 (MS-
N2). Quebec: University of Laval.
Seah, T. H. (1990). Anisotropy of normally consolidated Boston
Blue clay. ScD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, USA.
Symes, M. J. P. R., Gens, A. & Hight, D. W. (1984). Undrained
anisotropy and principal stress rotation in saturated sand. Géo-
technique 34, No. 1, 11–27.
Symes, M. J. P. R., Gens, A. & Hight, D. W. (1988). Drained
principal stress rotation in saturated sand. Géotechnique 38,
No. 1, 59–81.
Tavenas, F. & Chapeau, C. (1973). Etude en laboratoire des
propriétés géotechniques de l’argile de Saint-Alban, Internal
report GCN-73–04–03 (MS-N5). Quebec: University of
Laval.
Tavenas, F. & Leroueil, S. (1980). The behaviour of embankments
on clay foundations. Can. Geotech. J. 17, No. 2, 236–260.
Tavenas, F., Chapeau, C., La Rochelle, P. & Roy, M. (1974).
Immediate settlement of three test embankments on Champlain
clay. Can. Geotech. J. 11, 109–141.
Tavenas, F., Mieussens, C. & Bourges, F. (1979). Lateral displace-
ments in clay foundations under embankments. Can. Geotech. J.
16, 535–550.
 EMBANKMENTS ON SOFT GROUND 457
Tavenas, F., Jean, P., Leblond, P. & Leroueil, S. (1983). The Whittle, A. J. & Kavvadas, M. J. (1994). Formulation of MIT-E3
permeability of natural soft clays. Part II: Permeability charac- constitutive model for overconsolidated clays. ASCE J. Geotech.
teristics. Can. Geotech. J. 20, 645–660. Engng 120, No. 1, 173–198.
Trak, B. (1980). De la stabilité des remblais sur sols mous. PhD Zdravković, L. & Jardine, R. J. (2000). Undrained anisotropy of K0
thesis, University of Laval, Quebec, Canada. consolidated silt. Can. Geotech. J. 37, 178–200.
Trak, B., La Rochelle, P., Tavenas, F., Leroueil, S. & Roy, M. Zdravković, L., Potts, D. M. & Jardine, R. J. (2001). A parametric
(1980). A new approach to the stability analysis of embank- study of the pull-out capacity of bucket foundations in soft clay.
ments on sensitive clays. Can. Geotech. J. 17, 526–544. Géotechnique 51, No. 1, 55–67.