Undrained Shear Strength of K0 Consolidated Soft Soils

Li-Zhong Wang1; Kai-lun Shen, Ph.D.2; and Sheng-Hua Ye3

Abstract: On the basis of critical state soil mechanics, this study derives theoretical formulas for predicting the undrained shear strength
of K0 consolidated soft soils in triaxial compression and extension. Although the modified Cam-clay model is often utilized to predict the
undrained shear strength of soft clays, it is applicable mainly to isotropically consolidated soils. Because of the anisotropy under K0
consolidation, an inclined elliptical yield surface is chosen, which is different from those methods based on the original Cam-clay model.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Monash University on 09/26/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The inclined elliptical yield surface is testified to be appropriate to the K0 consolidated soft soil and results in a better prediction of
undrained strength, especially for the triaxial extension test. It is concluded that the analytical solutions obtained in this paper are in good
agreement with the available test results and back-analysis of slope failures. On the basis of the investigation of soil properties, a simple
formula is proposed for calculating the mean undrained shear strength along the failure surface.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1532-3641共2008兲8:2共105兲
CE Database subject headings: Soil mechanics; Soft soils; Shear strength; Soil consolidation.

Introduction
The investigation of undrained shear strength of soft soils began
in the 1940s when Casagrande proposed the QRS methodology.
Skempton 共1954, 1957兲 presented experimental data for a number
of normally consolidated soils and deduced the relationship be-
tween vane shear strength gain ratio su / ␴⬘v0 共␴⬘v0 means the effec-
tive overburden pressure兲 and plasticity index. With gathering
more experimental data, the data show a greater variety, and the
character of the dependence of su / ␴⬘v0 on plasticity index becomes
less clear. Bjerrum 共1972, 1973兲 analyzed a large number of field
data and proposed a nonlinear relationship between strength gain
ratio su / ␴⬘vc 共␴⬘vc means vertical preconsolidation pressure兲 and
plasticity index. Bjerrum 共1972兲 back-analyzed many case histo-
ries of embankment failure on soft ground and introduced a cor-
rection factor. Bjerrum 共1973兲 emphasized that this correction
factor may arise partly from the effects of anisotropy of natural
soils and partly from the dependence of strength on rate of shear.
Mesri 共1975兲 analyzed the field vane strength of a number of late
glacial clays which involved both normally and overconsolidated
soil samples. After introducing Bjerrum’s correction factor, Mesri
showed that the strength gain ratio su / ␴⬘vc, is roughly a constant
value of 0.22. Ladd and Foott 共1974兲 proposed the stress history
and normalized soils engineering properties 共SHANSEP兲 method.
After carrying out the CK0U direct simple shear test for five kinds
1 the inherent anisotropy and the stress-induced anisotropy. The
Professor, Institute of Geotechnical Engineering, Zhejiang Univ.,
Zheda Rd. 38, Hangzhou 310027, China 共corresponding author兲. E-mail:
wizzju@163.com
2 soil particles, and the stress-induced anisotropy rises from the
Designer, Institute of Geotechnical Engineering, Zhejiang Univ.,
Zheda Rd. 38, Hangzhou 310027, China.
3
Designer, Institute of Geotechnical Engineering, Zhejiang Univ.,
Zheda Rd. 38, Hangzhou 310027, China.
Note. Discussion open until September 1, 2008. Separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing
Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and pos-
sible publication on April 3, 2006; approved on July 30, 2007. This paper
is part of the International Journal of Geomechanics, Vol. 8, No. 2,
April 1, 2008. ©ASCE, ISSN 1532-3641/2008/2-105–113/$25.00.
of clay, they found that the mean values of strength gain ratio
su / ␴⬘vc, for normally consolidated and overconsolidated clays
共OCR= 2兲 were 0.23 and 0.21, respectively. On the basis of back
analyses on 15 embankment failures 共for clays I p ⬍ 60%兲, Larsson
共1980兲 concluded that the value of su / ␴⬘vc is 0.23 with a standard
deviation of 0.04.
It must be pointed out that these findings mentioned above are
mostly based on investigation and back analysis of a large number
of embankment failures. In other words, they are the overall val-
ues that are mobilized along the failure surface. The measured
undrained shear strengths 共such as field vane shear strength or
triaxial compression strength兲 are usually corrected by a coeffi-
cient for application in slope stability analysis. Many researchers
emphasized that for the stability analysis of a soft soil slope 共Fig.
1兲, it is unreasonable to calculate the safety factor purely from the
shear strength measured by triaxial compression tests. On the
sliding surface, there are three different stress paths, including
triaxial compression 共TXC兲, direct simple shear 共DSS兲, and tri-
axial extension 共TXE兲, which correspond to three kinds of un-
drained shear strength 共sutxc, sudss, and sutxe兲. Ladd and Foott
共1974兲 and Ladd 共1991兲 emphasized that the K0 consolidation
condition should be considered for undrained shear strength
analysis of soil.
Much effort has been made for modeling the anisotropy of
undrained shear strength since the 1940s. The anisotropy of the
undrained shear strength is considered to have two components:
inherent anisotropy results from the anisotropy of the soil skel-
eton structure such as the preferred sedimentation orientation of
anisotropic consolidation stress state. Many researchers have pro-
posed the relationship between undrained shear strength and di-
rection of shear 共Hansen and Gibson 1949; Nakase and Kamei
1983兲, but most of which are empirical. Prevost 共1979兲 first for-
mulated the undrained shear strength on the basis of a constitutive
equation. Ohta and Nishihara 共1985兲 made use of the original cam
clay model and derived the theoretical formula for undrained
shear strength which involved K0 consolidation-induced aniso-
tropy. Zdravkovic et al. 共2002兲 examined the stability of Saint-

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2008 / 105

Int. J. Geomech. 2008.8:105-113.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Monash University on 09/26/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Sketch of soft clay slope

Alban test fill in detail and highlighted the strength anisotropy

caused by the rotation of principal stress in soft soil embank-
ments. Ohta and Nishihara 共1985兲 pointed out that the anisotropy
of undrained shear strength of normally and lightly overconsoli-
dated clays is mainly due to the stress-induced anisotropy. Con-
sequently, only the stress-induced anisotropy is considered in this
paper.
Many laboratory test results show that the initial yield surface
of K0 consolidated soil is nearly a rotated ellipse on a p – q plane
共Graham et al. 1983兲. Wheeler et al. 共2003兲 developed the S-clay1
model to study the constitutive relationship of the natural soil. On
the basis of the critical state soil mechanics and the rotated ellipse
yield surface, the present paper studies the anisotropy of und-
rained shear strength under K0 consolidation. The theoretical for-
mula proposed for the anisotropically consolidated soil can be
transferred into the solution for the isotropically consolidated
soils 共Wood 1990兲. By collecting the available test results, it is
verified that the theoretical formula proposed in the present paper
is more reasonable than that obtained by Ohta and Nishihara
共1985兲, especially for the triaxial extension stress path. For nor-
mally consolidated soft clays with critical state frictional angle ␸⬘
ranging from 20 to 35°, it is suggested to use the mean undrained
strength for slope stability analysis: su = 0.204␴⬘v0 共for ␸⬘
= 20– 25°兲; su = 0.239␴⬘v0 共for ␸⬘ = 25– 30°兲, and su = 0.269␴⬘v0 共for
␸⬘ = 30– 35°兲.
Fig. 2. Compression curves of soft clays on v ⬃ ln p⬘ plane: 共a兲 iso-
tropic consolidation; 共b兲 K0 consolidation

Constitutive Equation Employed in This Study

p⬘c
Isotropic Volumetric Strain and Shear-Induced v = N − ␭ ln p⬘c + ␬ ln 共2兲
p⬘
Volumetric Strain of Modified Cam-Clay Model
where ␭ and ␬⫽slopes of the isotropic consolidation line and
It is known that the yield surface equation of MCC model for swelling line, respectively, and the reference specific volume of
isotropic consolidation soil is expressed as point II is

p⬘c
p⬘ M2 v␭ = v + ␭ ln p⬘ = N − 共␭ − ␬兲ln 共3兲
= 2 共1兲 p⬘
p⬘c M + ␩2
Substitution of Eq. 共1兲 into Eq. 共3兲 yields
where p⬘⫽effective mean stress corresponding to the current
state, p⬘c ⫽effective mean stress for normally consolidated soils M 2 + ␩2
indicating the reference size of the yield surface; and ␩ = q / p⬘ in v␭ = N − 共␭ − ␬兲ln 共4兲
M2
which q⫽deviator stress.
According to Fig. 2共a兲, the specific volume at point II can be In accordance with the MCC model, we have the dilatancy of
obtained by isotropic consolidation soil

106 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2008

Int. J. Geomech. 2008.8:105-113.

 N − v␭ ␭ − ␬ M 2 + ␩2
⑀vpd = = ln 共5兲
v0 v0 M2
The corresponding plastic compression volumetric strain is
␭ − ␬ p⬘
⑀vpc = ln 共6兲
v0 p⬘0
The total plastic volumetric strain for isotropic consolidation soil
can be written from Eqs. 共5兲 and 共6兲 as
␭ − ␬ p⬘ ␭ − ␬ M 2 + ␩2
⑀vp = ⑀vpc + ⑀vpd = ln + ln 共7兲
v0 p⬘0 v0 M2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Monash University on 09/26/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Volumetric Strain for K0 Consolidated Clay

The point of this paper is to study the undrained shear strength of
K0 consolidated soil. On the basis of the experience of Ohta and
Nishihara 共1985兲, the MCC model, which is derived for isotropi-
cally consolidated soils, can be extended to K0 consolidated soil.
According to laboratory test results, Wheeler et al. 共2003兲 pre-
Fig. 3. Initial yield surface and undrained stress paths
sented the S-clay1 model which involved K0 consolidation aniso-
tropy. In this model, the yield function is defined by
p⬘ M 2 − 共␣0␩K0nc兲2
= 2 共8兲 surface to a stress state B on the surface, as shown in Figs. 3 and
p⬘c M − 共␣0␩K0nc兲2 + ␩*2 4. State C lies on the subsequent yield surface. The specific vol-
where ␩* = 冑共3 / 2兲 · 共sij / p⬘ − ␣0sijm / pm⬘ 兲 · 共sij / p⬘ − ␣0sijm / pm⬘ 兲, and ume and stress states of A, I, B, and C are set to be A共vm , pm⬘ , ␩m* 兲,
pm⬘ and sijm represent the maximal stress state along the normal I共vi , pi⬘ , ␩i*兲, B共vb , p⬘b , ␩*b 兲, and C共v , p⬘ , ␩*兲, respectively. The soil
consolidation process and ␩K0nc = qm / pm⬘ . As in the S-Clay1 behavior is purely elastic during the process along path IB, while
model, ␣0 indicates the initial inclination of the yield surface. For path BC⫽subsequent yielding 共hardening兲 process. The change of
the case of normally consolidated or lightly overconsolidated specific volume of path IB is
clay, the value of ␣0 can be approximately given by ␣0 = 共␩2K0nc
+ 3␩K0nc − M 2兲 / 共3␩K0nc兲. p⬘b
Just follow the steps in the last section, as shown in Fig. 2共b兲, ⌬v = vb − vi = − ␬ ln 共13兲
pi⬘
where the total plastic volumetric strain of K0 consolidated soil
can be obtained by Because there is no volume change 共i.e., ⌬v = 0兲 in an un-
drained procedure, it can be assumed that p⬘b = pi⬘ = p⬘0, where
␭ − ␬ p⬘ ␭ − ␬ M 2 − 共␣0␩K0nc兲2 + ␩*2 p0⬘⫽effective mean stress in situ, and p0⬘ = pm⬘ for normally consoli-
⑀vp = ⑀vpc + ⑀vpd = ln + ln
v0 p⬘0 v0 M 2 − 共␣0␩K0nc兲2 dated soil. It follows from Eq. 共12兲 that the specific volume
共9兲 change along stress Path BC is given by

On the other hand, the elastic volumetric strain can be expressed

as
␬ p⬘
⑀ev = ln 共10兲
v0 p⬘0
Summation of Eqs. 共9兲 and 共10兲 gives the total volumetric strain
as
␭ p⬘ ␭ − ␬ M 2 − 共␣0␩K0nc兲2 + ␩*2
⑀v = ⑀vp + ⑀ev = ln + ln
v0 p⬘0 v0 M 2 − 共␣0␩K0nc兲2
共11兲
By the definition of strain in soil mechanics: ⑀v = 共v0 − v兲 / v0, Eq.
共11兲 can be rewritten as
p⬘ M 2 − 共␣0␩K0nc兲2 + ␩*2
v = v0 − ␭ ln − 共␭ − ␬兲ln 共12兲
p⬘0 M 2 − 共␣0␩K0nc兲2

Undrained Stress Path

A stress path of overconsolidated soil during the undrained shear-
ing may start from the initial stress state I inside the initial yield Fig. 4. Stress paths under triaxial loading conditions

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2008 / 107

Int. J. Geomech. 2008.8:105-113.

 p⬘b M 2 − 共␣0␩K0nc兲2 + ␩*b 2 ⳵f 1 2␩关M 2 − 共␣0␩K0nc兲2兴 d␩*
⌬v = v − vb = ␭ ln + 共␭ − ␬兲ln 2 = + * 2 2 · =0 共23兲
p⬘ M − 共␣0␩K0nc兲2 + ␩*2 ⳵ p⬘ p⬘c 关M − 共␣0␩K0nc兲 + ␩ 兴 dp⬘
2 2

共14兲 where
path BC is also an undrained procedure, where we have ⌬v = 0,
which means
d␩*
dp⬘
3 sij
=− *
2␩ p⬘
冉
− ␣0
sijm sij
pm⬘ p⬘2
冊
pb⬘ M 2 − 共␣0␩K0nc兲2 + ␩*b 2 Introduction of it into Eq. 共23兲 leads to
␭ ln + 共␭ − ␬兲ln 2 =0 共15兲

冉 冊
p⬘ M − 共␣0␩K0nc兲2 + ␩*2
sij sijm sij M 2 − 共␣0␩K0nc兲2 + ␩*2
Since point B is on the initial yield surface given by Eq. 共8兲, the − ␣0 = 共24兲
p⬘ pm⬘ p⬘2 3
stress state at B must satisfy
For isotropic consolidation sijm = 0, Eq. 共24兲 becomes
p⬘b M 2 − 共␣0␩K0nc兲2
= 共16兲 ␩= ±M 共25兲
M 2 − 共␣0␩K0nc兲2 + ␩*b 2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Monash University on 09/26/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

p⬘c
This is the failure condition for isotropic consolidation soil which
Eliminating ␩*b from Eqs. 共15兲 and 共16兲 yields is commonly used in critical state soil mechanics.

␭ ln
p⬘b
p⬘
+ 共␭ − ␬兲ln
p⬘c
· 2冋
M 2 − 共␣0␩K0nc兲2
p⬘b M − 共␣0␩K0nc兲2 + ␩*2
=0 册 共17兲
Undrained Shear Strength under Triaxial Stress States

Because p⬘b = pi⬘ = p⬘0 and the stress state at A also satisfies Eq. 共8兲, The triaxial stress condition is given as follows
Eq. 共17兲 becomes ␴r⬘ = ␴⬘␪ , ␶zr = ␶z␪ = ␶r␪ = 0
共26兲
p⬘0 ⬘ = ␴⬘␪0 = K0␴z0
␴r0 ⬘, ␶zr0 = ␶z␪0 = ␶r␪0 = 0
␭ ln + 共␭ − ␬兲
p⬘ ␩* can be rewritten by substituting Eq. 共26兲 into its expression as

⫻ln n · 冋 M 2
+ ␩2K0nc
2
M −
− 2␣0␩2K0nc
共␣0␩K0nc兲2
·
M − 共␣0␩K0nc兲
2 2

M − 共␣0␩K0nc兲2 + ␩*2
2 =0 册 ␩* = ± 冉 ␴z⬘ − ␴r⬘
p⬘
− ␣0
⬘ − ␴rm
␴zm
pm⬘
⬘
冊
= ± 共␩ − ␣0␩K0nc兲 共27兲
共18兲
in which the plus sign represents the triaxial compression test
in which n⫽overconsolidation ratio in terms of the effective mean 共␴z⬘ ⬎ ␴r⬘兲 and the minus sign represents the triaxial extension test
principle stress, i.e., n = pm⬘ / p⬘0 = pm⬘ / p⬘b = pm⬘ / pI⬘ 共see Fig. 4兲. Then 共␴z⬘ ⬍ ␴r⬘兲, where ␩ = q / p⬘ = 共␴z⬘ − ␴r⬘兲 / p⬘ and ␩K0nc = qm / pm⬘ = 共␴zm
⬘
Eq. 共18兲 can be rewritten as ⬘ 兲 / pm⬘ = 3共1 − K0兲 / 共1 + 2K0兲.
− ␴rm

冉冊冋 册
␭ 共␭−␬兲
The failure condition under triaxial stress condition can be
p⬘0 M 2 + ␩2K0nc − 2␣0␩2K0nc M 2 − 共␣0␩K0nc兲2 obtained by substituting Eqs. 共26兲 and 共27兲 into Eq. 共24兲 as
· ·
p⬘ M 2 − 共␣0␩K0nc兲2 M 2 − 共␣0␩K0nc兲2 + ␩*2 follows
· n共␭−␬兲 = 1 共19兲 ␩= ±M 共28兲
when n = 1 in Eq. 共18兲, the undrained stress path for normally which is the same as the failure condition for isotropic consoli-
consolidated soil can be obtained by dation soil, as shown in Eq. 共25兲. This coincidence of isotropic

冉冊冋 册
␭ 共␭−␬兲 and anisotropic consolidation soil indicates that the critical state
p⬘0 M 2 + ␩2K0nc − 2␣0␩2K0nc M 2 − 共␣0␩K0nc兲2 line in the p – q plane is independent of consolidation history and
· · 2 =1
p⬘ M − 共␣0␩K0nc兲
2 2
M − 共␣0␩K0nc兲2 + ␩*2 stress path. The failure condition Eq. 共28兲 can also be rewritten as
共20兲 ±q
p⬘ = 共29兲
M
The intersection between the critical state line and undrained
Formula for Predicting Undrained Shear Strength
stress path is the failure point. Hence eliminating p⬘ by substitut-
ing Eqs. 共27兲 and 共29兲 into Eq. 共19兲 we have

冋 册
Failure Condition ⌳
q M 2 + ␩2K0nc − 2␣0␩2K0nc M ± ␣0␩K0nc
The failure condition of the volumetric hardening plastic model is = ±M · · n⌳
p0⬘ M 2 − 共␣0␩K0nc兲2 2M
given by
共30兲
⳵f ⳵f
d⑀vp =␮ ␦ij = ␮ =0 共21兲 where
⳵ ␴ij⬘ ⳵ p⬘
␭−␬
where ␮⫽scalar plasticity multiplier and ␮ ⬎ 0; and f⫽yield ⌳= 共31兲
function given by ␭
The undrained shear strength is defined by
p⬘ M 2 − 共␣0␩K0nc兲2
f= − 2 共22兲 兩q兩
p⬘c M − 共␣0␩K0nc兲2 + ␩*2 su = 共32兲
2
The failure condition could be obtained by substituting Eq.
共22兲 into Eq. 共21兲 as Substituting Eq. 共32兲 into Eq. 共30兲, we obtain

108 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2008

Int. J. Geomech. 2008.8:105-113.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Monash University on 09/26/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. K0 compression and swelling line in v ⬃ ln p⬘共v ~ ln␴⬘v兲

=
p⬘0 2
冋
su M M 2 + ␩2K0nc − 2␣0␩2K0nc M ± ␣0␩K0nc
M 2 − 共␣0␩K0nc兲2
·
2M
册 ⌳
· n⌳ 共33兲

Substituting Eq. 共26兲 into Eq. 共8兲 we have the yield function

共p⬘ − p⬘c /2兲2 共q − ␣0␩K0nc p⬘兲2

+ =1 共34兲
共p⬘c /2兲2 共Mp⬘c /2兲2
The shape of the yield locus on the p⬘ – q plane is shown in
Fig. 4. It can be obtained by the anticlockwise rotating yield locus
of the MCC model with an angle of ␪ 共tan ␪ = ␣0␩K0nc兲, and at the
same time the ellipse is distorted, as illustrated in Fig. 4. The fact
that the yield locus of K0 consolidated soft clays is a rotated
ellipse on the p⬘ – q plane has been verified by a number of labo-
ratory tests 共e.g., Graham et al. 1983; Wheeler et al. 2003兲. This is
the basis of the present paper which is different from the work
presented by Ohta and Nishihara 共1985兲, which is based on the
inclined original Cam-clay yield curve.

Undrained Shear Strength and Overburden Pressure

It has been widely practiced to define the overconsolidation ratio
and the strength gain ratio by using the effective overburden pres-
sure rather than effective mean principle stress. It is convenient to
deduce the strength gain ratio which is defined by Eq. 共33兲 in the
form of effective overburden pressure and the conventional defi-
nition of overconsolidation ratio. Suppose the earth pressure
coefficient at rest K0 remains constant during the consolidation
process and increases during the unloading process. Fig. 5 shows
the relationship between the specific volume and the applied con-
solidation pressure during the process of K0 consolidation and
swelling. The solid line indicates the relation between the specific
volume and the effective overburden pressure, while the dotted
line indicates the relation between the specific volume and the
effective mean principle stress. The specific volume changes dur-
ing the process of unloading are given by
Fig. 6. Relationship between su / ␴⬘v0共CK0UC兲 and OCR 共experimen-
␴v⬘m pm⬘ tal data from Ohta and Nishihara 1985兲: 共a兲 Ariake clay; 共b兲 Weald
v0 − vm = ¯␬ ln = ␬ ln 共35兲 clay
␴⬘v0 p⬘0
where ¯␬ and ␬ give the slope of the swelling lines described by solidation ratio is defined by OCR= ␴v⬘m / ␴⬘v0, and n = pm⬘ / p⬘0. Sub-
using the effective overburden pressure and the effective mean stituting them into Eq. 共35兲, we obtain
principle stress, respectively; ␴⬘v0⫽effective overburden pressure
n = OCR共␬¯ /␬兲 共36兲
corresponding to the current state; and ␴v⬘m⫽effective overburden
pressure at the end of the K0 consolidation process. The overcon- Additionally

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2008 / 109

Int. J. Geomech. 2008.8:105-113.

 Table 1. Parameters of Soils 关Adapted from Ohta and Nishihara 共1985兲兴

Number Reference Soils ␸⬘ K0 ⌳ ¯

⌳
1 Parry and Nadarajah 共1973兲 Spestone kaolin 20.80 0.64 0.82 0.83
2 Hazawa et al. 共1980兲 Khor Al-Zubair clay 33.60 0.49 — —
3 Bjerrum and Kenny 共1967兲 Manglerud quick clay 24.80 0.51 — —
4 Ladd 共1967兲 Boston blue clay 33.00 0.50 — —
5 Mitachi and Kitago 共1976兲 Clay1 26.80 0.52 0.49 —
Clay2 32.00 0.50 — —
6 Nakase and Kamei 共1983兲 M-30 41.00 0.42 — —
M-20 40.10 0.42 — —
M-15 40.10 0.41 — —
M-10 39.30 0.43 — —
Vaid and Campanella 共1974兲
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Monash University on 09/26/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

7 Honey sensitive clay 34.30 0.56 — —

8 Hekel and Sowa 共1963兲 Weald clay 25.90 0.60 0.67 —
9 Nakase et al. 共1969兲 Nagoya clay 35.60 0.46 0.88 0.93
Chiba clay 38.40 0.50 — —
10 Mitachi and Kitago 共1976兲 Hokkaido silt 35.10 0.45 0.82 0.80
Hokkaido clay 34.90 0.45 — 0.84
Hokkaido clay 34.00 0.47 0.91 0.89
11 Ladd 共1965兲 Vicksburg C 25.00 0.54 — —
Kawasaki C 39.00 0.52 — 0.91
Skabo clay 30.00 0.47 — —
12 Ohta and Nishihara 共1985兲 Ariake clay 39.00 0.47 0.96 0.90
13 Shogaki and Nochikawa 共2004兲 Mito clay 40.00 0.36 — —
Kahokugata clay 41.00 0.34 — —
Kimhae clay 34.00 0.44 — —

p⬘0 =
1 + 2K0
3
· OCR · ␴⬘v0 共37兲 冉 冊
su
␴⬘v0 NCI
=
M
2⌳+1
共41兲

Substitution of Eqs. 共36兲 and 共37兲 into Eq. 共33兲 yields

冉 冊 冉 冊
which is identical to the equation of the MCC model proposed by
su su ¯
⌳ Wood 共1990兲.
= OCR · 共38兲
␴⬘v0 OCA ␴ ⬘m
v NCA

which represents the undrained shear strength of overconsolidated Discussion

clays under K0 stress conditions. In Eq. 共38兲, OCA indicates K0
overconsolidation, NCA indicates K0 normally consolidated, and
Fig. 6 shows the results of triaxial compression tests on K0 con-
¯ = 共␭ − ¯␬兲 / ␭. For normally consolidated clays 共␴⬘ = ␴⬘ 兲, the
⌳ vm v0 solidated Ariake clay and Weald clay 共see Table 1, Numbers 12
strength gain ratio is given by and 8兲 which were reported by Ohta and Nishihara 共1985兲. The

冉 冊
parameters of the soils are listed in Table 1. There is one normally
su 1 + 2K0 M
= · consolidated sample and a few overconsolidated samples in each
␴⬘v0 3 2 group. In Fig. 6, the abscissa is the OCR and the ordinate is the

冋 册
NCA

M 2 + ␩2K0nc − 2␣0␩2K0nc M ± ␣0␩K0nc
⫻ ·
M 2 − 共␣0␩K0nc兲2 2M
Eqs. 共38兲 and 共39兲 give the formula for calculating the undrained
compression and extension shear strength under K0 consolidation
conditions. For isotropic consolidation soil, n = OCR; ␬ = ¯␬;
␩K0nc = 0; and K0 = 1. Thus the undrained shear strength of isotro-
pic overconsolidated soil can be obtained by
⌳ undrained strength gain ratio. The upper theoretical lines are ob-
tained from Eqs. 共38兲 and 共39兲, while the lower ones are obtained
from the theory of Ohta and Nishihara 共1985兲. In triaxial com-
共39兲 pression it is seen that the results predicted by the formula pro-
posed in this paper and Ohta and Nishihara 共1985兲 are both close
to the test results.
Fig. 7 shows the results of K0 consolidated triaxial extension
tests on three Japanese natural clays 共Shogaki and Nochikawa
2004兲, and the relevant parameters are listed in Table 1 共Number
13兲. As the parameter ⌳ is not reported, the authors adopt

冉 冊 su
␴⬘v0 OCI
= n⌳ · 冉 冊
su
␴v⬘m NCI
共40兲
Karube’s empirical equation: ⌳ = M / 1.75 as suggested by Ohta
and Nishihara 共1985兲. It is seen from Fig. 7 that the deviation
between the experimental values and predictions obtained from
where OCI indicates the isotropic overconsolidation, while NCI equations presented in this paper is much less than those obtained
denotes the isotropic normal consolidation. Thus the undrained from Ohta and Nishihara 共1985兲.
shear strength of isotropic normally consolidated soil can be ex- Fig. 8 shows a comparison of experimental and calculated
pressed as undrained shear strength of the normally K0 consolidated triaxial

110 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2008

Int. J. Geomech. 2008.8:105-113.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Monash University on 09/26/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 7. Relationship between su / ␴⬘v0 共CK0UE兲 and OCR 共experimen-
tal data from Ohta and Nishihara 1985兲: 共a兲 Mito clay; 共b兲 Kimhae
clay; and 共c兲 Kahokugata clay
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2008 / 111
Int. J. Geomech. 2008.8:105-113.
Fig. 8. Comparison between prediction and measured value of
su / ␴⬘v0 共experimental data from Ohta and Nishihara 1985兲: 共a兲 triaxial
compression; 共b兲 triaxial extension
tests reported in past publications, and the reference and soil pa-
rameters are listed in Table 1. Karube’s empirical equation is
employed in the case where the values of ⌳ are not fully reported
共except for Numbers 1 and 5兲 for calculating shear strength.
When the values of ⌳ ¯ are not reported, they are assumed to be
equal to ⌳ as Ohta and Nishihara 共1985兲 found. The abscissa is
the measured value and the ordinate is the theoretical value. It can
be seen from Fig. 8 that for triaxial compression the predictions
obtained in this study are slightly larger than the measured values,
while the predictions obtained by Ohta and Nishihara 共1985兲 are
slightly smaller; for triaxial extension there is a good agreement
between the predictions obtained in this study and the measured
values, whereas the calculated values of Ohta and Nishihara
共1985兲 are apparently less than the measured values.
It is found from Eq. 共39兲 that the undrained shear strength gain
ratio of the normally K0 consolidated clay is a function of ␩K0nc,
K0, M, and ⌳. The initial stress ratio ␩K0nc is related to K0 as
␩K0nc = 3共1 − K0兲 / 共1 + 2K0兲. The earth pressure coefficient at rest
K0 could be related to the critical state frictional angle ␸⬘ as K0
= 1 − sin ␸⬘. According to critical state soil mechanics, the param-

Fig. 9. Plot of su / ␴⬘v0 versus ␸⬘, ⌳ of normally consolidated clays
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Monash University on 09/26/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
eter M is related to ␸⬘ as M = 6 sin ␸⬘ / 共3 − sin ␸⬘兲. Therefore, the
undrained shear strength gain ratio can be expressed as a function
of ␸⬘ and ⌳.
Fig. 9 shows the plot of su / ␴⬘v0 versus ␸⬘ and ⌳ of normally
consolidated clays. It also presents the mean value of the triaxial
compression and extension strength gain ratio. As shown in Fig.
9, the strength gain ratio increases with an increase in the effec-
tive frictional angle if ⌳ is kept constant, while it decreases with
the increase of ⌳ if the effective frictional angle is kept constant.
⌳⫽parameter that characterizes the plasticity of the soil. In other
words, the strength gain ratio decreases with an increase of plas-
ticity. Mayne 共1980兲 collected the values of ⌳ for 105 different
soils and pointed out that the mean value is 0.63 with a standard
deviation of 0.18, while for most soils, Wood 共1990兲 suggested
that the value of ⌳ ranges from 0.6 to 0.8. For soft soils with
critical state friction angle ␸⬘ in the range of 20– 35°, Table 2
gives the corresponding strength gain ratio and the recommended
mean value.
Hanzawa and Tanaka 共1992兲 indicated that the direct simple
shear strength is almost the same as the mean strength between
triaxial compression and extension. As shown in Fig. 1, Zdravk-
ovic et al. 共2002兲 determined that the middle part which is con-
trolled by the direct simple shear strength accounts for a small
percentage of the whole slip surface. Consequently, the middle
part could be ignored for simplification, and it is wise to adopt the
mean shear strength along the slip surface for slope stability
analysis. Mesri 共1989兲 suggested that the stability analysis should
adopt the mean undrained shear strength of the three parts which
are under different stress conditions. His formula for calculating
the mean undrained shear strength gain ratio is given by
su ␣
=
␴⬘v0 3
冋冉 冊 冉 冊 冉 冊 册
su
␴⬘v0 TXC
+
su
␴⬘v0 DSS
+
su
␴⬘v0 TXE
⬇ 0.22 共42兲
where ␣⫽correction factor which takes into account the effect of
the rate of shear. Many embankment failures investigated by Bjer-
rum 共1972, 1973兲, Mesri 共1989兲, and Larsson 共1980兲 were located
Table 2. Mean Values of Undrained Strength Gain Ratio and
Recommendations
Range of ␸⬘
at critical state 20° ⱕ ␸⬘ ⬍ 25° 25° ⱕ ␸⬘ ⬍ 30° 30° ⱕ ␸⬘ ⱕ 35°
Mean strength 0.174–0.236 0.209–0.270 0.240–0.298
gain ratio
Recommendations 0.204 0.239
0.22 共for 20° ⱕ ␸⬘ ⬍ 30°兲
112 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2008
Int. J. Geomech. 2008.8:105-113.
in Canada, Scandinavia, and Thailand. Because the data of ␸⬘
were not available in these publications, it is impossible to check
their results with the recommendations in Table 2. If one admits
that the friction angles of these soft soils range from 20 to 30°, the
recommendation of 0.22 in Table 2 will show a good agreement.
Conclusion
On the basis of critical state soil mechanics and the fact that the
initial yield surface is a rotated and distorted ellipse on the p⬘ – q
plane, this paper takes K0 consolidation-induced anisotropy into
account and derives a theoretical formula for predicting the un-
drained shear strength under the stress path related to triaxial
compression and extension. The predictions obtained from the
formula show good agreement with the available experimental
data. Several conclusions can be drawn as follows:
1. Most of the studies with regard to the undrained shear
strength are based on investigation of embankment failure
and back-analysis of the shear strength. The most typical
conclusion is probably that the undrained shear strength gain
ratio is equal to 0.22. It is a mean value of strength gain ratio
along the slope surface;
2. It is found that the formulas presented in this paper are able
to offer better predictions. The comparison with triaxial tests
demonstrates that the triaxial compression shear strength val-
ues predicted in this paper, together with Ohta and Nishihara
共1985兲’s results, are both close to the measured values. How-
ever, for the triaxial extension shear strength, the predictions
obtained in this study are quite close to the measured values
and Ohta and Nishihara 共1985兲 apparently underestimated
the triaxial extension shear strength;
3. It is unreasonable to use triaxial compression shear strength
only for slope stability analysis. However, there is a problem
using three kinds of shear strength which are under different
stress conditions for calculation and analysis. It is reasonable
to adopt the mean value of the triaxial compression and ex-
tension shear strength for analysis. It is found that for soft
soils where the critical state frictional angle range from 20 to
30°, there is a good agreement between the method proposed
in this paper and the suggestion proposed by Mesri; and
4. For normally consolidated clays with a critical state frictional
angle ranging from 20 to 35°, it is recommended that the
mean undrained shear strength for slope stability analysis of
soft embankment could be adopted as follows: su = 0.204␴⬘v0
共for ␸⬘ = 20– 25°兲; su = 0.239␴⬘v0 共for ␸⬘ = 25– 30°兲, and su
= 0.269␴⬘v0 共for ␸⬘ = 30– 35°兲.
Acknowledgments
This research is sponsored by the Chinese National Science Foun-
dation 共Grant No. 50479045兲.
References
Bjerrum, L. 共1972兲. “Embankments on soft ground.” Proc., ASCE Conf.
on Performance of Earth and Earth-Supported Structures, Vol. 2, Pur-
due Univ., West Lafayette, Ind., 1–54.
Bjerrum, L. 共1973兲. “Problems of soil mechanics and construction of soft
0.27
clays and structurally unstable soils.” Proc., 8th Int. Conf. on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 3, Moscow, 111–159.
 Graham, J., Noonan, M. L., and Lew, K. V. 共1983兲. “Yield states and
stress-strain relationships in a natural plastic clay.” Can. Geotech. J.,
20共3兲, 502–516.
Hansen, J. B., and Gibson, R. E. 共1949兲. “Undrained shear strength of
anisotropically consolidated calys.” Geotechnique, 1共3兲, 189–204.
Hanzawa, H., and Tanaka, H. 共1992兲. “Normalized undrained strength of
clay in the normally consolidated state and in the field.” Soils Found.,
32共1兲, 132–148.
Ladd, C. C. 共1991兲. “Stability evaluation during staged construction.” J.
Geotech. Engrg., 117共4兲, 540–615.
Ladd, C. C., and Foott, R. 共1974兲. “New design procedure for stability of
soft clays.” J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., 100共7兲, 763–786.
Larsson, R. 共1980兲. “Undrained shear strength in stability calculation of
embankments and foundations on soft clays.” Can. Geotech. J.,
17共4兲, 591–602.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Monash University on 09/26/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Mayne, P. W. 共1980兲. “Cam-clay predictions of undrained strength.” J.
Geotech. Engrg. Div., 106共11兲, 1219–1242.
Mesri, G. 共1975兲. “Discussion of ‘New design procedure for stability of
soft clays’ by Ladd, C. C, and Foott, R.” J. Geotech. Engrg. Div.,
101共4兲, 409–412.
Mesri, G. 共1989兲. “Reevaluation of su共mob兲 = 0.22␴⬘p using laboratory shear
test.” Can. Geotech. J., 26, 162–164.
Mitachi, T., and Kitago, S. 共1976兲. “Changed undrained shear strength
characteristics of saturated remoulded clay due to swelling.” Soils
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2008 / 113
Int. J. Geomech. 2008.8:105-113.
Found., 16共1兲, 45–58.
Nakase, A., and Kamei, T. 共1983兲. “Undrained shear strength anisotropy
of normally consolidated cohesive soils.” Soils Found., 23共1兲, 91–
101.
Ohta, H., and Nishihara, A. 共1985兲. “Anisotropy of undrained shear
strength of clays under axi-symmetric loading conditions.” Soils
Found., 25共2兲, 78–86.
Prevost, J. H. 共1979兲. “Undrained shear tests on clay.” J. Geotech. Engrg.
Div., 105共1兲, 49–64.
Shogaki, T., and Nochikawa, Y. 共2004兲. “Triaxial strength properties of
natural deposits at K0 consolidation state using a precision triaxial
apparatus with small size specimens.” Soils Found., 44共2兲, 41–52.
Skempton, A. W. 共1954兲. “Discussion of the structure of inorganic soil.”
Proc. Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Vol. 80, separate No.
478, 19–22.
Skempton, A. W. 共1957兲. “Discussion: The planning and design of the
new Hong Kong airport.” Proc., ICE, London, 7, 305–307.
Wheeler, S. J., et al. 共2003兲. “An anisotropic elastoplastic model for soft
clays.” Can. Geotech. J., 40, 403–418.
Wood, D. M. 共1990兲. Soil behavior and critical state soil mechanics,
Cambridge University Press, New York.
Zdravkovic, L., Potts, D. M., and Hight, D. M. 共2002兲. “The effect of
strength anisotropy on the behaviour of embankments ground.” Geo-
technique, 52共6兲, 447–457.