2nd Chiam Teong Tee Memorial Lecture-cum-Lunch 23 June 2018, IEM Academy, Wisma IEM, Petaling Jaya

Terzaghi, Bishop and the Practical Application of the Principle of Effective Stress.
Laurence D Wesley
Retired Geotechnical Engineer (formerly University of Auckland, New Zealand)
E-mail: lauriewesley36@gmail.com

ABSTRACT: The principle of effective stress is the most important concept in soil mechanics, and was first proposed by Terzaghi in the
1930s. The second most important figure in its development was Bishop who established its significance with respect to the shear strength of
soils and its application to practical problems, especially the stability of slopes. This talk will cover the roles of Terzaghi and Bishop in the
development of the principle and its application to the stability situations geotechnical engineers deal with. In particular, the associated roles
of a total stress analysis and an analysis in terms of effective stress are described in detail. An explanation is given as to why these two
methods of analysis will not give the same answer.

KEYWORDS: effective stress, drained, undrained, stability, slopes, foundation design. retaining walls

1. INTRODUCTION
The use of rational theoretical methods for analysing engineering
structures, such as buildings, bridges and cathedrals, probably had
its genesis in the work of Isaac Newton in the early 18th century. It
was Newton who established the most important laws of physics,
especially those governing mechanical behaviour. Modern materials
science and structural analysis got underway in the early 19th
century and underwent very rapid changes in the late 19th and early
20th century. The earliest materials used for construction were
timber and stone, followed later by Iron, concrete, steel, and
reinforced concrete. Their use went more or less hand in hand with
the development of methods to measure their properties, and their
use in theoretical design methods.
It is obvious that no civil engineering structure can be built without
relying on the ground to support it. Despite this, understanding the
properties of soil and using rational theoretical methods to design
foundations lagged well behind the rational design of the structures
the foundation supported. We can well ask why was this? The most
obvious answer is that while the common structural building
materials, mentioned above, were uniform, or could be made to be
uniform, this was not the case with the materials the ground was
made of. They ranged from solid rock to very soft soil. and included
loose materials like gravel and sand. The most dominant material, at
least in England, northern Europe, and the USA was clay, and it
existed in a very wide variety of forms. Some clays were hard, some
were very soft, some had uniform properties, and others were highly
variable. These were clearly obstacles to understanding their
properties and the development of rational methods for
incorporating their properties into design procedures.
We can note in passing that there were some developments in soil
mechanics long before the birth of modern soil mechanics. Probably
the earliest was Coulomb's work with clean dry sand, which led to
his equation for the shear strength of soil, namely:
s = c + σ tanɸ
Moving on from sand to clay posed many stumbling blocks, not the
least of which was the failure to recognise that natural clays could
not be considered to be a single material in the way other building
materials were. Clays were nature's "composites" but the two
materials they consisted of, water and solid particles, could act both
independently and interdependently. Water in nature could seep
through the soil and the soil particles played no part except to
impede the rate at which the water seeped. On the other hand, if an
excavation was made below the water table and water pumped out
to keep it dry, then there was interaction between the flow of water
through the soil and the soil itself, which would decrease in volume.
As we all know, it was Karl Terzaghi who came up with the basic
principle at the heart of modern soil mechanics, know widely today
as the principle of effectives stress. Alan Bishop played a leading
role in defining how the principle should be applied to stability
analysis in practice. Before tracing the history of this principle and
its application in practice, we will give a brief account of the lives of
the two men.
2. NOTES ON THE LIVES OF KARL TERZAGHI AND
ALAN BISHOP
Terzaghi is the undisputed father of soil mechanics. He was born in
Prague of Austrian parents in 1883. His father was an officer in the
Austrian army stationed in Prague at that time. Growing up he
became fascinated with the physical world and in due course
enrolled to study mechanical engineering at the Graz Technical
University. He excelled in his courses and passed the exams with
"honours". He became increasingly interested in geology, and in
1905 took on a job with a civil engineering company. He worked
and taught in Vienna and Istanbul, then visited America, and
returned to Austria. At the time of World War II he again moved to
America and remained there till his death in 1963. He is rightly
regarded as the father of soil mechanics, and by the time he settled
in America, he had established an impressive reputation in Austria
and the United States.
Following the First International Conference on soil mechanics in
1936, organised by his "protégé" Casagrande, he became recognised
worldwide as the leading figure in this field. This was well deserved
as he was indeed an extraordinarily gifted man who pursued his
quest to understand the engineering properties of soil with
indefatigable energy and perseverance. Terzaghi pursued his quest
on two fronts; the first was investigating how soils behave by
careful observation in the field accompanied by laboratory testing,
and the second was developing theories to explain this behaviour.
In 1925 Terzaghi published the first soil mechanics text book,
Erdbaumekanik, written in German. He had hoped to follow this
with a more comprehensive book in English in the near future, but it
took until 1948 before this appeared, with the title Theoretical Soil
Mechanics.
Bishop was born in 1920 in Canterbury in England and grew up in
Whitstable, a small town on the southern coast of the Thames
Estuary. He attended Cambridge University, and after graduating
began his working career employed by the London Metropolitan
Water Board. For some of this time he was seconded to the Building
British Station where he worked with Skempton and Cooling, who
were dominant figures in the early development of soil mechanics in
England. Three years later, in 1946, he moved with Skempton to
Imperial College to pioneer both the teaching of, and research into,
the new subject of soil mechanics. Those two names, Skempton and
Bishop became known worldwide as the leading figures that gave
Imperial College its reputation as the leading centre for soil
mechanics studies. Bishop will always be known for the slip circle
method named after him, but his most important contribution to the
development of soil mechanics was in establishing the relevance of
the principle of effective stress to practical situations.
.
 2nd Chiam Teong Tee Memorial Lecture-cum-Lunch 23 June 2018, IEM Academy, Wisma IEM, Petaling Jaya

3. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PRINCIPLE OF This procedure is correct, at least in theory, but as Terzaghi admits,
EFFECTIVE STRESS purely empirical and very dependent on the judgement and skill of
the person who uses it. It would clearly be very tedious to apply to a
Terzaghi discovered and explained that when a force, pressure, or slip circle analysis as the stress state would vary all along the circle,
stress is applied to a soil, it will be resisted by either the soil and separate tests would be required to replicate the stress
particles or the water that occupies the space between the particles, conditions at a series of points along the circle. Terzaghi's statement
or be distributed between the two. He first put forward this also acknowledges that a sounder understanding of the triaxial test
proposition in his book Erdbaumekanik (Soil Mechanics) published and its application to solving practical problems was something for
in German in 1925. the future.

He expressed the principle in the very simply equation (assuming This is an appropriate place to introduce Figure 1 which shows the
the soil is fully saturated): sequence of the significant dates in the development of soil
 =  - u mechanics and to bring Bishop into our account of that development
Where  = the effective stress and the special contributions he made. Figure 1 shows that Bishop
 = the total stress began his working career at the same time as Terzaghi's book
u = the pore water pressure "Theoretical Soil Mechanics" was published.
Skempton joins the soil Bishop method of
Terzaghi explained that the soil is only affected by changes in the Terzaghi’s book
Erdbaumechanik
published, 1925
mechanics group at BRS,
followed by Golder and Ward
Bishop joins the Metropolitan
Water Board - and is
slip circle analysis

effective stresses acting on it, and NOT as by changes in total Soil mechanics group
stress. He therefore maintained (correctly) that changes in soil formed at the Building
Research Station (BRS)
led by L.F. Cooling
volume or strength only occur as a result of a change in effective
seconded to the BRS
- makes first triaxial apparatus
ASCE Specialty
Glossop sets up a
small soils laboratory
Conference, 1960:
Bishop and Bjerrum
Skempton and Bishop move to definitive paper on
at Chingford Imperial College in London shear strength of
cohesive soils

stress. Terzaghi had hoped to publish a soil mechanics book in

World War II
English soon after his book in German, but this did not happen till

1950

1960
1940
1943, and had the title "Theoretical Soil Mechanics". It was a

1930
Terzaghi’s book
remarkable book covering almost all aspects of the subject. First International soil
mechanics conference
“Theoretical Soil
Mechanics”
held at Harvard Uni published, 1943
1936. Chingford reservoir
Chingford reservoir embankment failure completed and
officially opened
Terzaghi also set up his own laboratory in the universities where he 1937
- investigation into the failure regarded
Terzaghi and Peck book
“Soil Mechanics in
as birth of soil mechanics in England
Engineering Practice”
was employed, and became aware of the triaxial apparatus that had - Skempton & Terzaghi involved in
the investigation
published, 1948

come into use at about that time. In book "Theoretical Soil

Mechanics" Terzaghi makes the statement: Figure 1.Important dates in the development of soil mechanics

"the influence of the pore water pressure on the relation Figure 1 Important dates in the development of soil mechanics
between stress, strain, and shearing resistance in cohesive
soils can be investigated most accurately by means of the
As we noted above, Bishop's greatest contribution to the
triaxial compression test on cylindrical specimens, because
development of soil mechanics was to clarify a number of issues
the test arrangement permits simultaneous measurement of
relevant to the principle of effective stress and its application to
the total and the neutral stress"
practical situations. In personality Bishop and Terzaghi could
hardly be more unlike, the former being reserved and modest, and
Terzaghi provides a description of the triaxial apparatus, and the
the latter rather arrogant and domineering, but their approach to soil
way in which the results can be processed to obtain the desired
mechanics had much in common. Both were very practical men, and
shear strength properties of the soil. He adopted the expression for
their interest in soil mechanics was founded on their desire to solve
soil shear strength first formulated by Coulomb in 1773, namely
practical problems. Terzaghi knew a lot more about geology than
s = c + σ tanɸ
Bishop, but the latter was a better experimentalist and designer of
where s = shearing resistance
testing equipment.
c = the cohesion
ɸ = angle of internal friction.
In an addendum to the Bishop obituary in Geotechnique in 1988,
and σ = the normal stress on the shear surface.
Skempton pays the following tribute to Bishop:
The concept of effective stress did not exist in Coulomb's day, and
he based his equation on the behaviour of dry sand, so there was no
“It was a great privilege and the best of good luck to be
ambiguity about the nature of σ. Terzaghi naturally recognised that
associated for nearly 40 years with one of the finest
σ could be either the total or the effective stress. However, Terzaghi
intellects in our subject. In no respect was his intellectual
did not get as far as establishing a sound theoretical basis for
power seen more clearly than in his continued study of
applying the above equation and the results of triaxial tests in
Terzaghi's principle of effective stress and its application
practice.
in all branches of geotechnical engineering; his work in
this field brought about a highly beneficial revolution in
After further discussion (in his book) of the triaxial test and the
soil mechanics.
above equation, Terzaghi makes the following statement:
Though reserved in a manner compatible with his Quaker
"For these reasons, the data required for making a
faith, he appreciated a good sense of humour. He was
stability computation pertaining to clays can at
loved and respected by his numerous students, who came
present be obtained only by means of the following,
from all parts of the world. Through them and the strict
purely empirical procedure. We test the clay in the
but friendly criticism of his colleagues' work, and his own
laboratory under conditions of pressure and drainage
important contributions, he exerted a unique influence."
similar to those under which the shear failure is likely
to occur in the field, and we introduce the values of c
Bishop began his working career at the London Metropolitan Water
and ɸ thus obtained into our equations. It is obvious
Board (MWB) in 1943, and although this was in the war years it was
that the success of this procedure depends chiefly on
a very significant time in the development of soil mechanics in
the degree to which the experimenter has succeeded in
England. Before the war, the MWB had begun building a new
imitating the field conditions".
reservoir to improve the security of London's water supply. It was at
a place called Chingford, on relatively flat land to the northeast of
London. The reservoir was in effect, an artificial lake created by
 2nd Chiam Teong Tee Memorial Lecture-cum-Lunch 23 June 2018, IEM Academy, Wisma IEM, Petaling Jaya
impounding water inside a large perimeter embankment.
Construction began in 1935, and in 1937 a large slip occurred along
part of the embankment before it had reached its intended height.
Fortunately, there was no water in it at the time.
The MWB engaged the Building Research Station (BRS) to carry
out the investigation, as it had recently created the first specialist
soil mechanics unit in England. The leader of the unit was
A.W.Skempton. The investigation into the failure of the
embankment is regarded as the birth of soil mechanics in Great
Britain. So when Bishop joined the MWB, he was put to work
immediately to look at the lessons learnt from the Chingford failure
and to work on the design of a second reservoir taking account of
those lessons. He worked closely with Skempton in doing this, and
this was the beginning of their working relationship that lasted for
nearly forty years.
Bishop made himself thoroughly familiar with the state of soil
mechanics at that time, in the course of which he would have
discovered that even the great Terzaghi had not established a
rigorous procedure for applying the results of triaxial tests to the
analysis of practical stability situations. It appears that Bishop
almost immediately took up the challenge of solving this question.
Bishop was the ideal person to take up this challenge for several
reasons:
1. He was fascinated by Terzaghi’s effective stress concept
and its formulation in a very simple equation
2. He had a very sharp mind, essential to the development of
theory.
3. He was able to design and construct whatever testing
equipment was needed to sort out the issues he was
addressing.
It is very significant that Bishop began his working career as an
engineer involved with sorting out an important practical problem;
as this became the defining characteristic of his career. He worked
on several fronts:
1. The development of theory
2. The creation of laboratory (or field) equipment capable of
measuring the soil properties needed for the development of
theory.
3. Constant attention to soil behaviour in the field.
With regard to this last point, Angus Skinner, who wrote the Bishop
obituary, (published in Geotechnique) describes Bishop's way of
working with the words:
Theory and practice, welded together by continually
checking one against the other; this was the formula
used so successfully by Bishop.
During the 1950s Bishop established the theoretical understanding
of the shear strength of clays that we are very familiar with today.
This understanding is described in detail in his 1960 paper with
Lauritz Bjerrum of NGI. Its title was:
"THE RELEVANCE OF THE TRIAXIAL TEST TO THE
SOLUTION OF STABILITY PROBLEMS”
It was published in the ASCE Research Conference on the Shear
Strength of Cohesive Soils, held in Boulder, Colorado in 1960. That
paper was undoubtedly Bishop’s most important paper, even though
he is best known for his method of slope stability analysis, published
in 1954.
4. THE PRINCIPLE OF EFFECTIVE STRESS AND ITS
PRACTICAL APPLICATION
The basic equations relating effective stress to volume change and
soil shear strength are the following:
1. Volume change:
V/V = mv ( - Δu) = mv Δ
where mv = one dimensional compressibility coefficient
2. Shear strength:
 = c + ( - u) tan = c + σ tan ɸ......................1
where  = shear strength
c = cohesion intercept (or apparent cohesion)
 = angle of shearing resistance (or friction angle)
c and  are in terms of effective stress
The equation for shear strength is still occasionally found in text
books or other publications in the form:  = c + σ tan ɸ. This is
meaningless without defining the type of stress for  and the way it
is measured. This means that the equation as it is should not be used
in soil mechanics.
The shear strength determined using equation 1 is, obviously, the
strength in terms of effective stress. To use the equation it is clearly
necessary to know the value of the soil parameters c and , the
normal stress  and the pore pressure u on the plane being analysed.
There is a second way of measuring the shear strength and that is by
directly measuring it without allowing any change in its water
content. For fully saturated soils, this means that no change in
effective stress is occurring. This strength is thus a constant, known
as the undrained shear strength, (not the cohesion) usually denoted
Cu or Su Measuring Su can be done in several ways and is much
easier to measure than c and . Figure 2 shows the results of
undrained triaxial tests on a fully saturated soil. With such tests, the
strength measured is independent of the cell pressure, which is the
total normal stress acting on the sample.
Figure 2 is a convincing demonstration of the principle of effective
stress in relation to the undrained behaviour of soil. Each increase in
the normal stress causes an increase in the pore pressure so that no
change occurs in the effective stress. If the pore pressure is
measured in each test, the effective stress can be determined and we
would then obtain the same circle, as indicated in Figure 2.
It is sometimes assumed that undrained behaviour illustrated in
Figure 2 is a property of clay. This is not the case, as the same result
will be obtained if the same tests are carried out on sand. The
following important points should be noted:
1. The conditions under which the result in Figure 2 is
obtained are:
(a) The soil is fully saturated
(b) The test is undrained.
2. The undrained strength is a very important property of
clay and essential for certain design purposes. However,
with sand it is only in very rare situations that it is of
practical relevance.
 2nd Chiam Teong Tee Memorial Lecture-cum-Lunch 23 June 2018, IEM Academy, Wisma IEM, Petaling Jaya

Shear stress
line increases. The second case has the opposite effect. Reduction in
ilure stress initially induces a reduction in the pore pressure in the soil,
fa
ss and causes water to seep towards the excavation. As a result, the
stre
ive soil strength decreases. In the first case, therefore, it is safe to base
ect
Eff Total stress failure line the foundation design on the initial strength of the soil, that is, the
Undrained Shear Strength (Su). This will increase with time, which
will mean an increase in the margin of safety. In the second case the
su situation is reversed; the decrease in strength will lower the margin
of safety against slip failure into the excavation. To check the new
Normal stress Total stress stability situation resulting from the reduced strength, it is necessary
Effective stress
circle circles to use effective stress analysis.

Figure 2 Undrained triaxial tests on a fully saturated sand. With respect to undrained behaviour we should note that soil
behaves in an undrained state, in either of the following situations:
In his 1960 paper with Bjerrum (mentioned above) Bishop made it
clear that the geotechnical engineer normally has the choice of two 1. Water is unable to flow in and out of the soil because all
methods for analysing a stability situation: boundaries are impermeable – as for example in an
(a) An undrained (or total stress) analysis based on the undrained triaxial test
undrained shear strength Su (originally called
the  = 0 analysis) 2. When the soil permeability is very low and the loads or
(b) An analysis in terms of effective stress, based on stresses are applied rapidly – as for example when an
the effective stress parameters c and ϕ excavation is made rapidly, or a storage tank filled quickly,
in a low permeability clay
The latter is sometimes called a drained analysis, but this is not
sensible – an analysis in terms of effective stress makes no We will now consider some specific design situations.
assumption about whether the failure will be drained or undrained,
and an undrained situation can be analysed in terms of effective 4.1 Foundation design .
stresses.

Bishop also stated that for most stability situations there are two
cases to consider:

(1) The “End of Construction” or “Immediate” case. Stability in

this case can be estimated using a total stress analysis based on the
assumption that the clay is of very low permeability and the
undrained strength does not change during construction.
Foundation design is usually governed
by settlement considerations
(2) The “Long Term” case, which applies when sufficient time as
passed for pore pressures to reach their equilibrium steady state.
Stability in this case is normally determined using an effective
stress analysis, but there are cases where a total stress analysis may
be appropriate taking into account the change in undrained strength
that may have occurred from the end of construction state to the Storage tanks for water or oil:
long term state. Foundation design normally depends
on the soil strength (Su)

Constructing a building increases the Making an excavation reduces the confining

stress in the soil - consolidation occurs, stress in the soil. This results in the soil taking
and the soil strength increases up water in the vicinity of the excavation.
“Swelling” occurs, and the soil strength declines.

SOIL SOIL
LOADING UNLOADING
- erecting a building - making an excavation

Earth embankments:
Stability analysis normally involves both
the embankment and foundation material
Water flows
away from site
Water flows towards excavation
Figure 4 Foundation design on a clay foundation
Design based on the initial Design based on the initial undrained
undrained strength is safe strength is unsafe. Analysis using effective
(conservative). stress parameters is needed to take Figure 4 shows three situations involving foundation loads applied
account of the decrease in strength.
to the ground surface. The first one is a conventional building load.
In this case the foundation design is likely to be more dependent on
Figure 3 Different stress applications requiring different methods of
settlement considerations than the bearing capacity of the soil. The
analysis
situation with the storage tank is likely to be the reverse, for two
reasons. The first is that storage tanks are often built close to
Figure 3 illustrates the basic principle involved in choosing the
harbours where flat ground is available and the soil may be soft
appropriate method of analysis. The first case is the construction of
normally consolidated clay. The second is that storage tanks can
a building on a surface foundation. The building naturally adds
tolerate large settlements, both total and differential, so that it is
load, and increases the confining stress on the soil. The second case
bearing capacity that governs design. Storage tanks have an
involves the excavation of a large body of soil to make space for a
advantage over buildings in that they can be "trial loaded" by filling
motorway. This has the opposite effect - it reduces the load and the
them slowly and measuring the settlement during this process. The
confining stress on the soil. The first case causes consolidation of
filling rate can be adjusted if necessary. In both cases, a total stress
the soil - water is “squeezed” out of the soil and the strength
 2nd Chiam Teong Tee Memorial Lecture-cum-Lunch 23 June 2018, IEM Academy, Wisma IEM, Petaling Jaya

solution based on the undrained shear strength of the soil is the only
appropriate method for determining bearing pressures. (c) An embankment on clay.

The last case is an embankment on a clay layer. This case could be
treated as a bearing capacity issue, but it is different to a building
foundation as failure is unlikely to be of the whole embankment.
The most likely failure will be a slip failure at one edge of the
embankment. This situation is discussed in more detail shortly.
4.2 Estimating the stability of slopes.
Before discussing slip circle analysis of natural slopes, a strong
warning must be given regarding the limitations of applying
analytical methods to natural slopes. The soil properties of many
natural soils are so varied that reliable measurement of them is
hardly possible. In addition to uncertainties about the soil the
uncertainty regarding the seepage conditions in the slope. In many
soils, especially residual soils these vary greatly with seasonal
changes, and identifying the worst condition is likely to be little
more than a reasonable guess. So for natural slopes, visual
inspection, experience, and judgement generally play a more
important role than theoretical analysis.
This is the simple situation shown in Figure 7. If the clay is firm or
stiff, the stability analysis can be based on the undrained strength,
and the increase in strength with time ignored as it is not necessary
to ensure the stability of the embankment. However, if the soil is a
very soft clay, it may be necessary to rely on increase in strength
arising from consolidation to provide stability. This will normally
involve staged construction of a steady very slow rate of
construction. The question then arises as to the appropriate method
of analysis for taking account of the increase in strength.. An
effective stress analysis is possible provided the parameters c and
 can be measured accurately and the pore pressure monitored.
Embankment made of compacted
material - sand or clay
Possible failure
surface

The mechanical procedure for analysing a slope is illustrated in Uniform clay: soft to medium strength
Figure 5; it is the well known slip circle method of slices, and only
the issue of a total stress or an effective stress analysis will be
considered here.
Figure 7 An embankment of compacted fill on clay
O xn
However, it is more reliable to use a total stress analysis and
estimate of measure the increase in strength with consolidation..
The author's view is that the only way of being sure of the increase
n R in strength is by making direct measurements with a field vane of a
SPT test. We can note in passing that the process of consolidation is
an example of the principle of effective stress. As consolidation
x occurs, the load from the embankment is slowly being transferred
Wn from the pore water to the soil itself.
Circular arc slip surface
method for estimating
slope stability W 4.3 Retaining walls

Original soil
ln

Assumed circular Back-fill Natural ground profile

arc slip surface
L
Sm Horizontal members
spanning between
Possible failure poles
surfaces in different
Figure 5 Slope stability analysis materials
Embedded
poles
(a) Temporary cut made and back-fill
placed after completion of wall
(a) Natural slopes. (b) Pole wall - poles installed prior to excavation,
horizontal supports installed during excavation

For most natural slopes, and cuts made in natural slopes, an Building floors
effective stress analysis is the most appropriate. Advantages of an
effective stress analysis are:
1. The safety factor it produces is found to be much more Diaphram
wall
reliable than from a total stress analysis.
2. It enables the seepage state to be included and its
influence on the safety factor investigated
Hard
layer
(b) Constructed embankments
(c) Tied back wall - ties installed (d) Diaphram wall supported by floors
In this case the engineer has control over the materials to be used, as excavation proceeds built as excavation proceeds
and can control the way these are compacted to ensure that the end
product is on known and uniform properties. The engineer can also Figure 6 Several types of retaining walls
estimate and monitor pore pressures in the embankment. Therefore,
in this case, slip circle methods can be relied on to produce reliable Figure 6 shows various types of retaining walls. Generally, total
slope. The analysis should always be made in terms of effective stress analysis gives unsafe answers, which is not unexpected. Most
stresses as this can take into account changes in pore pressure that retaining walls involve a reduction in the confining stress acting on
occur from the end of construction values to those with a full the soil, which results in the soil taking up water and suffering some
reservoir loss of strength
 2nd Chiam Teong Tee Memorial Lecture-cum-Lunch 23 June 2018, IEM Academy, Wisma IEM, Petaling Jaya

5. SHOULD A TOTAL STRESS AND AN EFFECTIVES

STRESS ANALYSIS GIVE THE SAME ANSWER? IF NOT,
WHY NOT?
This are questions that not many geotechnical engineers could give
direct answers to. The answer to the first question is generally no,
and one way of explaining this answer is to consider the situation
illustrated in Figure 8 The upper figure, 8(a), shows a simple
graphical sketch of the situation on a slip plane. The total stress is ,
the pore pressure is u and the effective stress  =  - u. If we apply
an effective stress analysis, the shear strength that goes into the
analysis is the value Se,, the subscript indicating effective stress.
If, however we use an effective stress analysis we will find that that
the total normal stress acting along the slip surface will vary from a
low value at each end and a peak value near the middle of the
surface. This means the effective stress will vary and also the
calculated shear strength. Hence the safety factor from the two
methods may be quite different.
It is not sensible to ask which method gives the correct answer, as
there is no simple answer. The more appropriate question is: which
of the two methods is the right one to use in a particular situation.
The examples above hopefully give some guidance on this issue.

To close we will look at the effective stress and safety factor likely
Tota to apply when an excavation is made in a fully saturated clay with a
l str
ess
 Por
e pr
relatively shallow water table. An example is given in Figure 10.
essu The permeability of the clay is assumed to be very low, so that the
re u
Effe soil behaviour is undrained until the construction is complete, that
She ive ct is, the "end of construction" state.
ar s stre
She ss 
tren
gth ar p 
s
= c l ane Original ground surface
+
 tan
 1.5m
Original water table 3.8m
(a) Stress state on a shear plane line
re
failu ot table
mb pl Final
water
ulo ss
-Co e stre 6.0m
Shear stress

h r
Mo ffectiv
-e Low permeability clay
A g = 16 kN/m3
Effective strength

Undrained strength failure line 3.2m

se = c + tan

B - total stress plot 2.2m

1m
Undrained
strength

Note: u = change in u P
/
su

Equipotential line
caused by undrained shear
c
Normal stress Figure 10 An exercise to analyze end of construction and long term
u u
stability
 u
 We will calculate the stress changes at Point P. The change in total
stress can be assumed to be given by the depth of soil removed
(b) Mohr-Coulomb representation of stress state
directly above the point. Because behaviour is undrained the change
Figure 8 Shear strength in terms of total stress and effective stress. in pore pressure will be the same as the change in total stress. With
time the water table will take up its now position, and this means a
If we could now set up an undisturbed sample in the laboratory with steady decline in the effective stress and a parallel decline in the
exactly the same stresses applied to it as in the field, and conduct an shear strength. The results of this analysis are shown in Figure 11.
undrained test then the pore pressure would change and this would
affect the shear strength. in Figure 8(b) the resulting pore pressure 100
Total stress
is positive and thus reduces the effective stress and the shear
Vertical stress (kPa)

strength Su is then less than Se. A more practical example of the

different safety factors to be expected from the two methods is 50
illustrated in Figure 9. This shows a homogeneous earth
embankment built on a solid rock foundation. If an undrained Effective stress
analysis is used, normal practice will be to use a uniform value of 0
Time
undrained shear strength on any possible failure surface. Such a
End of constructioin

100
surface is shown in the figure.
Long term
Pore pressure (kPa)

Slip circle centre

50
Pore pressure

Uniformly compacted
clay embankment 0
Slip surface Time
Safety factor

Safety factor
ale
Sc

1.0
Time
Solid rock foundation

Figure 11 Stress, pore pressure and safety factor changes in a cut

Strength (Su) according to Strength () according to an
a total stress analysis effective stress analysis slope.

Figure 9. Shear strength on a slip circle.

 2nd Chiam Teong Tee Memorial Lecture-cum-Lunch 23 June 2018, IEM Academy, Wisma IEM, Petaling Jaya

The steady rise in pore pressure after an excavation of cutting is
made is the reason failures of cut slopes in very low permeability
sedimentary clays are known to occur many years of even decades
after the cutting is made. The conceptual illustration of the pore
pressure and stress changes in Figure 11 is conventional wisdom
and a figure similar to this is included in the Bishop and Bjerrum
paper of 1960.
It is important to recognise that this concept is very unlikely to
apply to residual soils. Such soils normally have very much higher
permeability than sedimentary clays and pore pressures in these
slopes rise and fall with seasonal effects, and also with sudden
intense storm events. The effect of these influences is illustrated in
Figure 12. With respect to slope behaviour, it is the sudden intense
storms that are the most common cause of landslides in residual
soils rather than seasonal fluctuations. The intensity and duration of
such storms is usually an unknown quantity, and climate changes
are making it even more unknown
Long term steady state
- typical of low permeability
(sedimentary) clays
Storm
events
Pore pressure
Potential failure
surface
P (c) Identification of the geology of the site. Most countries have
Fluctuating water table
- typical of medium to high
permeability (residual) clays
Seasonal
Terzaghi, in his address to the first international conference on soil
mechanics in Harvard University in 1936 made the following
observation:
“However, as soon as we pass from steel and concrete to
earth, the omnipotence of theory ceases to exist. In the
first place, the earth in its natural state is never uniform.
Second, its properties are too complicated for rigorous
theoretical treatment. Finally, even an approximate
mathematical solution of some of the most common
problems is extremely difficult” (Terzaghi, 1936).
That observation was made on the basis of his experience with
sedimentary soils. It becomes even more valid with residual soils.
We should take good note of this comment, and recognise that other
non-analytical methods or empirical correlations are essential tools
for all geotechnical engineers. Assessing the stability of natural
slopes or cut slopes is an example of this. In most situations
involving residual soils it is not possible to obtain sufficiently
detailed and reliable information on the soil conditions to justify the
use of analytical methods. In their place the following methods
became the main basis for our assessment:
(a) Visual inspection of the site. A careful walk across the site and
taking a look at it from all angles is often the best guide to the
stability of a slope.
(b) Along with (a) a close examination of any cut slopes in the
same material as that in the site involved can be very valuable.
geological maps that are available to the public
(d) Examination of aerial photographs will often reveal features
of a site not evident in a walk-over inspection.
(e) A literature search for any publications relevant to the issues
being addressed.

influence

With respect to highway cuts in Malaysia, there is a very useful

paper written by a geologist fifty years ago (Bulman, 1968). The
paper is based on inspections of a very large number of highway
cuttings and provides guidelines for selecting slope angles in a
Time
range of geological materials. It appears that it is still the best
available guide for highway planners.
Sedimentary clays

Residual clays
Effective stress

7. REFERENCES
End of construction

Bullman, J.N. (1968) A survey of road cuttings in Western

Malaysia. Proceedings First Southeast Asian Regional
Long term

Conference on Soil Engineering, Bangkok, 1968

Time
Safety factor

Time

Figure 12 Short and long term changes in a cutting in residual clay.

6. CONCLUSIONS

Understanding the principle of effective stress and its relevance and

application to practical situations is fundamental to the work of all
geotechnical engineers. It is hoped that the above explanation and
discussion of the principle will be helpful in this respect. However,
it is also important to recognise the limitations of analytical
methods.