Effective Stress-Based Limit-Equilibrium Analysis for

Homogeneous Unsaturated Slopes

Farshid Vahedifard, M.ASCE1; Dov Leshchinsky2; Kimia Mortezaei, S.M.ASCE3; and Ning Lu, F.ASCE4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 01/28/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: With a suction stress–based effective stress representation, stability analysis of unsaturated engineered and natural slopes can
be performed effectively in the same manner as the classical limit-equilibrium (LE) methodologies. This paper presents an analytical
framework for effective stress LE analysis of unsaturated homogeneous slopes under steady one-directional (vertical) flow. The proposed
log spiral failure surface–based LE method involves only two additional hydromechanical parameters for unsaturated soil, approximating
the inverse of the air-entry pressure and pore-size distribution. Both parameters are used to describe seepage and effective stress varia-
tions in unsaturated soils. Unlike most other LE formulations, the method is statically determinate. A parametric study was performed,
and stability charts for general use are presented. The impact of infiltration and evaporation on the stability of slopes for four hypotheti-
cal soil types was studied. It is shown that the apparent cohesion due to suction stress may contribute substantially to the stability of
slopes. Specifically, different seepage rates can significantly impact the stability of clayey slopes. This impact progressively decreases in
silty slopes and further diminishes in loess and sand. Because the proposed method is statically free of assumptions, it can serve as a
benchmark for rigorous slope stability methods that can deal with more complex problems. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-
5622.0000554. © 2016 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Slope stability; Unsaturated soil; Limit equilibrium; Effective stress; Suction stress.

Introduction
Stability of natural and engineered earthen slopes has historically
been analyzed by considering only dry and/or saturated conditions.
Following a classical effective stress slope stability approach,
Terzaghi’s effective stress is used for the zone below the water ta-
ble, and the effective stress is treated as the total stress above the
water table. In recent years, several trends caused by climate
change, such as rise of sea level, decrease of average precipitation,
increased intensity of extreme precipitation, and increased storm se-
verity, have been documented worldwide (e.g., USGCRP 2009).
These climate trends directly or indirectly result in substantial and
unprecedented changes in the degree of saturation within the unsat-
urated zone, which can lead to failure of manufactured or natural
slopes (e.g., Rahardjo et al. 2008; Godt et al. 2009; Damiano et al.
2012; Damiano and Mercogliano 2013; Vahedifard et al. 2014).
The occurrence of many precipitation-induced slope failures and
landslides in unsaturated residual soils (e.g., Springman et al. 2003;
Godt et al. 2009; Rahardjo et al. 2012; Lu et al. 2013b; Sorbino and
1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Mississippi State Univ., Mississippi State, MS 39762 (corresponding
author). E-mail: farshid@cee.msstate.edu
2
Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Univ. of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716; Consultant, ADAMA Engineering,
P.O. Box 90217, Portland, OR 97290. E-mail: dov@udel.edu
3
Graduate Student, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineer-
ing, Mississippi State Univ., Mississippi State, MS 39762. E-mail:
km1745@msstate.edu
4
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Colorado
School of Mines, Golden, CO 80401. E-mail: ninglu@mines.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on October 2, 2014; approved on
June 10, 2015; published online on January 28, 2016. Discussion period
open until June 28, 2016; separate discussions must be submitted for indi-
vidual papers. This paper is part of the International Journal of
Geomechanics, © ASCE, ISSN 1532-3641.
Nicotera 2013) highlights the need for explicit consideration of the
negative pore pressure or matric suction in various stages of design,
analysis, construction, and monitoring.
The intrinsic complexity associated with the simulation of
matric suction and its highly variable nature for different soil types
and flux boundary conditions warrant using an advanced numerical
method, such as the finite-element method or finite-difference
method, to perform a coupled seepage–stability analysis (e.g., Ng
and Shi 1998; Cai and Ugai 2004; Griffiths and Lu 2005;
Khalilnejad et al. 2013; Hamdhan and Schweiger 2013; Lu et al.
2013b). However, the level of expertise and several input parame-
ters required for performing such advanced numerical simulations
have prevented widespread use of numerical models in common
slope stability practice for unsaturated soils. As a more practical yet
accurate solution, analytical slope stability methods have been used
for unsaturated soils for the last few decades (e.g., Fredlund and
Rahardjo 1993; Cho and Lee 2002; Springman et al. 2003;
Sivakumar Babu and Murthy 2005; Lu and Godt 2008; Travis et al.
2010). In general, analytical slope stability methods for unsaturated
soils have been developed by implementing modified shear strength
failure criteria into classical slope stability methods.
Most of the currently available unsaturated slope stability meth-
ods (e.g., Fredlund and Rahardjo 1993; Fourie et al. 1999; Cho and
Lee 2002; Sivakumar Babu and Murthy 2005; Gavin and Xue 2010;
Travis et al. 2010) make use of the independent stress state variable
approach pioneered by Fredlund and Morgenstern (1977). Fredlund
and Morgenstern (1977) treated the normal stress and matric suction
as independent stress variables to evaluate the shear strength of un-
saturated soils.
The independent stress state variable approach has gained recog-
nition in slope stability practice; however, it is now well recognized
that f b , the angle introduced in this approach to quantify the impact
of matric suction on shear strength, is not a constant value, is highly
dependent on the matric suction, and could be negative (e.g.,
Vanapalli et al. 1996). Some investigations (e.g., Vanapalli et al.

© ASCE D4016003-1 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., D4016003

 1996; Lu and Likos 2006) have shown that the shear strength s s ¼ ðua – uw Þ ðua – uw Þ  0 (2a)
change due to matric suction can be characterized using the soil–
water characteristic curve (SWCC) and the effective shear strength
ðua – uw Þ
parameters. Vanapalli et al. (1996) consider the shear strength ss ¼  n oðn1Þ=n ðua – uw Þ  0 (2b)
change due to suction as a product of matric suction and saturation. 1 þ ½ðua – uw Þn
Fundamentally, matric suction is not a stress quantity (Lu 2008).
Thus, using matric suction as a stress quantity in any shear strength
or
criterion is mechanically unsound (Lu 2008).
This study presents an analytical slope stability framework for h i1=n
Se ð 1nÞ
n
unsaturated homogeneous slopes under steady one-directional (ver- s ¼
s
Se 1 0  Se  1 (3)
tical) flow. The methodology incorporates the suction stress–based a
effective stress representation (e.g., Lu and Likos 2006) into a limit-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 01/28/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

where a and n = fitting parameters. The a parameter approximates

equilibrium (LE) analysis. The unified effective stress approach
allows one to use classical effective stress parameters (c0 and f 0 ),
and consequently, it eliminates the need for introducing separate
shear strength criteria or additional parameters for unsaturated soils.
In the context of the unified effective stress approach, a closed-form
equation proposed by Lu et al. (2010) is used for the suction stress
characteristic curve (SSCC) to represent changes in the effective
stress due to changes in soil saturation or matric suction. The
closed-form equation requires only two controlling parameters
approximating the inverse of the air-entry pressure (a) and the pore
size spectrum number (n) to accurately describe the state of effec-
tive stress for various soil types. These two parameters also com-
pletely define a soil’s soil–water retention curve (SWRC) and hy-
draulic conductivity function (HCF). The LE slope stability
formulation was derived using the equilibrium of moments for a
body defined by a log spiral surface. To the best of the authors’
knowledge, this is the first work that uses log spiral for stability
analysis of unsaturated soils. The log spiral mechanism is statically
determinate and, unlike most of the currently available alternative
LE methods, does not require any a priori static assumptions (e.g.,
Duncan and Wright 2005). The proposed formulation removes any
possible inaccuracy imposed by static assumptions and creates a
benchmark for rigorous slope stability methods that can deal with
more complex problems (e.g., nonhomogeneous slopes).
Suction Stress–Based Effective Stress Representation
Lu and Likos (2004, 2006) extended Bishop’s (1959) expression
for effective stress of unsaturated soils using the suction stress con-
cept. The suction stress–based effective stress representation is dif-
ferent from Bishop’s method mainly in the following aspect.
Bishop’s method suggests the parameter x to be zero when soil is
dry, leading to zero suction stress, whereas the suction stress–based
effective stress approach considers the physicochemical interpar-
ticle forces, leading to the use of the effective degree of saturation
(not the degree of saturation) and the SWRC. This difference results
in realistic nonzero suction stress for clayey and some silty soils.
Under the SSCC-based effective stress representation, the unified
effective stress for both saturated and unsaturated conditions can be
defined as follows (Lu and Likos 2004):
s 0 ¼ s  ua  s s (1)
where s 0 = effective stress; s = total stress; ua = pore-air pressure;
and s s = suction stress. Lu et al. (2010) established closed-form
equations for suction stress as either a sole function of the effective
degree of saturation (Se ) or matric suction [ðua  uw Þ], where uw =
pore-water pressure, with a set of two parameters (n and a) that are
identical to the SWCC parameters by van Genuchten (1980) and
Mualem (1976). These closed-form equations are as follows:
the inverse of the air-entry pressure and typically varies between
0 and 0.5 kPa−1. The n parameter is related to the breadth of the
soil’s pore size, and its value typically falls in the range of 1.1–8.5
(Lu and Likos 2004). The effective degree of saturation can be
expressed as
S  Sr
Se ¼ (4)
1  Sr
where S = pore-water degree of saturation; and Sr = residual satura-
tion. Residual saturation is a relatively small value and refers to
water content due to soil particle hydration. It can be measured or
identified by the SWCC. For example, residual saturation of sand is
00.03 (e.g., Lu and Likos 2004).
Eq. (2a) is for saturated conditions, and substituting it into Eq.
(1) will lead to Terzaghi’s effective stress equation. Eq. (2b) repre-
sents unsaturated conditions. Lu et al. (2010) validated Eq. (2b)
with experimental data of 20 different soils from the literature and
mathematically showed that Eq. (2b) continuously and smoothly
approaches Eq. (2a) when a soil goes from an unsaturated state to a
saturated state and vice versa.
Eqs. (2) and (3) can be used for both wetting and drying cycles by
adjusting the a parameter. Lu et al. (2013a) conducted a series of
laboratory tests to investigate the impact of hysteresis on the hydro-
logic and mechanical properties of partially saturated soils. Their
test results showed that the air-entry pressure (1/a) for drying is
higher than the water-entry pressure for wetting, but n is almost
constant between the wetting and drying paths. Likos et al. (2014)
investigated the ratio between the drying-path to wetting-path
SWCC parameters for different soils. For the data set that they tested,
they found average aw=ad ratios of 1.73 6 0.94 and 3.14 6 1.27 for
nominally cohesive and cohesionless soils, respectively. The super-
scripts w and d indicate wetting and drying paths, respectively. Their
test results confirmed that the n parameter is almost constant for
both wetting and drying cycles for different soils.
Suction Stress Profile under Infiltration or Evaporation
Using Darcy’s law and Gardner’s (1958) model and imposing
the boundary conditions of zero matric suction at the water table
ðz ¼ 0Þ and a constant infiltration or evaporation rate (q) at the slope
surface (Fig. 1), the matric suction profile versus depth [ðua  uw Þ
versus z] for steady flow can be obtained analytically as follows
(Yeh 1989; Lu and Likos 2004):
  
1 q g w z q
ðua – uw Þ ¼  ln 1 þ e  (5)
a ks ks
where q = vertical specific discharge; ks = saturated hydraulic con-
ductivity; g w = unit weight of water; and z = height above the water

© ASCE D4016003-2 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., D4016003

 h  i
table. Mathematically, the bracketed quantity should be greater than
1 ln 1 þ kqs e g w z  kqs
zero. Physically, the quantity should be less than or equal to unity to ss ¼
a  ion ðn1Þ=n
n h  (6)
ensure that the matric suction is positive or zero. For hydrostatic
1 þ ln 1 þ kqs e g w z  kqs
(no-flow) conditions, q is zero. The q value is negative for infiltra-
tion and positive for evaporation. By substituting Eq. (5) into Eq.
(2b), the suction stress versus z under vertical steady-state seepage Note that Eq. (6) implies that the suction stress is negative under
conditions can be found as one-dimensional vertical unsaturated flow conditions. In the current
study, Eq. (6) is used in the slope stability formulation. The simpli-
fying assumption of one-dimensional vertical flow allows for
q implementing a relatively simple yet accurate closed-form solution
of suction stress into the slope stability framework. However, it can-
not consider the possible effects of flow near the slope face.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 01/28/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(xc, yc) R2 = Considering a multidimensional flow warrants implementing more

Ae Q rigorous analytical solutions or using numerical techniques, such as
2 xp(-ψ
2) the finite-element or finite-difference methods (e.g., Lu et al.
zc 2013b). Combining one-dimensional flow with two-dimensional
4 5 Kzc LE stability analysis is frequently done in conventional slope stabil-
1
2 ity practice by assuming a horizontal flow and computing pore pres-
3 crack
sures from the vertical height of the free surface (Griffiths and Lu
R1 = A
ψ = ta

2005).
Fig. 2 shows the normalized suction stress profile for a no-flow
exp(-ψ

condition ðq ¼ 0Þ and representative n and a values for clay

n( ′ /

CG
H H′ [n ¼ 2, a ¼ 0:005 (kPa−1); Fig. 2(a)] and sand [n ¼ 5, a ¼ 0:1
W c′, ′, (kPa−1); Fig. 2(b)] for various heights of the slope (H). As can be
FS
1)

, n ks seen, a linear profile of negative pore-water pressures (i.e.,  g w z),

which is independent of the slope height, can reasonably represent
y c′d = c′ / FS the suction stress along the height for clay up to 10 m above the
water table. For larger heights (e.g., H = 20 m), the suction stress
profile starts departing from the linear negative pore-water pressure
1
profile (i.e., hydrostatic condition), and it exhibits a nonlinear shape
(0, 0) x
z0 along the upper half of the slope height. Unlike clay, the shape of
the suction stress profile in sand [Fig. 2(b)] is strongly height-de-
pendent, even for lower H values, and the impact of suction stress
Fig. 1. Notation and convention for slope stability analysis via log spi- becomes less and less as the height increases.
ral failure surface for unsaturated soils The trend that was observed is due to the nonlinear form of the
suction stress equation and the fact that the suction stress will

1.0 1.0
Normalized Distance above Water Table, z / H

Normalized Distance above Water Table, z / H

Clay Sand
-1
n = 2, α = 0.005 (kPa ) -1
n = 5, α = 0.1 (kPa )
3
γ = 20 kN/m γ = 20 kN/m3
0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4
- γw z - γw z
H=1m H=1m
H=4m H=4m
0.2 H=7m 0.2 H=7m
H = 10 m H = 10 m
H = 20 m H = 20 m

0.0 0.0
0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 -0.5 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 -0.5
Normalized Suction Stress, σ / γ H s
Normalized Suction Stress, σ / γ H s

(a) (b)

Fig. 2. Normalized suction stress profile under no-flow conditions for various heights of slope: (a) n = 2, a = 0.005 (kPa−1); (b) n = 5, a = 0.1 (kPa−1)

© ASCE D4016003-3 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., D4016003

 diminish as the distance from the water table goes above a certain
value. As expected, the effect of suction stress in sandy slopes is
only limited to a few meters above the water table. The observation
regarding the height dependency of the suction stress profile is im-
portant in the context of slope stability formulation. As in common
practice, all parameters are normalized throughout the slope stabil-
ity formulation to allow developing stability charts that can be used
for any slope, regardless of its height and soil unit weight.
Unsaturated Slope Stability Formulation
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 01/28/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The slope stability problem is formulated for a homogeneous slope
by deriving the effective stress moment LE equation assuming a
potential failure along a log spiral trace. Fig. 1 shows the notation
and the failure mechanism used in the formulation. Unlike most
other failure mechanisms commonly used in LE slope stability
methods, the log spiral failure satisfies all static equilibrium condi-
tions without resorting to any static assumptions. The log spiral pro-
cedure is recognized as “theoretically the best procedure for analy-
sis of homogeneous slopes” (Duncan and Wright 2005), and its
validity has been demonstrated for unreinforced and reinforced
slopes through several experimental and numerical investigations
(e.g., Zornberg et al. 1998; Bathurst et al. 2001; Leshchinsky et al.
2009). As long as the soil’s friction angle is constant, using the
log spiral slip surface in LE and the log spiral mechanism in the
context of limit analysis is correct for any slope stability prob-
lem, including seepage flow, loads, seismicity, and complex ge-
ometry. It has been successfully used with water flow in several
commercial slope stability programs (e.g., Leshchinsky 1997),
as well as in complex problems, such as seismic analysis of rein-
forced earth structures (e.g., Vahedifard et al. 2013, 2014) and
pseudostatic three-dimensional slope stability analysis with
pore pressures (e.g., Leshchinsky and Mullett 1988). Vahedifard et
al. (2015) used the log spiral slip surface with the suction stress–
based effective stress representation to calculate the thrust of active
earth pressures under unsaturated steady-flow conditions. Furthermore,
log spiral is the most critical mechanism in the upper bound of plas-
ticity. This theory is higher in its hierarchy in mechanics when com-
pared with LE. LE methods, such as Bishop’s (1955), are not rigor-
ous, involve static assumptions, and do not satisfy equilibrium (e.g.,
Bishop ignores horizontal force equilibrium). Other LE methods that
are considered rigorous [e.g., Spencer (1967), Morgenstern-Price
(1965), and Janbu (1954)] also involve static assumptions to over-
come the inherent indeterminacy of a slope stability problem.
Consequently, results produced by all other methods could be par-
tially due to static assumptions. The proposed formulation removes
this possible question essentially by creating a benchmark for rigor-
ous slope stability methods that can deal with more complex problems
(e.g., nonhomogeneous slopes). Moreover, the log spiral surface is
more comprehensive than the infinite failure (i.e., planer mechanism)
surface used in many of the current analytical methods (e.g., Fourie et
al. 1999; Cho and Lee 2002; Springman et al. 2003; Sivakumar Babu
and Murthy 2005; Lu and Godt 2008; Gavin and Xue 2010; Travis et
al. 2010). That is, the log spiral surface can degenerate to a planer sur-
face when the translational slide is the most critical mechanism, but a
planar surface (as in infinite slope) cannot degenerate to a rotational
mechanism. It is well recognized that the planar mechanism is gener-
ally not the critical mode of failure (e.g., Leshchinsky and Zhu 2010).
The current work only considers failures emerging at the toe.
However, the proposed framework can be extended through a mini-
mization process to include deep-seated failures by considering log
spirals with an emerging point away from the toe. Fig. 3 decom-
poses normal stresses [Fig. 3(a)] and tangential stresses [Fig. 3(b)]
© ASCE D4016003-4
Int. J. Geomech., D4016003
s
= ′ + ua +
(1) (2) (3)
dL
dL
dL
dy
s
ua
′
(a) dx
= c′ + ′ tan ′
(4) (5)
′
dL
dL
n
′ ta
c′
(b)
Fig. 3. Normal and tangential stresses acting on an infinitesimal length
(dL) of log spiral: (a) normal stresses; (b) tangential stresses
acting on an infinitesimal length (dL) of log spiral. Considering
global force equilibrium, the test body is subjected to normal total
stress (s ) which includes the normal effective stress, pore-air
pressure, and suction stress [i.e., s ¼ s 0 þ ua þ s a ; Stress
Components 1, 2, and 3 in Fig. 3(a)]. The suction stress (which is a
negative value for unsaturated soils) and pore-air pressure affect the
normal effective stress and thus the shear stress along the surface. In
the log spiral failure surface, the moment due to the normal effective
stress [Stress Component 1 in Fig. 3(a)] and the associated frictional
resistance [Stress Component 4 in Fig. 3(b)] along the slip surface
are nil. That is, in a log spiral analysis, the resultant of each elemen-
tal effective normal force (i.e., s 0 dL) and its associated shear force
(i.e., s 0 tan f 0 dL) pass through the log spiral pole. Fig. 3 shows that
the stress terms acting on the log spiral surface that will remain in
the moment equilibrium equation are the moments induced by ua dL
[Stress Component 2 in Fig. 3(a)] and s s dL [Stress Component 3 in
Fig. 3(a) normal to the slip surface] and the moment generated by
c0 dL [Stress Component 5 in Fig. 3(b)] tangential to the slip surface.
Unless otherwise specified, ua is generally the atmospheric pressure
taken as zero.
The moment equilibrium equation around the pole of the log spi-
ral ðRMpole ¼ 0Þ can be written as follows (Fig. 1):
MW þ Ms s  Mc0 þ MQ þ Mzc þ MWzc ¼ 0 (7)
d
where MW = moment due to W; W = total weight of the failure zone
(Area 1-2-3 in Fig. 1); Ms s = moment induced by s s ; Mc0 = moment
due to cd0 (where cd0 = design cohesion and is equal to c0 =FS); MQ =
d
moment due to the uniform surcharge Q; Mzc = moment due to the
weight of soil above the crack elevation (Area 2-3-4-5 in Fig. 1); and
MWzc = moment due to the horizontal thrust of water in the crack
(where zc = depth of the crack). Note that the pore-air pressure is
neglected in deriving the moment equilibrium equation, and such an
assumption is mostly valid under static (i.e., no seismic) conditions
in the field. As stated before, f 0 is assumed to be constant and not a
function of the degree of saturation.
The log spiral failure surface has been used extensively in the
context of classical slope stability, and a more detailed derivation of
the moment LE equation, with the exception of the moment due
to suction stress, can be found in the literature (e.g., Leshchinsky
and San 1994; Leshchinsky and Zhu 2010; Vahedifard et al. 2012).
Using the geometry and notation shown in Figs. 1 and 3, Ms s can be
written in the polar coordinates as
Int. J. Geomech.
 b2 ð approach to quantify the effect of an existing crack. Further discus-
sion about estimating the depth of a tensile crack and its impact on
Ms s ¼ ðs s ÞðAe c b cos b ÞðA c e c b cos b þ Ae c b sin b Þd b the stability of slopes can be found in Baker (1981) and Utili (2013).
b1 Fredlund and Rahardjo (1993) and Lu and Likos (2004) determined
the depth of a tensile crack in the context of lateral earth pressure for
ð
b2
unsaturated soils by setting the total horizontal pressures to zero.
 ðs s ÞðAe c b sin b Þ ðAe c b cos b  A c e c b sin b Þd b When a tensile crack is fully filled or partially filled with water, the
horizontal thrust of water should be included in the analysis. It will
b1 act as a horizontal surcharge contributing to the driving moment in
(8) the equilibrium equation. As a common practice, the weight of water
filling the tensile crack is ignored, but the hydrostatic pressure is
Assuming that the water table locates at the depth z0 below the considered. To derive the equation for the moment due to water in
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 01/28/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

toe (as shown in Fig. 1), Eq. (6) can be rewritten to provide the nor-
malized suction stress at any elevation y along the slope height as
h  i
1 ln 1 þ kqs e g w ðz0 þyÞ  kqs
ss ¼  n h  ion ðn1Þ=n
a equation, the value of FS should be determined through a minimiza-
1 þ ln 1 þ kqs e g w ðz0 þyÞ  kqs
where y varies from y1 and y2 ; and z0 = constant value representing
the vertical distance from the water table to the toe ðz0  0Þ.
Because it was developed based on an analytical solution of one-
dimensional vertical unsaturated flow, this equation assumes that
suction stress varies only in the y-direction and is constant in the x-
direction at each elevation. Note that, similar to the other terms
incorporated in the moment equilibrium equation, suction stress
should be normalized by g H.
Using the geometry of log spiral, one can calculate y in the polar
coordinates as
y ¼ R1 cos1  Rcos ¼ Aðe c b 1 cos b 1  e c b cosÞ
Combining Eqs. (8)–(10) will result in the complete form of the
Ms s equation in the polar coordinates.
The current formulation was derived for a known tensile crack
depth and is not intended to determine the depth of a tensile crack.
Instead, one can use the proposed formulation in a back-analysis
the tensile crack ( MWzc ), a dimensionless coefficient [Kð0 
K  1Þ], was introduced, and the height of water in the crack was
calculated as a fraction of zc by multiplying K by zc . K = 0 represents
a dry crack, and K = 1 denotes a crack fully filled with water.
After developing the complete form of the moment equilibrium
(9)
tion procedure. For given input parameters and for all feasible val-
ues of b 1 and b 2 (i.e., the polar coordinates of Points 1 and 2 as
shown in Fig. 1), a numerical iteration should be performed to cap-
ture the minimum FS that satisfies the LE state. This conventional
FS is applied on f 0 [i.e., f d0 ¼ tan1 ðtan f 0 =FSÞ], where f d0 deter-
mines the trace of the log spiral; and cd0 ¼ c0 =FS. Alternatively, one
can follow Taylor’s (1937) classical design charts by setting FS = 1
and searching through a maximization process to determine the sta-
bility number (N). The stability number is the normalized design
cohesion (i.e., N = cd /H) that satisfies the LE state for given input
parameters and FS = 1. The latter approach was used for presenting
results in the current study.
(10)
Parametric Analysis and Examples
A parametric study was performed to investigate the impact of pa-
rameters of interest. Due to space limitation, the results are pre-
sented only for a few cases, and it was assumed that the water table
is at the toe elevation ðzo ¼ 0Þ, unless otherwise noted.

0.30 0.30
Clay no suction Sand
-1
n = 2, α = 0.005 (kPa ) H=1m
-1
n = 5, α = 0.1 (kPa )
0.25 H=4m 0.25
Stability Number, N (= c'd / γH)

Stability Number, N (= c'd / γH)

H=7m
H = 10 m
0.20 H = 20 m 0.20

0.15 0.15

0.10 0.10

0.05 0.05

0.00 0.00
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
(a) φ' (degrees) (b) φ' (degrees)

Fig. 4. Stability number versus f 0 for different H, v ¼ 0, and q ¼ 0: (a) n = 2, a = 0.005 (kPa−1); (b) n = 5, a = 0.1 (kPa−1)

© ASCE D4016003-5 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., D4016003

 0.16 0.16
H=1m H=4m
n = 1.1
Stability Number, N (= c'd / γH) n = 2.0

Stability Number, N (= c'd / γH)

n = 2.5
0.12 n = 4.0 0.12
n = 8.5

0.08 0.08
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 01/28/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.04 0.04

0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
(a) 1 / α (kPa) (b) 1 / α (kPa)

0.16 0.16
H=7m H = 10 m
Stability Number, N (= c'd / γH)

Stability Number, N (= c'd / γH)

0.12 0.12

0.08 0.08

0.04 0.04

0.00 0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
(c) 1 / α (kPa) (d) 1 / α (kPa)

Fig. 5. Stability numbers versus 1/a for different n, v ¼ 0, f 0 ¼ 30 , and q ¼ 0: (a) H = 1 m; (b) H = 4 m; (c) H = 7 m; (d) H = 10 m

Effect of Suction Stress on Slope Stability
As demonstrated earlier, the suction stress profile is height-depend-
ent for some cases (e.g., clayey slope higher than 10 m or sandy
slopes with any height), and as such, the results are presented for ho-
mogeneous slopes of various heights. Fig. 4 shows the stability
number versus f 0 for different H, no-flow conditions ðq ¼ 0Þ, and
v ¼ 0 (where v = the slope batter) for representative n and a val-
ues for clay [Fig. 4(a)] and sand [Fig 4(b)]. To quantify the impact
of suction stress on the stability number, each chart also includes the
results for the case when the effect of suction stress was not included
(referred to hereafter as no-suction case). For the no-suction case,
the solution was height-independent and was identical to that for a dry
slope. For typical n and a of clay, Fig. 4(a) shows that the suction
stress significantly improved the stability (i.e., decreased the stability
number). This figure also shows that the curves for slopes with
H = 1–10 m are very close and almost identical. However, beyond
these heights, the positive impact of suction stress slowly started to di-
minish. For sand, though, the effect of suction stress was relatively in-
significant and diminished quickly for any slope higher than 1 m, as
shown in Fig. 4(b). For sandy slopes with H = 7 m or higher, the suc-
tion stress had almost no positive impact on the stability, and the
results are very close to the no-suction case.
Fig. 5 shows stability numbers versus 1/a for various n (n = 1.1,
2.0, 2.5, 4.0, and 8.5) and for different heights (H = 1, 4, 7, and
10 m) for a vertical slope ðv ¼ 0Þ with f 0 ¼ 30 for the no-flow
condition ðq ¼ 0Þ. As shown, for a given a, the stabilizing impact
of suction was more pronounced (i.e., resulting in lower N) for a
higher n. However, at a certain a, the curves for different n values
asymptotically approached a constant stability number, and no fur-
ther reduction in the stability number was observed. As shown in
Fig. 5, the value of 1/a exhibiting a plateau beyond that depended

© ASCE D4016003-6 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., D4016003


1.0
0.8
0.6
Y/H
0.4
0.2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 01/28/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
0.0
H = 4 m, φ' = 25°, ω = 20°
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
X/H
no suction, N = 0.103
n = 2, α = 0.005 kPa-1 (Clay), N = 0.012
n = 5, α = 0.1 kPa-1 (Sand), N = 0.089
Fig. 6. Critical failure surface (H = 4 m, f 0 ¼ 25 , v ¼ 20 , and
q ¼ 0)
only on the height of the slope. For higher slopes, the stability num-
ber became constant at a lower a value, indicating that the impact
of suction stress was lower than that for lower-height slopes.
Effect of Suction Stress on Failure Configuration
The effect of suction stress on the location and shape of a critical
failure surface was also investigated, and the results for a slope with
H = 4 m, f 0 ¼ 25 , and v ¼ 20 are shown in Fig. 6 for hypotheti-
cal clay and sand for the no-flow condition ðq ¼ 0Þ, as well as that
for the no-suction case. As shown, the suction stress reduced N in
clay from 0.103 (for the no-suction case) to 0.012, and including the
suction stress slightly deepened the failure surface. Compared with
the no-suction log spiral, the suction stress had no impact on the
location of critical log spiral in sand, and it only reduced N from
0.103 to 0.089.
Effect of Soil Types and Infiltration Rate on Slope
Stability
The previous figures showed results only for the no-flow condition
(i.e., q = 0). However, the stability of a slope can vary under differ-
ent infiltration conditions. This is due to the fact that the suction
stress within a slope can change under different steady-state infiltra-
tion conditions (e.g., Griffiths and Lu 2005; Lu and Godt 2008). To
illustrate the impact of infiltration (i.e., q < 0) and evaporation (i.e.,
q > 0) on different soil types, Fig. 7 shows the height versus stability
number for a vertical slope under various unsaturated conditions for
four hypothetical soil types: clay, silt, loess, and sand. As shown,
for each soil type, four different cases are examined in one subfig-
ure: no-suction (i.e., the effect of suction stress is eliminated), infil-
tration (q = –3.14  10−8 m/s), no-flow (q = 0), and evaporation
(q = 1.15  10−8 m/s). The assigned negative and positive q values
represent typical high infiltration and evaporation rates, respec-
tively (e.g., Griffiths and Lu 2005). Soil properties for the hypothet-
ical soil types used in the parametric study are shown in Table 1.
One can use the results shown in Fig. 7 and find the stability
number for any slope up to 10 m high. As defined, for a constant
friction angle, N is the normalized design cohesion that is needed to
© ASCE D4016003-7
Int. J. Geomech., D4016003
reach a LE state and FS = 1. So, if a slope is weaker, it requires
more contribution from cohesion to reach FS = 1. By comparing the
no-suction curve with the three unsaturated cases that include the
suction stress effect, it can be seen that the apparent cohesion pro-
vided by the suction stress contributed to the stability of a slope.
Moreover, the stability number for the no-suction cases was inde-
pendent of height for all of the soil types. However, a similar
height-independent behavior in slopes up to 10 m high can be seen
for clayey [Fig. 7(a)] and, to some extent, silty [Fig. 7(b)] slopes
with different q values. For loess [Fig. 7(c)] and sand [Fig. 7(d)],
the three unsaturated cases including the effect of suction exhibited
nonlinear H versus N relationships.
The effect of infiltration rate for each soil type can also be stud-
ied using the results shown in Fig. 7. Fig. 7(a) shows that the use of
different q values can significantly impact the stability number for
clay. In clayey slopes, a positive q (evaporation) contributed more
to the stability in comparison with the other cases with zero (no-
flow) and negative (infiltration) q values. This means that the slope
requires lower cohesion (i.e., lower N) to reach the state of LE with
FS = 1. However, the impact of q values gradually decreased in silt
[Fig. 7(b)] and diminished in loess [Fig. 7(c)] and sand [Fig. 7(d)].
For loess and sand, the no-flow, high-infiltration, and evaporation
cases resulted in almost identical N values. This trend is directly
related to the amount of suction stress that can be developed in each
of these soil types.
Examples
To demonstrate the impact of soil types and flow rates on the stabil-
ity of a homogeneous slope with real dimensions, the results shown
in Fig. 7 were used to determine the required cohesion needed to
produce a LE state and FS = 1 for a 5-m-high slope with vertical bat-
ter ðv ¼ 0Þ. Table 1 presents the soil properties used in the example
problems and the results for four soil types under various unsatu-
rated conditions. By including the effect of suction stress, the
required cohesion decreased depending upon the soil type and q
value. For clay, the amount of decrease in the required cohesion
from the no-suction case to the other unsaturated cases varied from
16% for infiltration (q = –3.14  10−8 m/s) to 55% for evaporation
(q = 1.15  10−8 m/s). As can be seen from the latter numbers, the
change in the required cohesion in unsaturated clayey slopes was
heavily governed by the q value. However, the q impact decreased
and finally diminished for soils with lower matric suction. As shown
in Table 1, the required cohesion for unsaturated loess and sand was
almost identical for different q values.
Summary and Conclusions
The effect of matric suction and its highly variable nature with
the degree of saturation can significantly impact the stability of
natural and engineered slopes. Therefore, inclusion of the unsatu-
rated zone and quantification of its effect in various stages of
design, analysis, construction, and monitoring warrant careful
consideration. A new analytical method for slope stability analy-
sis of unsaturated homogeneous soils was developed that can pro-
vide an accurate and practical framework for analyzing unsatu-
rated slopes. The slope stability problem was formulated using
the effective stress approach assuming a log spiral failure surface
under one-dimensional vertical unsaturated steady seepage con-
ditions. A unified effective stress approach was incorporated in
the formulation, thus avoiding the need for developing new shear
strength failure criteria for unsaturated soils. In the context of the
unified effective stress approach, a closed-form equation was
Int. J. Geomech.
 10 10
Clay Silt
9 φ' = 20°, ω = 0° 9 φ' = 25°, ω = 0°
-1 -1
n = 2, α = 0.005 kPa n = 3, α = 0.01 kPa
8 ks = 5 x 10
-8
m/s
8 -7
ks = 5 x 10 m/s
Height of Slope, H (m)

Height of Slope, H (m)

7 7

6 6

5 5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 01/28/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
(a) Stability Number, N (= c'd / γ H) (b) Stability Number, N (= c'd / γ H)

10 10
Loess Sand
9 φ' = 28°, ω = 0° 9 φ' = 30°, ω = 0°
-1 -1
n = 4, α = 0.025 kPa n = 5, α = 0.1 kPa
8 ks = 1 x 10
-6
m/s 8 ks = 3 x 10
-5
m/s
Height of Slope, H (m)

Height of Slope, H (m)

7 7

6 6

5 5

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
(c) Stability Number, N (= c'd / γ H) (d) Stability Number, N (= c'd / γ H)

Notes:
no suction
1- The water table is at the toe elevation.
evaporation -8 -8
2- For the evaporation and infiltration cases, q = 1.15 x10 m/s and q = -3.14 x 10 m/s
no-flow
are used, respectively. For the no-flow status q = 0 is used.
infiltration
3- The effect of suction stress is eliminated in the no suction case.

Fig. 7. Height of slope versus stability number for various unsaturated conditions for different soil types (v ¼ 0 ): (a) clay; (b) silt; (c) loess; (d) sand

used for the SSCC to define the state of effective stress in unsatu- that the suction stress profile was height-dependent for some cases,
rated slopes. The closed-form equation requires only two control- such as clayey slopes higher than 10 m or sandy slopes of any
ling parameters of the inverse of the air-entry pressure and the height. For typical n and a for clay, the parametric study
pore-size spectrum number and can accurately describe the effec- showed that the suction stress significantly improved the stability of
tive stress in unsaturated soils for different soil types ranging the slope (i.e., decreased the stability number). For clay, the stabil-
from sand to silt to clay. The log spiral mechanism used in the for- ity curves for slopes with H = 1–10 m were almost identical, but
mulation is statically determinate and does not require any a pri- beyond this height, the positive impact of suction stress slowly
ori assumption. The proposed formulation includes the effect of started to diminish. For sand, the effect of suction stress was
inclined backslope, tensile crack, and water in tensile crack. found to be relatively insignificant and diminished quickly for
Stability charts were drawn for some representative cases, and any slope higher than 1 m. For sandy slopes with H = 7 m or
the effect of influencing parameters was investigated. It was shown higher, the suction stress has almost no positive impact on the

© ASCE D4016003-8 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., D4016003

 Table 1. Required Cohesion Needed to Produce a LE State (FS = 1) under Various Unsaturated Conditions for Different Soil Types Considered in Example
Problems (Vertical Slope, H = 5 m, g ¼ 20 kN/m3)
Soil type f 0 (degrees) n a (kPa−1) ks (m/s)
Clay 20 2 0.005 5  10−8
Silt 25 3 0.01 5  10−7
Loess 28 4 0.025 1  10−6
Sand 30 5 0.1 3  10−5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 01/28/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
a
The water table is set at the toe elevation.
b
The effect of suction stress is ignored for the no-suction case.
stability of the slope. The effect of suction stress on the critical
failure surface was also investigated. For the cases examined, the
failure surface slightly deepened in clay but had no noticeable
change in sand.
The impact of infiltration and evaporation on the stability of
slopes for four hypothetical soil types was studied. For each
soil type, the stability numbers were compared for no-suction
(i.e., the effect of suction stress was eliminated), infiltration
ðq < 0Þ, no-flow ðq ¼ 0Þ, and evaporation ðq > 0Þ cases.
Comparison of the no-suction curve with the unsaturated cases
that included the effect of suction stress showed that the appa-
rent cohesion due to suction stress contributed to the stability
of the slope. Moreover, a height-independent N value for slopes
up 10 m high was seen for clayey slopes and, to some extent,
silty slopes with different q values. For loess and sand, the
three unsaturated cases including the effect of suction stress
exhibited nonlinear H versus N relationships. Studying the
effect of infiltration rate for each soil type showed that the use
of different q values could significantly impact the stability of
clay slopes. However, the impact of q values gradually
decreased in silt and diminished in loess and sand.
It is accepted that log spiral is the most critical failure surface for
homogeneous problems where soil possessing a constant friction
angle exists. Furthermore, it is the most critical mechanism in the
upper bound of plasticity. This theory is higher in its hierarchy in
mechanics compared with LE. Before dealing with more complex
problems, homogeneous slopes are useful in understanding the per-
formance of the concept of suction stress to deal with unsaturated
slopes. The proposed method can serve as a benchmark for more gen-
eral methods. The proposed formulation is statically assumption-free
and provides a benchmark for rigorous slope stability methods that
can deal with more complex problems (e.g., nonhomogeneous
slopes).
References
Baker, R. (1981). “Tensile strength, tension cracks, and stability of slopes.”
Soils Found., 21(2), 1–17.
Bathurst, R. J., Walters, D. L., Hatami, K., and Allen, T. M. (2001). “Full-
scale performance testing and numerical modelling of reinforced soil
retaining walls”. Proc., 4th Int. Symp. on Earth Reinforcement, H.
Ochiai, J. Otani, N. Yasufuku, and K. Omine, eds., Vol. 2, Balkema,
Rotterdam, Netherlands, 777–799.
Bishop, A. W. (1955). “The use of slip circles in the stability analysis of
earth slopes.” Geotechnique, 5(1), 7–17.
Bishop, A. W. (1959). “The principle of effective stress.” Tek. Ukeblad,
106(39), 859–863.
© ASCE
Int. J. Geomech., D4016003
Cohesion needed to produce a LE state with FS = 1.0 (kPa)
Unsaturateda
Infiltration q Evaporation q
No suctionb (–3.14  10–8 m/s) No flow (q = 0) (1.15  10–8 m/s)
18.2 15.3 10.1 8.2
16.5 7.0 6.4 6.1
15.6 6.8 6.7 6.7
15.0 13.9 13.9 13.9
Cai, F., and Ugai, K. (2004). “Numerical analysis of rainfall effects on slope sta-
bility.” Int. J. Geomech., 10.1061/(ASCE)1532-3641(2004)4:2(69), 69–78.
Cho, S. E., and Lee, S. R. (2002). “Evaluation of surficial stability for homoge-
neous slopes considering rainfall characteristics.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2002)128:9(756), 756–763.
Damiano, E., and Mercogliano, P. (2013). “Potential effects of climate
change on slope stability in unsaturated pyroclastic soils.” Landslide sci-
ence and practice: Global environmental change, C. Margottini, P.
Canuti, and K. Sassa eds., Vol. 4, Taylor & Francis Group, London, 15–
25.
Damiano, E., Olivares, L., and Picarelli, L. (2012). “Steep-slope monitoring
in unsaturated pyroclastic soils.” Eng. Geol., 137–138(6), 1–12.
Duncan, J. M., and Wright, S. G. (2005). Soil strength and slope stability,
John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Fourie, A. B., Rowe, D., and Blight, G. E. (1999). “The effect of infiltration
on the stability of the slopes of a dry ash dump.” Geotechnique, 49(1),
1–13.
Fredlund, D. G., and Morgenstern, N. R. (1977). “Stress state variables for
unsaturated soils.” J. Geotech. Eng. Div., 103(5), 447–466.
Fredlund, D. G., and Rahardjo, H. (1993). Soil mechanics for unsaturated
soils, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Gardner, W. R. (1958). “Some steady state solutions of the unsaturated
moisture flow equation with application to evaporation from a water ta-
ble.” Soil Sci., 85(4), 228–232.
Gavin, K., and Xue, J. (2010). “Design charts for the stability analysis of un-
saturated soil slopes.” Geotech. Geol. Eng., 28(1), 79–90.
Godt, J. W., Baum, R. L., and Lu, N. (2009). “Landsliding in partially satu-
rated materials.” Geophys. Res. Lett., 36(2), L02403
Griffiths, D. V., and Lu, N. (2005). “Unsaturated slope stability analy-
sis with steady infiltration or evaporation using elasto-plastic finite
elements.” Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech., 29(3), 249–267.
Janbu, N. (1954). “Stability analysis of slopes with dimensionless parame-
ters,” Harvard Soil Mechanics Series 46, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Khalilnejad, A., Ali, F., Hashim, R., and Osman, N. (2013). “Finite-element
simulation for contribution of matric suction and friction angle to stress
distribution during pulling-out process.” Int. J. Geomech., 10.1061
/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000243, 527–532.
Hamdhan, I. N., and Schweiger, H. F. (2013). “Finite element method–based
analysis of an unsaturated soil slope subjected to rainfall infiltration.” Int.
J. Geomech., 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000239, 653–658.
Leshchinsky, D. (1997) “Design procedure for geosynthetic reinforced
steep slopes.” Technical Rep. REMR-GT-23, Geotechnical Laboratory,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS.
Leshchinsky, D., Ling, H. I., Wang, J.-P., Rosen, A., and Mohri, Y. (2009).
“Equivalent seismic coefficient in geocell retention systems.” Geotext.
Geomembr., 27(1), 9–18.
Leshchinsky, D., and Mullett, T. L. (1988). “Design charts for vertical cuts.”
J. Geotech. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1988)114:3(337), 337–344.
Leshchinsky, D., and San, K.-C. (1994). “Pseudostatic seismic stability of
slopes: Design charts.” J. Geotech. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733
-9410(1994)120:9(1514), 1514–1532.
D4016003-9 Int. J. Geomech.
 Leshchinsky, D., and Zhu, F. (2010). “Resultant force of lateral earth pressure
in unstable slopes.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT
.1943-5606.0000398, 1655–1663.
Likos, W. J., Lu, N., and Godt, J. W. (2014). “Hysteresis and uncertainty
in soil water-retention curve parameters.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001071, 04013050.
Lu, N. (2008). “Is matric suction a stress variable?” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2008)134:7(899), 899–905.
Lu, N., and Godt, J. (2008). “Infinite slope stability under steady unsaturated
seepage conditions.” Water Resour. Res., 44(11), W11404.
Lu, N., Godt, J. W., and Wu, D. T. (2010). “A closed-form equation for effec-
tive stress in unsaturated soil.” Water Resour. Res., 46(5), W05515.
Lu, N., Kaya, M., Collins, B. D., and Godt, J. W. (2013a). “Hysteresis of un-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 01/28/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
saturated hydromechanical properties of a silty soil.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000786, 507–510.
Lu, N., and Likos, W. J. (2004). Unsaturated soil mechanics, John Wiley &
Sons, New York.
Lu, N., and Likos, W. J. (2006). “Suction stress characteristic curve for un-
saturated soil.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090
-0241(2006)132:2(131), 131–142.
Lu, N., Wayllace, A., and Oh, S. (2013b). “Infiltration-induced season-
ally reactivated instability of a highway embankment near the
Eisenhower Tunnel, Colorado, USA.” Eng. Geol., 162, 22–32.
Morgenstern, N. R., and Price, V. E. (1965). “The analysis of the stability of
general slip surfaces.” Geotechnique, 15(1), 79–93.
Mualem, Y. (1976). “A new model for predicting hydraulic conductivity of
unsaturated porous media.” Water Resour. Res., 12(3), 513–522.
Ng, C. W. W., and Shi, Q. (1998). “A numerical investigation of the stability
of unsaturated soil slopes subjected to transient seepage.” Comput.
Geotech., 22(1), 1–28.
Rahardjo, H., Rezaur, R. B., Leong, E. C., Alonso, E. E., Lloret, A., and
Gens, A. (2008). “Monitoring and modeling of slope response to cli-
matic changes.” Proc., 10th Int. Symp. on Landslides and Engineered
Slopes, Z. Chen, J.-M. Zhang, K. Ho, F.-Q. Wu, and Z.-K. Li, eds.,
CRC, London, 67–84.
Rahardjo, H., Satyanaga, A., and Leong, E. C. (2012). “Unsaturated soil
mechanics for slope stabilization.” Geotech. Eng. J. SEAGS AGSSEA,
43(1), 48–58.
Sivakumar Babu, G. L., and Murthy, D. S. (2005). “Reliability analysis of
unsaturated soil slopes.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061
/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:11(1423), 1423–1428.
Sorbino, G., and Nicotera, M. V. (2013). “Unsaturated soil mechanics in
rainfall-induced flow landslides.” Eng. Geol., 165(10), 105–132.
© ASCE D4016003-10
Int. J. Geomech., D4016003
Spencer, E. (1967). “A method of analysis of the stability of embankments
assuming parallel inter-slice forces.” Geotechnique, 17(1), 11–26.
Springman, S. M., Jommi, C., and Teysseire, P. (2003). “Instabilities on
moraine slopes induced by loss of suction: A case history.”
Geotechnique, 53(1), 3–10.
Taylor, D. W. (1937). “Stability of earth slopes.” J. Boston Soc. Civ. Eng.,
24(3), 197–246.
Travis, Q. B., Houston, S. L., Marinho, F. A. M., and Schmeeckle, M.
(2010). “Unsaturated infinite slope stability considering surface flux
conditions.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943
-5606.0000301, 963–974.
USGCRP (U.S. Global Change Research Program). (2009). Global climate
change impacts in the United States, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, U.K.
Utili, S. (2013). “Investigation by limit analysis on the stability of slopes
with cracks.” Geotechnique, 63(2), 140–154.
Vahedifard, F., Leshchinsky, B. A., Mortezaei, K., and Lu, N. (2015).
“Active earth pressures for unsaturated retaining structures.” J.
Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001356,
04015048.
Vahedifard, F., Leshchinsky, B. A., Sehat, S., and Leshchinsky, D. (2014).
“Impact of cohesion on seismic design of geosynthetic-reinforced earth
structures.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943
-5606.0001099, 04014016.
Vahedifard, F., Leshchinsky, D., and Meehan, C. L. (2012). “Relationship
between the seismic coefficient and the unfactored geosynthetic force in
reinforced earth structures.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061
/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000701, 1209–1221.
Vahedifard, F., Leshchinsky, D., and Meehan, C. L. (2013).
“Displacement-based internal design of geosynthetic-reinforced earth
structures subjected to seismic loading conditions.” Geotechnique,
63(6), 451–462.
van Genuchten, M. T. (1980). “A closed-form equation predicting the hydrau-
lic conductivity of unsaturated soils.” Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 44(5),
892–898.
Vanapalli, S. K., Fredlund, D. E., Pufahl, D. E., and Clifton, A. W. (1996).
“Model for the prediction of shear strength with respect to soil suction.”
Can. Geotech. J., 33(3), 379–392.
Yeh, T.-C. (1989). “One-dimensional steady-state infiltration in heterogene-
ous soils.” Water Resour. Res., 25(10), 2149–2158.
Zornberg, J. G., Sitar, N., and Mitchell, J. K. (1998). “Performance of
geosynthetic reinforced slopes at failure.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1998)124:8(670), 670–683.
Int. J. Geomech.