Green, R.A. and Marcuson III, W.F. (2014).

The = 0 Concept: Review of its Theoretical Basis and

Pragmatic Issues with its Implementation, From Soil Behavior Fundamentals to Innovations in
Geotechnical Engineering, Honoring Professor Roy Olson (M. Iskander, J.E. Garlanger, and M.H.
Hussein, eds.) ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication (GSP) 233, 308-321.

The = 0 Concept: Review of its Theoretical Basis and Pragmatic Issues with
Implementation
Russell A. Green1, P.E., M.ASCE, and William F. Marcuson, III2, P.E., Hon.M.ASCE
1

Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 120B Patton Hall, Virginia Tech,
Blacksburg, VA 24061; rugreen@vt.edu
2
Director Emeritus, Geotechnical Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center
(ERDC), 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199; wfm3@att.net

ABSTRACT: The = 0 Concept is central to the specification of the undrained shear strength
of saturated clays in engineering practice. While the theoretical basis for the Concept lies in
Mohrs rupture hypothesis, its pragmatic value to geotechnical engineers lies in Terzaghis
effective stress principle. Specifically, the = 0 Concept circumvents the onerous need for
estimating (or measuring) excess pore water pressures in situ during construction, etc., which is
required to perform an effective stress analysis. Despite the significance of the = 0 Concept, a
survey of geotechnical engineering textbooks published over the last 60+ years showed that most
opt to just state the = 0 Concept without putting it into proper theoretical or contextual
perspective. The authors view this as a missed opportunity to put the various rules of thumb and
sets of governing principles for the shear strength of soil into a consistent framework.
Accordingly, the objectives of this paper are to review the theoretical basis of the = 0 Concept
in the context of Mohrs rupture hypothesis and Terzaghis effective stress principle and to
discuss some of the pertinent pragmatic issues with implementing the Concept. In relation to the
latter objective, the procedure for multi-staged rapid drawdown analysis for earthen dams
proposed by Duncan et al. and the procedure for determining the strength of liquefied soil
proposed by Poulos et al. are reviewed. It is shown that while Duncan et al. fully address all the
pragmatic issues in implementing their procedure, Poulos et al. do not.
INTRODUCTION
A colleague who was preparing to write a new introductory textbook on geotechnical
engineering conducted an informal survey among geotechnical engineering faculty in the US
asking about their likes and dislikes of existing texts. The responses to the survey showed an
almost ubiquitous dislike for the coverage of shear strength (Fiori, 2008). The reason for this is
likely because, in many ways, the texts mimic research papers and reports. And, shear strength
research in the US largely evolved following a semi-empirical approach wherein each soil typestress state-drainage condition combination was treated as being unique and having its own set of
rules of thumb and governing principles. Few texts put these rules of thumb and sets of principles
into the context of a consistent mechanics-based framework. One example of this is the = 0
Concept (e.g., Skempton, 1948a), which is commonly invoked when specifying the undrained
strength of saturated clays, wherein the soil is assumed to be non-frictional and purely cohesive
(i.e., Tresca material). Accordingly, the objectives of this paper are to review the theoretical basis
of the = 0 Concept in the context of Mohrs rupture hypothesis and Terzaghis effective stress
principle and to discuss some of the pertinent pragmatic issues with implementing the Concept.
Arguably the most significant theory in all of soil mechanics is Terzaghis effective stress

principle. This principle has two tenets: (1) deformation (i.e., volumetric strain) in soil is a
function of effective stress, and (2) shear strength of soil is a function of effective stress
(Terzaghi, 1936). Although various researchers had identified aspects of the effective stress
principle prior to Terzaghi (e.g., Lyell, 1871; Reynolds, 1886; Fillunger, 1915), Terzaghi is
credited with fully developing the effective stress principle and with being the first to use it in
geotechnical engineering practice (e.g., Skempton, 1960; de Boer, 2005). The first tenet was
postulated in the 1920s and underlies consolidation theory (e.g., Terzaghi, 1924 and 1925). The
second tenet evolved with time, and to quote Skempton (1960): Although this principle is of
paramount importance, its development and implications did not occur at once but over a period
of several years and, wholly or in part, in many different publications. Even at the time
Skempton wrote this statement, the implications of the second tenet were not fully realized in the
context of plasticity theory that was just being developed and applied to soil mechanics (e.g.,
Drucker and Prager, 1952; Mroz, 1963). And, even today, few geotechnical engineering
textbooks mention plasticity theory in relation to Terzaghis effective stress principle, despite the
fact that relevant aspects of this theory have been experimentally verified, as discussed later in
this paper.
The first investigations of the = 0 Concept for geotechnical engineering applications
actually predate Terzaghis effective stress principle and were completely based on empirical
laboratory observations (Bell, 1915; Westerberg, 1926; Fellenius, 1927). However, by the mid1930s and throughout the 1940s, the pragmatic issues of implementing the Concept for specifying
the undrained strength of saturated clays were seemingly a hot topic of research (e.g., Terzaghi,
1936; Skempton, 1948a, b; Golder and Skempton, 1948; Skempton and Golder, 1948). Focus was
primarily on the relationship, and seeming inconsistencies, among the = 0 Concept, Terzaghis
effective stress principle, and the orientation of the slip surface observed both in the laboratory
and in the field. From reviewing numerous papers written at this time, it became obvious that the
effective stress principle was not universally appreciated, as exemplified by the frequent lack of
distinction between and (i.e., total and effective stress angles of internal friction,
respectively). Additionally, during the 1940s and 50s, the use of a failure envelope that was
independent of the applied [total] normal stress was referred to as a = 0 Analysis, with the
moniker = 0 Concept not coming until later (e.g., Lambe and Whitman, 1969). Although the
change in the name from = 0 Analysis to = 0 Concept may seem trivial, it clearly
signifies the evolving understanding of the relationship between the = 0 Concept and Terzaghis
effective stress principle.
To better gage the evolution of the = 0 Concept, the first author performed a survey of
geotechnical engineering textbooks published over the last 60+ years (i.e., Table 1: Note that no
attempt was made to perform an exhaustive review of all geotechnical engineering textbooks
published since the 1930s; rather, the first author only reviewed the texts in his personal library).
The review showed that most of the texts just state the = 0 Concept without putting it into
proper theoretical or contextual perspective. (It is worth noting that in preparation of the final
draft of this paper Professor Mick Pender, University of Auckland, performed a similar review of
several geotechnical engineering textbooks in his personal library that were not reviewed by the
authors, with his conclusion of the coverage of the = 0 Concept being the same as that of the
authors (Pender, 2013)). While this approach to covering the = 0 Concept is not necessarily
incorrect and, by all means, the authors view many of these texts as excellent, in the authors
opinion it is a missed opportunity to help put the various rules of thumb and sets of governing
principles for the shear strength of soil into a consistent framework. This is just one example of a
potential plethora of reasons for the results of our colleagues survey which showed
dissatisfaction among academicians with the coverage of shear strength by existing geotechnical
engineering textbooks.

In the subsequent sections of this paper, the theoretical basis for the = 0 Concept is first
presented. This is followed by a discussion of the pragmatic issues on implementing the Concept.
Finally, the procedure for multi-staged rapid drawdown analysis for earthen dams proposed by
Duncan et al. (1990) and the procedure for determining the strength of liquefied soil proposed by
Poulos et al. (1985) are reviewed in the context of the = 0 Concept.
Table 1. Geotechnical engineering textbooks reviewed as part of this study
Year
Published

Author(s)

1991

D.W. Taylor
K. Terzaghi and R.B. Peck
G.P. Tschebotarioff
G.A. Leonards, ed.
R.F. Scott
K. Terzaghi and R.B. Peck
T.W. Lambe and R.V.
Whitman
M.D. Bolton

2002

V.N.S Murthy

2005
2006

J.K. Mitchell and K. Soga

B.M. Das
M. Budhu

1948
1951
1962
1963
1967
1969

2007

R.L. Handy and M.G. Spangler

D.F. McCarthy

2008
2011

R. Salgado
R.D. Holtz, W.D. Kovacs, and
T.C. Sheehan
I. Ishibashi and H. Hazarika

Title
Fundamentals of Soil Mechanics
Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, 1st ed.
Soil Mechanics, Foundations, and Earth Structures
Foundation Engineering
Principles of Soil Mechanics
Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, 2nd ed.
Soil Mechanics
A Guide to Soil Mechanics
Geotechnical Engineering: Principles and Practices of
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering
Fundamentals of Soil Behavior, 3rd ed.
Principles of Geotechnical Engineering, 6th ed.
Soil Mechanics and Foundations, 2nd ed.
Geotechnical Engineering: Soil and Foundation
Principles and Practice, 5th ed.
Essentials of Soil Mechanics and Foundations: Basic
Geotechnics, 7th ed.
The Engineering of Foundations
An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering, 2 nd ed.
Soil Mechanics Fundamentals

THEORETICAL BASIS FOR THE = 0 CONCEPT

The theoretical basis for the = 0 Concept actually lies in Mohrs rupture hypothesis, which
is not unique to soil mechanics but rather applies to a range of materials (Mohr, 1882). Mohr
hypothesized that an envelope of plastic states (i.e., failure envelope) exists in which the shear
stress mobilized on the slip surface is a function of the normal stress on the slip surface. The
Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope that is commonly used in geotechnical engineering is a specific
form of the more general Mohr hypothesis, where the Mohr-Coulomb envelope assumes the shear
stress mobilized on the slip surfaces is a linear function of the normal stress acting on the slip
surface. If the Mohr hypothesis is correct, then a stress circle that is tangent to the failure
envelope represents a limit state (i.e., failure). Although the stress vectors corresponding to the
point of tangency between the failure circle and failure envelope represent the stress components
acting on the Coulomb slip surface (Coulomb, 1776), it is important to note that the entire failure
circle represents the stresses in the element at failure. As such, the stress vectors acting on any
plane (other than planes parallel to the principal stress planes) cutting through the element are
unique to that plane at failure under the given stress conditions. This notion is central to the = 0
Concept (and to the shear strength of all soils in general, as discussed subsequently), but of the
textbooks listed in Table 1, only Lambe and Whitman (1969) emphasize this point. Their stated
rule in this regard is that consistency is required between the assumed failure envelope and

orientation of the slip surface, where the slope of the assumed failure envelope can be arbitrary.
This rule is illustrated in the retaining wall example shown in Figure 1. In this figure, a 6 m
high retaining wall has a dry sand backfill with = 30. A wedge analysis is performed to
determine the lateral force imposed on the wall by the backfill for active conditions. In Figure 1b,
the assumed failure envelope is as shown (i.e., = 30 and c = 0 kPa, where c is the effective
cohesion of the soil) and the corresponding slip surface forms a 60 angle with the horizontal
(i.e., 45 + /2 = 60). The stresses in a soil element at mid-depth in the backfill are taken as
being representative of the stress state of the entire backfill and the stress circle for this soil
element is shown in Figure 1b. From a force balance of the wedge, the lateral force per unit width
into the page imposed on the wall by the backfill is computed to be 113.4 kN/m.
The wedge analysis is repeated for the same retaining wall system in Figure 1c, this time
defining the failure envelope by an arbitrary angle of = 15. Because the assumed failure
envelope has to be tangent to stress circle representing limit state of our soil element in the
backfill (i.e., the same stress circle used in Figure 1b), for = 15, c has to be equal to 9.44 kPa,
where c is the apparent cohesion of the soil. In this case the slip surface corresponding to the
assumed failure envelope has an inclination of 52.5 (i.e., 45 + /2 = 52.5). Again, from a force
balance of the wedge, the lateral force per unit width into the page imposed on the wall by the
backfill is computed to be 113.4 kN/m; the same as computed in Figure 1b! (Note the notation
change from and c to and c used to define the Mohr-Coulomb failure envelopes in Figures
1b and 1c, respectively. In this paper, and c are used exclusively to represent the MohrCoulomb envelope used in conventional effective stress analyses. In contrast, and c are used to
define a failure envelope having an arbitrary slope.).
Finally, the wedge analysis is repeated one more time for the same retaining wall system in
Figure 1d, this time defining the failure envelope by an arbitrary angle of = 0. Again, because
the assumed failure envelope has to be tangent to the stress circle representing limit state of our
soil element in the backfill (i.e., the same stress circle used in Figures 1b and 1c), for = 0, c has
to be equal to 18.9 kPa. In this case the slip surface corresponding to the assumed failure
envelope has an inclination of 45 (i.e., 45 + /2 = 45). And, once again from a force balance of
the wedge, the computed lateral force per unit width into the page is 113.4 kN/m; the same as
computed in Figures 1b and 1c! Moreover, using Eqn (1), it can be shown that Pa = 113.4 kN/m
for any arbitrarily assumed failure envelope that is tangent to the failure circle shown in Figure 1
and that has -90 < < 90, with the corresponding inclination of the slip surface between 0 and
90 (i.e., 0 < f < 90). (Note that in using Eqn (1), either or f is assumed and the remaining
unknown parameters are then computed.)
(

(1a)
(1b)
(1c)
(1d)

(
(

)
)

(1e)

(1f)
(1e)
where:

Pa = lateral force imposed on the wall by the backfill for active conditions.
R = resultant force acting between the failure wedge and the stable backfill.
W = weight of the failure wedge.
C = force acting on the assumed slip surface that is associated with the apparent
cohesion of the backfill.
= unit weight of the backfill.
L = length of the assumed slip surface.
H = height of the wall.
c = intercept of the assumed failure envelope.
= angle of the assumed failure envelope.
f = angle of inclination of the assumed slip surface.

PRAGMATIC ISSUES WITH THE = 0 CONCEPT

As outlined in the preceding section, the assumed -c combination used to define the failure
envelope and corresponding inclination of the slip surface can range widely, yet still yield the
same result (e.g., Figure 1). However, given the semi-empirical path that the evolution of shear
strength concepts has followed, the -c combinations used to define the failure envelopes in
geotechnical engineering practice are often determined from various laboratory tests performed
on soil. While this is surely reasonable and preferred in many cases, the thorough understanding
of the relationship between Terzaghis effective stress principle and Mohrs rupture hypothesis
that was required to properly interpret the laboratory data and use it to make design decisions was
still evolving in the formative days of geotechnical engineering. Of particular issue was the lack
of distinction between effective stress and total stress strength parameters (i.e., and c versus
and c). For highly permeable soils (i.e., sandy or coarse grained soils), this was not much of an
issue, but it was a significant issue for clays (e.g., Bell, 1915; Westerberg, 1926; Fellenius, 1927).
By the late 1940s, the significance of the change in water content (or lack thereof) of a
saturated clay sample during the application of both confining stress and shearing stress was
generally understood (e.g., Skempton, 1948a,b). Specific to the = 0 Concept, it was understood
that for a saturated clay specimen under undrained conditions increases in confining stress were
carried by the pore water in the sample, with the effective stress in the sample remaining
unchanged. And, consistent with the second tenet of Terzaghis effective stress principle, if the
effective stress in a sample does not change, the deviatoric stress required to cause failure in the
sample does not change. This results in total stress failure circles having equal diameters, but
having different total major and minor principal stresses at failure. The failure envelope drawn
tangent to the total stress failure circles is characterized by = 0 and c = Su, where Su is the
undrained shear strength of the soil. This is conceptually illustrated in Figure 2, where the total
stress failure circles from three unconsolidated-undrained (UU) triaxial tests performed on
identical, normally consolidated saturated clay samples are shown. For truly identical samples,
the pore pressures developed during the shearing phase of the UU tests would be the same for all
tests, resulting in all the tests having the same effective stress failure circle, also conceptually
illustrated in Figure 2.

Dry Sand:
= 18.9 kN/m3
= 30o
c = 0 kPa

6m

3m

(a)
t (kPa)

= 30o

56.7 s (kPa)

18.9

WI
6m
30

Pa I

W I = 196.4 kN/m
RI = 226.8 kN/m
Pa I = 113.4 kN/m

RI

f = 60o

(b)
t (kPa)
= 15o

c = 9.44 kPa
56.7

18.9

s (kPa)

WII

CII

6m

Pa II
f = 52.5

RII 15o

W II = 261.0 kN/m
CII = 71.4 kN/m
RII = 257.7 kN/m
Pa II = 113.4 kN/m

(c)
t (kPa)

= 0o

c = 18.9 kPa

56.7

18.9

s (kPa)

WIII
6m

Pa III

CIII
RIII

W III = 340.2 kN/m

CIII = 160.4 kN/m
RIII = 320.7 kN/m
Pa III = 113.4 kN/m

f = 45o

(d)
Figure 1. Retaining wall example illustrating the concept that the stresses at failure acting on
any plane cutting through the element (other than planes parallel to the principal stress planes)
are unique to that plane.

= 0o

Su

Figure 2. Conceptual illustration of the results from three UU triaxial tests performed on identical,
normally consolidated saturated clay samples. The circles drawn with the solid lines are the total
stress failure circles and the associated failure envelope identified by = 0 . The circle drawn
with the dashed line is the effective stress failure circle and the associated failure envelope
identified by . (e.g., Bishop and Bjerrum, 1960).
While an understanding of the = 0 failure envelope in the context of Terzaghi effective
stress principle was fairly well established by the late 1940s, a full understanding of the
relationship among the = 0 Concept, Terzaghis effective stress principle, and Mohrs rupture
hypothesis was not. A lot of attention was focused on the observed orientation of the slip surface
in both laboratory specimens and field slope failures. At the time, it was generally assumed that
the slip surface corresponded to the plane having maximum obliquity in stresses (i.e., 45 + /2
from the plane of major principal stress), as postulated by Coulomb (1776). And, the fact that the
observed slip surfaces in saturated clay samples that were sheared undrained were closer to 45 +
/2 than to 45 was used to give credence to Terzaghis effective stress principle (e.g.,
Skempton, 1948a). However, the main issue of contention seemed to be that specifying the
undrained strength of saturated clay by a failure envelope having = 0 inherently implied a 45
slip surface orientation, which differed from the orientations of observed slip surfaces. This point
of contention may have stemmed from a lack of appreciation for Mohrs rupture hypothesis (i.e.,
the importance is to have consistency in the failure envelope and the assumed slip surface used in
the analysis, with the orientation of the actual slip surface being irrelevant, barring any significant
issues due to geometrical and/or material anisotropy in the soil).
To some extent, the general lack of appreciation of Mohrs rupture hypothesis continues
today (e.g., Ladd and DeGroot, 2003). This is exemplified by only one of the texts listed in Table
1 (viz., Lambe and Whitman, 1969) emphasizing the significance of this hypothesis to
geotechnical engineering analyses. Additionally, two of the texts in Table 1 discuss the errors
associated with quantifying the shear strength of the soil using Su versus Sucos(), where the
latter is the shear stress mobilized on the Coulomb slip surface (i.e., tff). Their contention is that
the shear strength should be quantified by tff, not by Su. However, they go on to state that because
of sampling disturbance, etc., Su for a disturbed sample is approximately equal to tff for an
undisturbed sample, which offsets the error from using Su as opposed to tff (i.e., compensating
errors). The compensating error postulate is conceptually illustrated in Figure 3 for unconfined
compression test results. The premise that using tff is more correct than using Su is contrary to
Mohrs rupture hypothesis, inherent to which using either tff or Su will result in the same answer
for a uniform soil profile as long as there is consistency in the assumed failure envelopes and slip
surfaces (e.g., Figure 1). Furthermore, any issues related to sampling disturbance, etc. are
completely separate from whether tff or Su are used to quantify shear strength, and the authors
believe that such issues should be accounted for by the minimum factors of safety required by the
various design specifications.

45o +

2
= 0o

Su undist
tff undist

= 0o

Su dist

qu undist

qu dist

Su dist tff undist

Figure 3. Conceptual illustration of the compensating error postulate proposed by two of the texts
listed in Table 1.
It needs to be emphasized that the inherent assumption in the = 0 Concept that the slip
surface is oriented 45 from the plane of major principal stress by no means violates Terzaghis
effective stress principle. This is because the shear strength of the soil (i.e., Su) that is assumed to
be mobilized along this slip surface is indeed a function of effective stress, not total stress. This
can be seen in the following equation, which was derived from the geometry of an effective stress
failure circle.
(

)}

(2)

where s1f = the major principal effective stress in the element at failure. However, from
examination of data from isotropically consolidated-undrained compression (CIUC) triaxial tests
performed on normally consolidated saturated clay samples, it was observed that s1f sc ,
where sc = consolidation stress (Rutledge, 1944). This allows Eqn (2) to be written in a much
more useful form:
(

)}

(3)

Skempton and Bishop (1954) further generalized these equations for saturated clay samples that
are initially consolidated to Ko conditions (i.e., at rest conditions) and sheared undrained in
triaxial compression and extension (i.e., CKoUC and CKoUE, respectively):
]

)
]

[
(

(CKoUC)

(4a)

(CKoUE)

(4b)

where: Ko = coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest, and = Skemptons pore pressure
coefficient at failure (Skempton, 1954), which is an index of the soils dilative tendencies among
other things.
Note that Su/sc is rarely computed using Eqns (3) and (4), but rather, Su/sc is measured
directly in the laboratory by subjecting the soil to a stress path representative of that expected in
the field (e.g., Ohta et al., 1985). However, the importance of Eqns (3) and (4) is that they show
that the undrained shear strength of normally consolidated saturated clay can be specified without
the explicit quantification of the effective stress state in the sample at failure, which is required if
shear strength is specified in terms of the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion. This alleviates the

onerous task of having to estimate (or measure) excess pore pressures in situ during construction,
etc., and lies at the heart of the pragmatic value of the = 0 Concept for engineering practice
(italics used for emphasis). In this vein, the majority of the textbooks listed in Table 1 have
statements to the effect that the = 0 Concept is applicable to only saturated clays and silts.
This statement is technically incorrect. A more correct statement would be that the pragmatic
value of the = 0 Concept applies only to saturated clays and silts. As discussed above and as
illustrated in Figure 1d, the = 0 Concept can be used to specify the shear strength of any soil.
However, excess pore pressures generated during construction processes rapidly dissipate in
highly permeable, saturated soils. As a result, the pore pressures at failure in these soils are
hydrostatic or in steady state seepage conditions, and thus the effective stresses at failure can be
readily computed, allowing shear strength to be determined using the Mohr-Coulomb failure
criterion.
Finally, as stated above, the inclination of the observed slip surfaces in saturated clay
samples that were sheared undrained were closer to 45 + /2 from the plane of major principal
stress than to 45, which was used to give credence to Terzaghis effective stress principle
(Terzaghi, 1936). However, the observed slip surfaces sometimes varied rather significantly from
45 + /2. Based on these observations, it was then hypothesized that the slip surfaces were
oriented 45 + e/2 from the plane of major principal stress rather than 45 + /2 (e.g., Terzaghi,
1936; Gibson, 1953), where e is the Hvorslev effective friction parameter (Hvorslev, 1960).
Consequently (and among other reasons), e was often referred to as the true angle of internal
friction (e.g., Leonards, 1962). However, the results of a detailed laboratory study performed by
Rowe (1962, 1963) showed that this was not the case. Although this may have seemed at the time
to be a chink in the armor of Terzaghis effective stress principle, it is not. Starting in the 1950s
1960s, plasticity theory was being developed and applied to soil mechanics (e.g., Drucker and
Prager, 1952; Mroz, 1963). Per this theory, the predicted orientation of the slip surface is 45 +
/2 from the plane on which the major principal stress acts, where is the dilatancy angle given
by Eqn (5) and shown schematically in Figure 4 (e.g., Davis, 1968; Davis and Selvadurai, 2002;
Salgado, 2008).

(5)

where: v = volumetric strain; z = shear strain in the x1z-x3zp plane (Figure 4); x1z is the direction
of zero normal strain, and x3zp is the direction normal to x1z (e.g., Salgado, 2008). Accordingly,
the Coulomb slip surface equals that predicted by plasticity theory only if = . However, for
most clays is considerably less than . Arthur et al. (1977) extended the plasticity theory to
take into account strength anisotropy in soil and showed that the inclination of the slip surface
typically varied between 45 + /2 and 45 + (+). Of the textbooks listed in Table 1, only
Mitchell and Soga (2005) and Salgado (2008) discuss that the actual slip surfaces differ from the
Coulomb slip surface, which is commonly assumed for effective stress analyses in engineering
practice. Fortunately, however, as discussed above, from an engineering perspective, the correct
solution to an analysis can be achieved as long as there is consistency in the assumed failure
envelope and analyzed slip surface, regardless of whether the analyzed slip surface is the actual
slip surface or not.


z
x3zp

x1z

Direction of zero
normal strain

Figure 4. State of strain visualized from an element with one side aligned with the direction of
zero normal strain (after Salgado, 2008).
ANALYSIS PROCEDURES OF DUNCAN ET AL. AND POULOS ET AL.
In this section, the procedure for multi-staged rapid drawdown analysis for earthen dams
proposed by Duncan et al. (1990) and the procedure for determining the strength of liquefied soil
proposed by Poulos et al. (1985) are reviewed in the context of the = 0 Concept (note it is not
the intent of the authors to comprehensively present and/or review these procedures in their
entirety, but rather, the intent is to review the portions of these procedures that are relevant to the
objectives of this paper). Both of these procedures entail using undrained strengths of soil and are
generally used only in high-end geotechnical engineering practice.
Duncan et al. (1990)
The rapid drawdown analysis procedure proposed by Duncan et al. (1990) consists of three
stages and is an extension of the two stage procedure proposed by Lowe and Karafiath (1960).
The first stage of the procedure proposed by Duncan et al. entails performing a pre-drawdown,
effective stress slope stability analysis, wherein the pore water pressures are determined assuming
steady state seepage conditions. The purpose of this stage is to identify the critical slip surface
and to estimate the effective stresses acting along it. The second stage entails performing a postdrawdown, total stress slope stability analysis. In this analysis, undrained shear strengths are used
for soils having a low permeability and are related to the consolidation stresses acting along the
critical slip surface, which were determined in Stage 1. Finally, the third stage entails a
comparison of the drained and undrained strengths of the soil along the slip surface, and the
stability of the slope is re-analyzed using the lower of the strengths.
Of specific interest herein is the way in which Duncan et al. quantify the undrained shear
strength of soils having low permeability in their Stage 2 slope stability analysis, which is given
by Eqn (6) and shown in Figure 5a.
(6)
where s1f and s3f are the total major and minor principal stresses at failure, respectively. As can
be seen from Eqn (6)/Figure 5a, Duncan et al. do not define the undrained shear strength of the
soil by the stress at the top of the failure circle. Rather, they define it as the shear stress mobilized
on the Coulomb slip surface, consistent with an effective stress analysis. The reason for this is
that the critical slip surface used in the total stress analysis in Stage 2 is the surface determined
from the effective stress slope stability analysis performed in Stage 1. As a result, the procedure

10

proposed by Duncan et al. is completely consistent in its determination of the critical slip surface
and its definition of undrained shear strength.
t

45o +

tff

45o +

Ssu

s1f s3f
2

s3f

s1f

s
s3s

s1s s3s
2
s1s

(a)
(b)
Figure 5. Undrained strengths as used in the (a) Duncan et al. procedure and (b) Poulos et al.
procedure.
Poulos et al. (1985)
The procedure proposed by Poulos et al. (1985) for determining the undrained strength of
liquefied soil for evaluating flow liquefaction potential is based on the steady state concept
initially proposed by Casagrande (1936, 1938). Per Poulos et al. (1985), The steady state of
deformation for any mass of particles is that state in which the mass is continuously deforming at
a constant volume, constant normal effective stress, constant shear stress, and constant rate of
shear strain. Hence, steady state deformation is an undrained phenomenon. Flow liquefaction is
predicted to occur when the driving shear stresses exceed the steady state strength (Ssu) of the
soil, where Ssu is given by Eqn (7) and shown in Figure 5b.
(7)
where s1s and s3s are the total major and minor principal stresses at steady state, respectively, and
s is the steady state friction angle (in terms of effective stress). As can be seen from Eqn
(7)/Figure 5b, Poulos et al. define the undrained shear strength analogously to Duncan et al.
(1990). However, unlike Duncan et al., they do not give explicit directions on how to determine
the critical slip surface but, rather, just state that it should be determined by conventional
methods of stability analysis. Accordingly, it is left up to the user of Poulos et al.s steady state
strength to know to use an effective stress analysis to determine the critical slip surface, such that
consistency is maintained between the definition of Ssu and how the critical slip surface is
determined. Fortunately, however, if the critical slip surface is determined using a total stress
analysis (as is likely to be the case), unforeseen failure is not imminent; rather, the factor of safety
against flow failure will be underestimated by {1/cos(s) - 1}100% (i.e., ~10% - 15% for loose
sands).
CONCLUSIONS
As discussed above, the = 0 Concept is widely used in practice in conjunction with total
stress analyses of saturated soils that have low permeability. The Concept circumvents the
onerous need for estimating (or measuring) excess pore pressures in situ during construction, etc.,
which is required for performing effective stress analyses. However, while its pragmatic value is
widely understood and appreciated, its relationship to Mohrs rupture hypothesis and Terzaghis
effective stress principle is not. This is illustrated by the results of a review of geotechnical
engineering textbooks published over the last 60+ years, which showed that most texts opt only to

11

state the = 0 Concept and do not put it into proper theoretical or contextual perspective. The
authors view this as a missed opportunity to tie the various rules of thumb and sets of governing
principles for the shear strength of soil together by presenting them within a consistent
framework. Additionally, two procedures that are used in high-end geotechnical engineering
practice that entail using undrained strengths of soil were reviewed in the context of the = 0
Concept. It was shown that while the Duncan et al. (1990) procedure for rapid drawdown
analyses fully addresses all the pragmatic issues for implementing their procedure, the Poulos et
al. (1985) procedure for determining the strength of liquefied soil does not.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the insightful review comments by Professors Chris
Baxter, University of Rhode Island, Radoslaw Michalowski, University of Michigan, Tom
Brandon, Virginia Tech, Mick Pender, University of Auckland, and Brady Cox, University of
Texas at Austin, as well as those by Dr. Kord Wissmann, Geopier Foundation Company, and the
two anonymous reviewers. Moreover, the authors acknowledge the many significant
contributions made by Professor Emeritus Roy E. Olson, University of Texas at Austin, to the
field of geotechnical engineering and his impact on our professional practice.
REFERENCES
Arthur, J.R.F., Dunstan, T., Al_Ani, Q.A., and, Assadi, A. (1977). Plastic Deformation and
Failure in Granular Media, Geotechnique, 27(1), 53-74.
Bell, A.L. (1915). Lateral Pressure and Resistance of Clay, Minutes of the Proceedings of the
Institute of Civil Engineers, 199, 233-272.
Bishop, A.W. and Bjerrum, L. (1960). The Relevance of the Triaxial Test to the Solution of
Stability Problems, Research Conference on Shear Strength of Cohesive Soils, American
Society of Civil Engineers, 437-501.
Bolton, M.D. (1991). A Guide to Soil Mechanics, Universities Press (India) Private Limited,
Hyderguda, Hyderabad, India.
Budhu, M. (2007). Soil Mechanics and Foundations, 2nd edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Casagrande, A. (1936). Characteristics of Cohesionless Soils Affecting the Stability of Slopes
and Earth Fills, Journal of the Boston Society of Civil Engineers, 23(1), 13-32.
Casagrande, A. (1938). The Shearing Resistance of Soils and Its Relation to the Stability of
Earth Dams, Proc. Soils and Foundation Conf. of the U.S. Engineer Department, 17-21
June, Boston, MA, A-1 A-20.
Coulomb, C.A. (1776). Essai sur une application des regles des maximis et minimis a quelques
problemes de statique relatifs a larchitecture, Memoires de Mathematique & de Physique,
presents a lAcademie Royale des Sciences par divers Savans, & lus dans ses Assemblees, 7,
1773, 343-382, Paris.
Das, B.M. (2006). Principles of Geotechnical Engineering, 6th edition, Thomson.
Davis, E.H. (1968). Theories of Plasticity and the Failure of Soil Masses, Soil Mechanics:
Selected Topics (I.K. Lee, ed.), America Elsevier Publishing Co., Inc., New York, 341-380
Davis, R.O. and Selvadurai, A.P.S. (2002). Plasticity and Geomechanics, Cambridge University
Press, New York.
de Boer, R. (2005). The Engineer and the Scandal, Springer, New York
Drucker, D.C. and Prager, W. (1952). Soil Mechanics and Plastic Analysis of Limit Design,
Quarterly of Applied Mathematics, 10(2),157-175.
Duncan, J.M., Wright, S.G., and Wong, K.S. (1990). Slope Stability during Rapid Drawdown,
Proc. H. Bolton Seed Memorial Symposium (J.M. Duncan, ed.), BiTech Publishers, LTD, 2,
253-272.

12

Fellenius, W. (1927). Erdstatische Berechnungen, Berlin

Fillunger, P. (1915). Versuche uber die Zugfestigkeit bei allseitigen Wasserdruck,
Osterreichische Wochenschrift offentlichen Baudienst (OWOB), 29, 443-448.
Fiori, C. (2008). Personal communication with R. Green
Gibson, R.E. (1953). Experimental Determination of the True Cohesion and True Angle of
Internal Friction in Clays, Proc. 3rd Intern. Conf. Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, 1, 126-130.
Golder, H.Q. and Skempton, A.W. (1948). The Angle of Shearing Resistance in Cohesive Soils
for Tests at Constant Water Content, Proc. 2nd Intern. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, 1, 185-192.
Handy, R.L. and Spangler, M.G. (2007). Geotechnical Engineering: Soil and Foundation
Principles and Practice, 5th edition, McGraw Hill, New York.
Holtz, R.D., Kovacs, W.D., and Sheehan, T.C. (2011). An Introduction to Geotechnical
Engineering, 2nd edition, Prentice Hall, New York.
Hvorslev, M.J. (1960). Physical Components of the Shear Strength of Saturated Clays, Proc.
ASCE Research Conf. on the Shear Strength of Cohesive Soils, Boulder, CO, 169-173.
Ishibashi, I. and Hazarika, H. (2011). Soil Mechanics Fundamentals, CRC Press, Taylor &
Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL.
Ladd, C.C. and DeGroot, D.J. (2003). Recommended Practice for Soft Ground Site
Characterization: Arthur Casagrande Lecture, Proc. 12th Panamerican Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 1, 3-57 (revised May 9, 2004)
Lambe, T.W. and Whitman, R.V. (1969). Soil Mechanics, John Wiley & sons, Inc., New York.
Leonards, G.A. (1962). Foundation Engineering (G.A. Leonards, ed.), McGraw-Hill Book
Company, New York.
Lowe, III, J. and Karafiath, L. (1960). Stability of Earth Dams Upon Drawdown, Proc. 1st
Panamerican Conf. on Foundation Engineering, 2, 537-552.
Lyell, C. (1871). Elements of Geology, The Students Series, London.
McCarthy, D.F. (2007). Essentials of Soil Mechanics and Foundations: Basic Geotechnics,
Prentice Hall, New York.
Mitchell, J.K. and Soga, K. (2005). Fundamentals of Soil Behavior, 3rd edition, John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., New York.
Mohr, O. (1882). Ueber die Darstellung des Spannungszustandes und des
Deformationszustandes eines Korperelementes und uber die Anwendung derselben in der
Festigkeitslehre, Civilingenieur, 28, 113-156.
Mroz, Z. (1963). Non-associated Flow Laws in Plasticity, Journal de Mecanique, 2(1), 21-42.
Murthy, V.N.S (2002). Geotechnical Engineering: Principles and Practices of Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York.
Ohta, H., Nishihara, A., and Morita, Y. (1985). Undrained Stability of Ko-Consolidated Clays,
Proc. 11th Intern. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, San Francisco, 2,
613-616.
Pender, M. (2013). Personal communication with R. Green
Poulos, S.J., Castro, G., and France, J.W. (1985). Liquefaction Evaluation, ASCE, Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, 111(6), 772-792.
Reynolds, O. (1886). Experiments Showing Dilatancy, a Property of Granular Material, Possibly
Connected with Gravitation, Proceedings of the Royal Institute of Great Britain, 11, 354363.
Rowe, P.W. (1962). The Stress-Dilatancy Relation for Static Equilibrium of an Assembly of
Particles in Contact, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series A, 269, 500-527.
Rowe, P.W. (1963). Stress-Dilatancy, Earth Pressures, and Slopes, ASCE, Journal of Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 89(SM3), 37-62.
Rutledge, P.C. (1944). Relation of Undisturbed sampling to Laboratory Testing, Transactions

13

of the American Society of Civil Engineering, 109, 1155-1183.

Salgado, R. (2008). The Engineering of Foundations, McGraw Hill, New York.
Scott, R.F. (1963). Principles of Soil Mechanics, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.,
Reading, MA.
Skempton, A.W. (1948a). The = 0 Analysis of Stability and Its Theoretical Basis, Proc. 2nd
Intern. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 1, 72-78.
Skempton, A.W. (1948b). A Study of the Immediate Triaxial Test on Cohesive Soils, Proc. 2nd
Intern. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 1, 192-196.
Skempton, A.W. (1954). The Pore-Pressure Coefficients A and B, Geotechnique, IV, 143-147.
Skempton, A.W. (1960). Significance of Terzaghis Concept of Effective Stress, From Theory
to Practice in Soil Mechanics, Selections from the Writings of Karl Terzaghi (L. Bjerrum, A.
Casagrande, R.B. Peck, and A.W. Skempton, eds.), John Wiley & Sons, New York, 42-53.
Skempton, A.W. and Bishop, A.W. (1954). Soils, Building Materials, Their Elasticity and
Inelasticity (M. Reiner, ed.), North-Holland, Amsterdam, Chapter X, 417-482.
Skempton, A.W. and Golder, H.Q. (1948). Practical Examples of the = 0 Analysis of Stability
of Clays, Proc. 2nd Intern. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 2, 63-70.
Taylor, D.W. (1948). Fundamentals of Soil Mechanics, Wiley, New York.
Terzaghi, K. (1924). Die Theorie der hydrodynamischen Spannungserscheinungen und ihr
erdbautechnisches Anwendungsgebiet, Proc. Intern. Congress of Applied Mechanics, 288294.
Terzaghi, K. (1925). Erdbaumechanik auf bodenphysikalischer Grundlage, Franz Deuticke,
Leipzig/Wien.
Terzaghi, K. (1936). The Shearing Resistance of Saturated Soils, Proc. 1st Intern. Conf. Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 1, 54-56.
Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R.B. (1948). Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, 1st edition, John
Wiley & sons, Inc., New York.
Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R.B. (1967). Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, 2nd edition, John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Tschebotarioff, G.P. (1951). Soil Mechanics, Foundations, and Earth Structures, McGraw-Hill
Book Company, Inc., New York.
Westerberg, N. (1926). Jordtryck i Kohesionara jordarter, Tek. Tidsk. Vag. o. Vatten., 51, 25-29

14