time effects. The same fundamental equations are used to pre- dict creep, stess relaxation, and constant rate of strain behavior by imposing appropriate boundary conditions on the soil cle- rent Only the hesindary convitione nee changed whem model. ing the different aspects of time dependent behavior. Whether ‘models are empirical, rheological, or general in nature, they all make use of the correspondence principle. Models for non- isotach materials are still under development and not available for other than the most simplistic one-dimensional cases, Fig. 1. ouch behaviors served in clay for (a) evwep and elanaton and (6 stepwise change in rate. Nonisotach behavioe is observed in Sand Tor (ere a elaxation and () stepwise change in ate fem Fig. 2. Schomatic diagrams illustrating the ate dependency observed for sand: The srese-xtrain relation for diffrent constant sai ates eo incide forthe three san rates. and (b) temporary over and under- Shooting due to stcpwse change in sain ate 4, CROSS-ANISOTROPY Geological materials exhibits behavior that is innerently anisot- ropic. This is due in large part to the intemal directional struc~ ture of these materials, formed during various natural deposi- tional processes. Most soils possess an axial or transverse isotropic structure, often referred to as eross-anisotropic, in Whieh the properties ate identical in all directions within the horizontal plane, and different from those in the vertical direc- tion, which isthe direction of deposition, Failure in soils under three-dimensional conditions has been studied on many occasions. Most ofthe soils have been as- sumed to be isotropic in behavior, and several isotropic failure criteria have been proposed. However, the importance of isotropy was demonstrated by Oda et a. (1978), who com- pared the bearing capacity of evo iedel sup footings on sa One footing was loaded parallel to the sedimentation direction 3686 and another was loaded normal o it. The to values of bearing capacity differed by as much as 34%, Thus, the evidence for ‘ross-anisotropic behavior at failure is mounting, and this evi= lence i briefly reviewed “Two types of anisotropy may be distinguished. The first is atteibuted to the initial fabrie of the particle assembly in its vi tin state before any loading oceurs. This type of anisotropy is referred fo as inherent. The other type i a result of loading and plastic deformation, and it ean develop in originally isoiropic Imaterial or change any preexisting (inherent) condition, ‘Casagrande and Carillo (1944) frst made this observation in re= lation to strength of sols Clays. Cross-anisotropy was first studied in detail in clays, in which the undrained behavior stands out as possessing vari- able strength with diection, as indicated in a study by Duncan land Seed (1966). Whether the clays were normally consol dated o overeonsolidated, there did not appear to be any con- tent and systematic higher or lower strengths in the vertical than in the horizontal direction. I is difficult to study the fabric ‘of clays, but the variation in undrained strength was taken as an expression of the orientation of the fabric of clay particle. Kirkgard and Lade (1991, 1993) and Lade and Kitkgard (2000) studied the three-dimensional, crostanisotropic strength of in- tact specimens of San Francisco Bay Mud. The specimens were trimmed, isotropically consolidated, and tested in vertical and horizontal directions, and they showed strong eross-anisotropic, effective strength variation Sands~ The fabric anisotropy of sand deposits is easier to characterize, because the larger particles are visible o the na- kked eye. A number of studies were performed in te late sixties and early seventies of the fabric characteristics of random as- semblies of 2-D and 3-D panicles as well as natural sands. Parkin etal. (1968), Arthur and Menzies (1972), Oda (1972 a, », ©), ElSohby and Andrawes (1973) were first to systemat cally study the anisotropic nature of granular materials. It was found that when natural sand ot even perfetly round spheres are deposited under force of gravity, the material strture re- sults in cross-anisotrpic fabric. The major reason for this structural anisotropy isthe preferred orientation of interparticle ‘contacts that favor the direction of deposition. The interparticle contact normals are not so easy to determine, but the sand fab- ze may allemawely be characterized by other measures, such as the preferred orientation of particle long axes. This was done for sands sedimented through both air and water (Oda etal 1978, Ochiai and Lade, 1983). ‘numberof studies ofthe influence ofthe initial anisotropy ‘on failure of sands under three-imensional loading conditions have been performed (e.g. Yamada and Ishihara 1979; Matsu ‘oka and Ishizaki 1981; Ochiai and Lade 1983; Abelev and Lade 2003; Lade and Abelev 2003)). The accumulated evidence ‘chow that under monotonie conditions, when loading and depo sition directions coincide, and when no rotation of principal sresses occurs, then the intial anisotropic fabric largely con- twols the deformation process and the peak shear resistance, es- pecially in sands with elongated particles. This fact has beet utilized in esting programs to study the influence of inherent «ross-anisotropy on the failure eriterton for sueh soils. In the study of effects of eross-anisotropy presented by’ Ochiai and Lade (1983), cubieal specimens of dense (D, = 90%) Cambria sand consisting of relatively long, flat particles ‘were prepared with strong preferred particle orienations in ver~ tical Seetions and almost completely random orientations in horizontal sections, The effective strength envelope was ex- pected to be symmetric around the vertical axis in the octahe- dal plane, because the eross-anisotrapi specimens have a ver- tical axis of symmetry with rogard to their properties. Theit results, a8 well as those obtained by Yamada and Ishihara (1979), clearly showed eross-anisoteopic stress-strain behavior, while the failure surface indicated some, but was less clearly Influenced by eross-anisorropy. It was novced tha the strain-0> failure in all the cubical triaxial tests on Cambria sand was