Geotech Geol Eng

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-019-01023-8 (0123456789().,-volV)
( 01234567
89().,-volV)

TECHNICAL NOTE

Undrained Stability of Unlined Square Tunnels in Clays

with Linearly Increasing Anisotropic Shear Strength
Boonchai Ukritchon . Suraparb Keawsawasvong

Received: 4 March 2019 / Accepted: 9 August 2019

Ó Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Abstract In general, the undrained strength aniso-
tropy of clays is found in nature. Its effect on a stability
problem during undrained loading should be consid-
ered in order to get a more accurate and realistic safety
assessment. In this paper, the undrained stability of
unlined square tunnels in anisotropic and non-homo-
geneous clays is investigated by the lower bound finite
element limit analysis using second-order cone pro-
gramming. The anisotropic undrained strength of
clays is modelled by using an elliptical strength
envelope under plane strain conditions. The stability
analyses of the problem are performed by the
comprehensive investigations of the effects of the
cover-depth ratio, the normalized overburden pres-
sure, the normalized strength gradient, and the
anisotropic strength ratio on the stability load factor
and associated failure mechanisms. The computed
lower bound solutions are validated with the existing
results of square tunnels in isotropic clays. The new
approximate equations of the stability load factor and
factor of safety for square tunnels in anisotropic and
non-homogeneous clays are first time presented by
using a nonlinear regression, hence providing a
reliable, accurate and convenient tool for stability
analyses of the problem in practice. The numerical
results reveal that the strength anisotropy has a
significant impact on the stability load factor, espe-
cially when anisotropic clays have much difference in
undrained strengths between compression and
extension.
Keywords Square tunnel  Anisotropy  Non-
homogeneity  Underground opening  Lower bound 
Second-order cone programming
1 Introduction

An unlined tunnel can be constructed in soils with a

B. Ukritchon (&) relatively high shear strength. A construction of the
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, unlined tunnel may trigger an instability and a massive
Centre of Excellence in Geotechnical and collapse because of a stress reduction around it.
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Chulalongkorn
University, Bangkok 10330, Thailand
During a tunnel process, the stability evaluation of the
e-mail: boonchai.uk@gmail.com tunnel is an essential task that ensures an adequate
safety factor against the failure of unlined tunnel
S. Keawsawasvong boundaries resulting in an effective control for ground
Department of Civil Engineering, Thammasat School of
Engineering, Thammasat University, Pathumthani 12120,
surface subsidence and damages to existing structures.
Thailand Therefore, the knowledge of combined interaction
e-mail: suraparb@hotmail.com

123

between unlined tunnel configurations (i.e., cover
depth and diameter), loadings (soil unit weight,
surcharge and tunnel pressure), and soil shear
strengths are crucial for its stability analysis. This
paper is concerned with a numerical investigation of
the undrained stability of an unlined square tunnel in a
cohesive soil whose undrained shear strengths are
anisotropic and increase linearly with depth. The
dependency of an anisotropic strength of clay with
respect to the mode of shearing is well recognized
(e.g., Ladd 1991; Ladd and DeGroot 2003) while the
form of a linearly increasing strength is commonly
found in normally consolidated clays (e.g., Atkinson
2007).
The finite element limit analysis (FELA) (Sloan
2013), a numerical method based on a finite element
concept, the plastic bound theorems (Drucker et al.
1952) and an optimization approach, is one of
available tools for the stability analysis of the
proposed study where the exact limit load can be
bracketed from above and below by the upper bound
(UB) and lower bound (LB) solutions. Because of its
powerful capability and efficiency, the FELA has been
advocated for analyzing a variety of stability problems
in geomechanics including stability problems in
anisotropic clays (Ukritchon et al. 2003; Ukritchon
and Keawsawasvong 2018c, 2019a, 2019b), undrained
basal stability of braced circular excavations (Keaw-
sawasvong and Ukritchon 2019), pullout capacity of
suction caissons (Ukritchon and Keawsawasvong
2016; Keawsawasvong and Ukritchon 2016b), uplift
capacity of piles (Ukritchon and Keawsawasvong
2019c), cantilever flood walls (Keawsawasvong and
Ukritchon 2016c), bearing capacity of shallow foun-
dations (Kouzer and Kumar 2010; Ukritchon et al.
2018; Ukritchon and Keawsawasvong 2017a), uplift
and pullout capacity of anchors (Sahoo and Kumar
2012a, 2014a; Bhattacharya and Kumar
2012, 2015, 2017; Khuntia and Sahoo 2017; Bhat-
tacharya 2018; Sahoo and Khuntia 2018), stability of
conical slopes (Kumar et al. 2014; Keawsawasvong
and Ukritchon 2017c; Ukritchon and Keawsawasvong
2018b), lateral capacity of piles (Keawsawasvong and
Ukritchon 2016a, 2017a; Ukritchon and Keaw-
sawasvong 2018a), collapse of active trapdoors
(Keawsawasvong and Ukritchon 2017b), limiting
pressures of pile row (Ukritchon and Keawsawasvong
2017b; Keawsawasvong and Ukritchon 2017d). Thus,
the lower bound (LB) FELA is adopted as the method
123
Geotech Geol Eng
of stability analysis for unlined square tunnels in clays
with anisotropic and linearly increasing strength since
a safe solution of the problem can be obtained.
Regarding the previous studies on the undrained
stability of unlined tunnels, Davis et al. (1980) were
among the first to develop the analytical solutions of
circular sections using the lower and upper bound limit
analysis. Later, a number of researchers employed the
FELA to compute the numerical solutions of this
problem. For example, the undrained stability of
unlined square tunnels in homogeneous clays was
examined by Assadi and Sloan (1991). The influence
of non-homogeneous clays with shear strength
increasing linearly with depth was also considered
for square sections of tunnels (Sloan and Assadi 1991;
Wilson et al. 2013) as well as circular ones (Sloan and
Assadi 1992; Wilson et al. 2011). Other stability
aspects of circular tunnels were investigated as well,
such as the effects of seismic forces (Sahoo and Kumar
2012b, 2014b), two-soil layers (Sahoo and Kumar
2019b), and water pressures (Sahoo and Kumar
2019a). Yang and Yao (2018) employed the upper
bound limit analysis to study a collapse of tunnel roof
in non-homogenous soils. In addition, there were other
FELA studies on the stability of tunnels in Mohr–
Coulomb (MC) soils such as square tunnels in
cohesive–frictional soils (Yamamoto et al. 2011a),
circular tunnels in cohesive–frictional soils (Ya-
mamoto et al. 2011b), elliptical tunnels in cohesion-
less soils (Zhang et al. 2017), plane strain headings
(Zhang et al. 2019), while some studies existed on dual
circular tunnels in cohesive soils (Wilson et al. 2014;
Sahoo and Kumar 2013, 2018).
It should be noted that most of those previous
studies of tunnel stability are limited to Tresca or
Mohr–Coulomb failure criteria that correspond to the
type of isotropic strength. In fact, the undrained shear
strength of a natural clay is generally anisotropic due
to its deposition and sedimentation processes, geolog-
ical stress history and induced mode of shearing, and
typically depends on the orientation of the major
principal (compressive) stress to the vertical axis or
depositional direction (Ladd 1991; Ladd and DeGroot
2003). Ladd (1991) presented an empirical chart be-
tween undrained strengths obtained from triaxial
compression (TC), triaxial extension (TE), and direct
simple shear (DSS) as a function of plasticity index of
clays. In the empirical chart, the curve of the shear
strength in TC lies at the top, followed by that in DSS
Geotech Geol Eng

while that in TE lies at the bottom, where a lower

plasticity index increases the degree of strength
anisotropy. Previous studies of the anisotropic
strength of clays affecting undrained stability prob-
lems were performed including shallow foundations
(Davis and Christian 1971; Al-Shamrani 2005; Liu
and Hu 2009; Yang and Du 2016; Veiskarami et al.
2017), retaining walls and excavations (Su et al. 1998;
Ukritchon et al. 2003; Veiskarami et al. 2018),
stability of slopes (Lo 1965; Chen et al. 1975; Law
1978; Su and Liao 1999). Veiskarami et al. (2017)
presented an iterative procedure of a LB FELA with
linear programming (LP) using a modified anisotropic
strength criterion based on Casagrande and Carillo
(1944). Ukritchon and Keawsawasvong (2018c) pro-
posed a LB FELA with second-order cone program-
ming (SOCP) using an anisotropic strength criterion
by Davis and Christian (1971) while Ukritchon and
Keawsawasvong (2019b) extended their proposed
method to investigate the undrained face stability of
plane strain tunnel heading in anisotropic and non-
homogeneous clays. So far, there is no study of the
influence of the undrained strength anisotropy com-
bined with the strength non-homogeneity on the
stability of unlined square tunnels.
The objective of this paper is to extend the work of
Ukritchon and Keawsawasvong (2018c) using the LB
FELA SOCP for anisotropic clays to investigate the
undrained stability of unlined square tunnels in clays
whose undrained shear strengths are anisotropic and
increase linearly with depth. Then, the new design
equations for predicting the stability of the problem
are proposed based on a nonlinear regression to the
computed LB solutions. The proposed equations can
be used in practice for a reliable and accurate
evaluation of the stability of unlined square tunnels
in clays considering the combined effects of undrained
strength anisotropy and non-homogeneity in urban
areas.

2 Problem Definition

The problem definition of an unlined square tunnel Fig. 1 Problem definition of an unlined square tunnel in
with a width and height (H) and a cover depth anisotropic and non-homogeneous clays: a geometry; b soil
(C) under plane strain condition is shown in Fig. 1. profile; c typical LB mesh used for LB analysis
The unlined tunnel corresponds to the case of no
concrete lining but there is a tunnel pressure (rt)
applied normally to all faces of the tunnel and there is

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 2 Undrained anisotropic strength criterion by Davis and c

Christian (1971) for plane strain stability problems: a general
definition; b effect of re; c second-order quadratic cone

no shear traction on those faces. The soil profile

corresponds to an anisotropic clay with a unit weight
(c). The anisotropic shear strength of clay caused by
inherent and stress-induced anisotropy is character-
ized by three undrained strengths namely suPSC, suDSS,
suPSE under the mode of shearing in plane strain (PS)
compression (PSC), direct simple shear (DSS), and
plane strain (PS) extension (PSE), respectively. In this
study, the undrained strength anisotropy can be
described by two anisotropic strength ratios: re-
= suPSE/suPSC and rs = suDSS/suPSC. Thus, the former
indicates the difference in strength between PSE and
PSC while the latter shows that between DSS and PSC.
Experimental data by Ladd (1991) indicated that the
undrained strength in DSS tends to be somewhere
close to the extension strength. Thus, it is assumed in
the present study that the harmonic mean between
suPSC and suPSE is equal to suDSS, thereby giving rise to
a relationship between rs and re as:
2re
rs ¼ ð1Þ
1 þ re
Note that when re = 1, rs is equal to 1 and this case
corresponds to the isotropic strength of clays. In
addition, the three anisotropic undrained strengths
(suPSC, suDSS, suPSE) increase linearly with depth as
shown in Fig. 1b. Thus, the anisotropic and non-
homogenous strength profile is defined by the PSC
undrained strength of suPSC0 at the ground surface with
its gradient of q. As a result, the gradients of the DSS
and PSE undrained strength are qrs and qre,
respectively.
In the present study, the elliptical anisotropic
strength of clays defined by the Davis and Christian
(DC) (1971) criterion is adopted as shown in Fig. 2a,
while the re effect on the DC yield surface is illustrated
in Fig. 2b. Full details of the description of the DC
criterion can be found in Ukritchon and Keaw-
sawasvong (2018c).
The undrained stability of an unlined square tunnel
is concerned with a determination of a limiting
uniform surcharge (rs) applied on the ground surface
causing a collapse of soils moving toward inside the

123
Geotech Geol Eng

square tunnel that is resisted by an applied tunnel The surcharge applied at the ground surface is
pressure (rt). This type of the collapse is known as an optimized in the objective function of the LB SOCP
active failure. Note that a passive failure due to a optimization problem subjected to the constraints of
relatively large applied tunnel pressure causing soils static admissibility, which is written in a matrix form as:
above the tunnel to move upward towards the ground
MaxðfcgT frgÞ
surface is not considered. In this study, the undrained ð2Þ
active failure of square tunnel is caused by the driving subject to ½A]f rg þ ½Yfzg ¼ fBg
forces of the surcharge (rs) and soil unit weight (c) that where {r} and {z} are nodal stresses and auxiliary
are resisted by the tunnel pressure (rt) as well as the variables, [A] is a matrix of all constraints for
shear resistance of anisotropic and non-homogeneous equilibrium equations at triangular elements and stress
clays (suPSC0, q and re). discontinuities, and stress boundary conditions, [Y] is a
matrix for relationships of nodal stresses and auxiliary
variables, and z 2 Q3c is a conic quadratic (second-
3 Method of Analysis
order) constraint for the DC anisotropic strength
criterion. The optimal solution of the SOCP optimiza-
This paper adopts the LB FELA SOCP for anisotropic
tion problem in Eq. (2) is solved by the MOSEK
clays recently developed by Ukritchon and Keaw-
software package (MOSEK 2018), a conic optimizer
sawasvong (2018c) in order to examine the undrained
based on a primal–dual interior-point algorithm (An-
stability of unlined square tunnels in anisotropic and
dersen et al. 2003).
non-homogeneous clays. The principles of the method
The example of a finite element mesh for a square
of the LB FELA SOCP for anisotropic clays are
tunnel with C/H = 3 is illustrated in Fig. 1c. Basically,
summarized herein while the full details of the method
the domain of the problem employs a uniformly
can be found in that reference.
structured mesh created from a series of square blocks
Due to the assumption of an infinitely long square
subdivided into four triangular elements. For all
tunnel, the problem can be modelled based on the
numerical results reported in this paper, the extremely
plane strain condition. The soil mass surrounding the
fine meshes are discretized consisting of 16,000 -
tunnel is discretized into a number of three-noded
50,000 elements for C/H = 1–5 in order to obtain the
triangular elements (see Fig. 1c) in which a right-
very accurate LB solutions. Note that a more number
hand-side axis system and the tension positive sign
of elements are required for a larger C/H ratio.
convention for normal stresses are adopted. At each
Figure 1c also shows stress boundary conditions for
node of triangular elements, the primary unknowns are
shear (s) and normal (rn) tractions of the problem. At
three stresses (rxx, ryy, sxy) in 2D Cartesian coordinate
all unlined boundaries of the tunnel, shear tractions are
system. By allowing each element to possess its
constrained to be zero while normal tractions are
unique node, a stress discontinuity may develop at a
enforced to be equal to the tunnel pressure (rt). At the
shared edge of adjacent triangular elements. Stress
ground surface, normal tractions are constrained to be
discontinuities are required to be modelled in the LB
the surcharge while shear tractions are enforced to be
analysis in order to obtain an accurate LB solutions
zero. At the symmetrical plane, shear tractions are
(Sloan 2013). Therefore, a piecewise stress field
setup to be zero while normal traction are uncon-
modelled by the LB mesh is continuous within
strained. At the bottom and right boundaries of the
triangular elements, but is discontinuous across at
domain, there is no required constraints for both shear
shared edges of adjacent elements. A set of statically
and normal tractions. To avoid the effect of insuffi-
admissible constraints can setup by satisfying the LB
cient size of the problem, the domain size is enlarged
theorem (Drucker et al. 1952) as: (i) equilibrium
sufficiently enough for each C/H ratio to capture a
equations within triangular elements; (ii) continuity of
plastic yielding zone, thereby confirming no change of
shear and normal stresses along stress discontinuities;
the lower bound solution of the problem.
(iii) stress boundary conditions; and (iv) yield criterion
obeying the DC anisotropic strength function
expressed as a second-order quadratic cone as shown
in Fig. 2c.

123

4 Results and Discussions
The undrained stability of unlined square tunnels in
anisotropic and non-homogeneous clays is related to
the combined interaction between: (i) tunnel config-
uration, namely tunnel cover depth (C), tunnel diam-
eter (D); (ii) loadings namely soil unit weight (c),
surcharge (rs), and tunnel pressure (rt); and (iii) soil
shear strength, namely a reference undrained strength
under plane strain (PS) compression at ground surface
(suPSC0) and its strength gradient (q), and anisotropic
strength ratio (re). Despite many input variables of the
problem, the number of essential variables can be
decreased by reformulating them into a set of dimen-
sionless parameters. Based on those input variables, it
can be shown that the stability of the problem can be
described by the stability load factor as a function of
the four dimensionless parameters as:
ðrs  rt Þ=suPSC0 ¼ fðC=H; cH=suPSC0 ; qH=suPSC0 ; re Þ
ð3Þ
where (rs-rt)/suPSC0 is the stability load factor, C/
H is the cover-depth ratio, cH/suPSC0 is the normalized
overburden pressure, qH/suPSC0 is the normalized
strength gradient, and re is the anisotropic strength
ratio measuring the difference in undrained strength
between PS extension and PS compression.
Parametric studies are comprehensively performed
on the four dimensionless parameters that have the
range as: C/H = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, cH/suPSC0 = 0, 1, 2, 4,
qH/suPSC0 = 0, 0.25, 0.5, 1, and re = 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.
Note that the results with re = 1 (i.e., rs = 1) corre-
spond to the case of isotropic strength, where the DC
criterion is identical to Tresca failure criterion. The
practical range of re may be conveniently estimated
from the data of Ladd (1991) who proposed an
empirical correlation between the undrained shear
strength ratios in compression and extension as a
function of plasticity index of natural clays. Based on
the Ladd (1991) data, the re ratio ranges from 0.5 to 0.8
in practice. Thus, the present study considering re in
the range of 0.4–1 covers its practical cases.
All LB analyses of unlined square tunnels in
anisotropic and non-homogeneous clays are simulated
successfully by employing the method outlined in the
previous section. To confirm the accuracy of the
computed LB results, the validation of the present
study of re = 1 with the existing solutions of the
123
Geotech Geol Eng
isotropic Tresca criterion given by Wilson et al. (2013)
is presented in Table 1. Note that the stability load
factors (rs-rt)/suPSC0 in this table correspond to 30
cases of square tunnels in isotropic (re = 1) as well as
both homogeneous (q = 0) and non-homogeneous
(q = 0) clays. In all cases, it can be observed that the
LB solutions of the present study agree very well with
those of Wilson et al. (2013). Generally, the former is
more accurate and larger than the latter about 0.1–6%.
In addition, the trends of the stability load factors
(rs-rt)/suPSC0 between them are very consistent with
each other, where an increase in C/H and/or qH/suPSC0
and a decrease in cH/suPSC0 result in a rise in (rs-rt)/
suPSC0.
Table 2 summarizes all computed LB solutions of
unlined square tunnels in anisotropic and non-homo-
geneous clays. To maintain the suitable length of the
paper, only some graphical results are generated to
portray the influence of the input dimensionless
parameters C/H, qH/suPSC0, cH/suPSC0 and re on the
stability load factor as shown in Figs. 3, 4, 5 and 6,
respectively. In this paper, a positive sign of the
stability load factor ((rs-rt)/suPSC0) indicates that the
surcharge at the ground surface is larger than the
tunnel pressure in order to cause the active failure. On
the other hand, a negative sign of that indicates that the
tunnel pressure is larger than the surcharge in order to
stabilize the active failure.
A very complex relationship between (rs-rt)/
suPSC0 and C/H is observed in Fig. 3. When cH/
suPSC0 is small, an increase in C/H results in an
increase in (rs-rt)/suPSC0 (see Fig. 3a, c). On the
contrary, when cH/suPSC0 is large, an increase in C/
H gives rise to a decrease in (rs-rt)/suPSC0 (see
Fig. 3b, d). Figure 4 shows an increasingly linear
relationship between (rs-rt)/suPSC0 and qH/suPSC0.
This result makes some sense as an increase in the
strength gradient generally contributes to an additional
shear resistance of soils. A decreasingly linear
relationship between (rs-rt)/suPSC0 and cH/suPSC0 is
observed in Fig. 5. As expected, an increase in soil
unit weight basically generates a more driving force of
the problem, thereby reducing the stability load factor.
It is also found from Figs. 4 and 5 that the slope of line
with a high C/H value is larger than that with a small
C/H value. Finally, the effect of undrained strength
anisotropy by the re parameter is clearly demonstrated
in Fig. 6. An increasingly nonlinear relationship
between (rs-rt)/suPSC0 and re is observed. Thus, a
Geotech Geol Eng

Table 1 Validation of the C/H qH/su0PSC cH/su0PSC Wilson et al. (2013) Present study
computed LB solutions of
(rs–rt)/suPSC0 with the UB LB LB
existing results given by
Wilson et al. (2013) for the 1 0 0 1.98 1.94 1.941
square tunnels in isotropic 2 0 0 3.11 3.00 3.035
and non-homogeneous clays 3 0 0 3.72 3.58 3.610
(re = 1) 4 0 0 4.20 4.05 4.085
5 0 0 4.60 4.44 4.485
1 0.5 0 2.49 2.45 2.449
2 0.5 0 5.56 5.42 5.454
3 0.5 0 8.15 7.89 7.934
4 0.5 0 10.80 10.39 10.465
5 0.5 0 13.59 13.05 13.159
1 1 0 2.99 2.95 2.951
2 1 0 7.77 7.63 7.649
3 1 0 12.45 12.12 12.159
4 1 0 17.28 16.65 16.751
5 1 0 22.44 21.55 21.718
1 0 1 0.92 0.82 0.850
2 0 1 0.82 0.66 0.716
3 0 1 0.40 0.24 0.305
4 0 1 - 0.12 - 0.30 - 0.220
5 0 1 - 0.73 - 0.90 - 0.841
1 0.5 1 1.49 1.45 1.449
2 0.5 1 3.43 3.23 3.281
3 0.5 1 4.94 4.62 4.677
4 0.5 1 6.56 6.12 6.202
5 0.5 1 8.34 7.77 7.893
1 1 1 1.99 1.95 1.951
2 1 1 5.72 5.55 5.588
3 1 1 9.28 8.87 8.940
4 1 1 13.06 12.38 12.501
5 1 1 17.20 16.28 16.461
1 0 2 - 0.30 - 0.44 - 0.392
2 0 2 - 1.54 - 1.73 - 1.650
3 0 2 - 2.96 - 3.16 - 3.089
4 0 2 - 4.51 - 4.70 - 4.628
5 0 2 - 6.15 - 6.34 - 6.276
1 0.5 2 0.49 0.45 0.449
2 0.5 2 1.25 0.99 1.065
3 0.5 2 1.70 1.32 1.401
4 0.5 2 2.30 1.82 1.925
5 0.5 2 3.07 2.48 2.615
1 1 2 0.99 0.95 0.951
2 1 2 3.63 3.38 3.442
3 1 2 6.08 5.60 5.689
4 1 2 8.83 8.10 8.241
5 1 2 11.95 11.00 11.197

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Table 2 Computed LB solutions of the stability load factor for plane strain tunnel headings in anisotropic and non-homogeneous
clays
cH/suPSC0 qH/suPSC0 C/H re = 0.4 re = 0.6 re = 0.8 re = 1.0

0 0 1 1.124 1.466 1.731 1.941

2 2.1644 2.5456 2.8203 3.0349
3 2.6018 3.0181 3.3447 3.6098
4 2.8977 3.3843 3.7694 4.0851
5 3.1440 3.6912 4.1261 4.4845
0.25 1 1.2677 1.6553 1.9556 2.1957
2 2.7880 3.5281 3.9580 4.2796
3 4.1515 4.8649 5.3799 5.7943
4 5.2450 6.0903 6.7569 7.3036
5 6.2988 7.3437 8.1737 8.8584
0.5 1 1.4109 1.8436 2.1789 2.4488
2 3.3751 4.3353 5.0057 5.4537
3 5.5039 6.6310 7.3646 7.9342
4 7.5176 8.7465 9.6920 10.4652
5 9.3964 10.9363 12.1555 13.1591
1 1 1.6972 2.2197 2.6247 2.9509
2 4.5343 5.8685 6.8805 7.6493
3 8.0749 10.0366 11.2504 12.1594
4 11.9115 14.0222 15.5273 16.7514
5 15.5544 18.0872 20.0810 21.7181
1 0 1 0.1243 0.4664 0.7077 0.8503
2 - 0.0602 0.2689 0.5184 0.7161
3 - 0.7061 - 0.2932 0.0271 0.3049
4 - 1.4247 - 0.9287 - 0.5493 - 0.2207
5 - 2.2154 - 1.6472 - 1.2014 - 0.8407
0.25 1 0.2677 0.6553 0.9556 1.1957
2 0.7880 1.3852 1.7633 2.0593
3 0.9807 1.6176 2.1141 2.5172
4 1.0057 1.8351 2.4898 3.0258
5 1.0564 2.0878 2.9062 3.5801
0.5 1 0.4110 0.8436 1.1789 1.4488
2 1.3751 2.3347 2.8808 3.2812
3 2.4889 3.4507 4.1290 4.6772
4 3.3288 4.5107 5.4412 6.2024
5 4.1741 5.6957 6.9013 7.8933
1 1 0.6972 1.2197 1.6247 1.9509
2 2.5343 3.8685 4.8793 5.5875
3 5.0749 6.9440 8.0774 8.9404
4 7.8431 9.8068 11.2905 12.5006
5 10.3516 12.8581 14.8367 16.4614

123
Geotech Geol Eng

Table 2 continued
cH/suPSC0 qH/suPSC0 C/H re = 0.4 re = 0.6 re = 0.8 re = 1.0

2 0 1 - 0.9136 - 0.6871 - 0.5227 - 0.3924

2 - 2.4465 - 2.0994 - 1.8479 - 1.6501
3 - 4.1783 - 3.6953 - 3.3464 - 3.0894
4 - 5.9689 - 5.3951 - 4.9668 - 4.6278
5 - 7.7947 - 7.1549 - 6.6671 - 6.2758
0.25 1 - 0.7323 - 0.3447 - 0.0445 0.1430
2 - 1.3271 - 0.8527 - 0.5090 - 0.2392
3 - 2.3016 - 1.6708 - 1.1813 - 0.7855
4 - 3.2740 - 2.4495 - 1.8021 - 1.2740
5 - 4.2206 - 3.1942 - 2.3836 - 1.7179
0.5 1 - 0.5891 - 0.1564 0.1789 0.4488
2 - 0.6249 0.2079 0.6882 1.0649
3 - 0.6677 0.1986 0.8628 1.4006
4 - 0.9131 0.2547 1.1741 1.9251
5 - 1.0703 0.4388 1.6332 2.6150
1 1 - 0.3028 0.2197 0.6247 0.9509
2 0.5343 1.8685 2.8470 3.4420
3 2.0749 3.7909 4.8617 5.6894
4 3.6945 5.5746 7.0427 8.2407
5 5.1316 7.6191 9.5842 11.1972
4 0 1 - 3.9666 - 3.5292 - 3.2604 - 3.1140
2 - 7.7490 - 7.1890 - 6.8006 - 6.5149
3 - 11.5782 - 10.9436 - 10.4676 - 10.1047
4 - 15.4152 - 14.7166 - 14.1849 - 13.7570
5 - 19.2701 - 18.5164 - 17.9384 - 17.4698
0.25 1 - 3.0042 - 2.7219 - 2.5221 - 2.3668
2 - 6.0253 - 5.5585 - 5.2136 - 4.9442
3 - 9.0124 - 8.3588 - 7.8667 - 7.4758
4 - 11.9597 - 11.1150 - 10.4678 - 9.9468
5 - 14.8881 - 13.8419 - 13.0343 - 12.3775
0.5 1 - 2.5891 - 2.1913 - 1.9579 - 1.7781
2 - 4.8733 - 4.2984 - 3.8717 - 3.5357
3 - 7.2337 - 6.3854 - 5.7327 - 5.2080
4 - 9.4799 - 8.3181 - 7.4115 - 6.6752
5 - 11.6288 - 10.1272 - 8.9465 - 7.9804
1 1 - 2.3028 - 1.7803 - 1.3753 - 1.0491
2 - 3.4657 - 2.1766 - 1.4867 - 0.9519
3 - 4.0111 - 2.6543 - 1.6567 - 0.8516
4 - 4.7701 - 2.9273 - 1.4825 - 0.3054
5 - 5.3481 - 2.8876 - 0.9451 0.6472

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 3 Influence of C/H on re= 0.4, γH/suPSC0 = 0 re= 0.4, γH/suPSC0 = 4

the stability load factor of 20 0
tunnel headings: a re = 0.4
ρH/suPSC0
and cH/suPSC0 = 0;
0
b re = 0.4 and cH/ 15 -5

(σs −σt ) /suPSC0

(σs −σt ) /suPSC0

0.25
suPSC0 = 4; c re = 1 and cH/
0.5
suPSC0 = 0; d re = 1 and cH/ 1
suPSC0 = 4 10 -10
ρH/suPSC0
0
5 -15 0.25
0.5
1
0 -20
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
C/H C/H
(a) (b)

re= 1, γH/suPSC0 = 0 re= 1, γH/suPSC0 = 4

30 10
ρH/suPSC0
0
(σs −σt ) /suPSC0

(σs −σt ) /suPSC0

0.25
20 0.5 0
1

ρH/suPSC0
10 -10 0
0.25
0.5
1
0 -20
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
C/H C/H
(c) (d)

larger difference between the strengths in extension
and compression (i.e., a lower re ratio) leads to a lower
stability load factor.
Figures 7 and 8 illustrate the predicted failure zones
and failure mechanisms of unlined square tunnels
affected by the dimensionless parameters C/H, qH/
suPSC0, cH/suPSC0 and re, respectively. These presented
results can be visualized and interpreted using a
contour of the relative shear stress ratio (Trel) and a
quasi-velocity field. The Trel value is defined by the
undrained shear strength of clays divided by the
computed maximum shear stress (smax), and hence it
ranges from 0 to 1. When the contour of Trel is equal to
unity, the failure zone is detected corresponding to the
stress state plotting on the DC strength envelope (i.e.,
F(rxx, ryy,sxy) = 0). In contrast, when Trel is less than
unity, no failure zone is detected corresponding to the
stress state plotting inside the DC strength envelope
(i.e., F(rxx, ryy,sxy) \ 0). The quasi-velocity field is
deduced from the dual optimal solution of Eq. (2) as
suggested by Ciria et al. (2008). Basically, the quasi-
horizontal and vertical components of a triangular
element are piece-wise constant and equal to the dual
solutions that correspond to the horizontal and vertical
equilibrium equations of the element (Ciria et al.
2008). Since each triangular element is assigned to
have its own quasi-velocity field, a jump of the quasi
velocity may exist at the nodes sharing the same
coordinates. It should be noted that the graphical
results of Trel contours and quasi-velocity fields shown
in Figs. 7 and 8 are generated using Techplot software
(Tecplot 2013). Figure 7a–d show the predicted
failure mechanisms comparing C/H = 1, 2, 4 and 5
for the cases with re = 0.6, cH/suPSC0 = 1 and qH/
suPSC0 = 0.5. The failure of the tunnel is accompanied
by the movement of soils from the ground surface to

123
Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 4 Influence of qH/ re= 0.6, γH/suPSC0 = 1 re= 0.6, γH/suPSC0 = 2

suPSC0 on the stability load 15 10
factor of tunnel headings: C/H C/H
a re = 0.6 and cH/ 1 2 1 2
suPSC0 = 1; b re = 0.6 and 10 3 4 5 3 4

(σs −σt ) /suPSC0

(σs −σt ) /suPSC0

cH/suPSC0 = 2; c re = 0.8 5 5
and cH/suPSC0 = 1;
d re = 0.8 and cH/suPSC0 = 2 5 0

0 -5

-5 -10
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
ρH/suPSC0 ρH/suPSC0
(a) (b)

re= 0.8, γH/suPSC0 = 1 re= 0.8, γH/suPSC0 = 2

20 15
C/H C/H
15 1 2 10 1 2
3 4 3 4
(σs −σt ) /suPSC0

(σs −σt ) /suPSC0

5 5
10 5

5 0

0 -5

-5 -10
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
ρH/suPSC0 ρH/suPSC0
(c) (d)

the tunnel roof and/or the vertical face depending on
the cover-depth ratio. An increase in the cover-depth
ratio gives rise to an enlargement of the failure zone
size that grows laterally away from the vertical face of
tunnel and propagates to the ground surface. For
example, the failure mechanism of C/H = 1 is a
collapse of the tunnel roof without any failure to the
vertical face of tunnel. In contrast, the failure of C/
H = 5 occurs at the roof as well as the vertical face of
tunnel, which induces a presence of the failure width
on the ground surface of 4H from the centerline of
tunnel. The impact of qH/suPSC0 on the failure
mechanism of tunnel is illustrated in Fig. 7e–7h. In
this comparison, the qH/suPSC0 ratios are varied from 0
to 1 while the other parameters are re = 0.6, cH/
suPSC0 = 1 and C/H = 3. It is found that qH/suPSC0 has
a strong influence on the failure mechanism of tunnel.
An increase of qH/suPSC0 results in a decrease of the
failure zone. The largest size of failure zone can be
seen in Fig. 7e for the case of homogeneous strength
with qH/suPSC0 = 0. The effect of cH/suPSC0 on the
predicted failure mechanism is presented in Fig. 8a–d,
where the cH/suPSC0 ratios are varied from 1 to 4 while
the other parameters are C/H = 3, qH/suPSC0 = 0.5
and re = 0.6. In this comparison, the failure zones and
the quasi-velocity fields of the cH/suPSC0 variations are
quite similar. Finally, Fig. 8e–h show the comparison
of failure mechanism for four cases with qH/suPSC0-
= 0.5, cH/suPSC0 = 1 and C/H = 3 but different re
ratios of 0.4, 0.6, 0.8 and 1. Even though there is very
small difference in the failure mechanism of the re
variation, a lower re ratio gives rise to a lower stability
load factor.

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 5 Influence of cH/ re= 0.4, ρH/suPSC0 = 0.25 re= 0.4, ρH/suPSC0 = 0.5
suPSC0 on the stability load 10 15
factor of tunnel headings:
a re = 0.4 and qH/ 5 10
suPSC0 = 0.25; b re = 0.4

(σs −σt ) /suPSC0

(σs −σt ) /suPSC0

and qH/suPSC0 = 0.5; 0 5
c re = 1 and qH/
suPSC0 = 0.25; d re = 1 and -5 0
qH/suPSC0 = 0.5
-10 C/H -5 C/H
1 2 1 2
-15 3 4 -10 3 4
5 5
-20 -15
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
γ H/suPSC0 γ H/suPSC0
(a) (b)

re= 1, ρH/suPSC0 = 0.25 re= 1, ρH/suPSC0 = 0.5

15 15
C/H
10
10 1 2
(σs −σt ) /suPSC0

(σs −σt ) /suPSC0

3 4
5
5 5

0
0
-5 C/H
1 2
3 4 -5
-10
5
-15 -10
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
γ H/suPSC0 γ H/suPSC0
(c) (d)

"
5 New Design Equations rs  rt a1 ðC=HÞrea3 a4 ðC=HÞ2  a5 ðC=HÞ
¼ þ
suPSC0 1 þ a2 ðC=HÞ 1 þ a6 ðC=HÞ
In practice, it is not convenient to employ the results in      
Table 2 since some interpolations are necessary when qH a7 cH C
r  a8 þ a9
the input dimensionless parameters do not fall exactly suPSC0 e suPSC0 H
on the studied values. Thus, an approximate solution ð4Þ
for the stability load factor of square tunnels in
anisotropic and non-homogeneous clays is developed where a1 = 2.5492, a2 = 0.3706, a3 = 0.4358,
based on a nonlinear regression analysis. Employing a4 = 2.8358, a5 = 0.7021, a6 = 0.5688, a7 = 0.3335,
all 320 computed LB solutions with an appropriate a8 = 1.0543 and a9 = 0.1022.
mathematical form of a curve-fitting technique, the The accuracy comparison of (rs-rt)/suPSC0
new design equation of the stability load factor is first between the proposed approximate expression and
time reported below with a coefficient of determina- the computed LB solutions is shown in Fig. 9, where
tion (R2) of 99.85% as: good agreement between them can be accurately
achieved (R2 = 99.85%).
By multiplying suPSC0 to both sides in Eq. (4), the
proposed design equation can be reformulated into a
compact form as:

123
Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 6 Influence of re on the C/H = 1, ρH/suPSC0 = 0 C/H = 1, ρH/suPSC0 = 1

stability load factor of tunnel 3 3
headings: a C/H = 1 and
qH/suPSC0 = 0; b C/H = 1
and qH/suPSC0 = 1; c C/ 0

(σs −σt ) /suPSC0

(σs −σt ) /suPSC0

H = 5 and qH/suPSC0 = 0; 0
d C/H = 5 and qH/
suPSC0 = 1 -3

γH/suPSC0 -3 γH/suPSC0
-6 0 1 0 1

2 4 2 4
-9 -6
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
re re
(a) (b)

C/H = 5, ρH/suPSC0 = 0 C/H = 5, ρH/suPSC0 = 1

10 40
γH/suPSC0
5 0 1
30
2 4
(σs −σt ) /suPSC0

(σs −σt ) /suPSC0

0
20
-5
10
-10 γH/suPSC0
0 1
0
-15
2 4

-20 -10
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
re re
(c) (d)

rs ¼ suPSC0 Nc Na1 þ qHNq Na2 þ rt  cHNc ð5Þ Nc represent the stability factors reflecting from the
effects of constant undrained strength (suPSC0), lin-
where early increasing strength gradient (q), and soil unit
a1 ðC=HÞ weight (c), respectively, while the factors Na1 and Na2
Nc ¼ ð6aÞ represent the stability factors accounting for the
1 þ a2 ðC=HÞ
undrained strength anisotropy (re). It should be noted
a4 ðC=HÞ2  a5 ðC=HÞ that the negative sign of the last term in Eq. (9)
Nq ¼ ð6bÞ represents the effect of soil unit weight (c) which
1 þ a6 ðC=HÞ
contributes to a driving force causing an active failure
  of tunnel. The development of the curve-fitting
C
Nc ¼ a8 þ a9 ð6cÞ expression in Eq. (4) ensures that the units in the left
H
and right hands of Eq. (5) works out perfectly in terms
Na1 ¼ rea3 ð6dÞ of stress while all stability factors are absolutely
dimensionless. Figure 10a shows the variation of Nc,
Na2 ¼ rea7 ð6eÞ Nq, and Nc as a function of the cover-depth ratio (C/
H) while Fig. 10b illustrates that of Na1 and Na2 as a
Note that the five factors in Eqs. (6a)–(6e) are the
function of the anisotropic strength ratio (re). By
new stability factors for square tunnels in anisotropic
employing Eq. (5), the limiting surcharge (rs) of the
and non-homogeneous clays. The factors Nc, Nq, and
problem can be readily computed from the input

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 7 Comparisons of the

relative shear stress ratio
(Trel) and quasi-velocity
field for the cases of re = 0.6
and cH/suPSC0 = 1: a C/
H = 1 and qH/suPSC0 = 0.5;
b C/H = 2 and qH/
suPSC0 = 0.5; c C/H = 4 and
qH/suPSC0 = 0.5; d C/H = 5
and qH/suPSC0 = 0.5; e qH/
suPSC0 = 0 and C/H = 3;
f qH/suPSC0 = 0.25 and C/
H = 3; g qH/suPSC0 = 0.5
and C/H = 3; h qH/
suPSC0 = 1 and C/H = 3

123
Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 8 Comparisons of the

relative shear stress ratio
(Trel) and quasi-velocity
field for the cases of C/
H = 3 and qH/suPSC0 = 0:
a cH/suPSC0 = 0 and
re = 0.6; b cH/suPSC0 = 1
and re = 0.6; c cH/
suPSC0 = 2 and re = 0.6;
d cH/suPSC0 = 4 and
re = 0.6; e re = 0.4 and cH/
suPSC0 = 1; f re = 0.6 and
cH/suPSC0 = 1; g re = 0.8
and cH/suPSC0 = 1; h re = 1
and cH/suPSC0 = 1

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

20 values of rt, suPSC0, q, c, H and the stability factors Nc,

(σs−σt)/suPSC0, LB soluons 15 Nq, Nc, Na1, Na2 calculated from Eqs. (6a)–(6e).
The safety assessment of tunnel is required during
10
the process of tunneling by geotechnical engineers.
5 The conventional concept of the factor of safety (FS)
0 based on the mobilized strength is adopted to accom-
plish this task. By replacing suPSC0 with suPSC0/FS and
-5
q with q/FS in Eq. (5) and solving for FS, the new
-10 design equation of the factor of safety (FS) against the
R2 = 99.85%
-15 active failure of square tunnels in anisotropic and non-
-20
homogenous clays is proposed as:
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
(σs−σt)/suPSC0, Proposed design equaon
suPSC0 Nc Na1 þ qHNq Na2
FS ¼ ð7Þ
rs þ cHNc  rt
Fig. 9 Comparison of the stability load factor (rs-rt)/suPSC0
between the proposed design equation and the computed LB Surprisingly, the meaning of FS in the above
solutions equation follows reasonably with the classical defini-
tion of the factor of safety commonly used in stability
5 20 analyses in geotechnical engineering, where FS is
Nγ
defined as the ratio of soil resistance to driving stress.
4 Regarding the FS expression in Eq. (7), the numerator
Nc 15
is the contribution of undrained shear resistance of
Nc and Nγ

3 clays considering strength non-homogeneity (q) and

Nρ

10 anisotropy (re) while the denominator is the net

2 driving pressure generated from the surcharge (rs)
5 plus the effect of soil self-weight (c) less the applied
1 tunnel pressure (rt).
Nρ
It should be noted that the present study considers
0 0 the undrained stability of unlined square tunnels with
0 1 2 3 4 5
C/D sharp corners. The sharp corners may not be con-
(a) structed practically as it can introduce very high stress
concentrations in the soil mass. Such high stress
gradients can be reduced by adding some curvature at
1.00
tunnel corners such as using square tunnels with round
0.95 corners or horseshoe-shaped ones. However, the effect
Na2
of tunnel corner curvature to the undrained stability of
0.90
Na1 and Na2

the problem is not within the scope of the present

0.85 study.
0.80

0.75 Na1 6 Conclusions

0.70
In this paper, the lower bound (LB) finite element limit
0.65
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 analysis (FELA) with second-order cone program-
re ming (SOCP) for anisotropic clays recently developed
(b) by the authors is applied to investigate the undrained
stability of unlined square tunnels in non-homoge-
Fig. 10 Proposed stability factors of plane strain tunnel neous and anisotropic clays obeying Davis and
headings: a Nc, Nq and Nc; b Na1 and Na2 Christian (DC) failure criterion. The new LB solutions

123
Geotech Geol Eng
are numerically derived considering a comprehensive
investigation of the influences of the cover-depth ratio
C/H, the anisotropic strength ratio re (suPSE/suPSC), the
normalized overburden pressure cH/suPSC0, and the
normalized strength gradient qH/suPSC0 on the stabil-
ity load factor (rs-rt)/suPSC0 of square tunnels. It is
found that the stability load factor has a nonlinear
relationship with the cover-depth ratio and the
anisotropic strength ratio, but a linear relationship
with the normalized overburden pressure and the
normalized strength gradient. The patterns of pre-
dicted failure mechanism are highly influenced by the
cover-depth ratio and the normalized strength gradi-
ent. The new design equations for the predictions of
the limiting surcharge and the factor of safety of the
problem are first time proposed in this paper using a
nonlinear regression analysis to the computed LB
solutions. Five new stability factors Nc, Nq, Nc, Na1
and Na2 are also proposed in conjunction with the
proposed design equations. In practice, those equa-
tions are very useful for a reliable, accurate and
convenient safety assessment of unlined square tun-
nels in anisotropic and non-homogeneous clays during
tunneling processes.
References
Al-Shamrani MA (2005) Upper-bound solutions for bearing
capacity of strip footings over anisotropic nonhomoge-
neous clays. Soils Found 45(1):109–124
Andersen ED, Roos C, Terlaky T (2003) On implementing a
primal-dual interior-point method for conic quadratic
optimization. Math Program Ser B 95:249–277
Assadi A, Sloan SW (1991) Undrained stability of shallow
square tunnel. J Geotech Eng 117(8):1152–1173
Atkinson JH (2007) The mechanics of soils and foundations,
2nd edn. Taylor & Francis, New York
Bhattacharya P (2018) Undrained uplift capacity of strip plate
anchor nearby clayey slope. Geotech Geol Eng
36:1393–1407
Bhattacharya P, Kumar J (2012) Horizontal pullout capacity of a
group of two vertical strip anchors plates embedded in
sand. Geotech Geol Eng 30:513–521
Bhattacharya P, Kumar J (2015) Uplift capacity of strip and
circular anchors in soft clay with an overlay of sand layer.
Geotech Geol Eng 33:1475–1488
Bhattacharya P, Kumar J (2017) Seismic pullout capacity of
inclined anchor plates in sand. Geotech Geol Eng
35:679–692
Casagrande A, Carillo N (1944) Shear failure of anisotropic
soils. Contrib Soil Mech (BSCE) 1941–1953(4):122–135
Chen WF, Snitbhan N, Fang HY (1975) Stability of slopes in
anisotropic, nonhomogeneous soils. Can Geotech J
12(1):146–152
Ciria H, Peraire J, Bonet J (2008) Mesh adaptive computation of
upper and lower bounds in limit analysis. Int J Numer
Methods Eng 75(8):899–944
Davis EH, Christian JT (1971) Bearing capacity of anisotropic
cohesive soil. J Soil Mech Found Div 97(5):753–769
Davis EH, Gunn MJ, Mair RJ, Seneviratne HN (1980) The
stability of shallow tunnels and underground openings in
cohesive material. Geotechnique 30(4):397–416
Drucker DC, Prager W, Greenberg HJ (1952) Extended limit
design theorems for continuous media. Q Appl Math
9:381–389
Keawsawasvong S, Ukritchon B (2016a) Ultimate lateral
capacity of two dimensional plane strain rectangular pile in
clay. Geomech Eng 11(2):235–251
Keawsawasvong S, Ukritchon B (2016b) Finite element limit
analysis of pullout capacity of planar caissons in clay.
Comput Geotech 75:12–17
Keawsawasvong S, Ukritchon B (2016c) Finite element analysis
of undrained stability of cantilever flood walls. Int J Geo-
tech Eng 11(4):355–367
Keawsawasvong S, Ukritchon B (2017a) Undrained lateral
capacity of I-shaped concrete piles. Songklanakarin J Sci
Technol 39(6):751–758
Keawsawasvong S, Ukritchon B (2017b) Undrained stability of
an active planar trapdoor in non-homogeneous clays with a
linear increase of strength with depth. Comput Geotech
81:284–293
Keawsawasvong S, Ukritchon B (2017c) Stability of unsup-
ported conical excavations in non-homogeneous clays.
Comput Geotech 81:125–136
Keawsawasvong S, Ukritchon B (2017d) Undrained limiting
pressure behind soil gaps in contiguous pile walls. Comput
Geotech 83:152–158
Keawsawasvong S, Ukritchon B (2019) Undrained basal sta-
bility of braced circular excavations in non-homogeneous
clays with linear increase of strength with depth. Comput
Geotech 115:103180
Khuntia S, Sahoo JP (2017) Undrained uplift resistance of strip
plate anchors in clayey slopes. Int J Geotech Eng
11(5):487–499
Kouzer KM, Kumar J (2010) Ultimate bearing capacity of a
footing considering the interference of an existing footing
on sand. Geotech Geol Eng 28:457–470
Kumar J, Chakraborty, M, Sahoo, JP (2014) Stability of
unsupported vertical circular excavations. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng 140:04014028. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001118
Ladd CC (1991) Stability evaluations during stage construction.
J Geotech Eng 117(4):540–615
Ladd CC, DeGroot, DJ (2003) Recommended practice for soft
ground site characterization. Arthur Casagrande lecture.
In: Proceedings of the 12th panamerican conference on soil
mechanics and geotechnical engineering, Cambridge
Law KT (1978) Undrained strength anisotropy in embankment
stability analysis. Can Geotech J 15(2):306–309
Liu J, Hu Y (2009) The effect of strength anisotropy on the
bearing capacity of spudcan foundations. Comput Geotech
36(1–2):125–134
123

Lo KY (1965) Stability of slopes in anisotropic soils. J Soil
Mech Found Div 31:85–106
MOSEK (2018) The MOSEK optimization software user’s
manual and reference. Available on www.mosek.com.
Accessed on April 2018
Sahoo JP, Kumar J (2012a) Horizontal pullout resistance for a
group of two vertical plate anchors in clays. Geotech Geol
Eng 30:1279–1287
Sahoo JP, Kumar J (2012b) Seismic stability of a long unsup-
ported circular tunnel. Comput Geotech 44:109–115
Sahoo JP, Kumar J (2013) Stability of long unsupported twin
circular tunnels in soils. Tunn Undergr Space Technol
38:326–335
Sahoo JP, Kumar J (2014a) Vertical uplift resistance of two
closely spaced horizontal strip anchors embedded in
cohesive-frictional weightless medium. Can Geotech J
51(2):223–230
Sahoo JP, Kumar J (2014b) Stability of a circular tunnel in the
presence of pseudo-static seismic body forces. Tunn
Undergr Space Technol 42:264–276
Sahoo JP, Khuntia S (2018a) Lower bound solutions for uplift
capacity of strip anchors adjacent to sloping ground in clay.
Mar Georesour Geotechnol 36(4):405–416
Sahoo JP, Kumar J (2018b) Required lining pressure for the
stability of twin circular tunnels in soils. Int J Geomech
18(7):04018069
Sahoo JP, Kumar B (2019a) Support pressure for stability of
circular tunnels driven in granular soil under water table.
Comput Geotech 109:58–68
Sahoo JP, Kumar B (2019b) Stability of circular tunnels in clay
with an overlay of sand. Int J Geomech 9(3):06018039.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.
000136010.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001360
Sloan SW (2013) Geotechnical stability analysis Géotechnique
63(7):531–572
Sloan SW, Assadi A (1991) Undrained stability of a square
tunnel in a soil whose strength increases linearly with
depth. Comput Geotech 12(4):321–346
Sloan SW, Assadi, A (1992) Stability of tunnels in soft ground.
In: Proceedings of peter wroth memorial symposium on
predictive soil mechanics. Oxford, pp 644–663.
Su SF, Liao HJ (1999) Effect of strength anisotropy on
undrained slope stability in clay. Geotechnique
49(2):215–230
Su SF, Liao HJ, Lin YH (1998) Base stability of deep excavation
in anisotropic soft clay. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
124(9):809–819
Tecplot [Computer software]. Washington, USA: Tecplot Inc.;
2013.
Ukritchon B, Keawsawasvong S (2016) Undrained pullout
capacity of cylindrical suction caissons by finite element
limit analysis. Comput Geotech 80:301–311
Ukritchon B, Keawsawasvong S (2017a) Unsafe error in con-
ventional shape factor for shallow circular foundations in
normally consolidated clays. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
143(6):02817001
Ukritchon B, Keawsawasvong S (2017b) Error in Ito and Mat-
sui’s limit equilibrium solution of lateral force on a row of
stabilizing piles. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
143(9):02817004
123
Geotech Geol Eng
Ukritchon B, Keawsawasvong S (2018a) Undrained lateral
capacity of rectangular piles under a general loading
direction and full flow mechanism. KSCE J Civ Eng
22(7):2256–2265
Ukritchon B, Keawsawasvong S (2018b) A new design equation
for drained stability of conical slopes in cohesive-frictional
soils. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 10(2):358–366
Ukritchon B, Keawsawasvong S (2018c) Lower bound limit
analysis of an anisotropic undrained strength criterion
using second-order cone programming. Int J Numer Anal
Methods Geomech 42(8):1016–1033
Ukritchon B, Keawsawasvong S (2019a) Three-dimensional
lower bound finite element limit analysis of an anisotropic
undrained strength criterion using second-order cone pro-
gramming. Comput Geotech 106:327–344
Ukritchon B, Keawsawasvong S (2019b) Lower bound solutions
for undrained face stability of plane strain tunnel headings
in anisotropic and non-homogeneous clays. Comput Geo-
tech 112:204–217
Ukritchon B, Keawsawasvong S (2019c) Design equations of
uplift capacity of circular piles in sands. Appl Ocean Res
90:101844
Ukritchon B, Whittle AJ, Sloan SW (2003) Undrained stability
of braced excavations in clay. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
129(8):738–755
Ukritchon B, Yoang S, Keawsawasvong S (2018) Bearing
capacity of shallow foundations in clay with linear increase
in strength and adhesion factor. Mar Georesour Geotechnol
36(4):438–451
Veiskarami M, Chenari RJ, Jameei AA (2017) Bearing capacity
of strip footings on anisotropic soils by the finite elements
and linear programming. Int J Geomech 17(12):04017119
Veiskarami M, Chenari RJ, Jameei AA (2018) A study on the
static and seismic earth pressure problems in anisotropic
granular media. Geotech Geol Eng. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10706-018-0739-9
Wilson DW, Abbo AJ, Sloan SW, Lyamin AV (2011)
Undrained stability of a circular tunnel where the shear
strength increases linearly with depth. Can Geotech J
48(9):1328–1342
Wilson DW, Abbo AJ, Sloan SW, Lyamin AV (2013)
Undrained stability of a square tunnel where the shear
strength increases linearly with depth. Comput Geotech
49:314–325
Wilson DW, Abbo AJ, Sloan SW, Lyamin AV (2014)
Undrained stability of dual circular tunnels. Int J Geomech
14:69–79
Yamamoto K, Lyamin AV, Wilson DW, Sloan SW, Abbo AJ
(2011a) Stability of a single tunnel in cohesive–frictional
soil subjected to surcharge loading. Can Geotech J
48(12):1841–1854
Yamamoto K, Lyamin AV, Wilson DW, Sloan SW, Abbo AJ
(2011b) Stability of a circular tunnel in cohesive-frictional
soil subjected to surcharge loading. Comput Geotech
38(4):504–514
Yang XL, Du DC (2016) Upper bound analysis for bearing
capacity of nonhomogeneous and anisotropic clay foun-
dation. KSCE J Civ Eng 20(7):2702–2710
Yang XL, Yao C (2018) Stability of tunnel roof in nonhomo-
geneous soils. Int J Geomech 18(3):06018002
Geotech Geol Eng

Zhang J, Yang J, Yang F, Zheng X (2017) Upper-bound solution Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with
for stability number of elliptical tunnel in cohesionless regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
soils. Int J Geomech 17(1):06016011 institutional affiliations.
Zhang J, Wang W, Zhang B, Zhang D, Song J (2019) Upper
bound solution for required supporting pressure applied on
a deep shield tunnel face under different groundwater
levels. Geotech Geol Eng 37:491–499

123