Embankments: 9.1 Overview and Data Needed

Chapter 9 Embankments
9.1 Overview and Data Needed

This chapter addresses the design and construction of rock embankments, bridge
approach embankments, earth embankments, and light weight flls. Static loading
as well as seismic loading conditions are covered, though for a more detailed
assessment of seismic loading on embankment performance, see Chapter 6. The
primary geotechnical issues that impact embankment performance are overall stability,
internal stability, settlement, materials, and construction.
For the purposes of this chapter embankments include the following:
Rock embankments, defned as flls in which the material in all or any part
of an embankment contains 25 percent or more, by volume, gravel or stone
4 inches or more in diameter.
Bridge approach embankments, defned as fll beneath a bridge structure and
extending 100 feet beyond a structures end at subgrade elevation for the full
embankment width, plus an access ramp on a 10H:1V slope from subgrade down
to the original ground elevation. The bridge approach embankment also includes
any embankment that replaces unsuitable foundation soil beneath the bridge
approach embankment.
Earth embankments are flls that are not classifed as rock or bridge approach
embankments, but that are constructed out of soil.
Lightweight flls contain lightweight fll or recycled materials as a signifcant
portion of the embankment volume, and the embankment construction is usually
by special provision. Lightweight flls are most often used as a portion of the
bridge approach embankment to mitigate settlement or in landslide repairs
to reestablish roadways.
9.1.1 Site Reconnaissance
General requirements for site reconnaissance are given in Chapter 2.
The key geotechnical issues for design and construction of embankments include
stability and settlement of the underlying soils, the impact of the stability and
settlement on the construction staging and time requirements, and the impact
to adjacent and nearby structures, such as buildings, bridge foundations, and utilities.
Therefore, the geotechnical designer should perform a detailed site reconnaissance
of the proposed construction. This should include a detailed site review outside the
proposed embankment footprint in addition to within the embankment footprint. This
reconnaissance should extend at least two to three times the width of the embankment
on either side of the embankment and to the top or bottom of slopes adjacent to the
embankment. Furthermore, areas below proposed embankments should be fully
explored if any existing landslide activity is suspected.
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.08 Page 9-1
October 2013
9.1.2 Field Exploration and Laboratory Testing Requirements
General requirements for the development of the feld exploration and laboratory
testing plans are provided in Chapter 2. The expected project requirements and
subsurface conditions should be analyzed to determine the type and quantity of
information to be obtained during the geotechnical investigation. During this phase it is
necessary to:
Identify performance criteria (e.g. allowable settlement, time available
for construction, seismic design requirements, etc.).
Identify potential geologic hazards, areas of concern (e.g. soft soils), and potential
variability of local geology.
Identify engineering analyses to be performed (e.g. limit equilibrium slope stability
analyses, liquefaction susceptibility, lateral spreading/slope stability deformations,
settlement evaluations).
Identify engineering properties required for these analyses.
Determine methods to obtain parameters and assess the validity of such methods
for the material type.
Determine the number of tests/samples needed and appropriate locations for them.
The goal of the site characterization for embankment design and construction
is to develop the subsurface profle and soil property information needed for stability
and settlement analyses. Soil parameters generally required for embankment
design include:
Total stress and effective stress strength parameters;
Unit weight;
Compression indexes (primary, secondary and recompression); and
Coeffcient of consolidation).
Table 9-1 provides a summary of site characterization needs and feld and laboratory
testing considerations for embankment design.
Embankments Chapter 9
Page 9-2 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.08
October 2013
Geotechnical
Issues
Engineering
Evaluations
Required
Information
for Analyses
Field Testing Laboratory Testing
Embankments
and
Embankment
Foundations
settlement
(magnitude & rate)
bearing capacity
slope stability
lateral pressure
internal stability
borrow source
evaluation
(available quantity
and quality of
borrow soil)
required
reinforcement
liquefaction
delineation of soft
soil deposits
potential for
subsidence (karst,
mining, etc.)
constructability
subsurface profle
(soil, ground water,
rock)
compressibility
parameters
shear strength
parameters
unit weights
time-rate
consolidation
parameters
horizontal
earth pressure
coeffcients
interface friction
parameters
pullout resistance
geologic mapping
including
orientation and
characteristics of
rock discontinuities
shrink/swell/
degradation of soil
and rock fll
nuclear density
plate load test
test fll
CPT (w/ pore
pressure
measurement)
SPT
PMT
dilatometer
vane shear
rock coring (RQD)
geophysical testing
piezometers
settlement plates
slope inclinometers
1-D Oedometer
triaxial tests
unconfned
compression
direct shear tests
grain size
distribution
Atterberg Limits
specifc gravity
organic content
moisture-density
relationship
hydraulic
conductivity
geosynthetic/soil
testing
shrink/swell
slake durability
unit weight
relative density
Summary of Information Needs and Testing Considerations for Embankments
(Adapted From Sabatini, Et Al., 2002)
Table 9-1
9.1.3 Soil Sampling and Stratigraphy
The size, complexity and extent of the soil sampling program will depend primarily
on the type, height and size of embankment project as well as the expected
soil conditions.
Generally, embankments 10 feet or less in height, constructed over average to good
soil conditions (e.g., non-liquefable, medium dense to very dense sand, silt
or gravel, with no signs of previous instability) will require only a basic level of site
investigation. A geologic site reconnaissance (see Chapter 2), combined with widely
spaced test pits, hand holes, or a few shallow borings to verify feld observations and
the anticipated site geology may be suffcient, especially if the geology of the area
is well known, or if there is some prior experience in the area.
For larger embankments, or for any embankment to be placed over soft or
potentially unstable ground, geotechnical explorations should in general be spaced
no more than 500 feet apart for uniform conditions. In non-uniform soil conditions,
spacing should be decreased to 100 to 300 foot intervals with at least one boring
in each major landform or geologic unit. A key to the establishment of exploration
October 2013
frequency for embankments is the potential for the subsurface conditions to impact
the construction of the embankment, the construction contract in general, and the
long-term performance of the fnished project. The exploration program should
be developed and conducted in a manner that these potential problems, in terms
of cost, time, and performance, are reduced to an acceptable level. The boring
frequency described above may need to be adjusted by the geotechnical designer
to address the risk of such problems for the specifc project.
All embankments over 10 feet in height, embankments over soft soils, or those that
could impact adjacent structures (bridge abutments, buildings etc.), will generally
require geotechnical borings for the design. The more critical areas for stability
of a large embankment are between the top and bottom of the slopes. This is where
base stability is of most concern and where a majority of the borings should be located,
particularly if the near-surface soils are expected to consist of soft fne-grained
deposits. At critical locations, (e.g., maximum embankment heights, maximum
depths of soft strata), a minimum of two exploration points in the transverse direction
to defne the existing subsurface conditions for stability analyses should be obtained.
More exploration points to defne the subsurface stratigraphy, including the conditions
within and below existing fll, may be necessary for very large flls or very erratic
soil conditions.
Embankment widening projects will require careful consideration of exploration
locations. Borings near the toe of the existing fll are needed to evaluate the
present condition of the underlying soils, particularly if the soils are fne-grained.
In addition, borings through the existing fll into the underlying consolidated soft soil,
or, if overexcavation of the soft soil had been done during the initial fll construction,
borings to defne the extent of removal, should be obtained to defne conditions below
the existing fll.
In some cases, the stability and/or durability of the existing embankment fll may
be questionable because the fll materials are suspect or because slope instability in the
form of raveling, downslope lobes, or slope failures have been observed during the site
reconnaissance phase. Some embankments constructed of material that is susceptible
to accelerated weathering may require additional borings through the core of the
embankment to sample and test the present condition of the existing fll.
Borings are also needed near existing or planned structures that could be impacted
by new fll placement. Soil sampling and testing will be useful for evaluating the
potential settlement of the existing structure foundations as the new fll is placed.
The depth of borings, test pits, and hand holes will generally be determined by the
expected soil conditions and the depth of infuence of the new embankment.
Explorations will need to be suffciently deep to penetrate through surfcial problem
soils such as loose sand, soft silt and clay and organic materials, and at least 10 feet
into competent soil conditions. In general, all geotechnical borings should be drilled
to a minimum depth of twice the planned embankment height.
Understanding of the underlying soil conditions requires appropriate sampling
intervals and methods. As for most engineering problems, testing for strength and
compression in fne-grained soils requires the need for undisturbed samples. The SPT
is useful in cohesionless soil where it is not practical or possible to obtain undisturbed
October 2013
samples for laboratory engineering tests. SPT sampling is recommended at wet sand
sites where liquefaction is a key engineering concern.
On larger projects, cone penetration test (CPT) probes can be used to supplement
conventional borings. Besides being signifcantly less expensive, CPT probes allow the
nearly continuous evaluation of soil properties with depth. They can detect thin layers
of soil, such as a sand lens in clay that would greatly reduce consolidation time that
may be missed in a conventional boring. In addition, CPT probes can measure pore
pressure dissipation responses, which can be used to evaluate relative soil permeability
and consolidation rates. Because there are no samples obtained, CPT probes shall
be used in conjunction with a standard boring program. Smaller projects that require
only a few borings generally do not warrant an integrated CPT/boring feld program.
9.1.4 Groundwater
At least one piezometer should be installed in borings drilled in each major fll zone
where stability analysis will be required and groundwater is anticipated. Water levels
measured during drilling are often not adequate for performing stability analysis.
This is particularly true where drilling is in fne-grained soils that can take many days
or more for the water level to equalize after drilling (see Chapter 2). Even in more
permeable coarse grained soils, the drilling mud used to drill the boring can obscure
detection of the groundwater level. Notwithstanding, water levels should be recorded
during drilling in all borings or test pits. Information regarding the time and date of the
reading and any fuctuations that might be seen during drilling should be included on
the feld logs.
For embankment widening projects, piezometers are generally more useful in borings
located at or near the toe of an existing embankment, rather than in the fll itself.
Exceptions are when the existing fll is along a hillside or if seepage is present on
the face of the embankment slope.
The groundwater levels should be monitored periodically to provide useful information
regarding variation in levels over time. This can be important when evaluating base
stability, consolidation settlement or liquefaction. As a minimum, the monitoring
should be accomplished several times during the wet season (October through April)
to assess the likely highest groundwater levels that could affect engineering analyses.
If practical, a series of year-round readings taken at 1 to 2 month intervals should
be accomplished in all piezometers.
The location of the groundwater table is particularly important during stability and
settlement analyses. High groundwater tables result in lower effective stress in the
soil affecting both the shear strength characteristics or the soil and its consolidation
behavior under loading. The geotechnical designer should identify the location of
the groundwater table and determine the range in seasonal fuctuation.
If there is a potential for a signifcant groundwater gradient beneath an embankment
or surface water levels are signifcantly higher on one side of the embankment than
the other, the effect of reduced soil strength caused by water seepage should be
evaluated. In this case, more than one piezometer should be installed to estimate the
gradient. Also, seepage effects must be considered when an embankment is placed
on or near the top of a slope that has known or potential seepage through it. A fow net
October 2013
or a computer model (such as MODFLOW) may be used to estimate seepage velocity
and forces in the soil. This information may then be used into the stability analysis
to model pore pressures.
9.2 Design Considerations
9.2.1 Typical Embankment Materials and Compaction
General instructions for embankment construction are discussed in the WSDOT
Construction Manual Section 2.3.3, and specifc construction specifcations for
embankment construction are provided in WSDOT Construction Specifcations Section
2-03. The geotechnical designer should determine during the exploration program
if any of the material from planned earthwork will be suitable for embankment
construction (see Chapter 10). Consideration should be given to whether the material is
moisture sensitive and diffcult to compact during wet weather.
9.2.1.1 Rock Embankments
The WSDOT Standard Specifcations defne rock embankment as all or any part
of an embankment in which the material contains 25 percent or more by volume
of gravel or stone 4 inches or greater in diameter. Compaction tests cannot
be applied to coarse material with any degree of accuracy; therefore, a given amount
of compactive effort is specifed for rock embankments, as described in Standard
Specifcations Section 2-03.3(14)A.
Special consideration should be given to the type of material that will be used
in rock embankments. In some areas of the state, moderately weathered or very soft
rock may be encountered in cuts and used as embankment fll. On projects located
in southwestern Washington, degradable fne grained sandstone and siltstone are
often encountered in the cuts. The use of this material in embankments can result
in signifcant long term settlement and stability problems as the rock degrades, unless
properly compacted with heavy tamping foot rollers (Machan, et al., 1989).
The rock should be tested by the Washington Degradation Test (WSDOT Test Method
113) and the slake durability test (see Chapter 5) if there is suspicion that the geologic
nature of the rock source proposed indicates that poor durability rock is likely to be
encountered. When the rock is found to be non-durable, it should be physically broken
down and compacted as earth embankment provided the material meets or exceeds
common borrow requirements. Special compaction requirements may be needed for
these materials. In general, tamping foot rollers work best for breaking down the rock
fragments. The minimum size roller should be about 30 tons. Specifcations should
include the maximum size of the rock fragments and maximum lift thickness. These
requirements will depend on the hardness of the rock, and a test section should be
incorporated into the contract to verify that the Contractors methods will achieve
compaction and successfully break down the material. In general, both the particle size
and lift thickness should be limited to 12 inches.
9.2.1.2 Earth Embankments and Bridge Approach Embankments
Three types of materials are commonly used in WSDOT earth embankments,
including common, select, and gravel borrow. Bridge approach embankments should
be constructed from select or gravel borrow, although common borrow may be used
October 2013
in the drier parts of the State, provided it is not placed below a structure foundation
or immediately behind an abutment wall. Common borrow is not intended for use
as foundation material beneath structures or as wall backfll due to its tendency
to be more compressible and due to its poor drainage characteristics.
Requirements for common, select and gravel borrow are in Section 9-03.14 of the
WSDOT Standard Specifcations. The suggested range of soil properties for each
material type to be used in design is discussed in Chapter 5. The common and select
borrow specifcations are intended for use where it is not necessary to strictly control
the strength properties of the embankment material and where all weather construction
is not required.
Procedures for constructing earth embankments are described in Section 2-03.3(14)
B of the Standard Specifcations. Compaction is specifed in accordance with Method
A, Method B, or Method C. Method A consists of routing hauling equipment over
the embankment and is not normally used on WSDOT projects. Method B limits the
thickness of the lifts to 8 inches and requires that 90 percent of maximum dry density
be achieved in all but the upper 2 feet of the embankment. In the upper two feet
of the embankment the lift thickness is limited to 4 inches and the required compaction
is 95 percent of maximum dry density. Method B is used on all embankments
on WSDOT projects unless another method is specifed.
Method C differs from Method B in that the entire embankment must be compacted
to 95 percent of maximum dry density. Method C is required when the structural
quality of the embankment is essential. Method C is required in bridge approach
embankments as defned in Section 1-01.3 of the WSDOT Standard Specifcations.
Method C shall also be required on any foundation material beneath structures.
Because foundation stresses are transferred outward as well as downward into
the bearing soils, the limits of the foundation material should extend horizontally
outward from each edge of the footing a distance equal to the thickness of the fll
below the foundation.
The maximum density and optimum moisture content for soil placed in earth
embankments are determined by testing in accordance with WSDOT Test Method
No. 606 (Method of Test for Compaction Control of Granular Materials) or AASHTO
T 99 Method A (standard Proctor) as prescribed in Section 2-03.3(14)D of the
Standard Specifcations. Test method 606 is used if 30 percent or more of the material
consists of gravel size particles (retained on the No. 4 sieve).
9.2.1.3 Fill Placement Below Water
If material will be placed below the water table, material that does not require
compaction such as Quarry Spalls, Foundation Material Class B, Shoulder Ballast,
or light loose rip rap should specifed. Once above the water table, other borrow
materials should be used. Quarry spalls and rip rap should be choked with Shoulder
Ballast or Foundation Material Class A or B before placement of borrow. Alternately,
construction geosynthetic for soil stabilization may be used to prevent migration of the
fner borrow into the voids spaces of the coarser underlying material.
October 2013
9.2.2 Embankments for Detention/Retention Facilities
Embankments for detention/retention facilities impounding over 10 acre-feet of water
come under the jurisdiction of the Dam Safety Offce (DSO) of the Washington State
Department of Ecology and shall be designed as a small dam in accordance with
DSO requirements.
Embankments for detention/retention facilities impounding 10 acre feet of water or less
are not regulated by the DSO, but they should be designed using the DSO guidelines
as the basis for design. Unlined drainage facilities shall be analyzed for seepage and
piping through the embankment fll and underlying soils. Stability of the fll and
underlying soils subjected to seepage forces shall have a minimum safety factor of 1.5.
Furthermore, the minimum safety factor for piping stability analysis shall be 1.5.
9.2.3 Stability Assessment
In general, embankments 10 feet or less in height with 2H:1V or fatter side slopes,
may be designed based on past precedence and engineering judgment provided there
are no known problem soil conditions such as liquefable sands, organic soils, soft/
loose soils, or potentially unstable soils such as Seattle clay, estuarine deposits, or peat.
Embankments over 10 feet in height or any embankment on soft soils, in unstable
areas/soils, or those comprised of light weight fll require more in depth stability
analyses, as do any embankments with side slope inclinations steeper than 2H:1V.
Moreover, any fll placed near or against a bridge abutment or foundation, or that
can impact a nearby buried or above-ground structure, will likewise require stability
analyses by the geotechnical designer. Slope stability analysis shall be conducted
in accordance with Chapter 7.
Prior to the start of the stability analysis, the geotechnical designer should determine
key issues that need to be addressed. These include:
Is the site underlain by soft silt, clay or peat? If so, a staged stability analysis may
be required.
Are site constraints such that slopes steeper than 2H:1V are required? If so, a
detailed slope stability assessment is needed to evaluate the various alternatives.
Is the embankment temporary or permanent? Factors of safety for temporary
embankments may be lower than for permanent ones, depending on the site
conditions and the potential for variability.
Will the new embankment impact nearby structures or bridge abutments? If so,
more elaborate sampling, testing and analysis are required.
Are there potentially liquefable soils at the site? If soil, seismic analysis to
evaluate this may be warranted (see Chapter 6) and ground improvement may
be needed.
Several methodologies for analyzing the stability of slopes are detailed or identifed by
reference in Chapter 7 and are directly applicable to earth embankments.
9.2.3.1 Safety Factors
Embankments that support structure foundations or walls or that could potentially
impact such structures should be designed in accordance with the AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Design Specifcations and Chapters 8 and 15. If an LRFD design is required,
October 2013
a resistance factor is used in lieu of a safety factor. However, since slope stability in
the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifcations is assessed only for the service and
extreme event (seismic) limit states, the load factors are equal to 1.0, and the resistance
factor is simply the inverse of the factor of safety (i.e., 1/FS) that is calculated in most
slope stability analysis procedures and computer programs. The resistance factors and
safety factors for overall stability under static conditions are as follows:
All embankments not supporting or potentially impacting structures shall have a
minimum safety factor of 1.25.
Embankments supporting or potentially impacting non-critical structures shall have
a resistance factor for overall stability of 0.75 (i.e., a safety factor of 1.3).
All Bridge Approach Embankments and embankments supporting critical
structures shall have a resistance factor of 0.65 (i.e., a safety factor of 1.5). Critical
structures are those for which failure would result in a life threatening safety hazard
for the public, or for which failure and subsequent replacement or repair would be
an intolerable fnancial burden to the citizens of Washington State.
Under seismic conditions, only those portions of the new embankment that could
impact an adjacent structure such as bridge abutments and foundations or nearby
buildings require seismic analyses and an adequate overall stability resistance factor
(i.e., a maximum resistance factor of 0.9 or a minimum factor of safety of 1.1). See
Chapter 6 for specifc requirements regarding seismic design of embankments.
9.2.3.2 Strength Parameters
Strength parameters are required for any stability analysis. Strength parameters
appropriate for the different types of stability analyses shall be determined based
on Chapter 5 and by reference to FHWA Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 5
(Sabatini, et al., 2002).
If the critical stability is under drained conditions, such as in sand or gravel, then
effective stress analysis using a peak friction angle is appropriate and should be used
for stability assessment. In the case of over-consolidated fne grained soils, a friction
angle based on residual strength may be appropriate. This is especially true for
soils that exhibit strain softening or are particularly sensitive to shear strain such as
Seattle Clay.
If the critical stability is under undrained conditions, such as in most clays and silts, a
total stress analysis using the undrained cohesion value with no friction is appropriate
and should be used for stability assessment.
For staged construction, both short (undrained) and long term (drained) stability need
to be assessed. At the start of a stage the input strength parameter is the undrained
cohesion. The total shear strength of the fne-grained soil increases with time as the
excessive pore water dissipates, and friction starts to contribute to the strength. A more
detailed discussion regarding strength gain is presented in Section 9.3.1.
9.2.4 Embankment Settlement Assessment
New embankments, as is true of almost any new construction, will add load to the
underlying soils and cause those soils to settle. As discussed in Section 8.11.3.2, the
total settlement has up to three potential components: 1) immediate settlement, 2)
consolidation settlement, and 3) secondary compression.
October 2013
Settlement shall be assessed for all embankments. Even if the embankment
has an adequate overall stability factor of safety, the performance of a highway
embankment can be adversely affected by excessive differential settlement at the
road surface.
Settlement analyses for embankments over soft soils require the compression index
parameters for input. These parameters are typically obtained from standard one-
dimensional oedometer tests of the fne-grained soils (see Chapter 5 for additional
information). For granular soils, these parameters can be estimated empirically
(see Section 8.11.3.2). Oedometer tests should be completed to at least twice the
preconsolidation pressure with at least three, and preferably four, points on the virgin
consolidation curve (i.e., at stresses higher than the preconsolidation pressure). The
coeffcient of consolidation value for the virgin curve can be ten times higher than that
for the test results below the preconsolidation pressure.
9.2.4.1 Settlement Impacts
Because primary consolidation and secondary compression can continue to occur long
after the embankment is constructed (post construction settlement), they represent the
major settlement concerns for embankment design and construction. Post construction
settlement can damage structures and utilities located within the embankment,
especially if those facilities are also supported by adjacent soils or foundations that
do not settle appreciably, leading to differential settlements. Embankment settlement
near an abutment could create an unwanted dip in the roadway surface, or downdrag
and lateral squeeze forces on the foundations. See Chapter 8 for more information
regarding the use of bridge approach slabs to minimize the effects of differential
settlement at the abutment, and the methodology to estimate downdrag loads
on foundations.
If the primary consolidation is allowed to occur prior to placing utilities or building
structures that would otherwise be impacted by the settlement, the impact is essentially
mitigated. However, it can take weeks to years for primary settlement to be essentially
complete, and signifcant secondary compression of organic soils can continue for
decades. Many construction projects cannot absorb the scheduling impacts associated
with waiting for primary consolidation and/or secondary compression to occur.
Therefore, estimating the time rate of settlement is often as important as estimating the
magnitude of settlement.
To establish the target settlement criteria, the tolerance of structures or utilities
to differential settlement that will be impacted by the embankment settlement shall
be determined. Lateral movement (i.e., lateral squeeze) caused by the embankment
settlement and its effect on adjacent structures, including light, overhead sign, and
signal foundations, shall also be considered. If structures or utilities are not impacted
by the embankment settlement, settlement criteria are likely governed by the long-term
maintenance needs of the roadway surfacing. In that case, the target settlement criteria
shall be established with consideration of the effect differential settlement will have on
the pavement life and surface smoothness.
October 2013
9.2.4.2 Settlement Analysis
9.2.4.2.1 Primary Consolidation
The key parameters for evaluating the amount of settlement below an embankment
include knowledge of:
The subsurface profle including soil types, layering, groundwater level and
unit weights;
The compression indexes for primary, rebound and secondary compression from
laboratory test data, correlations from index properties, and results from settlement
monitoring programs completed for the site or nearby sites with similar soil
conditions. See Chapters 5 and 8 for additional information regarding selection of
design parameters for settlement analysis.
The geometry of the proposed fll embankment, including the unit weight of fll
materials and any long term surcharge loads.
The detailed methodology to estimate primary consolidation settlement is provided
in Section 8.11.3.2, except that the stress distribution below the embankment should
be calculated as described in Section 9.2.4.3. The soil profle is typically divided into
layers for analysis, with each layer refecting changes in soils properties. In addition,
thick layers with similar properties are often subdivided for refnement of the analysis
since the settlement calculations are based on the stress conditions at the midpoint of
the layer (i.e. it is typically preferable to evaluate a near-surface, 20-foot thick layer as
two 10-foot thick layers as opposed to one 20-foot thick layer). The total settlement is
the sum of the settlement from each of the compressible layers.
If the pre-consolidation pressure of any of the soil layers being evaluated is greater
than its current initial effective vertical stress, the settlement will follow its rebound
compression curve rather than its virgin compression curve (represented by C
c
). In this
case C
r,
the recompression index, should be used instead of C
c
in Equation 8-8 up
to the point where the initial effective stress plus the change in effective stress imposed
by the embankment surpasses the pre-consolidation pressure. Pre-consolidation
pressures in excess of the current vertical effective stress occur in soils that have been
overconsolidated, such as from glacial loading, preloading, or desiccation.
9.2.4.2.2 Secondary Compression
For organic soils and highly plastic soils determined to have an appreciable secondary
settlement component, the secondary compression should be determined as described
in Section 8.11.3.2.2, Equation 8-13. Note the secondary compression is in general
independent of the stress state and theoretically is a function only of the secondary
compression index and time.
Similar to estimating the total primary consolidation, the contribution from the
individual layers are summed to estimate the total secondary compression. Since
secondary compression is not a function of the stress state in the soil but rather how
the soil breaks down over time, techniques such as surcharging to pre-induce the
secondary settlement are sometimes only partially effective at mitigating the secondary
compression. Often the owner must accept the risks and maintenance costs associated
with secondary compression if a cost/beneft analysis indicates that mitigation
techniques such as using lightweight flls or overexcavating and replacing the highly
compressible soils are too costly.
October 2013
9.2.4.3 Stress Distribution
One of the primary input parameters for settlement analysis is the increase in vertical
stress at the midpoint of the layer being evaluated caused by the embankment or other
imposed loads. It is generally quite conservative to assume the increase in vertical
stress at depth is equal to the bearing pressure exerted by the embankment at the
ground surface. In addition to the bearing pressure exerted at the ground surface, other
factors infuencing the stress distribution at depth include the geometry (length and
width) of the embankment, inclination of the embankment side slopes, depth below the
ground surface to the layer being evaluated, and horizontal distance from the center
of the load to the point in question. Several methods are available to estimate the
stress distribution.
9.2.4.3.1 Simple 2V:1H Method
Perhaps the simplest approach to estimate stress distribution at depth is using the
2V:1H (vertical to horizontal) method. This empirical approach is based on the
assumption that the area the load acts over increases geometrically with depth as
depicted in Figure 9-1. Since the same vertical load is spread over a much larger area
at depth, the unit stress decreases.

2V:1H Method to Estimate Vertical Stress Increase as a Function of Depth
Below Ground (After Holtz and Kovacs, 1981)
Figure 9-1
October 2013
9.2.4.3.2 Theory of Elasticity
Boussinesq (1885) developed equations for evaluating the stress state in a
homogenous, isotropic, linearly elastic half-space for a point load acting perpendicular
to the surface. Elasticity based methods should be used to estimate the vertical stress
increase in subsurface strata due to an embankment loading, or embankment load in
combination with other surcharge loads. While most soils are not elastic materials,
the theory of elasticity is the most widely used methodology to estimate the stress
distribution in a soil deposit from a surface load. Most simplifying charts and the
subroutines in programs such as SAF-1 and EMBANK are based on the theory of
elasticity. Some are based on Boussinesq theory and some on Westergaards equations
(Westegaard, 1938), which also include Poissons ratio (relates the ratio of strain
applied in one direction to strain induced in an orthogonal direction).
9.2.4.3.3 Empirical Charts
The equations for the theory of elasticity have been incorporated into design charts and
tables for typical loading scenarios, such as below a foundation or an embankment.
Almost all foundation engineering textbooks include these charts. For convenience,
charts to evaluate embankment loading are included as Figures 9-2 and 9-3.

Infuence Factors for Vertical Stress Under a Very Long Embankment
(After NAVFAC, 1971 as Reported in Holtz and Kovacs, 1981)
Figure 9-2
October 2013

Infuence Values for Vertical Stress Under the Corners of a Triangular Load of
Limited Length (after NAVFAC, 1971 as reported in Holtz and Kovacs, 1981)
Figure 9-3
9.2.4.3.4 Rate of Settlement
The time rate of primary consolidation is typically estimated using equations based
on Terzaghis one-dimensional consolidation theory. The time rate of primary
consolidation shall be estimated as described in Section 8.11.3.2.
The value of C
v
should be determined from the laboratory test results, piezocone
testing, and/or back-calculation from settlement monitoring data obtained at the site or
from a nearby site with similar geologic and soil conditions.
The length of the drainage path is perhaps the most critical parameter because the
time to achieve a certain percentage of consolidation is a function of the square of the
drainage path length. This is where incorporating CPTs into the exploration program
can be benefcial, as they provide a nearly continuous evaluation of the soil profle,
October 2013
including thin sand layers that can easily be missed in a typical boring exploration
program. The thin sand lenses can signifcantly reduce the drainage path length.
It is important to note some of the assumptions used by Terzaghis theory to understand
some of its limitations. The theory assumes small strains such that the coeffcient
of compressibility of the soil and the coeffcient of permeability remain essentially
constant. The theory also assumes there is no secondary compression. Both of these
assumptions are not completely valid for extremely compressible soils such as organic
deposits and some clays. Therefore, considerable judgment is required to when using
Terzaghis theory to evaluate the time rate of settlement for these types of soil. In
these instances, or when the consolidation process is very long, it may be benefcial
to complete a preload test at the site with suffcient monitoring to assess both the
magnitude and time rate of settlement for the site.
9.2.4.4 Analytical Tools
The primary consolidation and secondary settlement can be calculated by hand or
by using computer programs such as SAF-1 (Prototype Engineering Inc., 1993)
or EMBANK (FHWA, 1993). Alternatively, spreadsheet solutions can be easily
developed. The advantage of computer programs such as SAF-1 and EMBANK
are that multiple runs can be made quickly, and they include subroutines to
estimate the increased vertical effective stress caused by the embankment or other
loading conditions.
9.3 Stability Mitigation
A variety of techniques are available to mitigate inadequate slope stability for new
embankments or embankment widenings. These techniques include staged construction
to allow for the underlying soils to gain strength, base reinforcement, ground
improvement, use of lightweight fll, and construction of toe berms and shear keys. A
summary of these instability mitigation techniques is presented below along with the
key design considerations.
9.3.1 Staged Construction
Where soft compressible soils are present below a new embankment location and it is
not economical to remove and replace these soils with compacted fll, the embankment
can be constructed in stages to allow the strength of the compressible soils to increase
under the weight of new fll. Construction of the second and subsequent stages
commences when the strength of the compressible soils is suffcient to maintain
stability. In order to defne the allowable height of fll for each stage and maximum
rate of construction, detailed geotechnical analysis is required. This analysis typically
requires consolidated undrained (CU), consolidated drained (CD) or consolidated
undrained with pore pressure measurements (CU
p
), and initial undrained (UU) shear
strength parameters for the foundation soils along with the at-rest earth pressure
coeffcient (K
o
), soil unit weights, and the coeffcient of consolidation (Cv).
The analysis to defne the height of fll placed during each stage and the rate at
which the fll is placed is typically completed using a limit equilibrium slope
stability program along with time rate of settlement analysis to estimate the percent
consolidation required for stability. Alternatively, numerical modeling programs,
October 2013
such as FLAC and PLAXIS, can be used to assess staged construction, subject to
the approval of the WSDOT State Geotechnical Engineer. Numerical modeling has
some advantages over limit equilibrium approaches in that both the consolidation
and stability can be evaluated concurrently. The disadvantages of numerical
modeling include the lack of available feld verifcation of modeling results, and
most geotechnical engineers are more familiar with limit equilibrium approaches
than numerical modeling. The accuracy of the input parameters can be critical to the
accuracy of numerical approaches. Steps for using a limit equilibrium approach to
evaluate staged construction are presented below.
For staged construction, two general approaches to assessing the criteria used during
construction to control the rate of embankment fll placement to allow the necessary
strength gain to occur in the soft subsoils are available. The two approaches are total
stress analysis and effective stress analysis:
For the total stress approach, the rate of embankment construction is controlled
through development of a schedule of maximum fll lift heights and intermediate
fll construction delay periods. During these delay periods the fll lift that was
placed is allowed to settle until an adequate amount of consolidation of the
soft subsoil can occur. Once the desired amount of consolidation has occurs,
placement of the next lift of fll can begin. These maximum fll lift thicknesses
and intermediate delay periods are estimated during design. For this approach,
feld measurements such as the rate of settlement or the rate of pore pressure
decrease should be obtained to verify that the design assumptions regarding rate
of consolidation are correct. However, if only a small amount of consolidation is
required (e.g., 20 to 40% consolidation), it may not be feasible to determine of the
desired amount of consolidation has occurred, since the rate of consolidation may
still be on the linear portion of the curve at this point. Another approach may be
to determine if the magnitude of settlement expected at that stage, considering the
degree of consolidation desired, has been achieved. In either case, some judgment
will need to be applied when interpreting such data and deciding whether or not to
reduce or extend the estimated delay period during fll construction.
For the effective stress approach, the pore pressure increase beneath the
embankment in the soft subsoil is monitored and used to control the rate of
embankment construction. During construction, the pore pressure increase is not
allowed to exceed a critical amount to insure embankment stability. The critical
amount is generally controlled in the contract by use of the pore pressure ratio (ru),
which is the ratio of pore pressure to total overburden stress. To accomplish this
pore pressure measurement, pore pressure transducers are typically located at key
locations beneath the embankment to capture the pore pressure increase caused
by consolidation stress. As is true of the total stress approach, some judgment will
need to be applied when interpreting such data and deciding whether or not to
reduce or extend the estimated delay period during fll construction, as the estimate
of the key parameters may vary from the actual values of the key parameters in the
feld. Also, this approach may not be feasible if the soil contains a high percentage
of organic material and trapped gases, causing the pore pressure readings to be too
high and not drop off as consolidation occurs.
October 2013
Since both approaches have limitations and uncertainties, it is generally desirable
to analyze the embankment using both approaches, to have available a backup plan
to control the rate of fll placement, if the feld data proves diffcult to interpret.
Furthermore, if the effective stress method is used, a total stress analysis should in
general always be conducted to obtain an estimate of the time required to build the fll
for contract bidding purposes.
Detailed procedures for both approaches are provided in the sections that follow.
These procedures have been developed based on information provided in Ladd (1991),
Symons (1976), Skempton and Bishop (1955), R. D. Holtz (personal communication,
1993), S. Sharma (personal communication, 1993), and R. Cheney (personal
communication, 1993). Examples of the application of these procedures are provided
in Appendix 9-A.
9.3.1.1 Design Parameters
First, defne the problem in terms of embankment geometry, soil stratigraphy, and
water table information.
The geotechnical designer must make some basic assumptions regarding the fll
properties. Typically, the designer assumes presumptive values for the embankment
fll, since the specifc source of the fll material is usually not known at the time
of design. However, specialized soils laboratory tests should be performed for the
soft underlying soils. From undisturbed samples, the geotechnical designer should
obtain Unconsolidated Undrained (UU) triaxial tests and Consolidated Undrained
(CU) triaxial tests with pore pressure measurements. These tests should be used to
determine the initial undrained shear strength available. The CU test with pore pressure
measurements should also be used to determine the shear strength envelope needed for
total or effective stress analyses. In addition, the geotechnical designer should obtain
consolidation test data to determine compressibility of the soft underlying soils as well
as the rate of consolidation for the compressible strata (C
v
). C
v
will be an important
parameter for determining the amount of time required during consolidation to gain the
soil shear strength needed.
In general triaxial tests should be performed at the initial confning stress (P
o
) for the
sample as determined from the unit weight and the depth that the sample was obtained.
P
o
= D (9-1)

Where:
D = Sample Depth in feet
= Effective Unit Weight (pcf)
The third point in the triaxial test is usually performed at 4P
o
. During the triaxial
testing it is important to monitor pore pressure to determine the pore pressure
parameters A and B. Note that A and B are not constant but change with the stress path
of the soil. These parameters are defned as follows:
A = U /
1
(9-2)
B = U /
3
(9-3)
October 2013
9.3.1.2 In-Situ Shear Strength and Determination of Stability Assuming Undrained
Loading
The frst step in any embankment design over soft cohesive soils is to assess its
stability assuming undrained conditions throughout the entire fll construction period.
If the stability of the embankment is adequate assuming undrained conditions, there is
no need to perform a staged construction design. The UU shear strength data, as well
as the initial shear strength from CU tests, can be used for this assessment.
The geotechnical designer should be aware that sample disturbance can result in
incorrect values of strength for normally consolidated fne grained soils. Figure 9-4
shows how to correctly obtain the cohesive strength for short term, undrained loading.

Determination of Short Term Cohesive Shear Strength From the CU Envelope
Figure 9-4
When a normally consolidated sample is obtained, the initial effective stress (P
O
) and
void ratio correspond to position 1 on the e - Log P curve shown in Figure 9-4. As the
stress changes, the sample will undergo some rebound effects and will move towards
point 2 on the e Log P curve. Generally, when a UU test is performed, the sample
state corresponds to position 2 on the e Log P curve. Samples that are reconsolidated
to the initial effective stress (P
O
) during CU testing undergo a void ratio change and
will generally be at point 3 on the e Log P curve after reconsolidation to the initial
effective stress. It is generally assumed that consolidating the sample to 4 times the
initial effective stress prior to testing will result in the sample closely approximating
the feld virgin curve behavior.
October 2013
To determine the correct shear strength for analysis, perform a CU triaxial test at the
initial effective stress (P
O
) and as close as practical to 4P
O
. On the Mohr diagram
draw a line from the ordinate to point 4, and draw a second line from P
O
to point 3.
Where the two lines intersect, draw a line to the shear stress axis to estimate the correct
shear strength for analysis. In Figure 9-4, the cohesion intercept for the CU strength
envelope (solid line) is 150 psf. The corrected strength based on the construction
procedure in Figure 9-4 would be 160 psf. While the difference is slight in this
example, it may be signifcant for other projects.
Once the correct shear strength data has been obtained, the embankment stability can
be assessed. If the embankment stability is inadequate, proceed to performing a total
stress or effective stress analysis, or both.
9.3.1.3 Total Stress Analysis
The CU triaxial test is ideally suited to staged fll construction analysis when
considering undrained strengths. A CU test is simply a series of UU tests performed at
different confning pressures. In the staged construction technique, each embankment
stage is placed under undrained conditions (i.e., U conditions). Then the soil
beneath the embankment stage is allowed to consolidate under drained conditions,
which allows the pore pressure to dissipate and the soil strength to increase (i.e.,
C conditions).
In most cases, the CU envelope cannot be used directly to determine the strength
increase due to the consolidation stress placed on the weak subsoil. The stress increase
from the embankment fll is a consolidation stress, not necessarily the normal stress
on potential failure planes in the soft soil, and with staged construction excess pore
pressures due to overburden increases are allowed to partially dissipate. Figure 9-5
illustrates how to determine the correct strength due to consolidation and partial pore
pressure dissipation.
Consolidated Strength Construction From Triaxial Data
Figure 9-5
October 2013
To correct
cu
for the effects of consolidation use the following (see Ladd, 1991):
af/c = tan
consol
(9-4)
tan
consol
= sin
cu
/(1-sin
cu
) (9-5)
Determine the strength gain (Cuu) by multiplying the consolidation stress increase
(
v
) by the tangent of
consol
. The consolidation stress increase is the increased
effective stress in the soft subsoil caused by the embankment fll.
Cuu =
v
tan
consol
(9-6)
This is an undrained strength and it is based on 100% consolidation. When
constructing embankments over soft ground using staged construction practices, it is
often not practical to allow each stage to consolidate to 100%. Therefore, the strengths
used in the stability analysis need to be adjusted for the consolidation stress applied
and the degree of consolidation achieved in the soft soils within the delay period
between fll stages. The strength at any degree of consolidation can be estimated using:
Cuu
u%
= Cuu
i
+ U(Cuu) = Cuu
i
+ U
v
tan
consol
(9-7)
The consolidation is dependent upon the time (t), drainage path length (H), coeffcient
of consolidation (C
v
), and the Time Factor (T). From Holtz and Kovacs (1981), the
following approximation equations are presented for consolidation theory:
T = tC
v
/H
2
(9-8)

Where:
T = 0.25U
2
; for U < 60% (9-9)
and,
T = 1.781 0.933log(100 U%); for U > 60% (9-10)
The geotechnical designer should use these equations along with specifc construction
delay periods (t) to determine how much consolidation occurs by inputting a time
(t), calculating a Time Factor (T), and then using the Time Factor (T) to estimate the
degree of consolidation (U).
Once all of the design parameters are available, the frst step in a total stress staged fll
construction analysis is to use the initial undrained shear strength of the soft subsoil
to determine the maximum height to which the fll can be built without causing the
slope stability safety factor to drop below the critical value. See Section 9.3.1.1.2 for
determination of the undrained shear strength needed for this initial analysis.
In no case shall the interim factor of safety at any stage in the fll construction be
allowed to drop below 1.15. A higher critical value should be used (i.e., 1.2 or 1.25)
if uncertainty in the parameters is high, or if the soft subsoil is highly organic. At the
end of the fnal stage, determine the time required to achieve enough consolidation
to obtain the minimum long-term safety factor (or resistance factor if structures are
involved) required, as specifed in Section 9.2.3.1. This fnal consolidation time will
determine at what point the embankment is considered to have adequate long-term
stability such that fnal paving (assuming that long-term settlement has been reduced
during that time period to an acceptable level) and other fnal construction activities
can be completed. In general, this fnal consolidation/strength gain period should be on
the order of a few months or less.
October 2013
Once the maximum safe initial fll stage height is determined, calculate the stress
increase resulting from the placement of the frst embankment stage using the
Boussinesq equation (e.g., see Figures 9-2 and 9-3). Note that because the stress
increase due to the embankment load decreases with depth, the strength gain also
decreases with depth. To properly account for this, the soft subsoil should be broken
up into layers for analysis just as is done for calculating settlement. Furthermore, the
stress increase decreases as one moves toward the toe of the embankment. Therefore,
the soft subsoil may need to be broken up into vertical sections as well.
Determine the strength gain in each layer/section of soft subsoil by multiplying the
consolidation stress increase by the tangent of
consol
(see Equation 9-6), where
consol

is determined as shown in Figure 9-5 and Equation 9-5. This will be an undrained
strength. Multiply this UU strength by the percent consolidation that has occurred
beneath the embankment up to the point in time selected for the fll stage analysis using
Equations 9-7, 9-8, and 9-9 or 9-10. This will be the strength increase that has occurred
up to that point in time. Add to this the UU soil strength existing before placement of
the frst embankment stage to obtain the total UU strength existing after the selected
consolidation period is complete. Then perform a slope stability analysis to determine
how much additional fll can be added with consideration to the new consolidated shear
strength to obtain the minimum acceptable interim factor of safety.
Once the second embankment stage is placed, calculation of the percent consolidation
and the strength gain gets more complicated, as the stress increase due to the new fll
placed is just starting the consolidation process, while the soft subsoil has already
had time to react to the stress increase due to the previous fll stage. Furthermore,
the soft subsoil will still be consolidating under the weight of the earlier fll stage.
This is illustrated in Figure 9-6. For simplicity, a weighted average of the percent
consolidation that has occurred for each stage up to the point in time in question should
be used to determine the average percent consolidation of the subsoil due to the total
weight of the fll.
Continue this calculation process until the fll is full height. It is generally best
to choose as small a fll height and delay period increment as practical, as the
conservatism in the consolidation time estimate increases as the fll height and delay
time increment increases. Typical fll height increments range from 2 to 4 feet, and
delay period increments range from 10 to 30 days.
October 2013
Time
0
100
%

C
o
n
s
o
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
Consolidation of soil due to
second stage load P
2
during
second stage consolidation period.
Consolidation of soil due to
first stage load P
1
during second
stage consolidation period.
Consolidation of soil due to first stage load P
1
during first stage consolidation period.
P
1
P
2
V
o
i
d

R
a
t
i
o
,

e
(
d
e
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g
)
Log
v (increasing)
Increasing
% consolidation
e
0
U
1
U
2
U
3
U
4
Begin consolidation at P
1
Load P
2
added
Consolidation at P
2
Last stage
fill placed
FS = 1.25 obtained
Concepts Regarding the Percent Consolidation Resulting
From Placement of Multiple Fill Stages
Figure 9-6
9.3.1.4 Effective Stress Analysis
In this approach, the drained soil strength, or
CD
, is used to characterize the
strength of the subsoil. Of course, the use of this soil strength will likely indicate
that the embankment is stable, whereas the UU strength data would indicate that the
embankment is unstable (in this example). It is the buildup of pore pressure during
embankment placement that causes the embankment to become unstable. The amount
of pore pressure buildup is dependent on how rapidly the embankment load is placed.
Given enough time, the pore pressure buildup will dissipate and the soil will regain its
effective strength, depending on the permeability and compressibility of the soil.
October 2013
The key to this approach is to determine the amount of pore pressure buildup that can
be tolerated before the embankment safety factor drops to a critical level, using
CD

for the soil strength and conducting a slope stability analysis (see Chapter 7). A slope
stability computer program such as XSTABL can be used to determine the critical pore
pressure increase directly. This pore pressure increase can then be used to determine
the pore pressure ratio, ru, which is often used to compare with in-situ pore pressure
measurements. The pore pressure ratio, r
u
, is defned as shown in Figure 9-7.

Pore Pressure Ratio Concepts
Figure 9-7
For XSTABL, the critical pore pressure increase is input into the program as a pore
pressure constant for each defned soil unit in the soil property input menu of the
program. This pore pressure is in addition to the pore pressure created by the static
water table. Therefore, a water table should also be included in the analysis. Other
slope stability programs have similar pore pressure features that can be utilized.
To determine the pore pressure increase in the soft subsoil to be input into the
stability analysis, calculate the vertical stress increase created by the embankment
at the original ground surface, for the embankment height at the construction stage
being considered. Based on this, determine the vertical stress increase, v, using the
Boussinesq stress distribution (e.g., Figures 9-2 and 9-3), at various depths below the
ground surface, and distances horizontally from the embankment centerline, in each
soil unit which pore pressure buildup is expected (i.e., the soft silt or clay strata which
are causing the stability problem). Based on this, and using Ko, the at rest earth
pressure coeffcient, to estimate the horizontal stress caused by the vertical stress
increase, determine the pore pressure increase, u
p
, based on the calculated vertical
stress increase, v, as follows:
October 2013
u
p
= B(
oct
+ a
oct
)(1-U) (9-11)
The octahedral consolidation stress increase at the point in question,
oct
. is
determined as follows:

oct
. = (
1
+
2
+
3
)/3 = (
v
+ K
0
v
+ K
0
v
)/3 = (1 + 2K
0
)v/3 (9-12)

Where:
B = pore pressure parameter which is dependent on the degree of
saturation and the compressibility of the soil skeleton. B is
approximately equal to 1.0 for saturated normally consolidated
silts and clays.
oct
= the change in octahedral consolidation stress at the point in the
soil stratum in question due to the embankment loading,
a = Henkel pore pressure parameter that refects the pore pressure
increase during shearing. a is typically small and can be neglected
unless right at failure. If necessary, a can be determined from
triaxial tests and plotted as a function of strain or deviator stress
to check if neglecting a is an acceptable assumption.
oct
= the change in octahedral shear stress at the point in the soil stratum
in question due to the embankment loading,
U = the percent consolidation, expressed as a decimal, under the
embankment load in question.

oct
= [(
1
-
2
)
2
+ (
2
-
3
)
2
+ (
3
-
1
)
2
]
(9-13)
In terms of vertical stress, before failure, this equation simplifes to:

oct
= 1.414
v
(1 K
0
) (9-14)
In this analysis, since only consolidation stresses are assumed to govern pore pressure
increase, and strength gain as pore pressure dissipates (i.e., the calculation method
is set up to not allow failure to occur), it can be assumed that a is equal to zero.
Therefore, Equation 9-11 simplifes to:
u
p
= B[(1 + 2K
0
)/3]
v
(1-U) (9-15)
where, K
0
= 1 - sin
CD
for normally consolidated silts and clays.
Estimate the slope stability factor of safety, determining u
p
at various percent
consolidations (i.e., iterate) to determine the maximum value of u
p
that does not
cause the slope stability interim safety factor to drop below the critical value (see
Section 9.3.1.3).
Now determine ru as follows:
r
u
= u
p
/
v
. = B[(1 + 2K
0
)/3]
v
(1-U)/
v
= B[(1 + 2K
0
)/3](1-U) (9-16)
The pore pressures measured by the piezometers in the feld during embankment
construction are the result of vertical consolidation stresses only (Boussinesq
distribution). Most experts on this subject feel that pore pressure increase due to
undrained shearing along the potential failure surface does not occur until failure
is actually in progress and may be highly localized at the failure surface. Because
of this, it is highly unlikely that one will be able to measure pore pressure increase
due to shearing along the failure surface using piezometers installed below the
October 2013
embankment unless one is lucky enough to have installed a piezometer in the
right location and happens to be taking a reading as the embankment is failing.
Therefore, the pore pressure increase measured by the piezometers will be strictly due
to consolidation stresses.
Note that ru will vary depending on the embankment height analyzed. ru will be lowest
at the maximum embankment height, and will be highest at the initial stages of fll
construction. Therefore, r
u
should be determined at several embankment heights.
9.3.2 Base reinforcement
Base reinforcement may be used to increase the factor of safety against slope failure.
Base reinforcement typically consists of placing a geotextile or geogrid at the base
of an embankment prior to constructing the embankment. Base reinforcement
is particularly effective where soft/weak soils are present below a planned embankment
location. The base reinforcement can be designed for either temporary or permanent
applications. Most base reinforcement applications are temporary, in that the
reinforcement is needed only until the underlying soils shear strength has increased
suffciently as a result of consolidation under the weight of the embankment (see
Section 9.3.1). Therefore, the base reinforcement does not need to meet the same
design requirements as permanent base reinforcement regarding creep and durability.
For example, if it is anticipated that the soil will gain adequate strength to meet
stability requirements without the base reinforcement within 6 months, then the creep
reduction factor determined per WSDOT Standard Practice T925 could be based
on, say, a minimum 1 year life, assuming deformation design requirements are met.
Other than this, only installation damage would need to be addressed, unless unusual
chemical conditions exist that could cause rapid strength degradation. Alternatively,
the values of T
al
provided in the WSDOT Qualifed Products List (QPL) could be used,
but will be conservative for this application. However, if it is anticipated that the soil
will never gain enough strength to cause the embankment to have the desired level
of stability without the base reinforcement, the long-term design strengths provided
in the QPL or as otherwise determined using T925 for a minimum 75 year life shall
be used.
The design of base reinforcement is similar to the design of a reinforced slope in that
limit equilibrium slope stability methods are used to determine the strength required
to obtain the desired safety factor (see Chapter 15). The detailed design procedures
provided by Holtz, et al. (1995) should be used for embankments utilizing base
reinforcement.
Base reinforcement materials should be placed in continuous longitudinal strips in the
direction of main reinforcement. Joints between pieces of geotextile or geogrid in the
strength direction (perpendicular to the slope) should be avoided. All seams in the
geotextiles should be sewn and not lapped. Likewise, geogrids should be linked with
mechanical fasteners or pins and not simply overlapped. Where base reinforcement
is used, the use of gravel borrow, instead of common or select borrow, may also be
appropriate in order to increase the embankment shear strength.
October 2013
9.3.3 Ground Improvement
Ground improvement can be used to mitigate inadequate slope stability for both
new and existing embankments, as well as reduce settlement. The primary ground
improvement techniques to mitigate slope stability fall into two general categories,
namely densifcation and altering the soil composition. Chapter 11 Ground
Improvement, should be reviewed for a more detailed discussion and key references
regarding the advantages and disadvantages of these techniques, applicability for the
prevailing subsurface conditions, construction considerations, and costs. In addition
to the two general categories of ground improvement identifed above, wick drains
(discussed in Chapter 11 and Section 9.4.1) may be used in combination with staged
embankment construction to accelerate strength gain and improve stability, in addition
to accelerating long-term settlement. The wick drains in effect drastically reduce the
drainage path length, thereby accelerating the rate of strength gain. Other ground
improvement techniques such as stone columns can function to accelerate strength
gain in the same way as wick drains, though the stone columns also reduce the stress
applied to the soil, thereby reducing the total strength gain obtained. See Chapter 11 for
additional guidance and references to use if this technique is to be implemented.
9.3.4 Lightweight Fills
Lightweight embankment fll is another means of improving embankment stability.
Lightweight flls are generally used for two conditions: the reduction of the driving
forces contributing to instability, and reduction of potential settlement resulting from
consolidation of compressible foundation soils. Situations where lightweight fll may
be appropriate include conditions where the construction schedule does not allow the
use of staged construction, where existing utilities or adjacent structures are present
that cannot tolerate the magnitude of settlement induced by placement of typical
fll, and at locations where post-construction settlements may be excessive under
conventional flls.
Lightweight fll can consist of a variety of materials including polystyrene blocks
(geofoam), light weight aggregates (rhyolite, expanded shale, blast furnace slag,
fy ash), wood fber, shredded rubber tires, and other materials. Lightweight flls
are infrequently used due to either high costs or other disadvantages with using
these materials.
9.3.4.1 Geofoam
Geofoam is approximately 1/100
th
the weight of conventional soil fll and, as a
result, is particularly effective at reducing driving forces or settlement potential.
Typical geofoam embankments consist of the foundation soils, the geofoam fll, and a
pavement system designed to transfer loads to the geofoam. Geofoam dissolves readily
in gasoline and other organic fuids/vapors and therefore must be encapsulated where
such fuids can potentially reach the geofoam. Other design considerations for geofoam
include creep, fammability, buoyancy, moisture absorption, photo-degradation, and
differential icing of pavement constructed over geofoam. Furthermore, geofoam should
not be used where the water table could rise and cause buoyancy problems, as geofaom
will foat. Design guidelines for geofoam embankments are provided in the NCHRP
document titled Geofoam Applications in the Design and Construction of Highway
Embankments (Stark et al., 2004). Additional information on the design properties and
testing requirements are provided in Chapter 5.
October 2013
9.3.4.2 Lightweight Aggregates
Mineral aggregates, such as expanded shales, rhyolite, fy ash, or blast furnace
slags, can also be used as lightweight fll materials. Expanded shales and rhyolite
materials consist of inert mineral aggregates that have similar shear strengths to many
conventional fll materials, but weigh roughly half as much. The primary disadvantage
with expanded shales and rhyolite is that these materials are expensive. Fly ash can
also be used for lightweight fll; however, fy ash is diffcult to place and properly
control the moisture condition. Blast furnace slag is another waste material sometimes
used for lightweight fll. Due to the weight of blast furnace slag, it is not as effective
as other lightweight fll materials. Also, slag materials have been documented to
swell when hydrated, potentially damaging improvements founded above the slag.
The chemical composition of fy ash and blast furnace slag should be investigated to
confrm that high levels of contaminants are not present. Due to the potential durability
and chemical issues associated with some light weight aggregates, approval from the
State Geotechnical Engineer is required before such materials may be considered for
use in embankments.
9.3.4.3 Wood Fiber
Wood fbers may also be used for lightweight fll. For permanent applications, only
fresh wood fber should be used to prolong the life of the fll. Wood fber flls typically
have unit weights between about 35 to 55 pcf. To mitigate the effects of leachate,
the amount of water entering the wood should be minimized. Wood fber fll will
experience creep settlement for several years and some pavement distress should be
expected during that period. See Chapter 5 for more information regarding wood
fber flls.
9.3.4.4 Scrap (Rubber) Tires
In 1996, a moratorium on the use of scrap tires as embankment fll was put into effect
due to several instances where the tire flls caught fre due to some type of exothermic
reaction which has yet to be fully defned. A report to the Washington State legislature
was published in 2003 to address whether or not, and under what circumstances, the
moratorium on the use of scrap tires as fll should be lifted (Baker, et al., 2003). Based
on that report, scrap tire flls up to 10 feet in thickness may be considered, provided
that they are designed and specifed as described in Baker, et al. (2003).
9.3.4.5 Light Weight Cellular Concrete
Large quantities of air can be entrained into concrete to produce a very light weight
porous concrete that can be poured in place of soil to reduce the driving force to
improve stability or reduce settlement. Typical unit weights feasible range from 20
to 80 pcf, and relative to soil, its shear strength is fairly high. However, if signifcant
differential settlement is still anticipated in spite of the use of the light weight concrete,
due to its relatively brittle nature, the concrete could crack, losing much of its shear
strength. This should be considered if using light weight cellular concrete. Its cost
can be quite high, being among the most expensive of the light weight fll materials
mentioned herein.
October 2013
9.3.4.6 Toe Berms and Shear keys
Toe berms and shear keys are each methods to improve the stability of an embankment
by increasing the resistance along potential failure surfaces. Toe berms are typically
constructed of granular materials that can be placed quickly, do not require much
compaction, but have relatively high shear strength. As implied by the name, toe berms
are constructed near the toe of the embankment slopes where stability is a concern. The
toe berms are often inclined fatter than the fll embankment side slopes, but the berm
itself should be checked for stability. The use of berms may increase the magnitude
of settlements as a consequence of the increased size of the loaded area.
Toe berms increase the shearing resistance by:
Adding weight, and thus increasing the shear resistance of granular soils below the
toe area of the embankment;
Adding high strength materials for additional resistance along potential failure
surfaces that pass through the toe berm; and
Creating a longer failure surface, thus more shear resistance, as the failure surface
now must pass below the toe berm if it does not pass through the berm.
Shear keys function in a manner similar to toe berms, except instead of being adjacent
to and incorporating the toe of the fll embankment, the shear key is placed under
the fll embankmentfrequently below the toe of the embankment. Shear keys are
best suited to conditions where they key can be embedded into a stronger underlying
formation. Shear keys typically range from 5 to 15 feet in width and extend 4 to
10 feet below the ground surface. They are typically backflled with quarry spalls or
similar materials that are relatively easy to place below the groundwater level, require
minimal compaction, but still have high internal shear strength. Like toe berms, shear
keys improve the stability of the embankment by forcing the potential failure surface
through the strong shear key material or along a much longer path below the shear key.
9.4 Settlement Mitigation
9.4.1 Acceleration Using Wick Drains
Wick drains, or prefabricated drains, are in essence vertical drainage paths that can be
installed into compressible soils to decrease the overall time required for completion of
primary consolidation. Wick drains typically consist of a long plastic core surrounded
by a geotextile. The geotextile functions as a separator and a flter to keep holes in the
plastic core from being plugged by the adjacent soil, and the plastic core provides a
means for the excess pore water pressures to dissipate. A drainage blanket is typically
placed across the ground surface prior to installing the wick drains and provides a
drainage path beneath the embankment for water fowing from the wick drains.
The drains are typically band-shaped (rectangular) measuring a few inches wide in
plan dimension. They are attached to a mandrel and are usually driven/pushed into
place using either static or vibratory force. After the wick drains are installed, the
fll embankment and possibly surcharge fll are placed above the drainage blanket.
A key consideration for the use of wick drains is the site conditions. If obstructions
or a very dense or stiff soil layer is located above the compressible layer, pre-drilling
may be necessary. The use of wick drains to depths over about 60 feet require
specialized equipment.
October 2013
The primary function of a wick drain is to reduce the drainage path in a thick
compressible soil deposit. As noted in Section 9.3.3, a signifcant factor controlling the
time rate of settlement is the length of the drainage path. Since the time required for a
given percentage consolidation completion is related to the square of the drainage path,
cutting the drainage path in half would reduce the consolidation time to one-fourth
the initial time, all other parameters held constant. However, the process of installing
the wick drains creates a smear zone that can impede the drainage. The key design
issue is maximizing the effciency of the spacing of the drains, and one of the primary
construction issues is minimizing the smear zone around the drains. A full description
of wick drains, design considerations, example designs, guideline specifcations, and
installation considerations are provided by reference in Chapter 11. Section 2-03.3(14)
H of the WSDOT Standard Specifcations addresses installation of prefabricated
vertical drains.
9.4.2 Acceleration Using Surcharges
Surcharge loads are additional loads placed on the fll embankment above and
beyond the design height. The primary purpose of a surcharge is to speed up the
consolidation process. The surcharges speed up the consolidation process because the
percentage of consolidation required under a surcharge will be less than the complete
consolidation under the design load. As noted previously, it is customary to assume
consolidation is essentially complete at the theoretical 90% completion stage, where
T = 0.848. In comparison, T = 0.197 for 50% consolidation. Therefore it takes less
than one-fourth the time to achieve an average of 50% consolidation in a soil layer
than it does to achieve 90%. In this example, the objective would be to place a
surcharge suffciently large such that 50% of the total settlement estimated from the fll
embankment and the surcharge is equal to or greater than 100 percent of the settlement
estimated under the fll embankment alone at its design height. Based on previous
experience, the surcharge fll needs to be at least one-third the design height of the
embankment to provide any signifcant time savings.
In addition to decreasing the time to reach the target settlement, surcharges can also
be used to reduce the impact of secondary settlement. Similar to the example presented
above, the intent is to use the surcharge to pre-induce the settlement estimated to occur
from primary consolidation and secondary compression due to the embankment load.
For example, if the estimated primary consolidation under an embankment is 18 inches
and secondary compression is estimated at an additional 6 inches over the next
25 years, then the surcharge would be designed to achieve 24 inches of settlement
or greater under primary consolidation only. The principles of the design of surcharges
to mitigate long-term settlement provided by Cotton, et al. (1987) should be followed.
Using a surcharge typically will not completely eliminate secondary compression,
but it has been successfully used to reduce the magnitude of secondary settlement.
However, for highly organic soils or peats where secondary compression is expected
to be high, the success of a surcharge to reduce secondary compression may be quite
limited. Other more positive means may be needed to address the secondary
compression in this case, such as removal.
October 2013
Two signifcant design and construction considerations for using surcharges include
embankment stability and re-use of the additional fll materials. New fll embankments
over soft soils can result in stability problems as discussed in Section 9.3. Adding
additional surcharge fll would only exacerbate the stability problem. Furthermore,
after the settlement objectives have been met, the surcharge will need to be removed. If
the surcharge material cannot be moved to another part of the project site for use as site
fll or as another surcharge, it often not economical to bring the extra surcharge fll to
the site only to haul it away again. Also, when fll soils must be handled multiple times
(such as with a rolling surcharge), it is advantageous to use gravel borrow to reduce
workability issues during wet weather conditions.
9.4.3 Lightweight Fills
Lightweight flls can also be used to mitigate settlement issues as indicated in
Section 9.3.4. Lightweight flls reduce the new loads imposed on the underlying
compressible soils, thereby reducing the magnitude of the settlement. See Chapter 5
and Section 9.3.4 for additional information on light weight fll.
9.4.4 Over-excavation
Over-excavation simply refers to excavating the soft compressible soils from below
the embankment footprint and replacing these materials with higher quality, less
compressible soil. Because of the high costs associated with excavating and disposing
of unsuitable soils as well as the diffculties associated with excavating below the water
table, over-excavation and replacement typically only makes economic sense under
certain conditions. Some of these conditions include, but are not limited to:
The area requiring overexcavation is limited;
The unsuitable soils are near the ground surface and do not extend very deep
(typically, even in the most favorable of construction conditions, over-excavation
depths greater than about 10 feet are in general not economical);
Temporary shoring and dewatering are not required to support or facilitate
the excavation;
The unsuitable soils can be wasted on site; and
Suitable excess fll materials are readily available to replace the over-excavated
unsuitable soils.
9.5 Construction Considerations and PS&E Development
Consideration should be given to the time of year that construction will likely occur.
If unsuitable soil was encountered during the feld investigation, the depth and station
limits for removal should be provided on the plans. Chapter 530 of the WSDOT Design
Manual provides guidance for the use of geotextile for separation or soil stabilization
(see also Chapter 16). Note that for extremely soft and wet soil, a site specifc design
should be performed for the geotextile.
Hillside Terracing is specifed in Section 2-03.3(14) of the WSDOT Standard
Specifcations. Where embankments are built on existing hillsides or existing
embankment slopes, the existing surface soil may form a plane of weakness unless
the slope is terraced or stepped. Terracing breaks up the plane, increasing the strength
of the entire system. Generally slopes that are 3H:1V or steeper should be terraced
October 2013
to improve stability. However there may be specifc cases where terracing may be
waived during design, such as when the existing slope is steeper than 1H:1V and
benching would destabilize the existing slope.
The compaction requirements in the WSDOT Standard Specifcations apply
to the entire embankment, including near the sloping face of the embankment.
For embankment slopes of 2H:1V or steeper, depending on the embankment soil
properties, getting good compaction out to the embankment face can be diffcult
to achieve, and possibly even unsafe for those operating the compaction equipment.
The consequences of poor compaction at the sloping face of the embankment include
increased risk of erosion and even surfcial slope instability. This issue becomes
especially problematic as the embankment slope steepness approaches 1.5H:1V.
Surfcial stability of embankments (See Chapter 7) should be evaluated during design
for embankment slopes of 2H:1V or steeper. The embankment design shall include the
use of techniques that will improve embankment face slope stability for embankment
slopes steeper than 1.7H:1V, and should consider the use of such techniques for slopes
of 2H:1V or steeper.
Approaches typically used to address compaction and surfcial stability of embankment
slopes include:
Over-build the embankment laterally at the slope face approximately 2 feet,
compact the soil, and then trim off the outer 2 feet of the embankment to produce a
well compacted slope face.
Use strips of geosynthetic placed in horizontal layers at the slope face as a
compaction and surfcial stability aid (see Elias, et al., 2001). The strips should
generally be a minimum of 4 feet wide (horizontally into the slope) and spaced
vertically at 1 to 1.5 feet (1.5 feet maximum). The specifc reinforcement width
and vertical spacing will depend on the soil type. The reinforcement strength
required depends on the coarseness and angularity of the backfll material and the
susceptibility of the geosynthetic to damage during placement and compaction. See
Elias, et al. (2001) for specifc guidance on the design of geosynthetic layers as a
compaction and surfcial stability aid.
Even if good compaction can be obtained using one of these techniques, the potential
for erosion and surfcial instability should be addressed through appropriate use
of slope vegetation techniques such as seeding and mulching, temporary or permanent
turf reinforcement mats, or for deeper surfcial stability problems, bioengineering.
Note that if geosynthetic layers are placed in the soil as a compaction aid or to
improve overall embankment slope stability, the typical practice of cultivating the
upper 1 feet of the soil per the WSDOT Standard Specifcations, Section 8-02,
should not be conducted. Instead, the landscape architect who is developing the slope
vegetation plan should consult with the HQ Geotechnical Division to insure that the
slope vegetation plan (either per the WSDOT Standard Specifcations or any special
provisions developed) does not confict with the slope geosynthetic reinforcement and
the need for good compaction out to the slope face.
October 2013
9.5.1 Settlement and Pore Pressure Monitoring
If settlement is expected to continue after embankment construction, some type
of monitoring program should be provided. Settlement should be monitored, if post
construction settlement will affect pavement performance or a settlement sensitive
structure will be constructed on the embankment. The type of monitoring will depend
on the magnitude and time frame of the settlement. For many monitoring programs,
use of survey hubs or monuments and routine surveying methods are adequate. These
methods are commonly used if paving should be delayed until embankment settlement
is nearly complete. The geotechnical report should include the time period that the
settlement should be monitored and the frequency of observations.
Settlement estimates provided in the contract should be conservative. Therefore,
if another construction operation must be delayed until the settlement of the
embankment is nearly complete, the time estimate should be the longest length
of time that is likely to be necessary; then the contractor will not be delayed longer
than anticipated.
As discussed in Section 9.3.1, embankments constructed over soft ground may require
the use of staged construction to ensure the stability of the embankment. Geotechnical
instrumentation is a vital part of construction to monitor feld performance and provide
information relevant to decisions regarding the rate of construction. The principal
parameters monitored during embankment construction are pore water pressure and
displacement, both vertical and lateral.
As discussed previously, in relatively impermeable, soft, saturated soil, the applied
load from embankment construction increases the pore water pressure. With time,
the excess pore water pressure will dissipate and the shear strength will increase.
It is important to measure the pore water pressure to determine when it is safe
to proceed with additional embankment construction. In such cases it is also useful
to measure vertical deformation to assist in the interpretation of the data to assess the
rate at which embankment construction should proceed.
9.5.2 Instrumentation
The following discussion of monitoring equipment typically used for embankment
construction monitoring provides an overview of the typical equipment available. A
more comprehensive discussion of monitoring techniques is available in Geotechnical
Instrumentation for Monitoring Field Performance (Dunnicliff, 1993) and
Geotechnical Instrumentation Reference Manual, NHI Course No. 13241 FHWA-
HI-98-034 (Dunnicliff, 1998). Additional information on WSDOT policies regarding
instrumentation installation and standards is provided in Chapter 3.
9.5.2.1 Piezometers
Three types of piezometers are commonly used to monitor embankment construction:
open standpipe, pneumatic and vibrating wire. Each type of piezometer has advantages
and disadvantages. The sections below describe the various piezometer types.
Open Standpipe Piezometers These piezometers are installed in a drilled borehole.
A porous zone or screen is installed in the soil layer of interest. For embankment
settlement purposes it is necessary to completely seal the porous zone against the
infow of water from shallower zones. Open standpipe piezometers are relatively
October 2013
simple to install and the water level readings are easy to obtain. However, standpipes
may interfere with or be damaged by construction activities and the response time
for changes in water pore pressure in low permeability soils is slow. This type
of piezometer is generally not very useful for monitoring the pore pressure increase
and subsequent decrease due to consolidation in staged construction applications.
Pneumatic Piezometers Pneumatic piezometers are usually installed in drilled
boreholes in a manner similar to standpipe piezometers, but they can be sealed
so that increases in pore water pressure result in a smaller volume change and a
more rapid response in instrument measurement. Pneumatic piezometers do not need
open standpipes. However, crimping or rupture of the tubes due to settlement of the
embankment can cause failure.
Vibrating Wire Piezometers Vibrating wire piezometers are usually installed
in drilled boreholes; although, models are available for pushing into place in soft soils.
The cables can be routed long distances and they are easily connected to automatic
data acquisition systems.
9.5.2.2 Instrumentation for Settlement
9.5.2.2.1 Settlement Plates
Settlement plates are used to monitor settlement at the interface between native ground
and the overlying fll. They consist of a steel plate welded to a steel pipe. An outer pipe
consisting of steel or PVC pipe is placed around the pipe and the embankment is built
up around it. Both pipes are extended to the completed surface. The outer pipe isolates
the inner pipe from contact with the fll. As the embankment and soil surface settle,
the top of the inner pipe can be monitored with standard survey equipment. These
devices are simple to use, but provide data at only one point and are subject to damage
during construction.
9.5.2.2.2 Pneumatic Settlement Cells
These cells are generally placed at the interface between the embankment fll and
native ground. A fexible tube is routed to a reservoir, which must be located away
from the settlement area. The reservoir must be kept at a constant elevation. The
precision of the cells is about 0.75 inches.
9.5.2.2.3 Sondex System
The Sondex System can be used for monitoring settlement at several points at depth.
The system is installed in a borehole and consists of a series of stainless steel wire
loops on a plastic corrugated pipe. The plastic pipe is placed over an access casing
and grouted in the borehole. The locations of the stainless steel loops are determined
by electrical induction measurements from a readout unit. The loops can be located
to about 0.05 inches and displacements of up to 2 inches can be measured. Accurate
measurement of settlement depends on the compatibility of the soil and grout.
Therefore, if the grout mix has a higher strength than the surrounding soil, not all the
settlement will be measured.
October 2013
9.5.2.2.4 Horizontal Inclinometer
Horizontal inclinometers are used to measure vertical defections in a grooved guide
casing, placed horizontally beneath the embankment. The probe is pulled through the
casing and readings of inclination relative to horizontal are obtained. The inclinometer
is a highly accurate system for obtaining settlement data. Because the length of the
inclinometer probe is typically about 2 feet, large displacements of the casing caused
by settlement may stop passage of the probe.
9.5.3 PS&E Considerations
Specifcations for monitoring equipment that will be supplied by the contractor
should ensure that the equipment is compatible with the read out equipment that
will be used during construction. The specifcations should also make clear who will
provide the monitoring and analyze the data. If the contractors survey crew will
collect the settlement data, it should be indicated in the special provisions. It is also
important to stipulate who will analyze the data and provide the fnal determination
on when settlement is complete or when additional fll can be placed. In general, the
geotechnical designer should analyze and interpret the data.
9.5.4 PS&E Checklist
The following issues should be addressed in the PS&E regarding embankments:
Slope inclination required for stability
Embankment foundation preparation requirements, overexcavation limits shown
on plans
Plan details for special drainage requirements such as lined ditches, interceptor
trenches, drainage blankets, etc.
Hillside terracing requirements
Evaluation of on-site materials
Special embankment material requirements
Special treatment required for fll placement such as non-durable rock, plastic soil,
or lightweight fll
Magnitude and time for settlement
Settlement waiting period estimated in the Special Provisions (SP)
Size and limits of surcharge
Special monitoring needs
If instrumentation is required to control the rate of fll placement, do the SPs
clearly spell out how this will be done and how the readings will be used to control
the contractors operation
SPs clearly state that any instrumentation damaged by contractor personnel will be
repaired or replaced at no cost to the state
Settlement issues with adjacent structures, should construction of structures be
delayed during embankment settlement period
Monitoring of adjacent structures
October 2013
9.5.5 Requirements for Temporary Fills for Construction Facilitation
Temporary flls for haul roads, construction equipment access, and other temporary
construction activities shall be designed in accordance with this GDM, in particular
this chapter (Chapter 9), except as noted in the following subsections.
9.5.5.1 Design Requirements
The design of the temporary fll/fll slope shall address the stability and settlement of
the temporary fll itself as well as the impact of the temporary fll on the global stability
and deformation of the of the overall slope on which the fll is located. The stability
and movement of any temporary structures and construction equipment (e.g., cranes,
compaction equipment, etc.) placed on the temporary fll shall also be addressed
in the design. Temporary flls and fll slopes shall be designed such that the risk to
health and safety of workers and the public is kept to an acceptable level and that
adjacent facilities are not damaged. Seismic design of temporary flls and fll slopes is
not required.
If temporary flls are placed on or adjacent to permanent or temporary structures, the
impact of the temporary fll on those structures, both with regard to stability and lateral
and vertical movements, shall be assessed. The functioning and design life of those
structures shall not be compromised by the placement of the temporary fll.
If temporary walls are used to support the temporary fll, the impact of the temporary
fll on the wall stability and deformations shall be addressed, and the design of the
temporary wall shall meet the requirements in Chapter 15 and the AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Design Specifcations.
As a minimum, the design of temporary fll slopes for stability by or under the
supervision of a registered professional engineer shall include geotechnical
calculations to address slope stability (i.e., Chapter 7). If the fll is placed over
relatively soft to very soft ground, the deformation of the fll shall also be determined
through engineering calculations (i.e., Chapter 9) that are based on a knowledge of
the subsurface conditions present and engineering data that can be used to estimate
soil and rock properties. Such calculations shall also address the effect of ground
water conditions and the loading conditions on or above the slope that could affect
its stability and deformation. The design shall be conducted in accordance with the
requirements in this GDM and referenced documents. Engineering recommendations
based upon feld observations alone shall not be considered to be an engineering
design, unless the fll is a low height (less than 10 feet high) granular, cohesionless
well-compacted fll without concentrated loads from large equipment or structure
supports, and the fll is placed over dense to very dense soil or rock, in which the
supporting soil or rock is not affected by fssures, slickensides, or other localized
weaknesses.
October 2013
9.5.5.2 Safety Factors and Design Life Considerations
For temporary fll slopes, the safety factors specifed in Section 9.2.3.1 are applicable.
If the soil properties are well defned and shown to have low variability, a lower
factor of safety may be justifed through the use of the Monte Carlo simulation feature
available in slope stability analysis computer programs. In this case, a probability of
failure of 0.01 or smaller shall be targeted (Santamarina, et al., 1992). However, even
with this additional analysis, in no case shall a slope stability safety factor less than
1.2 be used for design of the temporary fll slope.
9.5.5.3 Design Loads
The design of temporary flls and fll slopes shall address the actual construction-
related loads that could be imposed on the temporary fll. As a minimum, the
temporary fll shall be designed for a live load surcharge of 250 psf to address routine
construction equipment traffc on the fll. For unusual temporary loadings resulting
from large cranes or other large equipment placed on the fll, the loading imposed
by the equipment shall be specifcally assessed and taken into account in the design
of the fll. For the case where large or unusual construction equipment loads will
be applied to the fll, the construction equipment loads shall still be considered to be a
live load, unless the dynamic and transient forces caused by use of the construction
equipment can be separated from the construction equipment weight as a dead load,
in which case, only the dynamic or transient loads carried or created by the use of the
construction equipment need to be considered live load.
If temporary structures (e.g., false work and formwork support) are placed
on or adjacent to the temporary fll, the temporary fll shall be designed to carry the
loads resulting from the temporary structures and to meet the stability and deformation
requirements of those structures.
9.5.5.4 Design Property Selection
In addition to the requirements in Chapter 9 for determination of design properties,
the requirements for design property selection for temporary cuts and shoring in
Chapters 5 and 15 shall also be considered applicable to temporary flls and fll slopes.
9.5.5.5 Performance Requirements for Temporary Fills and Fill Slopes
Temporary flls and slopes shall be designed to prevent excessive deformation that
could result in damage to adjacent facilities, both during fll construction and during
the life of the temporary fll. An estimate of expected displacements or vibrations,
threshold limits that would trigger remedial actions, and a list of potential remedial
actions if thresholds are exceeded should be developed. Thresholds shall be established
to prevent damage to adjacent facilities, as well as degradation of the soil properties
due to deformation.
The removal of the temporary fll shall not adversely impact adjacent structures and
facilities.
October 2013
9.5.5.6 Temporary Fill Submittal and Submittal Review Requirements
Temporary Fill submittals shall generally meet the requirements in Section 2-09.3(3)B
of the Standard Specifcations M 41-10.
When performing a geotechnical review of a contractor temporary fll submittal, the
following items should be specifcally evaluated:
1. Performance objectives for the temporary fll
a. Is the anticipated length of time the temporary fll will be in place provided?
b. Are objectives regarding anticipated and allowed deformations of the fll and
adjacent and supported structures provided?
c. Are the performance objectives compatible and consistent with contract and
GDM/BDM requirements?
2. Subsurface conditions
a. Is the soil/rock stratigraphy consistent with the subsurface geotechnical data
provided in the contract boring logs?
b. Did the contractor/fll designer obtain the additional subsurface data needed
to meet the geotechnical exploration requirements flls and temporary fll walls
as identifed in Chapters 9 and 15, respectively?
c. Was justifcation for the soil, rock, and other material properties used for the
design of the temporary fll provided, and is that justifcation, and the fnal
values selected, consistent with Chapter 5 and the subsurface feld and lab data
obtained at the fll site?
d. Were ground water conditions adequately assessed through feld measurements
combined with the site stratigraphy to identify zones of ground water, aquitards
and aquicludes, artesian conditions, and perched zones of ground water that
could impact the stability and deformation of the fll and adjacent facilities that
may be impacted by the presence of the temporary fll?
3. Temporary fll loading
a. Have the anticipated loads on or caused by the temporary fll been correctly
identifed, considering all applicable limit states?
b. If construction or public traffc near or on the temporary fll, has a minimum
traffc live load surcharge of 250 psf been applied?
c. If larger construction equipment such as cranes will be placed on the temporary
fll, have the loads from that equipment been correctly determined and included
in the temporary fll design?
October 2013
4. Temporary fll design
a. Have the correct design procedures been used (i.e., the GDM and referenced
design specifcations and manuals)?
b. Have all appropriate limit states been considered (e.g., global stability of slopes
above and below wall, global stability of wall/slope combination, internal
wall stability, external wall stability, bearing capacity, settlement, lateral
deformation, piping or heaving due to differential water head, etc.)?
5. Are all safety factors, or load and resistance factors for LRFD temporary wall
or structure design, identifed, properly justifed in a manner that is consistent with
the GDM, and meet or exceed the minimum requirements of the GDM?
6. Have the effects of any construction activities adjacent to the temporary fll
on the stability/performance of the fll been addressed in the shoring design (e.g.,
excavation or soil disturbance below the fll, excavation dewatering, vibrations and
soil loosening due to soil modifcation/improvement activities, etc.)?
7. Temporary fll monitoring/testing
a. Is a monitoring/testing plan provided to verify that the performance of the fll
and the structures it supports or impacts is acceptable throughout the design life
of the system?
b. Have appropriate displacement or other performance triggers been provided
that are consistent with the performance objectives of the fll and adjacent
facilities?
8. Temporary fll removal
a. Have any portions of the temporary fll (including temporary fll walls used
to support the fll) to be left in place after construction of the permanent
structure is complete been identifed?
b. Has a plan been provided regarding how to prevent the remaining portions
of the temporary fll or walls from interfering with future construction and
performance of the fnished work (e.g., will the remaining portions impede
fow of ground water, create a hard spot, create a surface of weakness regarding
slope stability, etc.)?
9.6 References
Baker, T. E., Allen, T. M., Pierce, L. M., Jenkins, D. V., Mooney, D. T., Christie, R. A.,
and Weston, J. T., 2003, Evaluation of the Use of Scrap Tires in Transportation Related
Applications in the State of Washington, Report to the Legislature as Required by SHB
2308, WSDOT, 268 pp.
Boussinesq, J., 1885, Application des Potentiels a LEtude de LEquilibre et due
Mouvement des Solides Elastiques, Gauthier-Villars, Paris.
Cheney, R. and Chassie, R. 2000. Soils and Foundations Workshop Reference Manual.
Washington, DC, National Highway Institute Publication NHI-00-045, Federal
Highway Administration.
October 2013
Cotton, D. M., Kilian, A. P., and Allen T 1987, Westbound Embankment Preload
on Rainier Avenue, Seattle, Washington, Transportation Research Record 1119,
Washington, DC, pp. 61-75.
Dunnicliff, J., 1993, Geotechnical Instrumentation for Monitoring Field Performance,
NCHRP Synthesis 89, Transportation Research Board.
Elias, V., and Christopher, B.R., and Berg, R. R., 2001, Mechanically Stabilized Earth
Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes - Design and Construction Guidelines, No. FHWA-
NHI-00-043, Federal Highway Administration, 394 pp.
Federal Highway Administration, 1992, EMBANK, Computer Program, Users
Manual Publication No. FHWA-SA-92-045.
Dunnicliff, J., 1998, Geotechnical Instrumentation Reference Manual, NHI Course
No. 13241, Module 11. FHWA-HI-98-034, Federal Highway Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation.
Holtz, R. D., and Kovacs, W. D., 1981, An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering,
Prentice-Hall, Inc, Eaglewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Holtz, R. D., Christopher, B. R., and Berg, R. R., 1995, Geosynthetic Design and
Construction Guidelines, Federal Highway Administration, FHWA HI-95-038.
Ladd, C. C., 1991, Stability Evaluation During Staged Construction (the 22
nd
Karl
Terzaghi Lecture), Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 117, No. 4, pp.
540-615.
Machan, G., Szymoniak, T. and Siel, B., 1989, Evaluation of Shale Embankment
Construction Criteria, Experimental Feature Final Report OR 83-02, Oregon State
Highway Division, Geotechnical Engineering Group.
NAVFAC, 1971, Design Manual: Soil Mechanics, Foundations, and Earth Structures,
DM-7. (note: included as Appendix A in US Department of Defense, 2005,
Soil Mechanics, Unifed Facilities Criteria (UFC), UFC 3-220-10N).
Prototype Engineering, Inc., 1993, SAF-1 Soil Settlement Analyses Software Suite,
Winchester, Massachusetts.
Sabatini, P.J, Bachus, R.C, Mayne, P.W., Schneider, J.A., Zettler, T.E 2002,
Geotechnical Engineering Circular 5 (GEC5) - Evaluation of Soil and Rock
Properties. Report No FHWA-IF-02-034. Federal Highway Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation.
Santamarina, J. C., Altschaeff, A. G., and Chameau, J. L., 1992, Reliability of Slopes:
Incorporating Qualitative Information, Transportation Research Board, TRR 1343,
Washington, D.C., pp. 1-5.
Skempton, A. W., and Bishop, A. W., 1955, The Gain in Stability Due to Pore
Pressure Dissipation in a Soft Clay Foundation, Fifth International Conference on
Large Dams, Paris, pp. 613-638.
Stark, T., Arellano, D., Horvath, J. and Leshchinsky, D., 2004, Geofoam Applications
in the Design and Construction of Highway Embankments, NCHRP Report 529,
Transportation Research Board, 58 pp.
October 2013
Symons, I. F., 1976, Assessment and Control of Stability for Road Embankments
Constructed on Soft Subsoils, Transport and Road Research laboratory, Crowthorne,
Berkshire, TRRL Laboratory Report 711, 32 pp.
Tonkins, T. and Terranova, T., 1995, Instrumentation of Transportation Embankments
Constructed on Soft Ground, Transportation Research Circular No. 438.
Westergaard, H., 1938, A Problem of Elasticity Suggested by a Problem in Soil
Mechanics: A Soft Material Reinforced by Numerous Strong Horizontal Sheets, in
Contribution to the Mechanics of Solids, Stephen Timoshenko 60
th
Anniversary Volume,
Macmillan, New York, New York, pp. 268-277.
October 2013
Examples Illustrating
Appendix 9-A Staged Fill Construction Design
9-A.1 Problem Setup
First, the geotechnical designer should defne the problem in terms of embankment
geometry, soil stratigraphy, and water table information. For this example the proposed
construction entails constructing a 20 feet thick earth embankment from Gravel
Borrow with 2H:1V side slopes. The embankment will have a roadway width of
35 feet and will be constructed over soft silt. The soft silt is 30 feet thick and overlies
dense sand. Ground water was observed 2 feet below the existing ground surface
during the feld exploration.

Dense Sand
= 40
T
= 125 pcf
Soft Silt
T
= 90 pcf
C
UU
= 160 psf
CU
= 17
CD
= 27
C
v
= 1.0 ft
2
/day
K
o
= 0.55
B = 1.0
Gravel Borrow
= 36
T
= 130 pcf

Embankment Geometry for Example
Figure 9-A-1
Using the test results, the geotechnical designer should frst assess short term
(undrained) strength of the embankment to determine if staged construction is
required. For the example geometry, XSTABL was used to assess short-term
(undrained) stability using C
uu
= 160 psf (see Figures 9-4 and 9-5 for the specifc
strength envelopes used). Figure 9-A-2 provides the results of the stability analysis,
and indicates that the factor of safety is well below the minimum long-term value of
1.25 required for an embankment without a structure. Therefore, staged construction
or some other form or mitigation is required to construct the embankment. For this
example, continue with a staged construction approach.
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.08 Page 9-A-1
October 2013

Undrained Stability for the Example Geometry
Figure 9-A-2
Examples Illustrating Staged Fill Construction Design Appendix 9-A
Page 9-A-2 WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.08
October 2013
9-A.2 Determination of Maximum Stable First Stage Fill Height
The analysis conducted in the previous section is conducted again, but this time
limiting the fll height to that which has a factor of safety that is equal to or greater
than the minimum acceptable interim value (use FS = 1.15 to 1.2 minimum for this
example). As shown in Figure 9-A-3, the maximum initial fll height is 6 feet. This
initial fll height is used as a starting point for both the total stress and the effective
stress analyses.

Stage 1 Fill Stability, Assuming no Strength Gain and a Fill Height of 6 Feet
Figure 9-A-3
9-A.3 Total Stress Analysis Procedure Example
In this approach, the undrained soil strength envelope, or
consol
, as determined
in Figure 9-5, is used to characterize the strength of the subsoil. Next, the geotechnical
designer determines how much strength gain can be obtained by allowing the frst
stage of fll to consolidate the underlying soft soils, using total stresses and undrained
strengths after consolidation (see Section 9.3.1.3). The geotechnical designer calculates
the stress increase resulting from the placement of the frst embankment stage using
the Boussinesq equation or those of Westergaard (see Figures 9-2 and 9-3). Note that
because the stress increase due to the embankment load decreases with depth, the
strength gain also decreases with depth. To properly account for this, the soft subsoil
should be broken up into layers and zones for analysis just as is done for calculating
settlement. For the example, the subsurface is divided into the layers and zones
shown in Figure 9-A-4 to account for the differences in stress increase due to the
embankment. The geotechnical designer will have to utilize judgment in determining
Appendix 9-A Examples Illustrating Staged Fill Construction Design
October 2013
the optimum number of layers and zones to use. If the division of zones is too coarse,
the method may not properly model the feld conditions during construction, and too
fne of a division will result in excessive computational effort.

Division of Subsurface for Estimating Strength Increase and Consolidation
Figure 9-A-4
For the example geometry model the embankment as a continuous strip with a width
of 103 feet (B = 35 + (4x20) (2x6)). As zone 3 is located close to the center of the
embankment the stress change in that zone will be close to that near the center of the
embankment for the stage 1 loading. Therefore, zone 3 is not used in the analysis
example yet. It will be used later in the example. The stress increases in the zones are
as follows:
Zone Layer Z Z/B I
v

6 feet 130 pcf
v
(I
v
)
1
1 5 feet 0.049 0.98 780 psf 764 psf
2 20 feet 0.190 0.93 780 psf 725 psf
2
1 5 feet 0.049 0.55 780 psf 429 psf
2 20 feet 0.190 0.75 780 psf 585 psf
Once the geotechnical designer has the stress increase, the increase in strength
due to consolidation can be estimated using Equations 9-6 and 9-7. However, the
strength increase achieved will depend on the degree of consolidation that occurs.
The consolidation is dependant upon the time (t), drainage path length (H), coeffcient
of consolidation (C
v
), and the Time Factor (T). Using Equations 9-8 through 9-10,
assuming the stage 1 fll is allowed to consolidate for 15 days and assuming the soft
soil layer is doubly drained, the percent consolidation would be:
T = tC
v
/H
2
T = 15 days(1 feet
2
/Day)/(30 feet/2)
2
(assumed double draining)
T = 0.067 = 0.25U
2
; for U < 60%
U = 0.292 or 29%
October 2013
Therefore, at 15 days and 29% consolidation, using Equation 9-7, the strength gain
would be as follows:
Zone Layer

v
(I
v
)
C
uui
U
consol
C
uu

29%
1
1 764 psf 160 psf 0.29 22 250 psf
2 725 psf 160 psf 0.29 22 245 psf
2
1 429 psf 160 psf 0.29 22 210 psf
2 585 psf 160 psf 0.29 22 228 psf
Using the same procedure the strength gain at other time periods can be estimated. For
example, at 60 days the percent consolidation would be 59%, and the strength gain
would be as follows:
Zone Layer

v
(I
v
)
Cuu
i
U
consol
C
uu

59%
1
1 764 psf 160 psf 0.59 22 342 psf
2 725 psf 160 psf 0.59 22 333 psf
2
1 429 psf 160 psf 0.59 22 262 psf
2 585 psf 160 psf 0.59 22 299 psf
The geotechnical designer should consider that as consolidation time increases the
relative increase in strength becomes less as time continues to increase. Having
a settlement delay period that would achieve 100% consolidation is probably not
practical due to the excessive duration required. Delay period of more than 2 months
are generally not practical. Continue the example assuming a 15 day settlement
delay period will be required. Using the strength gained, the geotechnical designer
determines how much additional fll can be placed.
Determine the height of the second stage fll that can be constructed by using C
uu

29%

and increasing the fll height until the factor of safety is approximately 1.2 but not less
than 1.15. As shown in Figure 9-A-5, the total fll height can be increased to 8 feet
(2 feet of new fll is added) after the 15 day delay period.
October 2013

Stage 2 Undrained Analysis, Assuming 15 Day Delay Period After Atage 1,
and a Total Fill Height of 8 Feet
Figure 9-A-5
For the second stage of fll, the effective footing width changes as the fll becomes
thicker. The equivalent footing width for use with the Boussinesq stress distribution
will be 99 feet (B = 35 + (4 20) (2 8)). As zone 3 is located close to the center
of the embankment the stress change in that zone will be close to that near the center
of the embankment for the stage 1 and stage 2 loading. Therefore, zone 3 is not used
in the analysis example yet. It will be used later in the example. The stress increases in
the zones are as follows:
Zone Layer Z Z/B I

v

8 feet 130 pcf

v
(I
v
)
1
1 5 feet 0.049 0.98 1040 psf 1019 psf
2 20 feet 0.190 0.93 1040 psf 967 psf
2
1 5 feet 0.049 0.55 1040 psf 231 psf
2 20 feet 0.190 0.75 1040 psf 315 psf
Once the geotechnical designer has the stress increase, the increase in strength
due to consolidation can be estimated. The geotechnical designer must now begin
to use weighted averaging to account for the difference in consolidation times
(see Figure 9-6). The frst stage of fll was allowed to settle for 15 days prior to placing
the additional 2 feet of fll in the second stage, bringing the total fll height up to 8 feet.
If the second lift of soil is allowed to consolidate for another 15 days, the soil will
actually have been consolidating for 30 days total. For 30 days, the Time Factor (T).
would be:
October 2013
T = tC
v
/H
2

T = 30 days(1 feet
2
/Day)/(30 feet/2)
2
(assumed double draining)
T = 0.133 = 0.25U
2
; for U < 60%
So, U = 0.41 or 41%
The average consolidation of the 15 + 15 day delay period will be:
[6 feet(0.41) + 2 feet(0.29)]/8 feet = 0.38 or 38%
The strength gain at 30 days and 38% average consolidation would be as follows:
Zone Layer

v
(I
v
)
C
uui
U
consol
C
uu

38%
1
1 764 psf 160 psf 0.38 22 317 psf
2 725 psf 160 psf 0.38 22 309 psf
2
1 429 psf 160 psf 0.38 22 248 psf
2 585 psf 160 psf 0.38 22 280 psf
The geotechnical designer would continue this iterative process of adding fll,
determining the weighted average consolidation, subsequent strength gain, and
stability analysis to determine the next safe lift until the embankment is constructed
full height.
Once the fnal stage fll is placed, it will continue to cause consolidation of the soft
subsoil, increasing its strength. The calculations to determine the time required once
the embankment is completed to cause the factor of safety to increase to the minimum
long-term acceptable FS of 1.25 are summarized as follows:
Zone Layer

v
(I
v
)
C
uui
U
consol
C
uu

38%
1
1 2509 psf 160 psf 0.71 22 880 psf
2 780 psf 160 psf 0.71 22 384 psf
2
1 2314 psf 160 psf 0.71 22 824 psf
2 962 psf 160 psf 0.71 22 436 psf
3
1 1430 psf 160psf 0.71
22
570 psf
2 1560 psf 160 psf 0.71 22 608 psf
The calculations tabulated above assume that 25 days after the fnal fll layer is has
elapsed, resulting in an average degree of consolidation of 71%.
The fnal stability analysis, using the undrained shear strengths tabulated above,
is as shown in Figure 9-A-6.
October 2013

Final Stage Undrained Analysis, Assuming 25 Days Have Expired Since Last
Fill Increment Was Placed, and a Total Fill Height of 20 Feet
Figure 9-A-6
In summary, the fll increments and delay periods are as follows:
Stage Fill Increment Time Delay Prior to Next Stage
1 6 feet 15 days
2 2 feet 15 days
3 2 feet 15 days
4 2 feet 15 days
5 2 feet 30 days
6 2 feet 30 days
7 3 feet 10 days
8 1 feet 25 days to obtain FS = 1.25
TOTALS 20 feet 155 days
Fewer stages can be selected by the geotechnical designer, but longer delay periods
are required to achieve more consolidation and the higher strength increases necessary
to maintain stability. A comparable analysis using thicker fll stages and longer
settlement delay periods yielded the following:
Stage Fill Increment Time Delay Prior to Next Stage
1 6 feet 60 days
2 4.5 feet 60 days
3 5.5 feet 40 days
4 4 feet 5 days to obtain FS = 1.25
TOTALS 20 feet 165 days
October 2013
When using the total stress method of analysis it is often best to maximize the
initial fll height. Doing this will produce the greatest amount of soil strength gain
early in the construction of the fll. In addition, keeping the subsequent stages of fll
as small as possible enables the fll to be constructed with the shortest total delay
period, though in the end, the time required to achieve the fnal long-term safety factor
is approximately the same for either approach.
9-A.4 Effective Stress Analysis Procedure Example
In this approach, the drained soil strength, or
CD
, is used to characterize the strength
of the subsoil. From Figure 9-5,
CD
is 27. However, it is the buildup of pore pressure
during embankment placement that causes the embankment to become unstable. The
amount of pore pressure buildup is dependent on how rapidly the embankment load
is placed. Given enough time, the pore pressure buildup will dissipate and the soil will
regain its effective strength, depending on the permeability and compressibility of the
soil. The key to this approach is to determine the amount of pore pressure build up that
can be tolerated before the embankment safety factor drops to a critical level when
using
CD
for the soil strength. A limit equilibrium stability program such as XSTABL
should be used to determine the pore pressure increase that can be tolerated and result
in the embankment having a safety factor of 1.15 to 1.2 during construction.
Many of the newer stability programs have the ability to accept r
u
values directly
or to calculate r
u
. The geotechnical designer should be aware of how the stability
program calculates r
u
. When using XSTABL, the geotechnical designer should not
input r
u

directly. Instead, he should input excess pore pressures directly into the
program and then run the stability analysis.
The rate of fll construction required to prevent r
u
from being exceeded cannot
be determined directly from the drained analysis, as embankment stability needs
in addition to the subsoil consolidation rate affects the rate of construction. The total
construction time cannot therefore be determined directly using C
v
and the percent
consolidation required for stability.
Using the example geometry shown in Figure 9-A-1, the geotechnical designer should
divide the subsurface into layers and zones in a manner similar to that shown in Figure
9-A-4. The geotechnical designer then determines the stress increase due to the frst
stage of fll, 6 feet in this case.
The stress increases in the zones are as follows based on an equivalent strip footing
width of 103 feet:
Zone Layer Z Z/B I

v

6 feet 130 pcf

v
(I
v
)
1
1 5 feet 0.049 0.98 780 psf 764 psf
2 20 feet 0.190 0.93 780 psf 725 psf
2
1 5 feet 0.049 0.55 780 psf 429 psf
2 20 feet 0.190 0.75 780 psf 585 psf
3
1 5 feet 0.049 0.98 780 psf 764 psf
2 20 feet 0.019 0.93 780 psf 725 psf
Note that Zone 3 has the same stress increase as Zone 1.
October 2013
As discussed previously in Section 9.3.1.4, the pore pressure increase is dependent
upon the load and the degree of consolidation. Using Equation 9-15 with an assumed
percent consolidation, determine the pore pressure change to use in the stability
analysis. It will be necessary to perform the analysis for several percent consolidations
to determine what the critical pore pressure is for maintaining stability.
K
0
= 1 - sin
CD
= 1 sin 27 = 0.55
B = 1.0, assuming subsoil is fully saturated. For Layer 1, Zone 1, at 30% consolidation,
u
p
= B[(1 + 2K
0
)/3]v(1-U) = 1.0[(1 + 2(0.55))/3](764 psf)(1-.30) = 374 psf
The remaining values are as follows:
Layer Zone

v
(I
v
)
(psf)
U
(%)
u
p30%

(psf)
U
(%)
u
p35%
(psf)
U
(%)
u
p40%
(psf)
1
1 764 30 374 35 346 40 320
2 725 30 354 35 329 40 303
2
1 429 30 209 35 194 40 179
2 585 30 286 35 265 40 245
3
1 764 30 373 35 346 40 320
2 725 30 354 35 329 40 303
The slope stability results from XSTABL are provided in Figure 9-A-7. For the two
subsoil layers, all zones, a drained friction angle,
CD
, of 27 was used, and the pore
pressure increases u
p
from the tabulated summary of the calculations provided above
were inserted into the soil zones shown in Figure 9-A-7 as pore pressure constants.
The results shown in this fgure are for a percent consolidation of 35%.
October 2013

Stage 1 Drained Analysis at Percent Consolidation
of 35% and a Fill Height of 6 Feet
Figure 9-A-7
Using Equation 9-16, r
u
at this stage of the fll construction is determined as follows:
r
u
= B[(1 + 2K
0
)/3](1-U) = 1.0[(1 + 2(0.55))/3](1-0.35) = 0.45
Subsequent stages of fll construction are checked to determine the critical pore
pressure ratio, up to the point where the fll is completed. The pore pressure ratio
is evaluated at several fll heights, but not as many stages need to be analyzed as
is the case for total stress analysis, as the rate of fll construction is not the focus
of the drained analysis. All that needs to be achieved here is to adequately defne
the relationship between r
u
and the fll height. Therefore, one intermediate fll height
(13.5 feet) and the maximum fll height (20 feet) will be checked.
For a fll height of 13.5 feet, the stress increases in the zones are as follows based on an
equivalent strip footing width of 88 feet:
Zone Layer Z Z/B I

v

13 feet 130 pcf

v
(I
v
)
1
1 5 feet 0.049 0.97 1,690 psf 1,700 psf
2 20 feet 0.190 0.90 1,690 psf 1,580 psf
2
1 5 feet 0.049 0.40 1,690 psf 702 psf
2 20 feet 0.190 0.55 1,690 psf 965 psf
3
1 5 feet 0.049 0.75 1,690 psf 1,320 psf
2 20 feet 0.019 0.70 1,690 psf 1,230 psf
October 2013
Note that the stress increase in Zone 3 is now different than the stress increase in
Zone 1, due to the fact that the embankment slope now is over the top of Zone 3.
The pore pressure increase resulting from a 13.5 feet high fll, assuming various
percent consolidations, is recalculated using Equation 9-15 as illustrated earlier. The
results of these calculations are as tabulated below:
Zone Layer

v
(I
v
)
(psf)
U
(%)
u
p55%
(psf)
U
(%)
u
p60%
(psf)
U
(%)
u
p65%
(psf)
1
1 1702 55 534 60 475 65 415
2 1580 55 496 60 441 65 386
2
1 702 55 220 60 196 65 171
2 695 55 218 60 194 65 170
3
1 1316 55 413 60 367 65 321
2 1229 55 386 60 343 65 300
Note that higher percent consolidations are targeted, as a higher percent consolidation
is likely to have occurred by the time the fll is 13.5 feet high. The slope stability
results from XSTABL are provided in Figure 9-A-8. For the two subsoil layers, all
zones, a drained friction angle,
CD
, of 27 was used, and the pore pressure increases
u
p
from the tabulated summary of the calculations provided above were inserted into
the soil zones shown in Figure 9-A-8 as pore pressure constants. The results shown in
this fgure are for a percent consolidation of 60%.

Stage 2 Drained Analysis at Percent Consolidation
of 60% and a Fill Height of 13.5 Feet
Figure 9-A-8
October 2013
Using Equation 9-16, r
u
at this stage of the fll construction is determined as follows:
r
u
= B[(1 + 2K
0
)/3](1-U) = 1.0[(1 + 2(0.55))/3](1-0.60) = 0.28
Similarly, these calculations were conducted for the full fll height of 20 feet, and for
a minimum FS = 1.15 to 1.2, r
u
was determined to be 0.22 (U = 68%).
In summary, the pore pressure ratios that should not be exceeded during fll
construction are as follows:
Total Fill Height (ft) r
u
6 0.45
13.5 0.28
20 0.22
Values of r
u
could be interpolated to estimate the critical r
u
at other fll heights.
It should be assumed that if these values of r
u
are used to control the rate of fll
construction, the time required to build the fll will be approximately as determined
from the total stress analysis provided in the previous section.
October 2013
October 2013

Embankments: 9.1 Overview and Data Needed

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Embankments: 9.1 Overview and Data Needed

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Embankments: 9.1 Overview and Data Needed

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 9 Embankments

9.1 Overview and Data Needed

You might also like