Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40515-024-00415-5

TECHNICAL NOTE

A Study on Deep‑Seated Stability of Geotextile Reinforced

Earth Embankment

Amit Kumar1 · Avijit Burman1 · Shiva Shankar Choudhary1 · Brijbhan Rao1 ·

Sumit kumar1 · Pijush Samui1

Accepted: 7 May 2024

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature
2024

Abstract
The current study discusses geotextile-reinforced earth embankment deep-seated
failure characteristics. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) suggests that deep-
seated failure analysis must be performed to check that the slip surfaces beyond the
reinforced zone have an adequate factor of safety. Two problems, i.e., a homogene-
ous soil embankment and a stepped embankment, have been studied for deep-seated
failure analyses. A spreadsheet platform has been developed using Visual Basic pro-
gramming code to perform the task of determining the top reinforcement length, the
length for safe reinforcement against pull-out failure, and the tensile maximum force
to be resisted by the geotextile reinforcement for achieving the target factor of safety
considering the rotational failure mechanism of the embankment based on Bishop’s
simplified method. The bottom reinforcement length is determined considering the
failure to be initiated through the sliding mechanism at its base. The deep-seated
failure behaviour of two embankments under pore water pressure loadings has been
examined. It is observed that the bottom reinforcement length determined through
the sliding failure mechanism may not always meet the deep-seated failure criteria
laid out by FHWA. It is then necessary to incrementally alter the bottom reinforce-
ment length until the deep-seated failure standards are met. It is further noticed that
when the soil has higher strength properties, the deep-seated failure criteria are satis-
fied for relatively smaller values of bottom reinforcement length. A composite deep-
seated failure behaviour for the entire steep embankment has also been inspected to
check whether all the slip circles beyond the reinforced zones of the upper and lower
parts of the embankment meet the deep-seated failure criteria.

Keywords Bishop’s simplified method · Geotextile · Reinforcement · Pore-pressure

ratio · Deep-seated failure

Extended author information available on the last page of the article

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology

1 Introduction

Frequently, challenges arise during the construction of roads on soft soil in sandy
regions, particularly in the absence of reinforcement materials. The process of back-
filling involves the immersion of materials into the soil with a lower bearing capacity,
as it is insufficient to support the weight of the embankment soil (Arsyad et al. 2019).
Consequently, the aggregate quantity of embankment materials required will exceed
the computed total volume of embankment materials. In addition, as a result of soil
displacement during the process of road construction, precipitation will readily infil-
trate the embankment and generate standing water on the roadway surface. Accord-
ing to published works of literature (Arsyad et al. 2020), this particular condition has
the potential to cause harm to the road. To address the issue, the soil will be fortified
before commencing any construction activities. One approach involves the utilization
of geosynthetic materials to stabilize the foundation soil of the embankment (Ber-
gado et al. 2002; Panayides et al. 2012; Esmaili and Hatami 2015; Dram et al. 2021).
According to published literature (Chu et al. 2012), stabilization cannot be achieved
solely at the base and may require the addition of multiple layers of geotextile. The uti-
lization of geotextile in road construction has been found to enhance the road’s perfor-
mance by mitigating vertical settlement, augmenting resistance to horizontal displace-
ment, prolonging the pavement’s service life, and reducing the base thickness required
to support repetitive load, as documented in published data (Kumar et al. 2023a; Cal-
varano et al. 2017). The optimal utilization of geotextile as a soil stabilizer is observed
in soils exhibiting an undrained cohesion of less than 90 kN/m2.
Therefore, picking the right slope angle is a crucial decision that has far-reach-
ing consequences for the project’s economic feasibility and operational success
(Zevgolis et al. 2018; Steffen et al. 2008). Kumar et al. (2023b, c) have made
recent advances in slope stability analysis. Researchers (Intrieri et al. 2019) found
that the failure happened in a matter of seconds, taking everyone off guard and
making predictions impossible. The potential causes behind the failure were
examined using the limit equilibrium method (LEM) methodology.
The term "Deep-seated gravitational slope deformations" (DSGSDs) refers to the
gradual movement of soil that affects entire road embankment. This phenomenon has
been extensively studied by the researchers (Agliardi et al. 2001; Dramis and Sorriso-
Valvo 1994). According to Ambrosi and Crosta (2006), occasionally, deep-seated
gravitational slope deformations that move at a slow pace have the potential to cause
damage to nearby infrastructure. The slope movement can lead to catastrophic failures
and pose a threat to mountain communities. The potential risks linked to deep-seated
gravitational slope deformations are a matter of concern for geotechnical engineers.
FHWA (Elias et al. 2001) recommends that the deep-seated stability of a reinforced
embankment must be checked to ensure the slip surfaces outside the reinforced zone are
safe. This means that slip surfaces beyond the reinforced zone should have an adequate
factor of safety. This can be checked by locating the slip surface with minimum factor
of safety lying outside the reinforced zone of the embankment. If the embankment is
unsafe against deep-seated failure criteria, then the bottom reinforcement length (LB) of
an embankment must be appropriately modified. An extensive literature review shows

13
Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology

that there has been very little work on the deep-seated failure behaviour of a reinforced
embankment. Also, the authors could not find any work discussing the deep-seated fail-
ure of stepped embankments. The present study attempts to address these gaps. The
deep-seated stability analyses were carried out considering the pore pressure loadings,
which were simulated by assuming different pore pressure ratio (ru) values. The current
work investigates in detail the deep-seated stability of i) a homogenous earthen embank-
ment and ii) a stepped embankment. In the case of reinforced stepped slopes, the analy-
ses were carried out separately for the upper and lower parts of the embankment, and
then composite deep-seated failure was also checked for the entire embankment. A visual
basic program-based spreadsheet platform (VBA) has been developed to conduct all
the above-mentioned analyses. The authors feel that the current study will be helpful in
understanding the issue of deep-seated failure behaviour of earthen embankments.

2 Methodology

While designing a geotextile-reinforced slope, the issue of deep-seated failure is a cru-

cial problem. The bottom reinforcement length for an embankment needs to be suit-
ably adjusted based on the deep-seated stability of the embankment. The present study
investigates the deep-seated failure behaviour of i) a reinforced slope without berm hav-
ing uniform soil properties and ii) a reinforced stepped slope with uniform soil prop-
erties. This study aims to design slopes reinforced with a geotextile material in the
presence of pore-water pressure. The pore pressure loading on the embankment is con-
sidered by considering different values of pore pressure ratio values, i.e., ru = 0.0, 0.25
and 0.50, respectively. It is necessary to accurately determine the following parameters:

1. Determination of the safe, top length of reinforcement ( LTP ) against pull-out

failure of the reinforcement material. For the stepped embankment, LTP has been
determined for each lift of the embankment separately.
2. Determination of the bottom length LB of the reinforcement material. While designing
stepped embankment, LB is determined for individual portions separately.
3. Check for FSdeep failure of the embankment. In the case of stepped embankment,
the deep-seated failure analysis is performed for each lift of the embankment
separately as well as for the whole embankment.

2.1 Bishop’s Method for Determining Factor of Safety (FS)

Bishop’s Simplified Method (1955) is used to determine the factor of safety (FS) of
a slope against failure. Considering the failure surface to be circular, the factor of
safety against sliding failure can be obtained as follows:
∑ �� � � � � �
c i li + Ni − Ui li tan𝜑� Rc
i=1,..,n
FS = ∑ � � (1)
Wi xi + q𝛽i − Ni fc + kh Wi e − Am
i=1,..,n

13
 Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology

The expression for the factor of safety ( FS ) in Bishop’s Simplified Method (1955)
is derived by ignoring the effect of inter-slice shear forces. This method calculates
the base normal force for each slice by summing up the slice forces in the vertical
direction as follows:
( )
�
c i −Ui tan𝜑� li sin𝛼i
W i + qi −
Ni = FS (2)
tan𝜑� sin𝛼i
cos𝛼i + FS

Here, index (i) represents an individual (ith) slice inside the failure surface. Also,
c = Effective cohesion, 𝜑′ = Effective angle of internal friction, W = slice weight,
′

𝛼 = slice base angle, li = individual slice base length, h = height of individual slice,
Rc = Radius or the moment arm associated with the ith slice, N = Total base normal
acting at the base of the individual slice, Ui = Pore-water pressure acting on the base
of individual slide, Am = Resultant external water forces, fc = Perpendicular offset
of the base normal force from the centre of rotation, e = Vertical distance from the
centroid of each slice to the centre of rotation, q = an external surcharge load, kh =
horizontal pseudo-static acceleration coefficient.
If the pore pressure ratio (ru) is used to calculate the pore pressure Ui developed at
the base of any individual, Eq. (1) will be modified as follows:
∑ �� � �
Wr
� � �
c i li + Ni − dxi u li tan𝜙� Rc
M i=1,..,n
FS = R = ∑ � � (3)
MD Wi xi + kh Wi ei + qi 𝛽i − Ni fc − Am
i=1,..,n

Here, ru = and Ui = , 𝛾s = unit weight of soil, hi = the distance between the

Ui Wi ru
𝛾 s hi dx
centre of any slice and the top of the phreatic line, dx = width of any individual
slice, Wi = weight of any individual slice.

2.2 Maximum Tensile Strength (Tmax ) and Top Length (LT ) of The Reinforcement

The reinforcement is usually provided for an originally unsafe slope to raise its fac-
tor of safety the reinforced slope up to the desired level. To determine the stability
of the reinforced soil slope, the role of the reinforcement must be taken into account,
as suggested by FHWA (Elias et al. 2001). The tensile force produced by the rein-
forcement enhances the resisting moment around the central axis of rotation of the
circular failure surface. The value of Tmax, which represents the total tensile rein-
forcement per unit width of slope, can be calculated for each potential failure surface
within the critical zone using Eq. (4).
MD
Tmax = (FST − FSUN ) (4)
D

13
Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology

Here,

FST Designing of the reinforced slope with Target FS.

FSUN Unreinforced slope FS.

MD Disturbing moment trying to cause rotational failure.

D Moment arm of Tmax about the centre of rotation.

= Radius (R) of the slip circle for inextensible (such as wire mesh) and extensible
reinforcement (such as geotextile and geogrid) (Elias et al. 2001).
= Distance Y for discrete reinforcement (such as metal strips, bar mats, etc.)
(Elias et al. 2001).
The minimum factor of safety (FSmin), the factor of safety(FS) corresponding to a
maximum value of Tmax, and the maximum value of tensile force Tmax in geotextile rein-
forcement should be determined for the desired target FST . LT is the top length of the
embankment that is enough to make the unstable slope safe, as shown in Fig. 1. Also,
the slip surface corresponding to FSmin and Tmax are shown in this figure. The length
from the crest to the point of intersection of the slip surface corresponding to Tmax with
the upper surface of the embankment is designated as LTmax, as shown in the figure.
The procedure for evaluation Tmax and LT has been discussed in detail in many litera-
tures (Kumar et al. 2023a; Leshchinsky et al. 2017). Jewell (1991) provides an excellent
description of procedures for finding out the total tensile strength (Tmax) to be resisted
by the reinforcement layers as a whole, as well as the mobilized tension in individual
reinforcement layers (Ti). A suitable search procedure based on the entry-exit method
of slip circle generation procedure (Kumar et al. 2023a) is adopted for finding out Tmax

Fig. 1  Rotational shear approach to determine required strength of reinforcement Tmax and top reinforce-
ment length LT

13
 Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology

using Eq. (4). A Visual Basic programming language-based MS-Excel spreadsheet

platform is developed for this purpose. The horizontal distance between the crest of the
embankment and the point where the slip surface intersects, which corresponds to the
Factor of Safety (FST ), is denoted as the top reinforcement length (LT).

2.2.1 Internal Stability of the Embankment

When designing a reinforced earth embankment, the internal stability check primar-
ily involves two factors.

1. The tensile force experienced by each layer of reinforcement should always be

lower than its ultimate tensile strength to prevent any rupture of the reinforcement.
2. Secondly, the tensile force induced in each layer of reinforcement should be lower
than its pull-out capacity.

If the tensile force exerted on the reinforcing layer exceeds the pull-out resistance,
the reinforcement may be pulled out, leading to significant displacement and even-
tual collapse of the structure.
The authors conducted a thorough investigation to ascertain the minimum length
of top reinforcement necessary to prevent pull-out failure of the reinforcement. To
achieve this objective, the distance between the crest of the embankment and the
point where the slip circle corresponding to the maximum tensile strength (Tmax)
intersects is combined with the minimum embedded length (Le). This combined dis-
tance is referred to as LTP. The minimum needed embedding length, Le, is derived
using the following approach:
layer
TS FOSpull−out
Le = (5)
F ∗ 𝛼𝜎v C

and
F ∗ = 0.67tan𝜙 (6)
Here,

ϕ Friction angle of soil.

Le the depth of embedment or adhesion behind the failure surface in the

resistive zone. As per FHWA (Elias et al. 2001), it must be at least
1.0 m.

C effective reinforcement unit perimeter; e.g., C = 2 for grids, sheets and

strips.

F* the pull-out resistance (or friction-bearing-interaction) factor.

13
Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology

α a scale effect correction factor to account for a non-linear stress reduc-

tion over the embedded length of highly extensible reinforcements
based on laboratory data. FHWA (Elias et al. 2001) has recommended
values for the parameters α for different reinforcement materials
choices. For extensible geosynthetic reinforcements such as geotextile,
α = 0.60. Similarly, for geogrid, the value of α = 0.80.

𝜎 ′ v the effective vertical stress at the soil-reinforcement interfaces.

FOSpull-out 1.50 as recommended by FHWA (Elias et al. 2001).

Tensile force is developed in the individual reinforcement layer.

layer
TS

is determined by distributing Tmax equally among the provided rein-

layer
TS
forcement layers. As per FHWA (Elias et al. 2001), If N layers of rein-
forcement with vertical spacing Sv are provided for the total height (H)
of the slope, then:
Tmax T S
(7)
layer
TS = = max v
N H
For embankment height (H) up to 6.0 m, the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) (Elias et al. 2001) advised that the vertical spacing ( Sv ) between rein-
forcement layers should not exceed 400 mm. According to previous researchers
(Schmertmann et al. 1987), the recommended vertical spacing between reinforc-
ing layers for embankments with a height of more than 6.0 m is 0.6H − 0.7H . The
vertical spacing Sv = 0.40 m was used for all cases in this study because it led
to more accurate values of TS . The use of Sv = 0.40 would also help us to fix
layer

the number of reinforcement layers to be provided for any embankment height.

The minimum embedment length Le calculated using Eq. (5) is added with the
distance from the crest of the embankment to the point of intersection of the slip
circle corresponding to Tmax, which is denoted as LTmax . The resulting length is the
minimum length of the reinforcement needed to resist pull-out failure. Thus, LTP
is the safe minimum length of reinforcement against pull-out defined as:
LTP = LTmax + Le (8)
In the present work, the length LTP is recommended to be provided at the top of
the embankment. Previous studies (Kumar et al. 2023c) have established that the
LTP values thus found tally well with the top reinforcement lengths suggested by
other researchers (Cho 2010).

2.3 Bottom Length (LB ) of the Reinforcement

The geotextile reinforcing length LB at the bottom of the embankment can be deter-
mined by performing a sliding stability analysis. In this method, an active wedge at
the rear of the reinforced soil mass extends at an angle 450 + 𝜙∕2 from the bottom

13
 Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology

towards the top of the embankment (refer to Fig. 2). The following equations may be
used to calculate the driving force from active pressure and the frictional resistance at
the embankment-foundation contact LB. The evaluation of LB is carried out considering
the presence of pore water pressure u.

Resisting Force) = FS × Sliding Force

(
W + Pa sin𝜑b tan𝜑min = FSPa cos𝜑b (For dry soil) (9)

( )
W + Pa sin𝜑b − ru 𝛾r LB H tan𝜑min = FSPa cos𝜑b (For submerged, saturated soil)
(10)
W = 1∕ 2 LB 2 𝛾r tan𝜃r for LB < H (11)

(12)
( )
W = [LB H − H 2 ∕2tan𝜃 ]𝛾r for LB > H

Pa = 1∕ 2 𝛾b H 2 KA + K A q (For dry soil) (13)

Pa = 21 KA 𝛾sub H 2 + 21 𝛾w H 2 + KA q (For submerged, saturated soil) (14)

where, LB= bottom length of reinforcing layer, H = slope height, FS = factor of

safety criterion for sliding (> 1.30), Pa = active earth pressure, q = surcharge load in
kN/m, KA = Active earth pressure coefficient, 𝜑min = minimum angle of shearing

Fig. 2  Sliding stability analysis of reinforcement

13
Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology

friction either between reinforced soil and reinforcement or the friction angle of the
foundation soil. 𝛾sub = submerged unit weight of soil, 𝜃 = angle of slope, ru= pore
water pressure ratio = 𝛾z
U
, 𝛾w = unit weight of water, 𝛾r and 𝛾b = unit weight of the
reinforced and retained backfill, respectively 𝜑b = friction angle of retained fill.
Two cases, i.e., LB < H or LB > H can be visualized while determining the bot-
tom reinforcement length. For the case LB < H, Eq. (9) converts to the following
form:
For dry soil,
√
√ ( ) 2qKA cos𝜙b (FS−tan𝜙b tan𝜙min )
LB √ KA 𝛾b cos𝜙b FS − tan𝜙b tan𝜙min +
√
= H2 (15)
H 𝛾r tan𝜃r tan𝜙min

For submerged, saturated soil

( )2 ( )
L L
a B +b B +c=0 (16)
H H

where,
a = 𝛾r tan𝜃r tan𝜙min (17)

b = −2ru 𝛾r tan𝜙min (18)

( )
2qKA cos𝜙b
(19)
( )
c = − FS − tan𝜙b tan𝜙min KA 𝛾sub cos𝜙b + 𝛾w cos𝜙b +
H2

For the case LB > H, LB can be determined from Eq. (9) as follows:
For dry soil,
[ ( )]
LB 1 𝛾r tan𝜙min ( ) 2qKA cos𝜙b
= + FS − tan𝜙b tan𝜙min 𝛾b KA cos𝜙b +
H 2𝛾r tan𝜙min tan𝜃 H2
(20)
For submerged, saturated soil,
[ ( ) ]
LB 1 𝛾r tan𝜙min 2qKA cos𝜙b
= + KA 𝛾sub cos𝜙b + 𝛾w cos𝜙b + (FS − tan𝜙b tan𝜙min )
H 2𝛾r tan𝜙min (1 − ru ) tan𝜃 H2

(21)
The most effective approach for calculating the active earth pressure coefficient
KA is by applying Coulomb’s formula for an inclined wall face. The formula for
the active earth pressure coefficient, known as Coulomb’s formula, is as follows:

sin2 (𝜃 + 𝜙� )
KA = [ √ � +𝛿)sin(𝜙� −𝛽)
]2 (22)
sin2 𝜃sin(𝜃 − 𝛿) 1 + sin(𝜙sin(𝜃−𝛿)sin(𝜃+𝛽)

13
 Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology

where

𝜃 the face inclination with horizontal direction,

𝛽 the surcharge slope angle,

𝜙′ Effective internal friction angle,

𝛿 wall friction angle.

According to FHWA (Elias et al. 2001), it is recommended to assume the pres-

ence of an active wedge at the back of the reinforced soil mass. The back of the
wedge should extend upwards at an angle of 4­ 50 + φ/2 to determine the active earth
pressure. Under these circumstances, the driving force is the earth’s active pressure,
and the resisting force is the frictional resistance given by the lowest layer, whether
it’s reinforced soil, foundation soil, or the interface between the two. The surcharge
angle β = 0.0 and wall friction angle 𝛿 = 𝜙� have been used as recommendations of
FHWA (Elias et al. 2001).

2.4 Check for Deep‑Seated Global Stability of the Reinforced Embankment

It is essential to conduct a thorough inspection to make sure that the slip circles that
extend past the embankment’s reinforced zone are suitably protected. For all sliding
surfaces outside of the reinforced zone, the Federal Highway Administration (Elias
et al. 2001) suggests a minimum factor of safety of 1.30. Adherence to this standard
is essential to ensure the embankment’s structural integrity and reduce the potential
risk of deep-seated failure.
MR
FSdeep = ≥ 1.3minimum (23)
MD

Here,

MD Disturbing moment.

MR Resisting moment.

Once the top and bottom reinforcement lengths (i.e., LTP and LB) are determined
using the procedures described in Sections 2.2.1 and 2.3, respectively, the reinforced
zone of the soil can be properly demarcated. For deep-seated stability analysis, the
slip surface with minimum FS value amongst all possible slip surfaces extending
beyond the reinforced zone is found out and checked whether Eq. (23) is satisfied or
not. In case the criteria stated in Eq. (23) are not satisfied, the bottom reinforcement

13
Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology

length of the embankment is increased incrementally until FSdeep > 1.30, and the
corresponding configuration of the reinforced zone is adopted for design purposes.

2.5 Seismic Analysis of the Embankment

The pseudo-static method can also be used to verify the embankment’s dynamic sta-
bility by applying the force of horizontal and vertical seismic stimulation. The rec-
ommended minimum value for seismic analysis is shown below.
FSseismic = 1.1 (24)
Since the recommended FS for seismic condition is lower than the FS in the
static condition, the estimated LTP and LB are usually found to be lower than those
obtained from static analyses. Therefore, in usual conditions, the design parameters
(i.e., LTP and LB) of the reinforced slope are not determined considering seismic
loading conditions.

3 Results and Discussion

This section provides the outcomes of the stability analysis of reinforced slopes for
various cases. A spreadsheet-based platform has been developed to perform two
distinct types of analysis: i) an embankment made up of homogenous soil and ii)
a stepped embankment with a berm, both aimed at achieving the target factor of
safety. The provision of a berm usually increases the safety of the slope. Further-
more, a deep-seated examination has been carried out to verify the stability of the
reinforced zone and determine its safety.
For the above-mentioned problems, a detailed analysis has been carried out to
find out both LT , LTP and LB. The stepped embankment for each lift was analyzed
separately. The bottom reinforcement LB has been determined using either Eqs. (15),
(16) or (20), (21). Once LB is determined, deep-seated analysis is performed to
check whether all slip circles beyond the reinforced zone meet the required safety
margin described in Eq. (23) or not. If the criteria stated in Eq. (23) are not satisfied
after running a deep-seated failure analysis for the reinforced embankment, LB is
progressively altered until it meets the criteria of Eq. (23). The present paper aims
to provide a detailed discussion on how deep-seated failure analysis influences the
estimate of LB in the presence of pore pressure loading characterized by pore pres-
sure ratio values ru = 0.0, 0.25 and 0.50. It should be noticed that ru = 0.0 condition
essentially represents an embankment only subjected to gravity loading. In the pre-
sent work, LTP is the minimum required length of reinforcement is to avoid pull-out
failure of the top length of reinforcement. Therefore, the extra length up to LT can be
curtailed without affecting the safety of the embankment.

13
 Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology

3.1 Problem 1

A 5.0 m high c–ϕ soil slope with side slope 1H:1 V, described in [24], is used to
find Critical failure surface and minimum FS of a homogeneous soil slope having
soil properties as follows: effective cohesion c′ = 0.0 kN/m2, the effective internal
friction angle𝜙� = 20◦, unit weight 𝛾 = 19.0 kN/m3. The loading parameters are sur-
charge q = 10.0 kN/m2 and pore pressure ratios ru 0.00, 0.25 and 0.50, respectively.
The embankment has a height h = 5.0 m and an inclination angle 𝛽 = ­450, as shown
in Fig. 4(a). In this problem, FST = 1.3 is used to find the maximum reinforcement
tensile force to evaluate the top length of geotextile (LTP) at the crest of the embank-
ment, and the analysis is performed by solving Eq. (4). The solution of Eq. (4) for
different slip circles using Bishop’s method yields the maximum tensile force Tmax
to be resisted by the reinforcement for achieving the target FST . Here, LT is the dis-
tance from the crest of the embankment up to the point of intersection of the slip
surface corresponding to the target factor of safety FST with the top surface of the
embankment, as described in Eq. (4). However, it is recommended to use LTP as
the minimum length of the top reinforcement needed to resist pull-out failure of the
reinforcement, as determined using Eq. (8). The external stability analysis is per-
formed to calculate the bottom length of the geotextile ( LB) to be provided at the toe
of the embankment. Also, a deep-seated check is performed to assess whether the
embankment’s global stability is adequate or not. The flow chart for the analysis is
shown in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3  Flow chart for analysis of

reinforced embankment

13
Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Fig. 4  a Result of rotational failure analysis at ru = 0.0 (b) Safe deep-seated analysis at ru = 0.0 (c) Safe
deep-seated analysis at ru = 0.25 (d) Safe deep-seated analysis at ru = 0.50

Figure 4(a) shows the values of LT , LTP, the minimum safety factor FSmin and the
maximum value of tensile force Tmax developed in the reinforcement. The slip circles
corresponding toFSmin , Tmax and the target FST are also shown in the figure. The
VBA program directly reports the value of LT and LTmax after solving Eq. (4) employ-
ing Bishop’s Simplified method (Bishop 1955). LTmax is further added to the mini-
mum embedment length Le to obtain the top reinforcement length LTP as described
in Eq. (8).
According to Eq. (23), the FSdeep must be kept above 1.30 for deep-seated fail-
ure surfaces. Figure 4(b) also shows the slip circle with minimum FSdeep out of all
slip surfaces passing beyond the reinforced zone when ru = 0.0. It is seen that the LB
obtained from external stability analysis (refer to Section 2.3) is safe against deep-
seated failure criteria when the embankment is only subjected to gravity loading
characterized by ru = 0.0 condition.
The initially estimated value of LB obtained using Eqs. (16) or (21) is 9.69 m
for the loading condition ru = 0.25. Figure 4(c) shows the slip circle with minimum
FSdeep = 1.870 > 1.30. Similarly, the values of LB for loading condition ru = 0.50 are
also displayed in Fig. 4(d) with corresponding FSdeep = 1.941 > 1.30. In this case, it
is also noticed that the final value of LB = 14.538 is close to the LTP = 12.400 m.
Table 1 shows the values of LTP and LB for different pore water pressure ( ru )
values. The values of the factor of safety against deep-seated failure FSdeep are
also provided. The deep-seated stability is deemed adequate if FSdeep > 1.30, as

13
 Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology

Table 1  Comparison of deep-seated analysis with pore water pressure (ru)

Pore pressure LTP (m) LB (m) FSdeep No of investigated Run time (sec) Safe
slip surface

0.00 7.436 7.269 1.875 34,856 39 YES

0.25 9.200 9.690 1.870 46,905 41 YES
0.50 12.400 14.538 1.941 49,001 35 YES

stated in Eq. (23). Table 1 also shows the values of LB for loading conditions
r u = 0.25 and 0.50 at which the deep-seated failure criteria are satisfied. Table 1
also lists the data on the number of slip surfaces investigated during the deep-
seated stability check of the embankment and the corresponding run time of the
VBA program

3.2 Problem 2

A stepped embankment is analyzed to predict the maximum tensile strength of the

reinforcement to achieve target FS. This problem is typical in road embankments
where the fly ash material is used to form the embankment, and the berm portion
facilitates movement of vehicles, goods and people. The flow chart of the analysis
procedure of the stepped embankment is shown in Fig. 5. The soil properties related
to this problem are: effective cohesion c′= 0.0 kN/m2, the effective internal friction
angle 𝜙� = 26◦, unit weight 𝛾 = 18.0 kN/m3 with loading parameters surcharge q = 10
kN/m2 and pore pressure ratios ru = 0.00, 0.25 and 0.50 respectively. The upper and
lower heights of the stepped embankment are h1 = h2 = 5.0 m. The angle of inclina-
tion of both slopes is βu = βl = ­450. The width of the berm portion at the mid-height
of the slope = 4.0 m.
The lower half of the stepped embankment is analyzed first and subjected to all
prescribed loading parameters. The maximum tensile force Tmax to be resisted by the
reinforcement for achieving the target FS = 1.30 is determined through the solution
of Eq. (4) by carrying out slope stability analysis.
The analysis of the stepped embankment is carried out in two steps. In the first
step, the top reinforcement length LTP for the lower half of the stepped embank-
ment is determined by carrying out rotational stability analysis. The bottom rein-
forcement length LB for the lower half of the embankment is estimated by solving
either of Eqs. (15), (16) or (20), (21) for dry or saturated conditions respectively.
The reinforced zone is demarcated after obtaining LTP and LB, and the deep-
seated failure analysis is run to find out the slip circle with the lowest FSdeep pass-
ing beyond the reinforced zone. The analysis of the lower half of the embankment
is undertaken next by applying all required loadings. The analysis proceeds in a
similar manner for the upper half of the embankment to finalize the reinforced
zone satisfying the condition for deep-seated failure as mentioned in Eq. (23).
Finally, overall deep-seated failure analysis is performed after demarcating the
reinforced zones for the top and bottom portion of the embankment to check

13
Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology

Fig. 5  Flow chart for stepped reinforced embankment

whether the slip circles passing beyond the reinforced zones for both halves of
the embankment meet the deep-seated stability criteria or not. The flowchart for
the entire analysis procedure is depicted in Fig. 5.

13
 Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology

The geometry of the stepped embankment is shown in Fig. 6. Figure 6(a) displays
the slip surfaces corresponding to FSmin, Tmax and FST with their respective values
for the lower half of the embankment. The analysis for the lower half of the embank-
ment is performed by applying all loadings along with q = 95.0 kN/m surcharge due
to the upper half of the embankment. Ideally, while estimating LB for the bottom
half of the stepped embankment, the overburden due to the upper half should be
applied. Figure 6(b) shows the results of the deep-seated stability analysis at ru = 0.0
loading condition, and it is found that the FSdeep satisfies FHWA (Elias et al. 2001)
guidelines. Similarly, Fig. 6(c) and (d) show the slip surfaces with the lowest FSdeep
extending beyond the reinforced zone of the lower half of the stepped embankment
and simultaneously satisfying the deep-seated stability criteria for loading condi-
tions ru = 0.25 and ru = 0.50 respectively. The satisfaction of deep-seated stability
criteria indicates that the provided geotextile reinforcement length at the bottom is
sufficient.
Figure 7(a) shows the slip circles corresponding to the lowest factor of safety
(FSmin), the maximum tensile force (Tmax) to achieve target FST for the upper half of
the embankment for ru = 0.0 loading condition. The results of deep-seated stability
analysis are shown in Fig. 7(b). For ru = 0.25 and 0.50, the slip circles correspond-
ing FSmin, Tmax and FST can be similarly determined. However, only the results of

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Fig. 6  a Result of embankment slope (b) Safe deep-seated result of the embankment ru = 0.00 (c) Safe
deep-seated result at ru = 0.25 (d) Safe deep-seated result at ru = 0.50

13
Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Fig. 7  a Result of Upper half rotational failure analysis at ru = 0.0 (b) Safe deep-seated analysis at
ru = 0.00 (c) Safe deep-seated analysis at ru = 0.25 (d) Safe deep-seated analysis at ru = 0.50

deep-seated failure analysis are presented in Fig. 7(c) and (d), where the slip circle
with the lowest FSdeep passing beyond the reinforced zone are shown.
Figure 8 shows the results of the overall stability analysis of the entire embank-
ment. Once the reinforced zones for both upper and lower portions of the embank-
ment are decided, the deep-seated stability analyses are again performed to locate
the slip surface with the lowest FSdeep extending beyond both reinforced zones for
the upper and lower half of the embankment. Figure 8(a), (b) and (c) show the fail-
ure surfaces with the lowest FSdeep and the corresponding factor of safety values for
ru = 0.0, 0.25 and 0.50. As the FSdeep in all these are greater than 1.30, it is inter-
preted that the embankment is also safe when the composite behaviour of both the
upper and lower half of the embankment are considered during deep-seated failure
analysis, and the reinforced zone obtained from analysis results shown in Figs. 6 and
7 are sufficient to satisfy overall deep-seated failure criteria.
Table 2 presents the estimated values of LTP and LB for both halves of the embank-
ment. The results of deep-seated stability analysis for both halves of the embank-
ment are shown in terms of FSdeep, which is found to be adequate. It can be observed
that the deep-seated stability requirement (refer to Eq. 23) is satisfied even though
the estimate LB is comparatively lower than the LTP value. The deep-seated stabil-
ity condition is satisfied as the strength properties φ’ are comparatively higher. The
results clearly indicate that the deep-seated stability of the embankment is highly
dependent on the soil properties. If the soil properties are good, then the deep-seated

13
 Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology

Fig. 8  a Overall deep-seated result of the embankment at ru = 0.00 (b) Safe deep-seated result at ru = 0.25
(c) Safe deep-seated result at ru = 0.50

13
 Table 2  Comparison of deep-seated analysis with pore pressure (ru) in Berm structure
Pore pres- LTP (m) LB (m) FSdeep No of inves- Run time (sec) Safe
sure ratio tigated slip
(ru) surface
Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology

Deep-seated stability of the lower half of the embankment 0.00 4.000 5.170 1.590 38,606 39.970 YES
0.25 5.653 6.900 2.270 37,666 39.488 YES
0.50 9.088 10.351 2.400 37,673 32.148 YES
Deep-seated stability of the upper half of the embankment 0.00 3.995 4.462 1.934 33,309 23.027 YES
0.25 6.460 6.080 2.080 31,769 22.645 YES
0.50 9.448 8.983 2.090 36,748 24.770 YES
Deep-seated stability of the entire embankment 0.00 LT and LB remain the same for the upper 1.430 34,614 30.590 YES
0.25 and lower layers 1.307 34,767 29.333 YES
0.50 1.303 24,516 25.110 YES

13
 Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology

stability can be ensured for a lower LB value. The number of slip surfaces was ana-
lyzed during deep-seated stability analysis along with the runtime of the VBA pro-
gram. Finally, the results of the deep-seated stability analysis for the entire embank-
ment are also presented, where the slip circles extending beyond the reinforced zone
for both upper and lower halves of the embankment are checked for safety

4 Conclusions

The present study primarily addresses the issue of the determination of bottom
reinforcement length (LB) that satisfies deep-seated failure criteria prescribed in
FHWA (Elias et al. 2001). To carry out deep-seated failure analysis, it is necessary
to demarcate the reinforced zone. Therefore, deep-seated failure analysis can be per-
formed only after the estimation of the top reinforcement length LT , the safe length
of reinforcement (LTP) against pull-out failure and the bottom reinforcement length
LB have been done. The top reinforcement length LTP has been estimated by con-
ducting rotational failure analysis as well as the pull-out failure analysis whereas the
bottom reinforcement length LB has been estimated through sliding failure mecha-
nism. The paper presents the results of deep-seated failure analysis of i) a reinforced
embankment with homogenous soil properties and ii) a reinforced stepped homoge-
nous embankment. The pore pressure loading on the embankments has been applied
by considering different ru values. When the embankment is only subjected to grav-
ity loading (i.e., ru = 0.0), it is seen that the LB estimated sliding failure consideration
is enough to meet the criteria of deep-seated failure. When the pore pressure loading
is applied (i.e., for the case of ru = 0.25 and 0.50), it is necessary the estimated LB
values are sufficient to meet the deep-seated failure criteria. However, if the soil has
better strength properties (i.e., c′ and 𝜑′), then the deep-seated failure criteria will be
satisfied for even a lower LB value.
The stepped embankment is analyzed in two stages. In the first stage, the evalu-
ation of LTP and LB are done in the usual manner for the lower half of the embank-
ment. For the lower half of the embankment, the overburden pressure coming from
the upper half of the embankment should be applied. From a conservative view-
point, LB is estimated from sliding failure analysis for the lower half of the embank-
ment. An overall deep-seated failure analysis is carried out in this case to locate
the slip surface with the lowest FSdeep passing beyond the reinforced zone. Again,
it is observed that for the bottom half of the stepped embankment, the deep-seated
failure condition is usually satisfied for a lower LB value when the improved soil
strength properties are considered.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the supports of the colleagues of NIT Patna.
No external funding was required to perform the work presented in this paper.

Authors’ Contributions 1. Mr. Amit Kumar (First Author): Conceptualization, Analysis, Writing of the
manuscript.
2. Dr. Avijit Burman (Second Author): Conceptualization, Analysis, Writing of the manuscript, Over-
all supervision.
3. Dr. Shiva Shankar Choudhary (Third Author): Conceptualization and Overall Supervision.
4. Mr. Brijbhan Rao (Forth Author): Conceptualization, Analysis.

13
Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology

5. Mr. Sumit kumar (Fifth Author): Conceptualization, Analysis.

6. Dr. Pijush Samui (Sixth Author): Conceptualization and Overall Supervision.

Funding No external funding was used for the present work.

Data Availability The authors state that all data related to present work has been transparently provided in
the manuscript. For any other queries, readers are requested to contact the corresponding authors.

Declarations
Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate Not applicable.

Consent for Publication Not applicable.

Competing Interest As per authors’ knowledge, the present work has no conflict interest with any other
work. No financial assistance was required for this work.

References
Agliardi, F., Crosta, G., Zanchi, A.: Structural constraints on deep-seated slope deformation kinematics.
Eng. Geol. 59, 83–102 (2001). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0013-​7952(00)​00066-1
Ambrosi, C., Crosta, G.B.: Large sackung along major tectonic features in the Central Italian Alps. Eng.
Geol. 83, 183–200 (2006). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​enggeo.​2005.​06.​031
Arsyad, M., Mochtar, I.B., Mochtar, N.E.: Analysis of settlement of the road with full scale geotextile
reinforcement on the very soft soil (case study in Tapin Regency, South Kalimantan). MATEC Web.
Conf. 280, 03012 (2019). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1051/​matec​conf/​20192​80030​12
Arsyad, M., Mochtar, I.B., Mochtar, N.E., Arifin, Y.F.: Road embankment full-scale investigation on soft
soil with geotextile stabilization. Int. J. GEOMATE 19, 145–152 (2020). https://​doi.​org/​10.​21660/​
2020.​71.​04022
Bergado, D.T., Long, P.V., Murthy, B.R.S.: A case study of geotextile-reinforced embankment on soft
ground. Geotext. Geomembr. 20, 343–365 (2002). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0266-​1144(02)​00032-8
Bishop, A.W.: The use of the slip circle in the stability analysis of slopes. Geotechnique 5, 7–17 (1955).
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1680/​geot.​1955.5.​1.7
Calvarano, L.S., Leonardi, G., Palamara, R.: Finite element modelling of unpaved road reinforced with
geosynthetics. Proc. Eng. 189, 99–104 (2017). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​proeng.​2017.​05.​017
Cho, S.E.: Probabilistic assessment of slope stability that considers the spatial variability of soil prop-
erties. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 136, 975–984 (2010). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1061/​(asce)​gt.​1943-​
5606.​00003​09
Chu, J., Bergado, D.T., Shin, E.C., Chai, J.: Embankments on soft ground and ground improvement. In:
5th Asian Regional Conference on Geosynthetics, pp. 3–24. Bangkok, Thailand (2012)
Dram, A., Balunaini, U., Benmebarek, S., Sravanam, S.M., Madhav, M.R.: Earthquake response of
connected and unconnected back-to-back geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls. Int. J. Geomech. 21,
4021223 (2021). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1061/​(asce)​gm.​1943-​5622.​00022​06
Dramis, F., Sorriso-Valvo, M.: Deep-seated gravitational slope deformations, related landslides and tec-
tonics. Eng. Geol. 38, 231–243 (1994). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​0013-​7952(94)​90040-X
Elias, V., Christopher, B.R., Berg, R.R., Berg, R.R.: Mechanically stabilized earth walls and reinforced
soil slopes. Federal Highway Administration, United States (2001)
Esmaili, D., Hatami, K.: Measured performance and stability analysis of large-scale reinforced model
embankments at different moisture contents. Int. J. Geosynth. Ground Eng. 1, 1–16 (2015). https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s40891-​015-​0024-4
Intrieri, E., Carlà, T., Gigli, G.: Forecasting the time of failure of landslides at slope-scale: A literature
review. Earth Sci. Rev. 193, 333–349 (2019). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​earsc​irev.​2019.​03.​019
Jewell, R.A.: Application of revised design charts for steep reinforced slopes. Geotext. Geomembr. 10,
203–233 (1991). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​0266-​1144(91)​90056-3

13
 Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology

Kumar, A., Burman, A., Choudhary, S.S.: A detailed study on the analysis and design of geotextile rein-
forced earth embankments. Eng. Technol. Appl. Sci. Res. 13, 10769–10775 (2023a). https://​doi.​org/​
10.​48084/​etasr.​5842
Kumar, S., Choudhary, S.S., Burman, A.: Recent advances in 3D slope stability analysis: a detailed review.
Model. Earth Syst. Environ. 9, 1445–1462 (2023b). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s40808-​022-​01597-y
Kumar, A., Burman, A., Choudhary, S.S.: Design charts for reinforced soil slopes considering rotational
and sliding failure mechanisms. Transp. Infrastruct. Geotechnol. (2023c). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s40515-​023-​00348-5
Leshchinsky, D., Leshchinsky, B., Leshchinsky, O.: Limit state design framework for geosynthetic-
reinforced soil structures. Geotext. Geomembr. 45, 642–652 (2017). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​geote​
xmem.​2017.​08.​005
Panayides, S., Rouainia, M., Muir Wood, D.: Influence of degradation of structure on the behaviour of a
full-scale embankment. Can. Geotech. J. 49, 344–356 (2012). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1139/​T11-​104
Schmertmann, G.R., Chouery-Curtis, V.E., Johnson, R.D., Bonaparte, R.: Design charts for geogrid-rein-
forced soil slopes. Proc. Geosynthetics. 1, 108–120 (1987)
Steffen, O.K.H., Contreras, L.F., Terbrugge, P.J., Venter, J.: A risk evaluation approach for pit slope
design. Paper presented at the The 42nd U.S. Rock Mechanics Symposium (USRMS). San Fran-
cisco, California (2008)
Zevgolis, I.E., Deliveris, A.V., Koukouzas, N.C.: Probabilistic design optimization and simplified geo-
technical risk analysis for large open pit excavations. Comput. Geotech. 103, 153–164 (2018).
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​compg​eo.​2018.​07.​024

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.

Authors and Affiliations

Amit Kumar1 · Avijit Burman1 · Shiva Shankar Choudhary1 · Brijbhan Rao1 ·

Sumit kumar1 · Pijush Samui1

* Avijit Burman
[email protected]
Amit Kumar
[email protected]
Shiva Shankar Choudhary
[email protected]
Brijbhan Rao
[email protected]
Sumit kumar
[email protected]
Pijush Samui
[email protected]
1
Department of Civil Engineering, NIT Patna, Bihar, India

13