Slope Stability Analysis of London

Clay Rail Embankments

Rob Gilbert

Talk Outline
n
n
n
n
n
n

Brief outline of problem

History of embankment construction
Research so far
Discussion of the project
Findings
Review

Area of embankments concerned

Non-plastic
ground

M25

High
Plasticity

LONDON

Arup 2006

Early Embankment construction

n

n
n
n

Constructed quickly using local

materials
Moved by horse or locomotive
Tipped in place with little compaction
Ash used to top the embankment

Arup 2006

Current Problems and External

Processes

Ballast

Arup 2006

Problems site?
Very close
land
boundary

Dense
mature
trees

Grass
and
shrubs
Gravel
covering

Management action plan

Arup 2006

How to tackle the problem

n
n
n

Construct a generic embankment profile

Vary height / slope angle / crest width
Other factors
Pore pressure
n Strength of roots
n Train Loading
n Undercutting
n

Soil parameters Sensitivity analysis

Standard profile

Track
pressure
50kN/m2

10

Shoulder
pressure
10kN/m2

9
8

6
5

Mature
tree
pressure
1kN/m2

4
3

Cess
Width

Description: Ash
Unit Weight: 11
Cohesion: 0
Phi: 35

Piezometric
surface

Description: Ballast
Unit Weight: 18
Cohesion: 0
Phi: 40

Description: Roots
Unit Weight: 19
Cohesion: 7
Phi: 21

Height
6m
Description: Embankment f ill: cohesiv e
Unit Weight: 19
Cohesion: 2
Phi: 21

2
1
0

Description: London Clay

Unit Weight: 19
Cohesion: 2
Phi: 21
Ru (added): 0.155

Description: Roots
Unit Weight: 19
Cohesion: 7
Phi: 21
Ru (added): 0.155

-1
-2
-3
-4
0

10

12

14

16

18

20

Pore Pressures Using ru Coefficients

Computed pore
pressure

Required pore
pressure
9

Description: Ballast
Unit Weight: 18
Cohesion: 0
Phi: 40

8
7

Unit weight of water

set to 70%

6
5

Description: Ash
Unit Weight: 11
Cohesion: 0
Phi: 35

ru coefficient used
in London Clay

3
2

Description: Embankment fill: cohesive

Unit Weight: 19
Cohesion: 2
Phi: 21

1
0

Description: London Clay

Unit Weight: 19
Cohesion: 2
Phi: 21
Pore-Air Pressure: 0

-1
-2
-3
-4

-2

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

Grid of pore pressures

Grid of Factors of Safety

Height vs. Slope

Factor of
Safety

1:4

1:3.5

Target FoS
1.15

1:3
Slope
1:2.5

1:2

FoS 1.0
1:1.5
2

Height (m)

Standard Profile with no vegetation

1.15-1.30
1.00-1.15
0.85-1.00
0.70-0.85
0.55-0.70
0.40-0.55

Matrix
Previous grid
modelled with
different cess widths
for each geometry

Bare slope profile

Terrace Gravels

LUL
vegetation
envelope

Internal geometry
Ash Internal Profile

Factor of safety

1.3
1.2
1.1
1
6m

0.9

2m

0.8
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

thickness (m)

Ballast Internal Profile

Factor of safety

1.3
1.2
1.1
1
6m

0.9

2m

0.8
0

0.5

1.5

thickness (m)

2.5

Difference in train loads

0.1

0.05
0.02

LUL

Network Rail

Height

Findings
n
n
n
n

Link back to estimates

Sensitivity analysis
Correlation with case studies
It was possible to rule out some
embankments of being at risk from deep
seated failure

Advice

Recommend B-bar method to represent

pore pressures
Morgenstern-Price method of slip surface
analysis should be used

Limitations
n

n
n

Huge possible range of embankment

profiles
Unusual ground conditions shear planes
Lack of data for large embankments

References
n

Arup. 2006. London Clay Earth Works. Reference Document for

Embankments Unpublished Report. (Produced for Network Rail
LNET)

Ciria C592. Infrastructure and Embankments condition appraisal

and remedial treatment. Contrustion Industry Research and
Information Association, London 2003.

Skempton, A.W. 1996. Embankments and Cuttings on the early

Railways. Construction History, 11, pp. 33-49

Vaughan, P.R. 2003. Historic and recent studies of the stability of

cutting and embankment slopes for roads and railways and the
potential for improved design and maintenance procedures.
Newslopsskenbackgrnd 154.03 Imperial college

Ground Engineering May 2006, Feat of Clay, p 22, (author unknown)