Geotechnical Design Manual Final

FEDERAL DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF ETHIOPIA
ETHIOPIAN ROADS AUTHORITY
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN
MANUAL
2013
Geotechnical Design Manual - 2013
Foreword
FOREWORD
The road network in Ethiopia provides the dominant mode of freight and passenger
transport and thus plays a vital role in the economy of the country. The network comprises
a huge national asset that requires adherence to appropriate standards for design,
construction and maintenance in order to provide a high level of service. As the length of
the road network is increasing, appropriate choice of methods to preserve this investment
becomes increasingly important.
In 2002 the Ethiopian Roads Authority (ERA) published road design manuals to provide a
standardized approach for the design, construction and maintenance of roads in the
country. Due to technological development and change, these manuals require periodic
updating and expanding. The new series of manuals has particular reference to the
prevailing conditions in Ethiopia and reflects the experience gained through activities
within the road sector during the last 10 years. The updating of existing manuals and
preparation of new manuals was undertaken in close consultation with the federal and
regional roads authorities and stakeholders in the road sector.
Most importantly, a series of thematic peer review panels was established that comprised
local experts from the public and private sector who provided guidance and review for the
project team.
The Geotechnical Design Manual is a new addition to the ERA series of manuals. The
standards set out shall be adhered to unless otherwise directed by ERA. However, I should
emphasize that careful consideration to sound engineering practice shall be observed in the
use of the manual, and under no circumstances shall the manual waive professional
judgment in applied engineering. For simplification in reference this manual may be cited
as ERAs Geotechnical Design Manual - 2013.
On behalf of ERA I would like to thank DFID, Crown Agents and the AFCAP
management team for their cooperation, contribution and support in the development of the
manual. I would also like to extend my gratitude and appreciation to all of the industry
stakeholders and participants who contributed their time, knowledge and effort during the
development of the documents. Special thanks are extended to the members of the various
Peer Review Panels, whose active support and involvement guided the authors of the
manual and the process.
It is my sincere hope that this manual will provide all users with a standard reference and a
ready source of good practice for the geotechnical design of roads, and will assist in a cost
effective operation, and environmentally sustainable development of our road network. I
look forward to the practices contained in this manual being quickly adopted into our
operations, thereby making a sustainable contribution to the improved infrastructure of our
country.
Comments and suggestions on all aspects from any concerned body, group or individual as
feedback during its implementation is expected and will be highly appreciated.
Addis Ababa, 2013
Zaid Wolde Gebriel
Director General, Ethiopian Roads Authority
Ethiopian Roads Authority
Page i
Preface
Geotechnical Design Manual 2013
PREFACE
The Ethiopian Roads Authority is the custodian of the series of technical manuals, standard
specifications and bidding documents that are written for the practicing engineer in
Ethiopia. The series describes current and recommended practice and sets out the national
standards for roads and bridges. The documents are based on national experience and
international practice and are approved by the Director General of the Ethiopian Roads
Authority.
The Geotechnical Design Manual -2013 forms part of the Ethiopian Roads Authority
series of Road and Bridge Design documents. The complete series of documents, covering
all roads and bridges in Ethiopia, is as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Route Selection Manual

Site Investigation Manual
Geotechnical Design Manual
Geometric Design Manual
Pavement Design Manual Volume I Flexible Pavements
Pavement Design Manual Volume II Rigid Pavements
Pavement Rehabilitation and Asphalt Overlay Design Manual
Drainage Design Manual
Bridge Design Manual
Low Volume Roads Design Manual
Standard Environmental Procedures Manual
Standard Technical Specifications.
Standard Drawings
Best Practice Manual for Thin Bituminous Surfacings
Standard Bidding Documents for Road Work Contracts A series of Bidding
Documents covering a full range from large scale projects unlimited in value to minor
works with an upper threshold of $300,000. The higher level documents have both
Local Competitive Bidding and International Competitive Bidding versions.
These documents are available to registered users through the ERA website:
www.era.gov.et
Manual Updates
Significant changes to criteria, procedures or any other relevant issues related to new
policies or revised laws of the land or that are mandated by the relevant Federal
Government Ministry or Agency should be incorporated into the manual from their date of
effectiveness.
Other minor changes that will not significantly affect the whole nature of the manual may
be accumulated and made periodically. When changes are made and approved, new
page(s) incorporating the revision, together with the revision date, will be issued and
inserted into the relevant chapter.
Page ii
Preface
All suggestions to improve the manual should be made in accordance with the
following procedures:
1. Users of the manual must register on the ERA website: www.era.gov.et
2. Proposed changes should be outlined on the Manual Change Form and forwarded with
a covering letter of its need and purpose to the Director General of the Ethiopian Roads
Authority.
3. Agreed changes will be approved by the Director General of the Ethiopian Roads
Authority on recommendation from the Deputy Director General (Engineering
Operations).
4. The release date will be notified to all registered users and authorities.
Addis Ababa, 2013
Zaid Wolde Gebriel

Page iii
Preface
ETHIOPIAN ROADS AUTHORITY

CHANGE CONTROL DESIGN MANUAL
This area to be completed by the ERA
Director of Quality Assurance
MANUAL CHANGE
Manual Title:____________________________
_______________________________________
Section
Table
Figure
Page
Explanation
CHANGE NO.___________________
SECTION NO.__________________
Suggested Modification
Submitted by: Name:____________________________________Designation:_______________________________

Company/Organisation Address ____________________________________________________________________
_______________________________email:___________________________________________Date:___________
Manual Change Action
Authority
Date
Signature
Recommended Action
Approval
Registration
Director Quality Assurance
Deputy Director General Eng. Ops
Approval / Provisional Approval / Rejection of Change:

Director General ERA:__________________________________ Date: __________________
Page iv
Acknowledgements
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Ethiopian Roads Authority (ERA) wishes to thank the UK Governments Department
for International Development (DFID) through the Africa Community Access Programme
(AFCAP) for their support in developing this manual. It will be used by all authorities and
organisations responsible for the provision of roads in Ethiopia.
From the outset, the approach to the development of the manual was to include all sectors
and stakeholders in Ethiopia. Our own extensive local experience and expertise was
supplemented by inputs from an international team of experts and shared through review
workshops to discuss and debate the contents of the draft manual. ERA wishes to thank all
the individuals who gave their time to attend the workshops and provide valuable inputs to
the compilation of the manual.
In addition to the workshops, Peer Review Groups comprising specialists drawn from
within the local industry were established to provide advice and comments in their
respective areas of expertise. The contribution of the Peer Review Group participants is
gratefully acknowledged.
Finally, ERA would like to thank Crown Agents for their overall management of the
project.
As with the other manuals of this series, the intent was, where possible, and in the interests
of uniformity, to use those tests and specifications included in the AASHTO and/or ASTM
Materials references. Where no such reference exists for tests and specifications mentioned
in this document, other references are used.
List of Persons Contributing to Peer Group Review

No.
Name
Organization
Abebe Asefa, Ato
Alemayehu Ayele, Ato
Asnake Haile, Ato
OMEGA Consulting Engineers
Asrat Sewit, Ato
Saba Engineering
Colin Gourley, Dr.
ERA/DRID
Daniel Nebro, Ato
Efrem Degefu, Ato
BEACON Consulting Engineers
Fikert Arega, W/ro
Muse Belew, Ato
10
Shimelis Tesfaye, Ato
Spice Consult
11
Tewodros Alene, Ato
12
Zerihun Nuru, Ato
Gondwana Engineering
Page v
Acknowledgements
Project Team
No.
1
Name
Organization
Role
Bekele Negussie
ERA
AFCAP Coordinator for

Ethiopia
Abdo Mohammed
ERA
Project Coordinator
Daniel Nebro
ERA
Project Coordinator
Frew Bekele
ERA
Project Coordinator
Lulseged Ayalew, Dr
AFCAP Consultant
Lead Author
Robert Geddes
AFCAP/Crown Agents
Technical Manager
Les Sampson
AFCAP/Crown Agents
Project Director
Gareth Hearn
URS
Technical Review
Tim Hunt
URS
Technical Review
10
Alemgena Araya, Dr
Consultant
Final Review
Addis Ababa, 2013
Zaid Wolde Gebriel

Page vi
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD ............................................................................................................................. I
PREFACE ................................................................................................................................ II
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................... V
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..........................................................................................................VII
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ....................................................................................................... X
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................ XIII
GLOSSARY OF TERMS ......................................................................................................... XV
ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................................XIX
1
1.1
1.2
2
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1-1

Scope ...................................................................................................................... 1-1
Structure ................................................................................................................. 1-2
PAVEMENT SUBGRADE ................................................................................................ 2-1
2.1
2.2
General.................................................................................................................... 2-1
Geotechnical Design Considerations ...................................................................... 2-1
2.2.1
Strength......................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2.2
Stiffness ......................................................................................................... 2-2
2.2.3
Moisture and density .................................................................................... 2-5
2.3
Special Considerations ........................................................................................... 2-6
2.3.1
Expansive soils ............................................................................................. 2-6
2.3.2
Compressible soils ...................................................................................... 2-13
2.3.3
Collapsible soils ......................................................................................... 2-13
2.3.4
Dispersive soils ........................................................................................... 2-17
2.4
Subgrade Treatment .............................................................................................. 2-19
2.4.1
Moisture control ......................................................................................... 2-20
2.4.2
Removal and replacement .......................................................................... 2-21
2.4.3
Soil stabilization ......................................................................................... 2-22
3
ROAD EMBANKMENTS ................................................................................................. 3-1
3.1
Types of Embankments .......................................................................................... 3-1

3.1.1
Rock fill embankments .................................................................................. 3-1
3.1.2
Earth-fill embankments ................................................................................ 3-2
3.1.3
Embankments on soft ground ....................................................................... 3-2
Design Considerations ............................................................................................ 3-3
Settlement Analysis ................................................................................................ 3-5
3.3.1
Primary consolidation .................................................................................. 3-6
3.3.2
Time for settlement ..................................................................................... 3-10
3.3.3
Secondary compression .............................................................................. 3-11
Settlement Mitigation ........................................................................................... 3-13
3.4.1
Preloading and Surcharge.......................................................................... 3-13
3.4.2
Vertical drains ............................................................................................ 3-15
3.4.3
Bridge Approach Embankments........................................................................... 3-17
Stability Assessment ............................................................................................. 3-21
Fill Slope Stabilization ......................................................................................... 3-24
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
Page vii
Table of Contents
3.7.1
Staged construction .................................................................................... 3-24
3.7.2
Base reinforcement ..................................................................................... 3-28
3.7.3
Ground improvement.................................................................................. 3-29
3.7.4
Lightweight fills .......................................................................................... 3-29
3.7.5
3.7.6
Toe berms and shear keys .......................................................................... 3-29
3.8
Embankments in Hilly Areas ............................................................................... 3-31
3.9
Fill-slope Angles and Benches ............................................................................. 3-34
3.10 Wall-supported Embankments ............................................................................. 3-37
3.11 Mortared Masonry Walls ..................................................................................... 3-40
3.12 Gabion Supported Embankments ......................................................................... 3-40
3.13 Reinforced Embankments .................................................................................... 3-42
4
ROADSIDE SLOPES ...................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1.
4.2.
4.3.
Natural Slopes ........................................................................................................ 4-2

Cut Slopes .............................................................................................................. 4-5
Landslides............................................................................................................... 4-9
4.3.1.
Types of landslides ..................................................................................... 4-10
4.3.2.
Causes of landslides ................................................................................... 4-11
4.3.3.
Roadside landslides .................................................................................... 4-15
4.3.4.
Roadbed landslides .................................................................................... 4-18
4.3.5.
Landslide stabilisation ............................................................................... 4-20
4.4.
Soil slope cuts....................................................................................................... 4-21
4.4.1.
Design considerations ................................................................................ 4-23
4.4.2.
Cut slope angles, profiles and benches ...................................................... 4-24
4.4.3.
Colluvium and talus slopes ........................................................................ 4-26
4.4.4.
Residual soils.............................................................................................. 4-27
4.4.5.
Collapsible soils ......................................................................................... 4-29
4.4.6.
Latosols ...................................................................................................... 4-30
4.5.
Rock Cut Slopes ................................................................................................... 4-31
4.5.1.
The role of discontinuities .......................................................................... 4-31
4.5.2.
The role of weathering ............................................................................... 4-35
4.5.3.
The role of groundwater ............................................................................. 4-36
4.5.4.
Mode of failures ......................................................................................... 4-38
4.5.5.
Design considerations ................................................................................ 4-40
4.5.6.
Safe angles of cut and benches ................................................................... 4-43
4.5.7.
Methods of rock excavation........................................................................ 4-45
4.6.
Soil Slope Stability Analyses ............................................................................... 4-53
4.6.1.
Limit equilibrium methods ......................................................................... 4-54
4.6.2.
The use of computer programs ................................................................... 4-59
4.6.3.
Determination of shear strength parameters ............................................. 4-59
4.6.4.
Stability analysis procedures ..................................................................... 4-60
4.7.
Rock slope stability analyses................................................................................ 4-61
4.7.1.
Kinematic analysis ..................................................................................... 4-61
4.7.2.
Limit equilibrium analyses ......................................................................... 4-62
5
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND CHECKLIST ................................................................. 5-1

Preliminary Level Geotechnical Report ................................................................. 5-1
Final Level Geotechnical Report............................................................................ 5-2
General Geotechnical Report Outline .................................................................... 5-5
Checklist ................................................................................................................. 5-7
Page viii
Table of Contents
REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................. 6-1
APPENDIX A - SOIL STABILIZATION ..................................................................................... 1
Page ix
List of Illustrations
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 2-1: Typical Resilient Modulus correlations to empirical soil properties and
Classification categories. From NCHRP (2001) ................................................................ 2-5
Figure 2-2: Graphical illustration of the depth of desiccation and moisture fluctuation.
Modified from BRAB (1978) ............................................................................................. 2-9
Figure 2-3: Mechanism of soil collapse in natural soils................................................... 2-14
Figure 2-4: Typical results of a one dimensional oedometer test. Modified from Univ Iowa
(2013) ............................................................................................................................... 2-16
Figure 2-5: Dispersive potential determined based on percentage sodium and total
dissolved solids. From US DOI Bureau of the Interior (1991) ........................................ 2-18
Figure 2-6: Sources of moisture in pavements. Modified from US DOT FHWA (2006) 2-20
Figure 3-1: Example of stress-strain incompatibility. From Abramson et al (2002) ......... 3-3
Figure 3-2: Typical consolidation curve for normally consolidated soil, (a) void ratio
versus vertical effective stress and (b) vertical strain versus vertical effective stress. From
US DOT FHWA (2006B) .................................................................................................. 3-7
Figure 3-3: Typical consolidation curve for over-consolidated soil, (a) void ratio versus
vertical effective stress and (b) vertical strain versus vertical effective stress. From US
DOT FHWA (2006B)......................................................................................................... 3-8
Figure 3-4: Typical consolidation curve for under-consolidated soils (a) void ratio versus
vertical effective stress and (b) vertical strain versus vertical effective stress. From US
DOT FHWA (2006B)......................................................................................................... 3-9
Figure 3-5: Log t method of determining the coefficient of consolidation. From US DOT
FHWA (2006B) ................................................................................................................ 3-12
Figure 3-6: Concept of pre-loading and its effect on magnitude and time of settlement . 3-13
Figure 3-7: Effect of surcharge on magnitude and time of settlement ............................. 3-14
Figure 3-8: Use of vertical drains to accelerate settlement. From NCHRP (1989)
reproduced in US DOT FHWA (2006B) ......................................................................... 3-16
Figure 3-9: Removal and replacement beneath an embankment ..................................... 3-17
Figure 3-10: Elements of a bridge approach embankment. From Briaud et al (1997) .... 3-17
Figure 3-11: Settlement and down-drag in bridge abutments and piles. Modified from US
DOT FHWA 2006B ......................................................................................................... 3-18
Figure 3-12: Suggested details of a bridge approach embankment. Modified from US DOT
FHWA 2006B .................................................................................................................. 3-19
Figure 3-13: Modes of side slope failures in embankments. From IOWA State (2013) and
US DOT FHWA (2006B) ................................................................................................ 3-21
Figure 3-14: Typical circular arc failure mechanism. From US DOT FHWA (2006B) .. 3-23
Figure 3-15: Effect of flooding and rapid-drawdown on embankment stability.............. 3-28
Figure 3-16: Concept of calculating the percent consolidation in staged construction. From
Washington State DOT (2013) ......................................................................................... 3-28
Figure 3-17: Use of a counterweight berm (a) and a shear key (b). From US DOT FHWA
(2006B)............................................................................................................................. 3-30
Figure 3-18: Typical construction of embankments in hilly areas. From FAO (1998) ... 3-31
Page x
Figure 3-19: Types of slope instability commonly seen in fills and the underlying hillslope. From MPWT (2008) .............................................................................................. 3-32
Figure 3-20: Typical side-slopes of a rock fill embankment ............................................ 3-35
Figure 3-21: Typical side-slopes of an earth fill embankment ......................................... 3-35
Figure 3-22: Fill embankment on a hill-side with outward dipping berms ...................... 3-36
Figure 3-23: Embankment on inward inclined hill-side benches. From Keller and Sherar
(2011) ............................................................................................................................... 3-36
Figure 3-24: Benched fill on a benched hill-side slope. From JKR (2010) ..................... 3-37
Figure 3-25: Typical use of retaining structures in road embankments ........................... 3-38
Figure 3-26: Gravity and semi-gravity retaining walls .................................................... 3-39
Figure 3-27: Terminology associated with semi-gravity retaining walls ......................... 3-39
Figure 3-28: Typical types of gabion walls ...................................................................... 3-41
Figure 3-29: Application of reinforced slopes in road construction. From New York State
DOT (2007) ...................................................................................................................... 3-43
Figure 3-30: Typical construction of reinforced fills. From NY State DOT (2007) ........ 3-44
Figure 3-31: Failure modes for reinforced soil embankments. From US DOT FHWA
(2001) ............................................................................................................................... 3-45
Figure 3-32: Steps for design of reinforced soil slopes. From US DOT FHWA (2001).. 3-46
Figure 4-1: Terms used commonly to define a road and associated slopes ....................... 4-1
Figure 4-2: Natural and cut slopes adjacent to a road ........................................................ 4-2
Figure 4-3: Illustration of the terms used to describe stages of slope failure. From Cruden
and Varnes (1996) .............................................................................................................. 4-4
Figure 4-4: Graphic description of the evolution and extent of slope failure. From Cruden
and Varnes (1996) .............................................................................................................. 4-5
Figure 4-5: Types of cross-section design. Modified from Keller and Sherar (2011) ....... 4-7
Figure 4-6: Example of a box cut ....................................................................................... 4-8
Figure 4-7: Full cut cross-section ....................................................................................... 4-9
Figure 4-8: Schematic profile of cut slope benches ........................................................... 4-9
Figure 4-9: Adversely jointed rock mass that can fail if joints become undercut by
excavation ......................................................................................................................... 4-15
Figure 4-10: Perched water table and the formation of landslides on road cuts .............. 4-15
Figure 4-11: Landslides above a road. From Hearn and Hunt (2011) .............................. 4-16
Figure 4-12: Retrogressive landslide developed on a natural slope ................................. 4-16
Figure 4-13: Landslide on a cut slope .............................................................................. 4-17
Figure 4-14: Landslide affecting both the cut and natural slope above............................ 4-17
Figure 4-15: Failure of a fill slope .................................................................................... 4-18
Figure 4-16: Example of a failure affecting the entire road ............................................. 4-19
Figure 4-17: Stability condition of a clay cut slope over time From Bishop and Bjerrum
(1960) reproduced in Abramson et al (2002) ................................................................... 4-22
Figure 4-18: Typical cut slope ratios in most soil types ................................................... 4-24
Figure 4-19: Types of cut-slope profiles .......................................................................... 4-26
Figure 4-20: Road cut on a colluvial slope ....................................................................... 4-27
Figure 4-21: Simplified illustration of the formation of residual soils ............................. 4-28
Page xi
Figure 4-22: Relatively steep 1:1 cut slope in residual clay ............................................ 4-29
Figure 4-23: Failure in black cotton soil due to infiltration of water ............................... 4-29
Figure 4-24: Cut through weathered rock and residual soils ........................................... 4-30
Figure 4-25: Description of different discontinuity parameters ....................................... 4-33
Figure 4-26: Graphical illustration of the rock quality designation (RQD) ..................... 4-35
Figure 4-27: Effect of discontinuity characteristics on groundwater level ...................... 4-37
Figure 4-28: Rock slide initiated by groundwater seepage out of the slope .................... 4-38
Figure 4-29: Modes of failure in rock slopes. Modified from GWP Consultants (2008) 4-39
Figure 4-30: Example of toppling failure ......................................................................... 4-41
Figure 4-31: General guide to select a method of rock excavation. From Pettifer and
Fookes (1994) ................................................................................................................... 4-46
Figure 4-32: Blast design parameters. Modified from US DOI Bureau of Reclamation
(1998) ............................................................................................................................... 4-47
Figure 4-33: Blasting in limestone ................................................................................... 4-49
Figure 4-34: Rock displacement as a result of uncontrolled blasting .............................. 4-50
Figure 4-35: Equilibrium conditions used to define the factor of safety ......................... 4-55
Page xii
List of Tabless
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1: California Bearing Ratio (CBR). After US DOT FHWA (2006) ..................... 2-2
Table 2-2: Resilient modulus (MR). Modified from US DOT FHWA (2006) ................... 2-3
Table 2-3: Swelling characteristics of subgrade soils. Modified from Montana DOT (2008)
............................................................................................................................................ 2-7
Table 2-4: Collapsible soils. From US DOT FHWA (2006)............................................ 2-15
Table 2-5: A summary of remedial measures to reduce the effect of dispersive soils. From
Soil and water Management (2008) ................................................................................. 2-19
Table 3-1: Engineering properties and field and laboratory tests for embankment design.
From Washington State DOT (2013) ................................................................................. 3-4
Table 3-2: Correlations between Cc & soil index parameters. Modified by US DOT FWHA
(2006B) from Holtz & Kovacs (1981) ............................................................................... 3-7
Table 3-3: General considerations for specification of selected structural backfill. From US
DOT FHWA 2006B ......................................................................................................... 3-20
Table 3-4: Suggested gradation for drainage aggregate. From United States DOT FHWA
(2006B) ............................................................................................................................. 3-20
Table 3-5: Slope assessment guidelines for the design of embankments and cuts. From US
DOT FHWA (2006B) ....................................................................................................... 3-25
Table 3-6: Design techniques useful for mitigating embankment failure. From US DOT
FHWA (2006B) ................................................................................................................ 3-26
Table 3-7: Slope stabilization techniques for embankments on hill slopes. Modified from
MPWT (2008) .................................................................................................................. 3-33
Table 3-8: Preliminary fill slope angles ........................................................................... 3-34
Table 4-1: Slope stability problems associated with natural slopes. Modified from Hearn
and Hunt (2011) .................................................................................................................. 4-3
Table 4-2: Simple classification of landslide types. Modified from Cruden and Varnes
(1996) ............................................................................................................................... 4-11
Table 4-3: Common landslide causal factors. Modified from Nettleton et al (2005) ...... 4-12
Table 4-4: Natural and artificial causes of landslides....................................................... 4-13
Table 4-5: Geological, topographical and hydrological causal factors ............................ 4-14
Table 4-6: Indications of slope instability at or above a road .......................................... 4-20
Table 4-7: Common landslide remedial measures. From Sassa and Canuti (2008) ......... 4-21
Table 4-8 Soil cut slope ratios (H:V) for preliminary design purposes ........................... 4-25
Table 4-9: Types of discontinuities and their characteristics. From GWP Consultants
(2008) ............................................................................................................................... 4-32
Table 4-10: Fracture density. Modified from US DOI Bureau of Reclamation (1998) ... 4-34
Table 4-11: Aspects to be considered during rock cut slope design. ............................... 4-42
Table 4-12: Indicative maximum cut slope angles (H:V) for rock slopes (without
discontinuity control)........................................................................................................ 4-44
Table 4-13: Factors controlling bench dimension on rock slopes. Modified from GWP
Consultants (2008)............................................................................................................ 4-45
Table 4-14: Controlled blasting techniques. From US DOT FHWA CFLHD (2011) ..... 4-51
Page xiii
List of Tables
Table 4-15: Parameters used for drilling in presplit, smooth and cushion blasting. From US
DOT FHWA CFLHD (2011) ........................................................................................... 4-52
Table 4-16: Commonly used limit equilibrium methods ................................................. 4-57
Table 4-17: Advantages and limitations of conventional rock slope analyses. From
Eberhardt (2003), modified from Coggan et al (1998) .................................................... 4-62
Table 5-1: Checklist of important information in geotechnical reports ............................. 5-8
Page xiv
Glossary of Terms
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Anchored Wall
Walls that derive their capacity to resist lateral loads by their

structural components being restrained by tension elements
connected to anchors (and additionally by partial embedment of
their structural components into existing ground). The anchors may
be ground anchors (tiebacks), passive concrete anchors, passive pile
anchors, or pile group anchors.
Atterberg Limits
A basic measure of the nature of a fine-grained soil. Depending on

the water content of the soil, it may appear in four states: solid,
semi-solid, plastic and liquid. In each state the consistency and
behaviour of a soil is different and thus so are its engineering
properties.
Bearing capacity
The capacity of soil to support the loads applied to the ground. The
bearing capacity of soil is the maximum average contact pressure
between the foundation and the soil which should not produce shear
failure in the soil.
Bench
A near-horizontal step on a cut slope, usually to act as a buffer

against surface erosion, or to permit the construction of a bench
drain, or to act as an intermediate rock fall area, or a combination of
all three. Also used to facilitate the keying in of a fill slope into an
underlying natural slope.
Berm
A near-horizontal step on an embankment slope, usually to provide

additional weight at the toe or to act as a buffer against surface
erosion, or both.
Black Cotton Soil
A soil in which there is a high content of expansive clay known as

smectite that forms deep cracks in drier seasons or years. Black
cotton soils typically form from highly basic rocks, such as basalt,
in climates that are seasonally humid or subject to erratic droughts
and floods, or to impeded drainage. Depending on the parent
material and the climate, they can range from grey or red to the
more familiar deep black, particularly in Ethiopia.
California Bearing
Ratio (CBR)
An indirect measurement of soil strength based on resistance to

penetration.
Collapse Potential
The change in void ratio (e) upon wetting.
Collapsible Soils
Soils that appear to be strong and stable in their natural (dry) state,
but which rapidly consolidate under wetting, generating large and
often unexpected settlements.
Compressible Soils
Soil deposits which are susceptible to large settlements and

deformations because of a relatively rapid decrease in void volume
upon loading.
Page xv
Glossary of Terms
Dispersive Soils
Soils that, when placed in water, have repulsive forces between the
clay particles that exceed the attractive forces. This results in the
colloidal fraction going into suspension and, in still water, staying
in suspension. In moving water, the dispersed particles are carried
away or eroded.
Earth fill
Embankment
Embankments typically built by compacting earthen materials such

as natural soils.
Expansive Soils
Soils which exhibit significant volume changes in the presence of

water.
Gabion Wall
Constructed from rectangular steel wire mesh baskets that are filled
on site with stone or rock to form a gravity retaining structure.
Geogrid
Comprises a regular grid of plastic with large openings (called

apertures) between the tensile elements. The function of the
apertures is to allow the surrounding soil materials to interlock
across the plane of the geogrid.
Geomembrane
Used to retard or prevent fluid from penetrating the soil and

consists of continuous sheets of low permeability materials.
Geosynthetic
Often used to cover a wide range of different artificially

manufactured materials, including geotextiles, geogrids, and geomembranes.
Geotextile
A permeable geo-synthetic comprised solely of textile, usually

created from polymer, most commonly polypropylene, but also
potentially including polyester, polyethylene, or nylon. A geotextile
is usually classified as either woven or non-woven.
Gravity Wall
A wall that derives its capacity to resist lateral loads through its
dead weight.
Liquid Limit
The moisture content at the point between the liquid and plastic
limits of a clay as determined using a liquid limit device.
Modulus of
Elasticity
The slope of the stressstrain curve in the elastic deformation

region.
Non- gravity Wall
A wall that relies on structural components of the wall partially

embedded in foundation materials to mobilize passive resistance to
resist lateral loads, or as a result of their structural components
being restrained by tension elements connected to anchors, or a
combination of the two.
Oedometer
Laboratory apparatus for carrying out one-dimensional

consolidation tests for the determination of settlement.
Pavement
The constructed portion of a road that includes the sub-base, base,
Page xvi
Glossary of Terms
and surface layers.

Plastic Limit
The moisture content at the lower limit of the plastic state of clay.
Plasticity Index
A measure of the plasticity of a soil. The plasticity index is the size

of the range of water contents where the soil exhibits plastic
properties. The PI is the difference between the liquid limit and the
plastic limit
Preloading
The process of compressing the subsoil prior to placing the

permanent load.
Primary
Consolidation
Settlement of a soil associated with the readjustment of soil

particles due to the migration of water out of the voids
Reinforced
Embankment
This is a form of mechanically stabilized earth that incorporates

planar reinforcing elements in the constructed embankment with
face inclinations of up to 70 degrees. Metallic strips, geosynthetics,
and polymer and wire grids are used as reinforcing elements.
Resilient Modulus
The resilient modulus (MR) measures the amount of recoverable

deformation at any stress level for a dynamically loaded test
specimen and is an indication of the stiffness of the layer
immediately under the pavement.
Rip-rap
Rock or other material used to armour streambeds, bridge

abutments, and other structures against scour, or water erosion. It
can be made from a variety of rock types, commonly granite or
limestone, and often used on a waterway or water containment
where there is potential for water erosion
Rock fill
Embankment
Embankments usually containing more than 75% by volume of

large fragments, 100 mm or greater in size.
Secondary
Compression
Occurs when a soil continues to settle after the excess pore water
pressures are dissipated to a negligible level. The occurrence of
secondary compression is independent of the stress state.
Semi-gravity Wall
Similar to gravity walls, except that it relies on its structural

components to mobilize the dead weight of fill to derive its capacity
to resist lateral loads.
Shrinkage Limit
The moisture content where further loss of moisture will not result
in any more volume reduction.
Soil Stabilisation
The use of mechanical or chemical modifiers to enhance the

strength of soils and reduce the change in moisture.
Subgrade
The supporting ground beneath a pavement structure
Surcharging
The process of subjecting the ground to a higher pressure than that

during the service life in order to achieve a higher initial rate of
Page xvii
Glossary of Terms
settlement and thus reducing long term deformation.

Swell Potential
The swell of a laterally-confined specimen when it is surcharged

and flooded.
Triaxial
Compression Test
A compression (or shear) test where the stress applied in the

vertical direction (along the axis of the cylindrical sample) can be
different from the stresses applied in the horizontal directions
perpendicular to the sides of the cylinder, i.e. the confining
pressure).
Vertical Drain
Sometimes called a wick drain, and is a prefabricated drain

consisting of a plastic core that is wrapped with geo-textile and is
installed using a mandrel
Void Ratio
The ratio of the volume of voids in a soil to the volume of solids.
Page xviii
Abbreviations
ABBREVIATIONS
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
C
Coefficient of Secondary Compression
CBR
California Bearing Ratio (as described in AASHTO T 193 or ASTM D 1883)
Cc
Compression Index
CD
Consolidated Drained
CPT
Cone Penetration Test
Cv
Coefficient of Consolidation
CU
Consolidated Undrained
DCP
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer
DI
Design Index
Modulus of Elasticity
eo
Initial Voids Ratio
ERA
ESP
Exchangeable Sodium Percentage
FS
Factor of Safety
FWD
Falling Weight Deflectometer
FWHA
Federal Highway Agency
Gs
Specific Gravity
H:V
Horizontal:Vertical
KPa
Kilopascals
LL
Liquid Limit
LSPI
Lime Slurry Pressure Injection
MR
Resilient Modulus
Nc
Bearing Capacity factor
NCHRP
National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NHI
National Highway Institute
pH
Potential Hydrogen
PI
Plasticity Index
RF
Reduction Factor
RQD
Rock Quality Designation
SPT
Standard Penetration Test
TDS
Total Dissolved Solids
Tv
Time Factor
USCS
Unified Soils Classification System
UU
Unconsolidated Undrained
Page xix
Chapter 1
Introduction
INTRODUCTION
This manual has been prepared to provide guidance on the standards of practice used for
solving geotechnical problems relating to the design and construction of roads in Ethiopia.
Its purpose is to present procedures and guidelines useful to design stable subgrades,
embankments, and cut slopes. It also aims to achieve consistency in the way geotechnical
problems and solutions are approached in the practice of road design for new road
construction, upgrading, or road rehabilitation projects.
The design and construction of roads requires good communication and coordination
between all team members, and especially between the geotechnical engineer and other
personnel. This interaction is important in the design of reliable and cost-effective
structures. Close and effective communication between geotechnical, highway and
structural engineers needs to take place at all times to ensure compatibility with the various
design criteria.
Much of the technical guidelines and design requirements provided in this manual have
been taken from international references such as those produced by the United States
Federal Highway Agency (FHWA), United States Army Corps of Engineers (US ACE),
US Bureau of Reclamation and others. These sources are listed in the Bibliography at the
end of the manual.
Users are strongly recommended to use this manual in conjunction with the latest edition
of the Site Investigation Manual of the Ethiopian Road Authority (ERA). The first step in
performing any geotechnical analysis and design is a thorough review of any test data and
engineering parameters available for the proposed project and any associated geotechnical
investigation. Experience has shown that an inadequate geotechnical investigation can lead
to excessive risk both in terms of schedule and cost. The level of geotechnical field
investigation necessary for analysis and design depends on the type of the road project and
the geotechnical issue under consideration. This information is given in the Site
Investigation Manual which must be consulted in conjunction with this document.
1.1 Scope
The subject of Geotechnical Engineering is very wide and for roads its application ranges
from simple geotechnical investigation for route selection to foundation analysis and
design of bridges. This manual focuses on geotechnical parameters required for subgrade
design and construction, the determination of the geotechnical inputs needed for
embankment design, the geotechnical aspects of cut-slope design and slope stability, the
evaluation and selection of appropriate slope stabilization techniques, and the standard of
geotechnical reporting.
Each project presents unique considerations and requires an approach that involves a
thorough knowledge of the ground conditions. This manual is not intended to serve as the
sole reference of geotechnical services on individual projects. Instead, the scope of services
for each project should be formulated using this manual and others as references.
It must be emphasized that the manual is a guidance document, and that occasions may
arise when the methods and recommendations given are inadequate or unsuitable. In such
circumstances the use of alternative approaches and engineering judgement will be
Page 1-1
Chapter 1
Introduction
necessary. Each situation will require its own investigation and design, and the contents of
this manual are intended to be for indicative purposes only.
1.2 Structure
The manual is structured into four chapters and an appendix, with Chapter 1 being this
Introduction. Chapter 2 discusses the characteristics of pavement subgrades. A subgrade is
the in-situ material upon which the pavement structure is placed. The performance of a
pavement often depends on the quality of its subgrade. For the pavement to resist
deformation and other types of failures, the subgrade must be able to support loads
transmitted from above. This load bearing capacity is often affected by the degree of
compaction, moisture content, and soil type. Chapter 2 contains a detailed discussion on
factors that affect the strength and stiffness characteristics of pavement subgrades, the
methodologies used for evaluating and describing different subgrade soils, and the soil
treatment and stabilization methods available.
Chapter 3 addresses the geotechnical aspects important for the design of road
embankments, including rock and earth embankments and lightweight fills, etc. The
primary geotechnical issues that impact the performance of all these types of embankments
are global stability, internal stability, consolidation and settlement. Chapter 3 presents a
detailed discussion of these geotechnical issues with recommendations on material
requirements, staged construction, settlement monitoring as well as details of other
mitigation measures used to increase embankment performance.
In addition, Chapter 3 includes a discussion of design procedures for reinforced
embankment slopes. Reinforcement allows embankments to be constructed to greater
heights and/or with steeper side slopes. In a typical application, the reinforcement is placed
at the base of the embankment, and geotextiles or geo-grids are used as the reinforcing
materials. As with many topics, the design procedures given in Chapter 3 are brief and
users of this manual are advised to consult other references for more detailed outlines.
Chapter 4 deals with the design of slopes as they relate to road construction. Some of the
subjects covered are the geological aspects that control the nature of rocks and soils
exposed in cut slopes and their stability, types of slope failures, earthworks design and
excavation techniques, and stability analysis. As landslides and unstable slopes are
common in many parts of Ethiopia, it is vital that engineers engaged in road design
activities are aware of the basic principles of slope stability. They must understand how
these principles are applied to the design of stable roads through various geological
materials and landscapes. Chapter 4 also contains general guidelines and engineering
practices needed to satisfy the overall stability requirements during road construction for
the type of materials and topographic conditions encountered in Ethiopia.
Chapter 5 summarises the requirements for geotechnical reporting.
Appendix A covers the topic of soil stabilisation.
Page 1-2
PAVEMENT SUBGRADE
2.1
General
Chapter 2
Pavement Subgrade
The subgrade is the supporting ground beneath a pavement structure. It is located below
the base and sub-base courses. It is usually investigated to such depth as may be important
to structural design and pavement life, and it may consist of materials forming the natural
ground surface or exposed in excavations. In a fill section, the subgrade is the upper part
of the embankment.
The strength, stiffness, and moisture characteristics of materials forming the subgrade can
have a significant influence on pavement performance. The subgrade and base layers must
be strong enough to resist shear failure and should have adequate stiffness to minimize
vertical deflection. Stronger and stiffer materials provide a more effective foundation for
the riding surface and will be more resistant to stresses from repeated loadings and
environmental conditions. A critical component of pavement design is, therefore, the
investigation and testing of the subgrade upon which the pavement structure will be
constructed. In cases where the subgrade is of inadequate strength, methods of
improvement must be considered.
2.2
Geotechnical Design Considerations
The performance of a road pavement surface is significantly affected by the characteristics

of the subgrade. Desirable properties that the subgrade should possess include high
strength and stiffness, good drainage, ease of compaction, and low compressibility and
swelling.
2.2.1 Strength
The strength and stiffness properties control the ability of the subgrade to support loads
transmitted from the pavement layers (load-bearing capacity). This ability is often
influenced by the degree of compaction, moisture content, soil type, and history of
consolidation.
The California Bearing Ratio (CBR) is an indirect measure of the strength of the subgrade
(Table 2-1). It is also the most widely used method for designing pavement structures. The
higher the CBR value of a subgrade, the more strength it has to support the pavement. This
means that a thinner pavement structure could be designed on a subgrade with higher CBR
compared to a lower CBR value. However, it should be noted that although the CBR value
is directly correlated with strength, the change in pavement thickness needed to carry a
given traffic load is not directly proportional to the change in CBR value of the subgrade
soil.
For example, a one-unit change in CBR from 5 to 4 requires a greater increase in pavement
thickness than does a change in CBR from 10 to 9. Generally, the strength and stiffness of
fine-grained soils are low, especially when they are exposed to water. The fines reduce the
overall strength of the subgrade because they reduce the particle-to-particle contact that
provides friction to a soil matrix. Sands and gravels with high CBR values are often
considered as the best subgrades for formation. In general, a subgrade having a CBR of 10
or greater can usually support heavy loads and repetitious loading without excessive
deformation.
Page 2-1
Chapter 2
Pavement Subgrade
Table 2-1: California Bearing Ratio (CBR). After US DOT FHWA (2006)
Description
Uses in
pavements
Laboratory
determination
Field
measurement
Comment
The California Bearing Ratio or CBR is an indirect measurement of soil

strength based on resistance to penetration.
Direct input to some empirical pavement design methods.
Correlations with resilient modulus and other engineering properties.
The laboratory test is determined based on AASTHO T 193 or ASTM D 1883.
It is based on the resistance to penetration by a standardized piston moving at
a standardized rate for a prescribed penetration distance. Typically, soaked
conditions are used to simulate anticipated long term conditions in the field.
The CBR test is run on three identically compacted samples. Each series of
tests is run for a given relative compaction and moisture content. The
geotechnical or materials engineer must specify the conditions (dry, at
optimum moisture, after soaking, 95% relative compaction, etc.) under which
each test should be performed.
Field measurements are conducted based on ASTM D 4429. Test procedure is
similar to that for laboratory determination.
Most CBR testing is laboratory based; thus the results will be highly
dependent on the representativeness of the samples tested. It is important that
the testing conditions be clearly stated. For example, CBR values measured
from as-compacted samples at optimum moisture and density conditions can
be significantly greater than CBR values measured from similar samples after
soaking.
For field measurement, care should be taken to make certain that the
deflection dial is anchored well outside the loaded area. Field measurement is
made at the field moisture content while laboratory testing is typically
performed for soaked conditions, so soil-specific correlations between field
and laboratory CBR values are often required.
2.2.2 Stiffness
The subgrade soil stiffness is measured by resilient modulus (Table 2-2). The resilient
modulus (MR) of a material is an estimate of its modulus of elasticity (E). While the
modulus of elasticity is stress divided by strain for a slowly applied load, the resilient
modulus is stress divided by strain for rapidly applied loads, such as vehicle loads on
pavements. MR measures the amount of recoverable deformation at any stress level for a
dynamically loaded test specimen. It is defined simply as the ratio of the cyclic axial stress
to resilient axial strain as given below.
Where is the repeated deviator stress and is the recoverable resilient axial strain.
AASHTO recommends the use of a resilient modulus (MR) value obtained from a repeated
triaxial test for the design of pavements, especially for heavily trafficked pavements. As
shown in Table 2-2, there are currently five test protocols in use for resilient modulus
testing in the laboratory. In the past, numerous efforts have been made for obtaining
appropriate MR values that are representative of field conditions and seasonal moisture
variations. The purpose of using seasonal modulus values, particularly for fine grained
soils, is to qualify the relative damage of a pavement during each season of the year and
include this as part of the overall design.
Page 2-2
Chapter 2
Pavement Subgrade
Table 2-2: Resilient modulus (MR). Modified from US DOT FHWA (2006)
Description
Uses in
pavements
Laboratory
determination
The resilient modulus (MR) measures the amount of recoverable deformation at

any stress level for a dynamically loaded test specimen and is an indication of the
stiffness of the layer immediately under the pavement
Characterization of subgrade stiffness for flexible and rigid pavements
(AASHTO 1986/1993; National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NCHRP 2004 1-37A, Mechanistic-Empirical).
Determination of structural layer coefficients in flexible pavements
(AASHTO 1986/1993).
Characterization of unbound layer stiffness (NCHRP 2004 1-37A).
There are currently five test protocols in use for resilient modulus testing in the
laboratory: AASHTO T 292-91, AASHTO T 294-92, AASHTO T 307-99,
AASHTO T P46-94, NCHRP 1997 1-28A.
The harmonized protocol developed in NCHRP Project 1-28A attempts to
combine the best features from all of the earlier test methods with a loading
sequence that minimizes the potential for premature failure of the test specimen.
All of the test procedures employ a closed loop electro-hydraulic testing machine
to apply repeated cycles of load-pulse at 0.2 second loading time followed by a
0.8 second rest time for subgrade materials. Axial deformation is measured on
the sample using clamps positioned one quarter and three quarters from the base
of the test specimen. For very soft specimens, the displacement may be measured
between the top and bottom plates.
Different specimen sizes, compaction procedures, and loading conditions are
usually recommended for granular base/sub-base materials, coarse-grained
subgrades, and fine-grained subgrades. These different procedures reflect the
different particle sizes of the materials, the state of stress specific to each layer in
the pavement structure, and the mechanical behaviour of the material type.
Field
measurement
Comment
In-situ resilient modulus values can be estimated from back-calculation of falling

weight deflectometer (FWD) test results or correlations with Dynamic Cone
Penetrometer (DCP) values.
No definitive studies have been conducted to date to provide guidance on
differences between measured MR from the various laboratory test protocols.
Field MR values determined from FWD back-calculation are often significantly
higher than design MR values measured from laboratory tests because of
differences in stress states. The 1993 AASHTO guide recommends for subgrade
soils that field MR values be multiplied by a factor of up to 0.33 for flexible
pavements and up to 0.25 for rigid pavements to adjust to design MR values.
NCHRP 2004 1-37A recommends adjustment factors of 0.40 for subgrade soils
and 0.67 for granular bases and sub-bases under flexible pavements.
The 1993 AASHTO guide includes procedures for incorporating seasonal
variations into an effective MR for the subgrade. Seasonal variations of soil
properties are included directly in the NCHRP 2004 1-37A design methodology.
The procedure in the 1993 AASHTO guide for incorporating seasonal variations into the
effective subgrade (MR) can be briefly summarized as follows:
Determine an MR value for each time interval during a year. Typically, time
intervals of two weeks or one month duration are used for this analysis. Methods
for determining the MR value for each time interval include:
Page 2-3
Chapter 2
Pavement Subgrade
o Laboratory measurement at the estimated in-situ water content for the time
interval.
o Back calculation from falling weight deflectometer (FWD) tests performed
during each season.
Estimate a relative damage X corresponding to each seasonal modulus value using
the empirical relationship:
= 1.18 108 ( )2.32
Compute the average relative damage as the sum of the relative damage values
for each season divided by the number of seasons.
Determine the effective subgrade MR from using the inverse of the above equation:
= 3015()0.431
However, the practice at present is to use the CBR value only during design. This is partly
because of the difficulty to determine the MR values as these values depend on many
factors. For example, the MR value of granular soils is significantly dependent on
gradation, shape, angularity, surface texture, and moisture content. For fine-grained soils,
plasticity index, clay content, the specific gravity, and soil consolidation affect the resilient
modulus.
AASHTO (1993) and NCHRP (2004) provide different methodologies to obtain MR
values. As mentioned above, the AASHTO guide recommends the resilient modulus test be
performed on laboratory samples using relevant stress levels and moisture conditions
simulating the primary moisture seasons. In the laboratory, the MR test applies a repeated
axial cyclic stress of fixed magnitude, and load and cycle duration to a cylindrical test
specimen. While the specimen is subjected to this dynamic cyclic stress, it is also confined
by a static stress provided by a triaxial pressure chamber. The test is essentially a cyclic
version of a triaxial compression test with the cyclic load application thought to accurately
simulate actual traffic loading. When test facilities are unavailable for performing the test,
estimation of the resilient modulus can be made from standard CBR and soil index
properties. Figure 2-1 provides a graphical chart suggested by NCHRP (2001) which is
useful to correlate the CBR and MR values based on AASHTO and USCS soil groups. It
should, however, be noted that the CBR value is a static property that cannot account for
the actual response of the pavement under the dynamic loads of moving vehicles, and
correlations should always use local experience.
Page 2-4
Chapter 2
Pavement Subgrade
Figure 2-1: Typical Resilient Modulus correlations to empirical soil properties and
Classification categories. From NCHRP (2001)
2.2.3 Moisture and density
Moisture is one of the main factors which affects the strength and stiffness of a subgrade. It
also controls the ease of compaction (density) and the compressibility and
swelling/shrinkage characteristics of subgrade soils. There are numerous ways through
which water can percolate and affect the moisture content of the subgrade. For example
seepage from higher ground, either along the pavement or within cuts can cause
fluctuations in subgrade moisture conditions. In order to determine the possible
consequences, the sensitivity of the subgrade strength and stiffness to changes in moisture
content should be evaluated during or before design.
Generally, in sandy and gravelly soils, small fluctuations in water content produce little
change in their strength and stiffness. In silty soils, however, any fluctuation in water
content can bring about a certain change in volume, and may also produce large changes in
strength and stiffness. Typically these soils attract and retain water through capillary
action, and do not drain well. The change in water content in clays often results in large
variations in volume, and there may be large changes in strength and stiffness too,
Page 2-5
Chapter 2
Pavement Subgrade
particularly if the moisture content is near or above optimum. Typically these soils attract
and retain water through matrix suction.
Pavement performance also depends on subgrade density. Usually, the depth of influence
for wheel loading varies between 1.5 and 3.0 m below the pavement surface. One of the
factors which determine the depth of influence for wheel loading is the inherent
characteristic of the subgrade and its natural density. If the density varies, then an adequate
subgrade compaction is necessary for obtaining a high-quality travel surface. In-situ soils
used as subgrades for the construction of road pavements are invariably compacted to
improve their density. The purpose of compaction is generally to enhance the strength of a
soil by increasing density. The evaluation of density reached as a result of the compactive
efforts of compaction equipment is the most common quality-control measurement made at
construction sites. Compaction also increases stiffness, decreases the sensitivity of the
subgrade soil to changes in moisture content, minimizes long term settlement, and reduces
the swelling potential of expansive soils.
2.3
Special Considerations
Considering variables such as soil type and clay mineralogy along a length of a roadway,
the geology (soil genesis), climate and topography make each project unique with respect
to subgrade materials and conditions. For this reason, in addition to suitable foundation
materials, several collapsible or highly compressible, expansive or swelling, and dispersive
soils occur in many countries and in various regions of Ethiopia. Identification of these
problematic subgrade soils is reviewed in the ERA Site Investigation Manual. The
characteristics of these soils and the design alternatives to achieve adequate subgrades to
support pavement structures are given below. Additional information can also be obtained
in the ERA Pavement Design Manual.
2.3.1 Expansive soils
Soils which exhibit significant volume changes in the presence of water are termed as
expansive soils. These soils exhibit behaviour opposite to consolidation and compression.
Expansive soils generally owe their expansive character to their constituent clay minerals,
past and present loading history, and to their natural and imposed environments. Swelling
may also be due to chemical processes acting on certain non-clay minerals which result in
the formation of new minerals of lesser density. Typical damage to roads on expansive
soils includes longitudinal unevenness and bumpiness, differential movement near
culverts, and longitudinal cracking.
The nature of volume change beneath pavements in the vertical direction often takes the
form of a general upward movement beginning shortly after the start of construction and
continuing until an equilibrium subgrade moisture condition is achieved. Cyclic expansion
and contractions of subgrade soils usually occur at the perimeter of pavements and on
shoulders exposed to rainfall and evaporation. Local expansion may also occur from poor
drainage. In addition, cut sections may lead to local heaving due to removal of surcharge
and subsequent increase of moisture content. Table 2-3 summarizes the general
characteristics of swelling subgrade soils.
Page 2-6
Chapter 2
Pavement Subgrade
Table 2-3: Swelling characteristics of subgrade soils. Modified from Montana DOT
(2008)
Description
Swelling is a large change in soil volume induced by changes in moisture

content.
Uses in
pavements
Swelling subgrade soils can have a seriously detrimental effect on pavement

performance. Swelling soils must be identified so that they can be removed,
stabilized, or treated in the subgrade preparation and pavement design.
Soil composition and genesis, clay mineralogy, soil thickness, variation in

Intrinsic properties thickness, diagenetic factors, depth below the ground surface, the presence of
permeable layers, and dry density.
External factors
Climatic factors, seasonal moisture fluctuation, time, vegetation, surcharge,

and poor drainage.
Laboratory
determination
Swell potential is measured using either the AASHTO T 258 or ASTM D

4546 test protocols. The swell test is typically performed in a consolidation
apparatus. The swell potential is determined by observing the swell of a
laterally-confined specimen when it is surcharged and flooded. Alternatively,
after the specimen is inundated, the height of the specimen is kept constant
by adding loads. The vertical stress necessary to maintain zero volume
change is the swelling pressure.
Field
measurements
Indirect techniques; swell potential can be estimated using some soil

physical and index properties.
Comment
The swell test can be performed on undisturbed, remoulded, or compacted

specimens. If the soil structure is not confined such that swelling may occur
laterally and vertically, triaxial tests can be used to determine three
dimensional swell characteristics.
The volume changes exhibited by expansive soils are related to the interactions of various
intrinsic and external factors. The intrinsic factors are soil composition and thickness, dry
density, soil fabric and moisture content while the external factors include climate and
time. Laboratory related variables which influence the measurement of volume change are
initial moisture content, initial dry density, soil fabric, surcharge load, solution
characteristics, time allowed for swell, stress history (loading sequence), sample size and
shape and temperature.
2.3.1.1 Intrinsic properties
Soil composition involves the type and amount of clay mineral within a soil and the size
and specific surface area of these minerals. Often, the potential for volume change is
mainly determined by mineralogical composition of the clay content. Clays containing
montmorillonite expand highly, compared with those composed of kaolinites and illites.
Montmorillonite is formed from the weathering of volcanic ash or primary silicate minerals
such as feldspars, pyroxenes or amphiboles under those conditions which result in the
retention of bases and silica. These conditions are promoted by insufficient leaching of the
soil by downward moving water.
Long term physical and chemical weathering or alterations of clay soils as a result of
changes in overburden conditions or groundwater environment are generally termed
Page 2-7
Chapter 2
Pavement Subgrade
diagenetic factors. The diagenetic factors are generally reflected in such phenomena as
inter-particle bonding due to recrystallization of the contacts between clay minerals under
high overburden stress conditions or by cementation of particles as a result of precipitation
of cementing agents from the groundwater. In general, the differences in behaviour of
expansive soils between the undisturbed and disturbed states are related to the presence
and absence of diagenetic bonds.
Apart from soil composition, the properties of the soil profile which influence volume
change include the total layer thickness and its variation, depth below the ground surface,
and the presence of lenses and layers of more permeable materials. Obviously, the thicker
the layer of expansive soil, the greater is the total potential volume change, provided that a
source of moisture is available throughout the layer. Variations in thickness of the layer
will result in variations of the magnitudes of volume change, or more precisely, differential
volume change. Differential expansion, just like differential settlement, is a major problem
to pavement structures.
The phenomenon of volume change in expansive soils is also the direct result of the
availability and variation in the quantity and chemical property of water in the soil. The
volume change of expansive soils is primarily due to the hydration of clay minerals. The
degree of hydration is influenced by the amount and type of ions present in pore fluids.
Pore fluids containing high concentrations of cations tend to reduce the magnitude of
volume change of an expansive soil.
The soil fabric refers to the orientation of the constituent particles. In the case of expansive
soils, the fabric consists of the arrangements of the plate-like clay minerals with each other
and with the non-clay components. The arrangement of clay minerals influences the
amount and to some degree the direction (lateral or vertical) of volume change exhibited
by an expansive soil.
The dry density is an important factor in determining the magnitude of volume change.
The swell or swelling pressure of an expansive soil increases with increasing dry density
for constant moisture content. The reason is that higher densities result in closer particle
spacing, therefore causing greater particle interaction. This particle interaction, or more
precisely, double-layer water interaction, results in higher osmotic repulsive forces and a
greater volume change. This holds true for both disturbed and undisturbed materials.
Another important influence of dry density on volume change is its interrelationships with
some of the other intrinsic factors. For example, the dry density of a material influences the
soil fabric or inter-particle arrangement.
Permeability also plays an important role in the time rate of volume change. The
permeability of a soil is a function of the initial moisture content, dry density, and soil
fabric. For compacted soils, the permeability is greater at low moisture contents and dry
densities and decreases to some relatively constant value at about the optimum moisture
content. Above optimum, the permeability is essentially constant. The obvious reason for
this minimum permeability near the optimum moisture content and maximum dry density
is that the voids available for moisture movement are at a minimum because of the close
particle spacing. In many cases, however, permeability can normally be enhanced by
fissures, fractures, and desiccation cracks.
The depth of desiccation is important to the magnitude and rate of volume change and can
be defined as the depth to which evaporation influences are reflected in the soil profile (Fig
Page 2-8
Chapter 2
Pavement Subgrade
2-2). Generally, the depth of desiccation is high in warm climate with enough moisture in
the soil. Changes in the overburden conditions and the proximity of the groundwater table
have an important influence on the depth of desiccation.
Figure 2-2: Graphical illustration of the depth of desiccation and moisture

fluctuation. Modified from BRAB (1978)
2.3.1.2 External factors
Both natural (climate and time) and man-made (surcharge, vegetation, surface drainage,
etc) external factors play a role to determine the magnitude of volume change in expansive
soils. For instance, the depth of seasonal moisture variation comprises some thickness of
the surface material which is influenced by variations in climatic conditions. As would be
expected, the larger depths of seasonal moisture change occur in areas where the seasonal
climatic changes are greatest, i.e. long dry season followed by excessive rainfall. Ambient
temperature conditions also influence the depth of seasonal variations. During rainfall and
colder seasons, moisture accumulates closer to the surface and dissipates by evaporation
when the climate is warm.
Seasonal moisture variations in the central part of Ethiopia and in some northern and
western highlands have been reported to occur up to a depth of between 3 and 5m. In
lowland and semi-arid areas with reduced sources of water, variation is limited to a depth
of 2m. Seasonal moisture variations are relatively constant for given climatic conditions
and identical soil profile since the general trend is toward accumulation or loss of total
moisture content until the weather changes.
The influence of time on volume change is another interrelated property which has its
major impact on the rate at which expansion occurs. The time to the first occurrence of
volume change and the rate of expansion are functions of the permeability of the soil and
Page 2-9
Chapter 2
Pavement Subgrade
the availability of water. Expansion occurs as soon as moisture is made available and
continues until an equilibrium condition is reached with regard to the source of water. The
application of surcharge to an expansive material reduces the amount of volume change
that is likely to occur. Often, the presence of a layer of non-expansive overburden may
reduce the effect of the underlying expansive material. It may be noted that confinement
has its greatest influence on expansive soils in a stress-related sense. This means the
greater the confinement, the greater the stress and the smaller would be the deformation.
However, in road construction, the load applied by a pavement is often far less than that
needed to control deformation.
Vegetation such as trees, shrubs, and some grasses are conducive to moisture movement or
depletion by transpiration. In areas where vegetation is removed, the moisture that was
being used by plants will tend to accumulate beneath the pavement structure and enhance
the volume change. Vegetation with large root systems located in close proximity to
pavements will result in differential moisture conditions and thus differential volume
change.
Poor surface drainage leads to moisture accumulation or ponding which can provide a
source of moisture for expansive subgrades. It is a frequent problem associated with
highways on expansive soils. The problem may be eliminated or reduced by locating the
pavement on an embankment constructed with non-expansive materials, locating the side
ditches as far away as possible from the edge of the road, and ensuring sufficient lateral
and longitudinal gradients so that surface water is removed away from the road with
minimum surface infiltration.
2.3.1.3 Identification and testing
The identification and testing of expansive soils are discussed in the ERA Site
Investigation Manual. The purpose is to qualitatively and quantitatively describe the
volume change behaviour of soils. The obvious need for qualitative identification is to
inform the design engineer of the potential for expansion and to generally classify this
potential on the basis of probable severity. Quantitative testing is necessary to obtain
measurable properties for predicting or estimating the magnitude of volume change the soil
will experience in order to ascertain approximate treatment or design alternatives.
Generally, there are three ways of identification and testing.
The first is an indirect technique in which one or more of the intrinsic properties are
described or measured, and complemented with experience to determine potential volume
change. The information may come from soil composition and genesis, chemical and
physical properties of parent material, the climate of the area, index properties of soils, and
soil classification systems.
The most widely used indicators for identification of expansive soils are the index
properties that are routinely determined by most road agencies. Experience has shown that
the volume change behaviour correlates reasonably well with liquid limit, plasticity index,
and shrinkage limit. In most cases, a combination of observed Atterberg limits and prior
experience with materials within a given area could be the main identification methods
used for expansive soils.
For instance, if the liquid limit is above 70, then the material is often highly expansive and
may not be used for fills. If the liquid limit is between 40 and 70, then some type of
Page 2-10
Chapter 2
Pavement Subgrade
treatment may be necessary to avoid distress. Similarly, the plasticity index is also useful
in that if it is below 15, then minimal problems are anticipated. If the plasticity index is
greater than 35, the material must be treated to minimize the problem or it should be
discarded. Moreover, a measure of the activity (the ratio of the plasticity index to the clay
fraction) is a good indication of the presence of smectites (expansive clay minerals). In
addition to the use of Atterberg limits to determine swell behaviour, an engineering soil
map is sometimes prepared during site investigation where pedological soil groups along
route corridors are described on the basis of index properties. This map can be used as
guide to locate expansive soils in the region.
The second and direct technique involves actual measurement of volume change in a
laboratory. This technique provides swell or swelling pressure values. Since subgrade
loading conditions are minimal, usually it is the swell rather than the swelling pressure
which is used by many road agencies. The swell defines deformation while the swelling
pressure is related to stress generated by the volume change. Many laboratories use the
odometer swell test with a minimal surcharge to determine volume change. In practice,
however, both the swell and swelling pressure values are rarely taken directly into account
in the design of pavements. Instead, they are used only to assess the magnitude of volume
change and to assist in the selection of appropriate treatment techniques. The problem is
that the laboratory tests are conservative because of the method by which water is made
available to specimens. In nature, it is highly unlikely that in-situ subgrade soils would
have a sufficient source of water for complete saturation.
The third approach involves data from indirect and direct techniques that are correlated
either directly or by statistical means to determine the comparative severity of the degree
of expansion, its probable severity, and its lateral or regional distribution. In pavement
design, the determination of the extent of volume change from indirect techniques and
performing laboratory tests only on selected samples is often the most cost effective and
faster way of dealing with expansive soils. For instance, it is known that the appearance of
highly expansive soils such as Black Cotton soils is distinct after desiccation. The surfaces
exhibit polygonal shrinkage cracks which reflect the percentage of clay and possibly the
presence of expandable clay minerals. The size of polygons is also an indicator, in that
small polygons are often the result of a high clay content. Examining these and other
fissures in the field and considering the regional distribution of expansive soils from other
sources could help the pavement design engineer to estimate the magnitude of volume
change. However, it should also be noted that any clay-rich soil may exhibit polygonal
cracking upon drying and it is important to distinguish this from an expansive soil.
2.3.1.4 Treatment options
When expansive soils are encountered in areas where significant moisture fluctuations in
the subgrade are expected, consideration should be given to the following measures to
minimize future volume changes and damage to the pavement structure.
For relatively thin (up to say 600 mm) layers of expansive clays near the ground
surface, remove and replace the expansive soil with select borrow materials.
Extend the width of the bottom of the pavement layers on both sides of the road to
reduce the change in subgrade moisture at the edges of the pavement. In addition,
increase the roadway camber to reduce the possibility of surface infiltration.
Scarify, stabilize, and re-compact the upper portion of the expansive clay subgrade.
The amount of heave of expansive soils can also be reduced if compacted to low
Page 2-11
Chapter 2
Pavement Subgrade
densities at moisture contents wet of optimum. However, if the soils are compacted
below optimum, they may exhibit excellent immediate stability, but they may fail
to satisfy specified density requirements. Upon saturation, the strength of this
material could also significantly reduce.
Loading expansive soils with a stress greater than the swelling pressure is also a
way of preventing swelling. Although pavement loads are generally insufficient,
using relatively thick bases and sub-bases (or capping layers) may also be useful to
reduce the effect of swelling to a certain extent. In addition, pre-loading or placing
1.0m or more of permanent compacted fill on the existing ground surface prior to
pavement construction will reduce the negative (suction) pore-water pressure and
thereby decrease the potential for swell. With pre-loading, swelling tends to be
more uniform.
Pre-wetting the subgrade is one way of reducing the effect of swelling soils. The
objective of pre-wetting is to allow desiccated swelling soils to reach equilibrium
prior to placement of the pavement. The most commonly applied method for
accelerating swelling by this technique is ponding. The time needed for ponding
and the depth of moisture penetration in the subgrade is determined based on the
characteristics of the soils and their swelling potential. Constructing the pavement
during the time of the year when the moisture content of subgrade soils is close to
the anticipated equilibrium value may reduce further moisture movement and hence
expansion.
In areas with deep cuts in over-consolidated expansive clay soils, completing the
excavation to the design elevation, and allowing the subsurface soils to rebound
prior to placing the pavement layers may also reduce further expansion. Since the
change in moisture content is the main factor influencing the volume change of
swelling soils, it is obvious that if the soil is isolated from water, volume change
should be reduced. In this context, waterproof asphaltic membranes are sometimes
used in different forms to limit the surface penetration of water. In addition, vertical
moisture barriers placed adjacent to pavements or around the perimeter of
foundations down to the maximum depth of moisture changes may also be an
effective method in maintaining uniform soil moisture.
Partial encapsulation along the edge of the pavement or full encapsulation can also
be used to reduce change in subgrade moisture. Encapsulation involves maintaining
the moisture content at desired constant level by wrapping the subgrade soils in
waterproof membranes.
Chemical stabilization has been used for altering the clay structure to prevent or
minimize the swelling of expansive clays. Lime or cement stabilization are
accepted methods for this purpose. Lime injected or mixed into expansive soil can
reduce the potential for heave. Fissures should exist in situ to promote the
penetration of lime. However, lime may be detrimental in soils containing
sulphates. Potassium solutions injected into expansive soils can cause a base
exchange, increase the soil permeability, and reduce the potential for swell.
Sealed pavements (e.g. asphalt surfaced) will always be more successful in
maintaining a more constant moisture content in the underlying subgrade soils,
compared to gravel roads where surface water infiltration is impossible to prevent.
The placement of geotextile between the subgrade and the pavement layers (subbase) to help distribute differential movements associated with heave more evenly.
Page 2-12
2.3.2
Chapter 2
Pavement Subgrade
Compressible soils
Compressible soils are soil deposits which are susceptible to large settlements and
deformations because of a relatively rapid decrease in void volume upon loading. All soils
compress when load is applied. Some, such as gravels and sands, compress very little.
Others, such as those containing large amounts of silt and clay, compress significantly.
When a load is applied, water molecules in silt or clays flow out of the soil mass. As the
water flows out, the soil grains move closer. As this happens, the overall volume of the soil
mass decreases, which is reflected as settlement or deformation on the pavement surface.
This movement is largely unrecoverable.
Compressible soils usually have very low density. Organic and peaty soils are also prone to
compression. They are usually found in low lying areas that are prone to flooding. When a
road is to be built in areas with thick deposits of highly compressible soils, specific index
properties must be examined to estimate settlement. If compressible soils are not treated,
large surface depressions with random cracking can develop. The surface depressions can
allow water to pond on the road surface and readily infiltrate the pavement structure,
potentially creating further problems. When existing subgrade soils do not meet minimum
design requirements and are susceptible to large settlements over time, the following
treatment options should be considered:
2.3.3
Remove and process soil to attain the approximate optimum moisture content, and
replace and compact.
Remove and replace subgrade soil with suitable compacted borrow or select
embankment materials.
If soils are non-plastic, consider dynamic compaction of the soils from the surface
to increase the dry density.
If the soil is extremely wet or saturated and relatively permeable, consider
dewatering using well points or deep horizontal drains. If horizontal drains cannot
be daylighted, connection to storm drainage pipes or roadside ditches may be
required.
Consolidate deep deposits of very weak saturated soils with large fills (surcharge)
prior to construction. After construction, the fills can either be left in-place or
removed, depending on the final elevation. Consider wick drains to accelerate
consolidation.
Collapsible soils
Collapsible soils are those that appear to be strong and stable in their natural (dry) state,
but which rapidly consolidate under wetting, generating large and often unexpected
settlements. When dry or at low moisture content, collapsible soils give the appearance of a
stable deposit. Often, the loose structure of these soils is held together by small amounts of
clay minerals or calcium carbonate (Figure 2-3). The introduction of water dissolves the
bonds created by these cementing materials and allows the soil to take a denser packing
under any type of compressive loading. The condition for collapse is that the soil mass
must be in a partially saturated condition and then wetted up and loaded simultaneously,
which can occur beneath pavement structures. A short description of collapsible soils is
given in Table 2-4.
Page 2-13
Chapter 2
Pavement Subgrade
Figure 2-3: Mechanism of soil collapse in natural soils.

Collapsible soils are found in areas where there are loess deposits (windblown silts). In
Ethiopia, loess deposits are common in the southern part of the Omo River valley. Loess,
unlike other non-cohesive soils, can stand on nearly vertical slopes until saturated. It has a
low relative density, a low unit weight, and a high void ratio. Other types of collapsible
deposits include alluvial soils formed in flood plains and semi-arid lowlands, residual soils
formed as a result of the removal of organics by decomposition or the leaching of certain
minerals (calcium carbonate), and residual soils formed by weathering of volcanic rocks
such as welded tuff and ash. Collapsible soils may also be suspected in undeveloped areas
that have young, accumulating sandy and silty soils.
Volcanic ashes (andosols with allophane clay minerals), often found in Ethiopia, typically
have low density and high porosity, and are easily crushed during compaction. These soils
can pose significant problems if present in the subgrade or used as fill, as their structure is
lost through compaction and they can have very high water contents, causing them to
become difficult to manage and susceptible to flow failure.
Page 2-14
Chapter 2
Pavement Subgrade
Table 2-4: Collapsible soils. From US DOT FHWA (2006)

Description
Collapsible soils exhibit large decreases in strength at moisture contents

approaching saturation, resulting in a collapse of the soil skeleton and large
decreases in soil volume.
Uses in
pavements
Collapsible subgrade soils can have a seriously detrimental effect on pavement

performance. Collapsible soils must be identified so that they can be removed
or stabilized.
Laboratory
determination
Field
measurement
Comment
Collapse potential is measured using the ASTM D 5333 test protocol. The
collapse potential of suspected soils is determined by placing an undisturbed,
compacted, or remoulded specimen in an oedometer. A load is applied and the
soil is saturated to measure the magnitude of the vertical displacement.
Indirect techniques such as excavating and refilling of pits and measuring the
depth below the original ground surface.
The collapse during wetting occurs due to the destruction of clay binding,
which provides the original strength of these soils. Remoulding and
compacting may also destroy the original structure.
On pavements, the result of collapse of the subgrade is mostly manifested by the

development of a deeply rutted and often uneven road surface and significant deterioration
of the riding quality of the road with or without cracking (Page Green 2008). However,
such rutting and unevenness is more likely to be due to other factors such as poor
compaction or the presence of compressible soils. Among the common artificial sources
of wetting in the surroundings of pavements are: (a) irrigation of agricultural lands; (b)
leakage from unlined drains; and (c) seepages from ponded areas such as retention basins.
The severity of collapse depends on the extent of wetting, depth of the deposit and loading
from the overburden weight and structure. Minor artificial and natural wetting is often
confined to the top layers beneath the ground surface. Sustained, long term infiltration can
lead to soil wetting at depth below the surface which in extreme circumstances can be quite
serious and can lead to significant settlements and ground cracking. Unlike expansive soils,
where the heave is restricted by the overlying load, collapsible soils can be subject to
collapse over their entire thickness (Paige-Green 2008).
2.3.3.1 Identification
The potential for collapse at a specific location is initially evaluated based on the
geological and environmental setting. The subsurface conditions are then evaluated by
ground investigation, for example using power auger borings, trial pits and open
excavations. These may be supplemented by boreholes that can extend to depths sufficient
to define the thickness of the collapsible soil. If a pit is excavated, then filling the hole with
the same amount of material can indicate whether the soils are collapsible, especially if the
difference in levels is high after tamping and levelling.
In the laboratory, the potential degree of collapse is best determined using oedometer tests
(various tests including the double oedometer, single oedometer and collapse potential test
are used) in which the collapse potential under specific loads is determined. For subgrades
under roads, the actual quantification is not that important. The primary objective is to
recognize the problem and implement measures to disrupt the collapse structure as far as
Page 2-15
Chapter 2
Pavement Subgrade
possible and to produce a subgrade that is relatively uniform, so that differential settlement
is minimized (Page-Green 2008).
An example of a typical stress-strain curve obtained by a one dimensional oedometer test is
shown in Fig. 2.4. The collapse potential is defined as the change in void ratio (e) upon
wetting compared to eo + 1. Settlement estimates are generally made by taking the collapse
potential over the potential depth of wetting. Clearly, the larger the collapse potential, the
more collapsible the soil is considered to be. Collapse potential in the order of 1% is
considered to be mild, while that above 10% is considered to be severe.
Figure 2-4: Typical results of a one dimensional oedometer test. Modified from Univ
Iowa (2013)
Usually, the collapse potential of the soil depends on density, gradation, the initial water
content, composition, and the extent of loading at the time of wetting. A good indication of
the potential for high collapse potential is a very low density. Typical collapsible soils have
densities of less than 1600 kg/m3 (mostly in the range of 1000 to 1585 kg/m3). In addition,
more than 60% of the mass of collapsible material lies in the 0.075 to 2 mm range and less
than 20% is finer than 0.075 mm (Page-Green 2008). In addition, high collapse potentials
are recorded for low initial moisture contents. For a given initial water content, the collapse
potential decreases with increase in the energy of compaction.
If pavements are to be constructed over collapsible soils, special remedial measures may be
required to prevent large-scale cracking and differential settlement. The most obvious
remedial measure is to preclude the presence of water. This is, however, impractical.
Compaction of subgrades using conventional compaction plant has been shown to be only
moderately effective in removing the collapse potential to any significant depth, even after
the addition of water. However, modern high energy compaction techniques using large
impact rollers, with or without the addition of water, have proved most effective in
reducing the collapse potential to a significant depth. If this work is done in the wet season,
a more economical and effective result is obtained as a result of the improved lubrication
offered by water (Page-Green 2008).
Page 2-16
Chapter 2
Pavement Subgrade
In addition, various ground modification methods can be used to prevent or limit collapse
from occurring, or cause the collapse to occur before construction. These methods include
partial removal and replacement; densification of the collapsible soil in-place such as by
compaction grouting; and pre-wetting of the collapsible soil followed by surcharge loading
to cause settlement before construction; conventional compaction with heavy vibratory
roller for shallow depths (within 0.3 to 0.6 m); and dynamic or vibratory compaction for
deeper compressible soils of more than 0.5 m (combined with inundation with water).
More options will generally be available to new construction compared to existing
pavements where there are constraints to mitigation options. For depths of collapsible soils
greater than 1.5 m, lime pressure and sodium silicate injections could also be helpful,
though expensive.
2.3.4
Dispersive soils
Dispersive soils are those soils that, when placed in water, have repulsive forces between
the clay particles that exceed the attractive forces. This results in the colloidal fraction
going into suspension and, in still water, staying in suspension. In moving water, the
dispersed particles are carried away or eroded. This obviously has serious implications in
earth dam engineering, but it is of less consequence in road (Page-Green 2008)
construction, especially when compared to the effects of expansive and collapsible soils. In
some places, however, the inclusion of dispersive soils in the subgrade or fill can lead to
significant pavement failures through piping, tunnelling and the formation of cavities. It is,
therefore, important to identify dispersive soils prior to design (Page-Green 2008).
Dispersive soils have not been definitively associated with any specific geological origin
but predominantly have a high sodium cation content. They occur mostly as alluvial clays
in the form of slope wash, lake bed sediments, loess deposits, and flood plain silts and
clays. Early studies indicated that dispersive clays were associated only with soils formed
in arid or semi-arid climates and in areas of alkaline soils. Recently, however, the same
soils have been found in humid climates and in various geographic locations. In areas of
sloping topography where dispersive soils exist, a characteristic pattern of surface erosion
is evidenced by jagged, sinuous ridges and deep rapidly forming channels and tunnels. In
gently rolling or flat areas there is frequently no surface evidence of dispersive clay, due to
an overlying protective layer of silty sand or topsoil from which the dispersive soil
particles have been removed. An absence of surface erosion patterns typical of dispersive
soils does not necessarily indicate that dispersive soils are not present.
Dispersive, slaking and erodible soils are similar in their field appearance (highly eroded,
gullied and channelled exposures), but differ significantly in the mechanisms of their
actions. Unlike dispersive soils, slaking soils disintegrate in water to silt, sand and gravel
sized particles without going into dispersion. The cause of slaking is probably a
combination of swelling of clay particles, the generation of high pore air pressures as water
is drawn into the voids in the material, and softening of any cementation. Purely erodible
soils will not necessarily disintegrate or go into dispersion in water. They tend to lose
material as a result of the frictional drag of water flowing over the material exceeding the
cohesive forces holding the material together (Page-Green 2008).
It is not very important (nor even really possible) to quantify the actual potential effect of
dispersive material, as the process is time related and, given enough time, all of the
colloidal material could theoretically be dispersed and removed, leading to piping, internal
erosion and eventually loss of material on a large scale. However, most studies reported in
Page 2-17
Chapter 2
Pavement Subgrade
the literature have shown that failures of pavements built on dispersive clay soils occurred
on first wetting. Further damage was associated with the presence of water and cracking by
shrinkage, differential settlement, or maintenance deficiencies. Hence it is important to
identify the presence of dispersive soils so that the necessary precautions can be taken in
an appropriate time.
2.3.4.1 Identification
Identification of dispersive soils should start with field investigations to determine if there
are any surface indications such as unusual erosional patterns with sub-soil pipes and deep
gullies, concurrent with excessive turbidity in any nearby bodies of water. Areas of poor
crop production and stunted vegetation may indicate highly saline or carbonate-rich soils,
many of which are dispersive. However, dispersive soils can also occur in neutral or acidic
soils and can support lush grass growth. Although surface evidence can give a strong
indication of dispersive soils, lack of such evidence does not preclude the presence of
dispersive clay at depth and further investigation should be undertaken. In many cases,
dispersive clays are more related to pedogenic processes or depositional environments and
are better identified on soil or agricultural maps if available at the required scale.
Figure 2-5: Dispersive potential determined based on percentage sodium and total
dissolved solids. From US DOI Bureau of the Interior (1991)
Dispersive clays cannot be identified by the standard index tests such as visual
classification, grain size analysis, specific gravity, or from Atterberg limits and therefore
other laboratory tests have been devised for this purpose. The five laboratory tests most
generally performed to identify dispersive clays are the crumb test, the double hydrometer
test, the pinhole test, the dissolved salts in the pore water test, and exchangeable sodium
percentage (ESP) based tests. Determination of the exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP)
has been suggested as the best test, and has been implemented widely, with the addition of
results from the pinhole test. Figure 2.3 presents a method of classifying dispersive soils
using percent sodium and total dissolved solids (TDS).
However, as discussed in the ERA Site Investigation Manual, the crumb test on
undisturbed samples is the best first indication for pavement design purposes. Dispersive
soils tend to produce a colloidal suspension or cloudiness over the crumb during the test,
Page 2-18
Chapter 2
Pavement Subgrade
without the material necessarily disintegrating fully. Disintegration of the crumb in slaking
soils is very rapid and forms a heap of silt, sand and gravel. Erodible soils do not
necessarily disintegrate in the crumb test as they require a frictional force of moving water
to loosen the surface material. Clay soils should be routinely tested for dispersive
characteristics during design studies for pavement and hydraulic structures where the clay
may be subjected to potential erosion and piping.
The remedial measures for avoiding dispersive soil damage to road pavements are
summarized in Table 2-5 and range from the relatively simple to the more demanding and
costly. Precautions include, but are not limited to proper moisture and density control, use
of filters and filter drains, selective placement of materials, use of sand-gravel blankets or
lime-modified soil on slopes, and chemical treatments of dispersive clays. Avoiding the
use of dispersive soils in fills as far as possible and removing and replacing them in the
subgrade is the preferred solution. It is important to manage water flows and drainage in
the area well. Since the presence of sodium as an exchangeable cation in clays is a major
problem, treatment with lime or gypsum will allow the calcium cations to replace sodium
and reduce the potential for dispersion. It is also important that the material is compacted at
2 to 3% above optimum moisture content to as high a density as possible (Page Green
2008).
Table 2-5: A summary of remedial measures to reduce the effect of dispersive soils.
From Soil and water Management (2008)
1. Minimize disturbance to topsoil and vegetation.
2. Choose construction methods that minimize the need for excavation and subsoil
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
exposure.
Avoid concentrating water flow over areas that have dispersive topsoil or sub-soils. If
possible divert water to areas where the soil is not dispersive.
Immediately infill any trenches or holes to prevent collection and ponding of water on
subsoil surfaces.
Always compact dispersive sub-soils that have been disturbed or excavated. Dispersive
soils require above average compaction. Careful control of compaction and water
content is important during construction.
Top dress the surface of potentially dispersive soils with up to 2% gypsum (if soil pH
> 6.5) or up to 4% lime by dry mass of soil (if soil pH <5) or a mixture of both (if soil
pH is within the range of 5 to 6.5).
Cover dispersive soils with a minimum 100 mm layer of non-dispersive soil prior to revegetation, or the placement of pavement layers.
2.4 Subgrade Treatment

Proper treatment of subgrade soils and the preparation of the foundation are important to
ensure a long-lasting pavement that does not require excessive maintenance. The subgrade
should be treated to form a construction pad or a long-term subsurface layer capable of
carrying pavement applied loads. Subgrade soils can be treated using a variety of methods
or a combination of them. Techniques that can be used to improve the strength and
stiffness of the subgrade and increase pavement performance include moisture control
removal and replacement, soil stabilization (modification), and the use of geosynthetics.
Page 2-19
Chapter 2
Pavement Subgrade
2.4.1
Moisture control
It is known that excess moisture has a damaging effect on pavement structures. This also
applies to expansive and to a lesser extent, dispersive soils. Moisture, in combination with
other factors, can have a profound negative effect on both material properties of the
subgrade and the overall performance of the pavement. As shown in Figure 2-6, moisture
can enter the pavement from a variety of sources. It may seep downward from a higher
ground, may infiltrate through the surface, or could flow laterally from the pavement edges
and shoulder ditches. Capillary action and moisture-vapour movement are also important.
Capillary effects are the result of surface tension and the attraction between water and soil.
The movement of vapour is associated with fluctuating temperatures and other climatic
conditions.
Figure 2-6: Sources of moisture in pavements. Modified from US DOT FHWA (2006)
Hence, knowledge of groundwater and its movement are critical to the performance of the
pavement as well as stability of the subgrade, embankments, side slopes and cut sections.
Groundwater can be especially problematic for pavement subgrades in low-lying areas
where inundation is common. Moisture control is therefore often an essential part of
pavement design.
A major issue in geotechnical design of pavements is especially to prevent the subgrade
from becoming saturated or even exposed to constant high moisture levels. The three main
approaches for controlling or reducing the problems caused by moisture on pavements are:
Prevent moisture from entering the pavement.

Use materials and design features that are insensitive to the effects of moisture.
Quickly remove moisture that enters the pavement.
The first two approaches involve the upper pavement layers, and are covered in the ERA
Pavement Design Manual. The last approach (removal of moisture) normally needs a
subsurface investigation and groundwater study to design the most appropriate drainage
system. It is necessary to drain the ground properly and to allow exposed soils of the
subgrade to dry out. Deep subsurface drains are usually installed to reduce groundwater
levels. These drains intercept the lateral flow of subsurface water beneath the pavement
structure, and remove the water that infiltrates the pavement surface. Various types of
longitudinal roadside drains placed in trenches beneath shoulders at shallower depths can
also be used to handle water infiltrating the pavement from above and the sides.
Page 2-20
Chapter 2
Pavement Subgrade
In some cases, subsurface drainage may remove water, but may not significantly reduce
the moisture content of fine grained soils in the subgrade. Drying should then be
accomplished through evaporation of soil moisture at the time of construction. Disking and
tilling of the soil accelerates the drying process, by reducing the size of soil lumps, thereby
increasing the surface area exposed to evaporation. These methods are generally effective
only in the top 200 to 300 mm of the subgrade, and are highly dependent on weather and
environmental conditions.
2.4.2
Removal and replacement
Removal of naturally occurring soil and replacing it with a suitable material is the most
obvious method of eliminating many of the subgrade problems. In some cases this
approach may be economical if the thickness of the layer to be removed is less than about
1 to 2 m and suitable replacement material is available. Unfortunately, this is generally not
the case, and the excavation and replacement solution is extended only to a depth which
will reduce the subgrade problem to a tolerable minimum. Hence the required depth of
excavation depends upon the suitability of the subgrade soil and the anticipated
characteristics of fill that is available nearby.
Usually, the selection of appropriate material for replacing poor subgrade soils is a critical
issue. Some road agencies use granular materials to replace unsuitable subgrade soils for
structural and drainage reasons. Often a granular layer is used to provide uniformity and
support as a construction platform. A thick mixed gravel/sand/silt layer may be used as an
alternative to soil stabilization for subgrade improvement in areas with large quantities of
readily accessible, good quality borrow material. Subgrade improvement is often the
preferred way of dealing with weak and poorly drained soils compared to increasing the
pavement layer thicknesses.
The objectives and benefits of thick mixed gravel/sand/silt layers for subgrade
improvement are to:
Increase the supporting capacity of weak, fine-grained subgrades.

Provide a minimum bearing capacity for the design and construction of pavements.
Provide uniform subgrade support over sections with highly variable soil
conditions.
Reduce the seasonal effects of moisture and temperature on subgrade support.
Reduce subgrade rutting potential of flexible pavements.
Several field and laboratory methods are used to characterize the strength and stiffness of
granular materials, including the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) and resilient modulus
(MR). In general, materials with CBR values of 20% or greater which corresponds to MR of
approximately 120 MPa can be used (US DOT FHWA (2006A). These are typically sand
or granular materials with or without limited fines, corresponding to AASHTO A-1 and A2 (GW, GP, SW and SP) soils.
The type of granular material used is normally a function of material availability and cost.
Pit-run gravel/sand/silt is the most common. Although the high shear strength of crushed
stone may be more desirable, the use of crushed materials is unlikely to be economically
feasible. The thicknesses of granular layers vary, depending upon their intended use. To
increase the composite subgrade design values (i.e. combination of granular layer over
natural soil), it is usually necessary to place a minimum of 0.5 1.5 m of embankment
Page 2-21
Chapter 2
Pavement Subgrade
material, depending on the strength of the granular material relative to that of the
underlying soil. In some instances, the use of a thick granular layer can allow the
dimension of the overlying layers to be reduced without compromising the strength and
serviceability of the entire pavement structure.
The placement of a granular layer over a comparatively weak underlying soil forms a nonhomogeneous subgrade in the vertical direction. Pavement design requires a single
subgrade design value, for example CBR or MR. This is generally determined through
laboratory or field tests, when the soil mass in the zone of influence of vehicle loads is of
the same type, or exhibits similar properties. In the case of a non-homogeneous subgrade,
the composite reaction of the embankment and soil combination can vary from that of the
natural soil to that of the granular layer. Most commonly, the composite reaction is a value
somewhere between the two extremes, dependent upon the relative difference in moduli,
and the thicknesses of the granular layer. The actual composite subgrade response is not
known until the embankment (granular) layer is placed in the field, and it may also be
different once the upper pavement layers are placed.
To account for non-homogenous subgrades in pavement structural design, it is
recommended to characterize the individual material properties by traditional means, such
as resilient modulus or CBR testing, and to compare these results to field tests performed
over the constructed embankment layers, as well as the completed pavement section. Some
road agencies use in-situ plate load tests to verify that a minimum composite subgrade
modulus has been achieved. Deflection devices, including the Falling Weight
Deflectometer (FWD), can be used for testing the compacted embankment layer and the
constructed pavement surface.
It is advisable to use caution when selecting a design subgrade value for a nonhomogenous subgrade. Experience has shown that a good-quality embankment layer must
be as high as 1 m or more, before the composite subgrade reaction begins to resemble that
of the granular layer. This means that, for granular layers of up to 1 m in height, the
composite reaction can be much less than that of the embankment layer itself. If too high a
subgrade design value is selected, the pavement will be under-designed. Granular layers
less than 0.5 m thick have minimal impact on the composite subgrade reaction, when
loaded under the completed pavement section. Structural design charts found in the ERA
Flexible Pavement Design Manual will usually provide the necessary guidance.
2.4.3
Soil stabilization
Soil stabilization is a general term that involves the use of mechanical or chemical
modifiers to enhance the strength of soils and reduce the change in moisture. The process
is often called soil modification when the purpose is to change the physical properties and
thereby improve the quality of the subgrade soil. Soil stabilization is usually performed for
the following reasons:
As a construction platform to dry very wet soils and facilitate compaction of the
upper layer. For this case, the stabilized soil is usually not considered as a structural
layer in the pavement design process.
To strengthen a weak soil and restrict the volume change potential of a highly
plastic (expansive) or compressible soil. For this case, the modified soil is usually
given some structural value in the pavement design process.
Page 2-22
Chapter 2
Pavement Subgrade
For further information on soil stabilization, including the use of geotextiles and geogrids,
see Appendix A.
Page 2-23
Chapter 3
Road Embankments
ROAD EMBANKMENTS
In road construction, embankment design is treated separately from the sub-grade primarily
because embankments are usually constructed of engineered fill imported from other
locations. The engineered fill is normally compacted as it is placed. Compaction of the fill
is monitored to confirm that it is constructed in accordance with the specification.
3.1 Types of Embankments

A road embankment may be constructed from either rock-fill or earth-fill. Fills that
comprise both coarse and fine grained materials and are known as earth-rock (composite)
embankments.
3.1.1
Rock fill embankments
In most cases, rock fill embankments contain more than 75% by volume of large
fragments, 100 mm or greater in size. When these materials are placed and compacted, the
embankment produced as a result primarily derives its stability from the mechanical
interlock of coarser particles. Since standard laboratory compaction tests on coarse
materials are of doubtful accuracy, a given amount of compactive effort is normally
specified for rock-fill embankments.
Special consideration should be given to the type of material that will be used in rock-fill
embankments. In some areas, moderately weathered or very soft rocks may be encountered
in cuts and used as embankment fills. The use of these materials can result in significant
long term settlement and stability problems as the rock degrades. Such rocks should be
checked by a slake durability test. If the rock is found to be non-durable, it should be
physically broken down and compacted as earth embankment provided the material meets
the specification for earth-fill. Shales and mudstones found in sedimentary sequences in
northern and eastern Ethiopia are good examples of low durability rocks and special
compaction techniques are required if they are to be used as fill. As with all rock-fill, any
oversize materials should be removed.
Generally, in order to maintain the long-term stability of a rock-fill embankment, 90% of
the rock fragments with dimensions greater than 100 mm should have a Point Load
strength of 2.0 MPa or greater. In addition, the maximum size of the coarse particles and
lift thickness should be specified, as they may vary in accordance with the hardness of
rocks in the region. However, in many instances, both the particle size and lift thicknesses
are limited to 300 mm. The advantage of rock fills compared with earth embankments is
that they can be constructed to steeper side slopes. As a consequence the fill volume is
lower than that for a similar height earth embankment, particularly on sloping ground and
they can therefore be constructed more quickly. Their disadvantage is that their unit
volume is usually more costly than earth, particularly if the rock is not available locally
within the project area.
Page 3-1
Chapter 3
Road Embankments
3.1.2
Earth-fill embankments
Earth-fill embankments are typically built by compacting earthen materials such as natural
soils. Hence the compaction properties of the soil materials (optimum water content and
maximum dry density) are very important to the long-term performance of the
embankments. Compressibility and shear strength can also be useful measures to determine
the stability of earth embankments. In addition, drainage is an important issue to prevent
the loss of shear strength due to saturation.
3.1.3
Embankments on soft ground
If soils underlying an embankment are predominately cohesive, then the primary design
issues will be bearing capacity, side-slope stability during construction, and long-term
settlement. These design issues will usually require the collection of undisturbed soil
samples for laboratory strength and consolidation testing. It may also be desirable to
collect in situ vane shear strength data and conduct DCP tests. The vane shear test can
provide valuable in-situ strength data, particularly in soft clays. The DCP information can
be used to identify locations for sampling and the occurrence of cohesionless layers that
could increase the rate of consolidation. It will usually be necessary to perform triaxial
compression tests in the laboratory to determine undrained strengths as well as total stress
and effective stress parameters. Consolidation tests can be conducted to define the preconsolidation pressure, the compressibility index and the coefficient of consolidation.
Cohesionless soils underlying an embankment are not usually a major geotechnical design
concern for static loading. This is because most cohesionless soils exhibit good bearing
capacity and low compressibility. Settlements will generally be small and will occur
rapidly during placement of the fill. If the project area is in a seismically active zone then
the liquefaction potential should be considered. In this case, it is necessary to determine the
level of groundwater table and its fluctuation characteristics. Grain-size distribution data
are also needed. Embankments sometimes have to be built on weak foundation materials or
soft ground, such as soft clays and silts and organic materials, including peat. Settlement or
piping may occur as a result, irrespective of the stability of the embankment. These can
result in significant settlement of the embankment during construction which in turn will
lead to an increase in the required fill quantity, long term total and differential settlements
affecting the serviceability of the road, and instability of the embankment.
Embankments on soft ground also have a tendency to spread laterally because of horizontal
earth pressures acting within the embankment. These earth pressures cause horizontal shear
stresses at the base of the embankment that must be resisted by the shear strengths of
foundation soils. Soft soils do not have adequate shear strength and failure may occur as a
result. Hence, embankments on soft soils are ideally designed so that the increase in stress
is relatively small, i.e. shallow embankments. Embankment fills over soft ground are
frequently stronger and stiffer than their foundations. This leads to the possibility that an
embankment will deform as the foundation fails under the weight of the embankment and
the possibility of progressive failure because of stressstrain incompatibility between the
embankment and its foundation (Figure 3-1). Because of this problem, peak strengths of
the embankment and the foundation soils do not mobilize simultaneously. Often, stability
analyses performed using peak strengths of soils would overestimate the factor of safety.
Page 3-2
Chapter 3
Road Embankments
Figure 3-1: Example of stress-strain incompatibility. From Abramson et al (2002)

Where embankments are required to be built over soft ground, stability and settlement of
the fill should be carefully evaluated. Some very soft and highly organic materials need to
be tested in situ with vane shear apparatus, as retrieving undisturbed samples from these
soils for laboratory testing is difficult. In addition, the level of groundwater should be
determined and its fluctuation monitored. Attention should be given to the internal stability
of the entire embankment foundation interface rather than the embankment or the
foundation soils alone. Consideration should be given to removing the soft underlying
layer and replacing it with free-draining material prior to the placement of the
embankment.
3.2 Design Considerations

Table 3-1 provides a summary of the engineering properties and field and laboratory tests
needed for the design of embankments. The key geotechnical issues are stability and
settlement characteristics of the foundation soils and the bearing capacity at the base. The
impact of these considerations on stages of construction is also an issue that should be
considered during design.
Embankments provide adequate support for roadways if the additional stress from traffic
loads and pavement structures does not exceed the shear strength of the soils.
Overstressing the embankment may result in slope failure. In addition to issues related to
side slope stability, any anticipated settlement problem must also be considered. This
settlement can be short term created as a result of the addition of increased load on the soil
beneath the embankment (bearing failure during placement of the fill) or long-term due to
consolidation.
The primary design issue is whether the existing foundation soil can support the new
embankment loads without undergoing bearing failure, or excessive settlement. These
conditions are most critical when soft cohesive soils are present below the embankment.
Staged construction may need to be considered whereby the embankment is constructed in
a number of stages and excess pore water pressures allowed to dissipate over a period of
time before the next lift is constructed. Sometimes trial embankments are constructed at the
beginning of the construction process to check assumptions made during the design.
Page 3-3
Chapter 3
Road Embankments
Table 3-1: Engineering properties and field and laboratory tests for embankment
design. From Washington State DOT (2013)
Engineering
parameters
Required information
for analyses
Settlement
Subsurface profile
(magnitude and 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
(soil, ground water,

rock)
Compressibility
parameters
Shear strength
parameters
Unit weights
Time-rate
consolidation
parameters
Horizontal earth
pressure coefficients
Interface friction
parameters
Pullout resistance
Geologic mapping
including orientation
and characteristics of
rock discontinuities
Shrink/swell and
degradation of soils
Field testing
Laboratory testing
One dimensional
Nuclear density
Plate load test
Test fill
CPT (water
content and pore
pressure
measurement)
SPT
PMT
Dilatometer
Vane shear
Rock coring
(RQD)
Geophysical
testing
Piezometers
Settlement plates
Slope
inclinometers
Oedometer
Triaxial tests
Unconfined
compression
Direct shear tests
Grain size
distribution
Atterberg limits
Specific gravity
Organic content
Moisture-density
relationship
Hydraulic
conductivity
Geosynthetic soil
testing
Shrink/swell
Slake durability
Unit weight
Relative density
The second type of load is the long-term operational loading. This loading occurs after the
embankment is constructed to the final grade and excess pore-water pressures have
dissipated. The long-term stability of embankment slopes should be analysed especially in
fine grained soils. When foundation soils are cohesive and not heavily over-consolidated,
potential settlement will be a design consideration. Consolidation settlement and secondary
compression can continue for many years and, depending on the thickness of soils, the
amount of settlement can be very high. Significant settlement can result in distress to the
pavement at the top of the embankment, as well as differential settlement of the pavement
at cut and fill transitions and bridge approaches.
Another load that may occur in embankments is seismic loading. This load is usually a rare
occurrence but may be very important in areas like the rift valley of Ethiopia where
earthquakes are much more common. The primary geotechnical concern during the design
earthquake is the potential for liquefaction in foundation soils beneath the embankment.
Liquefaction could lead to bearing failures, side slope failures and post-liquefaction
settlement. The potential for side slope failure without liquefaction is also a design
consideration. The duration of loading during a seismic event is usually short; however,
pore-water pressures can redistribute after an earthquake leading to liquefaction-related
failures that may occur several minutes after the main earthquake event.
Page 3-4
Chapter 3
Road Embankments
Embankments under 5 m high in areas of stable ground and with slopes not greater than
1.5H:1V generally do not require a detailed geotechnical investigation and analysis. These
embankments can be specified particularly when based on past experience in the same
region and on engineering judgment. On the same basis, embankments over 5 m high and
those constructed over soft ground will usually require a detailed geotechnical analysis.
3.3 Settlement Analysis

Settlement is the amount of vertical deformation that occurs when a load is applied or an
embankment is placed over compressible soils. The settlement may be due to the
consolidation of the embankment itself as well as the underlying soils.
The total settlement in an embankment is a summation of three potential components:
immediate settlement of the fill or the foundation soil, primary consolidation of the
foundation soil, and secondary compression controlled by the composition and structure of
the foundation soil skeleton. Settlement caused by lateral deformation of the foundation
soil at the edges of an embankment is not considered here.
Immediate settlement of the fill and the foundation soil occur during construction and will
not usually have any impact on the future pavement. Therefore, the analysis of settlement
for embankment design focuses on primary consolidation and secondary compression of
the foundation soil.
Because primary consolidation and secondary compression can continue long after the
embankment is constructed (post construction settlement), they represent the major
settlement considerations for embankment design. Usually, post-construction settlement
can damage structures located within the embankment, especially if these facilities are also
supported by adjacent soils that do not settle appreciably, leading to differential
settlements. Differential settlements that occur along the longitudinal axis of the
embankment because of changes in consolidation properties of underlying clays can cause
transverse cracking on the surface of the embankment.
Post-construction settlement adjacent to bridges can also create deformation to the road
surface, or down drag and lateral squeezing of the foundation. Generally, settlement in the
range of 30 to 60 mm throughout the design life of the road is considered to be tolerable
provided that it is uniform, occurs slowly, and does not take place adjacent to a pile
supported bridge.
One-dimensional consolidation tests are often used for the determination of settlement in
the laboratory. The results of these one-dimensional consolidation tests are expressed in an
e-log p (void ratio versus the log of pressure) or -log p (strain versus the log of pressure)
plot, which is called a consolidation curve. Settlement due to consolidation can be
estimated from the slope of this curve. This procedure is generally used in practice despite
the fact that not all of the soil beneath the embankment undergoes one dimensional
consolidation.
As stated earlier, for cases where there is uncertainty in the settlement estimate using
consolidation tests, it may be desirable to construct and monitor test fills. Information from
test-fill monitoring can be used to develop better estimates of soil compressibility and the
rate at which settlement will occur.
Page 3-5
Chapter 3
Road Embankments
3.3.1
Primary consolidation
The settlement associated with the readjustment of soil particles due to migration of water
out of the voids is known as primary consolidation. The amount of primary consolidation
depends on the initial void ratio of the soil. The greater the initial void ratio, the more
water that can be squeezed out, and the greater the primary consolidation. The rate at
which primary consolidation occurs is also dependent on the rate at which the water is
squeezed out of the soil voids.
The response of foundation soils to additional loads is also dependent upon their stress
history. Usually, settlement happens when the weight of the embankment exceeds the
previous stress history of the soils. Depending upon the magnitude of the existing effective
pressure relative to the maximum past effective stress at a given depth, foundation soils
can be classified as normally consolidated, over-consolidated, or under-consolidated.
When the existing load is equal to the historical load, the soil is said to be normally
consolidated. Pre-consolidation pressure in excess of the current vertical effective stress
occurs in over-consolidated soils. Soils are considered to be under-consolidated when
consolidation under the existing load is still occurring and will continue to occur until
primary consolidation is complete, even if no additional load is applied.
Settlement computation starts with the soil profile being divided into layers, with each
layer reflecting changes in soils properties. Thick layers with similar properties are also
subdivided to improve the analysis since the settlement calculations are based on the stress
conditions at the midpoint of the layer (i.e. it is preferable to evaluate a 6 m thick layer as
two 3 m thick layers). The total settlement is the sum of the settlement from each of the
compressible layers.
The settlement of an embankment resting on n layers of normally consolidated soils can be
computed from Fig.3-2a and using the following Equation 3-1:
n
S =
i
p
Cc H o
log10 f
1 + eo
po
where Cc is the compression index, eo is initial void ratio, Ho is layer thickness, po is initial
(current) effective vertical stress and pf = po+ p is final effective vertical stress at the
centre of layer n, and pc is the maximum past effective vertical stress. The total settlement
is the sum of the compressions in n soil layers. Common correlations for estimating Cc are
given in Table 3-2.
Page 3-6
Chapter 3
Road Embankments
Figure 3-2: Typical consolidation curve for normally consolidated soil, (a) void ratio
versus vertical effective stress and (b) vertical strain versus vertical effective stress.
From US DOT FHWA (2006B)
Sometimes the consolidation data is presented in terms of vertical strain (v) instead of
void ratio. In this case the slope of the virgin portion of the consolidation curve is called
the modified compression index and is denoted as Cc as shown in Fig.3-2b, where:
Cc= Cc /(1+eo).
As mentioned earlier, the total settlement is computed by summing the settlements
computed from each subdivided compressible layer within the zone of influence. The
assumption is made that the initial and final stress calculated at the centre of each sub-layer
is representative of the average stress for the sub-layer, and the material properties are
reasonably constant within the sub-layer. The sub-layers are typically 1.5 m to 3 m thick
for pavement design applications.
Table 3-2: Correlations between Cc & soil index parameters. Modified by US DOT
FWHA (2006B) from Holtz & Kovacs (1981)
Correlation
Soil
Cc= 0.156eo + 0.0107

Cc = 0.5Gs(PI/100)
All clays
Cc= 0.30(eo- 0.27)

Inorganic, silt, silty clay
Cc = 0.0115wn
Organic soils, peat
Cc = 0.75(eo - 0.50)
Low plasticity clays
Where eo is initial void ratio, PI is plasticity index, LL is
liquid limit, and wn is water content
If the water content of a clay layer below the water table is closer to the plastic limit than
the liquid limit, the soil is likely to be over-consolidated. This means that in the past the
clay was subjected to a greater stress than now exists. Over-consolidation can be due to the
weight of a natural soil deposit that has since been eroded away, the weight of a previously
placed fill that is removed, loads due to structures that have been demolished, or due to
Page 3-7
Chapter 3
Road Embankments
desiccation. Normally consolidated soils undergo large settlements compared to overconsolidated soils.
The curves shown in Figure 3-3 can be used to determine the settlement of an embankment
resting on n layers of over-consolidated soils. As a result of pre-consolidation, the field
state of stress will reside on the initially flat portion of the e-log p curve. Fig. 3-3a and 3-3b
illustrate the case where a load increment, p, is added so that the final stress, pf, is greater
than the maximum past effective stress, pc. The settlements for n layers of overconsolidated soils will be computed from the following Equation 3-2 that corresponds to
Fig.3-3a, where Cr is the recompression index:
n
S =
i
P
Ho
P
Cr log10 c + Cc log10 f
Po
1 + eo
Pc
In cases where the foundation soils represent both normally and over-consolidated layers,
the total settlement is computed by using a combination of the corresponding equations.
Figure 3-3: Typical consolidation curve for over-consolidated soil, (a) void ratio
Under-consolidation is the term used to describe the effective stress state of a soil that has
not been fully consolidated under an existing load. Consolidation settlement due to the
existing load will continue to occur under that load until primary consolidation is complete,
even if no additional load is applied. This condition is indicated in Fig. 3-4a and Fig. 3-4b
by po. As a result of under-consolidation, the field state of stress will reside entirely on
the virgin portion of the consolidation curve. The settlements for the case of n layers of
under-consolidated soils are computed by the following Equation 3-3, which corresponds
to Fig. 3-4a:
n
S =
i
Page 3-8
P
H o Cc
P
log10 o + log10 f
1 + eo
Pc
Po
Chapter 3
Road Embankments
Several methods are available to estimate the stress distribution at any point in the
embankment. Perhaps the simplest approach is the 2V:1H method. This empirical
approach is based on the assumption that the area the load acts over increases
geometrically with depth. Since the same vertical load is spread over a much larger area at
depth, the unit stress decreases. Apart from the vertical stress, the parameters that control
stress distribution at depth are the dimension of the embankment, the inclination of the
embankment side slopes, depth below the ground surface, and horizontal distance from the
centre of the load to the point in question.
Figure 3-4: Typical consolidation curve for under-consolidated soils (a) void ratio
The step-by-step procedures for determining the amount of and time for consolidation to
occur for a single-stage construction of an embankment on soft ground is outlined below:
1. From laboratory consolidation test data determine the e-log p curve and estimate
the change in void ratio that results from the added weight of the embankment.
Create the virgin field consolidation curve by using standard guidelines.
2. Determine if the soil is normally consolidated, over-consolidated or underconsolidated.
3. Use Equations 3-1, 3-2 and 3-3 to compute the primary consolidation settlement for
each sub-layer of the foundation soils.
4. The total settlement a soil layer is a sum of all sub-layer settlements
The detailed methodology for the estimation of consolidation is provided in many text
books. The computations are conducted manually or by using a spreadsheet. There are also
many computer programs that can compute settlement. The advantage of computer
programs is 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.
Page 3-9
Chapter 3
Road Embankments
3.3.2
Time for settlement
Many projects cannot accept the programming impact associated with waiting for primary
consolidation to occur. Therefore, estimating the time of settlement during design is often
as important as estimating the magnitude of settlement. The ability to quantify both the
magnitude and time of settlement depends on field investigations, the quality of laboratory
testing, the size of the embankment, and type and consistency of the foundation soils. As
shown in the following Equation 3-4, the time for primary consolidation settlement
depends on the coefficient of consolidation, the thickness of the layer and the time after
loading:
Tv H d2
t=
Cv
Where t is the time (days) needed, Tv is a dimensionless time factor, Hd (m) is the longest
distance to a drainage boundary, Cv is the coefficient of consolidation measured in m2/day.
As shown in the equation above, the time of settlement is directly proportional to the
distance to a drainage surface squared (Hd2); therefore, reducing the drainage thickness (H)
by a factor of two results in a four-fold increase in settlement rate. Generally,
determination of the average drainage path length is an important component of field
exploration. This drainage path or the distance the pore water must flow through a
compressible layer depends on the permeability of materials below and above it. If the clay
deposit has a significant number of sand inter-layers, the rate of settlement increases
significantly because of the reduced drainage path length. Generally, the longest drainage
distance of a soil confined by permeable layers on both sides is equal to one-half of the
layer thickness. When confined by a permeable layer on one side and an impermeable
boundary on the other, the longest drainage distance is equal to the layer thickness itself.
The value of the dimensionless time factor, Tv, for any average degree of consolidation can
be taken from tables available in many text books. The average degree of consolidation at
any time, t, can be defined as the ratio of the settlement at that time (St) to the settlement at
the end of primary consolidation (Sf), when excess pore water pressures are zero
throughout the consolidating layer (i.e. U= St/Sf). At the end of primary consolidation all
excess pore water pressures have dissipated and the average degree of consolidation (U)
approaches 100%. The normalized time factor, Tv, is used to compute the settlement time
for various percentages of settlement due to primary consolidation in order to develop a
predicted settlement-time curve.
Normally, experience has shown that the rate of settlement is faster than is estimated from
calculations. A part of this faster rate can be attributed to the existence of thin drainage
layers.
The step by step procedures to determine rate of settlement are as follows:
1. Determine the coefficient of consolidation (Cv) from laboratory consolidation test
data. The two graphical procedures commonly used for this purpose are the
logarithm-of-time (log t) and the square root of time() methods. Because both
methods are different approximations of a theory, they do not give the same
Page 3-10
Chapter 3
Road Embankments
answers. Often the method gives slightly greater values than the log t method.
The log t method is shown in Figure 3-5.
o Plot the dial readings for sample deformation for a given load increment
against time on a semi-log paper.
o Plot two points, P and Q on the upper portion of the consolidation curve
which correspond to time t1 and t2, respectively. Note that t2 = 4 t1.
o The difference of the dial readings between P and Q is equal to x. Locate
point R, which is at a distance x above point P.
o Draw the horizontal line RS. The dial reading corresponding to this line is
d0, which corresponds to 0% consolidation.
o Project the straight-line portions of the primary consolidation and the flatter
portion towards the end of the consolidation curve to intersect at T. The dial
reading corresponding to T is d100, i.e. 100% primary consolidation. The
sample deformation beyond t100 is due to secondary compression.
o Determine the point V on the consolidation curve which corresponds to a
dial reading of (d0+d100)/2 = d50. The time corresponding to the point V is
t50, i.e. 50% consolidation.
2. Determine the average drainage path length (Hd) during field exploration.
o Calculate Cv from Equation 3.4 for desired U. For example for U=50%, the
value of Tv is 0.197 from standard tables.
3. Establish the time to achieve 90% - 95% primary consolidation.
An alternative approach to hand calculation is the use of computerized methods. There are
various programs which can calculate the time rate of settlement for various boundary
conditions including the effects of staged construction and strip drains in addition to
calculating the stresses and settlements. Some programs also allow for simulation of
multiple layers undergoing simultaneous consolidation.
3.3.3
Secondary compression
The end of primary consolidation is considered as the amount of compression that occurs
during the period of time required for excess pore-water pressure to dissipate because of an
increase in effective stress. Secondary compression occurs when the soil continues to settle
after the excess pore water pressures are dissipated to a negligible level, i.e. primary
consolidation is essentially completed. It can take years for primary settlement to complete
and secondary compression continues for decades. The occurrence of secondary
compression is independent of the stress state and theoretically is a function only of the
secondary compression index and time.
Page 3-11
Chapter 3
Road Embankments
Figure 3-5: Log t method of determining the coefficient of consolidation. From US

DOT FHWA (2006B)
Secondary compression is normally evident in the settlement-log time plot (Figure 3.5),
when the specimen continues to consolidate beyond 100% of primary consolidation, i.e.
beyond t100. Secondary compression continues through the life of the embankment, though
the normal assumption is that it decreases according to the logarithm of time as shown
below:
Sc =
t
C
H o log10 2
1 + eo
t1
Where Sc is secondary compression, C is the coefficient of secondary compression, Ho is

layer thickness, eo is the initial void ratio, t1 is the time when approximately 90% of
primary consolidation has occurred for the actual clay layer being considered, and t2 is the
service life of the structure or any other time of interest. The values of C can be
determined from the dial reading vs. log time plots of one-dimensional consolidation test
shown in Fig 3-5.
For many soils, contribution from secondary settlement is small. However, in soft soils and
particularly in soils with a high peat or organic content, it can be large and difficult to
predict.
Like the primary consolidation, detailed numerical procedures for estimating the amount of
secondary compression are given in the literature. Generally, the contributions from the
individual soil layers are summed to estimate the total settlement. 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 settlement are sometimes
only partially effective at mitigating the effect of secondary compression. Often the owner
must accept the risks and maintenance costs associated with secondary compression if a
cost/benefit analysis indicates that mitigation techniques such as using lightweight fills or
over-excavating are too costly.
Page 3-12
Chapter 3
Road Embankments
3.4 Settlement Mitigation

Once the amount and rate of settlement are determined from laboratory tests and field
measurements, the next stage would be to select appropriate techniques that can assist
mitigating the short and long-term effects. Mitigation techniques are employed when it is
observed that the extent of settlement is beyond the amount that can be tolerated. Often,
there is an attempt to reduce potential settlement by compaction of the foundation soil, but
this process is expensive and is rarely applied. Instead, the most commonly used methods
to mitigate settlement include acceleration using surcharges and wick drains, lightweight
fills and removal and replacement.
3.4.1
Preloading and Surcharge
Preloading is the process of compressing the subsoil prior to placing the permanent load.
This method involves the placement and removal of a fill similar to or greater than the
permanent load. The concept of preloading and its effect on reducing settlement is shown
in Figure 3-6.
Figure 3-6: Concept of pre-loading and its effect on magnitude and time of settlement
In preloading, the surcharge is removed after the settlement objectives have been met in
order to avoid additional deformation. If the material cannot be moved to another part of
the project site for use as site fill or another surcharge, it is often not economical to bring
the extra fill to the site only to haul it away again. Also, when fill soils must be handled
multiple times (such as with a rolling surcharge) for preloading, it is advantageous to use
gravel borrow material to reduce workability issues during the rainy season and wet
weather conditions.
Surcharging is a process which subjects the ground to a higher pressure than that during
the service life in order to achieve a higher initial rate of settlement thus reducing long
Page 3-13
Chapter 3
Road Embankments
term deformation. Unlike preloading, a large proportion of the fill is left behind after the
required settlement is achieved. Figure 3-7 illustrates the idea behind surcharging and the
results achieved. In embankment construction, the surcharge is constructed to a
predetermined height, usually between 300 mm and 3 m above the final grade elevation.
The surcharge is maintained for a predetermined waiting period (typically 3 to 12 months)
based on settlement-time calculations.
Figure 3-7: Effect of surcharge on magnitude and time of settlement

Depending upon the strength of the consolidating layer(s) the surcharge may have to be
constructed in stages. The actual dimensions of the surcharge and the waiting period for
each stage depend on the strength and drainage properties of the foundation soil as well as
the initial height of the proposed embankment. The length of the waiting period can be
estimated by using laboratory consolidation test data. The actual settlement occurring
during embankment construction is then monitored with geotechnical instrumentation.
When the settlement with surcharge equals the settlement originally estimated, then
surcharging could be removed.
In addition to decreasing the time to reach the target settlement, surcharges can be used to
reduce the impact of settlement from secondary compression. 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 400 mm and secondary compression is estimated as
an additional 200 mm over 25 years, then the surcharge would be designed to achieve 600
mm of settlement or greater under primary consolidation only. Using a surcharge typically
may not completely eliminate secondary compression, but it has been successfully used
elsewhere to reduce its magnitude.
Page 3-14
Chapter 3
Road Embankments
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 means are needed to address secondary compression in this case, such as removal
and replacement.
The significant design and construction consideration for using surcharges is the
embankment stability. It is known that new fill embankments over soft soils can result in
stability problems. Hence, the stability of a surcharged embankment must be checked as
part of the embankment design to ensure that an adequate short term safety factor exists
(see Section 3.6). The stability of the embankment can be monitored in the field using
geotechnical instruments.
3.4.2
Vertical drains
Primary consolidation of some highly plastic clays can take many years to be completed.
Surcharging alone may not be effective in reducing settlement time sufficiently since the
longest distance to a drainage boundary may be significant. In such cases, vertical drains or
wick drains can be used to accelerate the settlement, either with or without surcharge
treatment. The vertical drains accelerate the settlement rate by reducing the drainage path
the water must travel to escape from the soil to half the horizontal distance between them,
as illustrated in Figure 3-8. In most applications, a permeable sand blanket, 0.6 to 1 m
thick, is placed on the ground to permit free movement of water away from the
embankment and to create a working platform for installation of the drains. The drains are
installed prior to placement of the embankment.
The time for consolidation is proportional to the square of the length of the longest
drainage path. Thus if the length of the drainage path is shortened by 50%, the
consolidation time is reduced by a factor of four. Vertical drains and sand blankets should
have high permeability to allow the water squeezed out of the subsoil to travel relatively
quickly through them.
Generally, wick drains are small prefabricated drains consisting of a plastic core that is
wrapped with geotextile, which functions as a separator and a filter to keep holes in the
plastic core from being plugged by the adjacent soil. The drains are usually 100 mm wide
and about 6.25 mm thick, produced in rolls that can be fed into a mandrel. They are
installed by pushing or vibrating a mandrel into the ground with the wick drain inside. Predrilling of dense soil deposits may be required in some cases to reach the design depth.
Since vertical drains are generally expensive, the feasibility of a surcharge solution should
always be considered first.
Page 3-15
Chapter 3
Road Embankments
Figure 3-8: Use of vertical drains to accelerate settlement. From NCHRP (1989)
reproduced in US DOT FHWA (2006B)
3.4.3
Removal and replacement (over-excavation) refer to excavating soft compressible soils

from below the embankment and replacing them with higher quality, less compressible soil
(Figure 3-9). Where analyses indicate that more foundation settlement would occur than
can be tolerated, partial or complete removal of compressible foundation material may be
necessary. However, because of high costs associated with excavating and disposing of
unsuitable soils and the difficulty of excavating below the water table, removal and
replacement is only justified under certain conditions. Some of these conditions include the
following:
The area requiring over-excavation is not wide;

The unsuitable soils are near the ground surface and do not extend very deeply
(removal of unsuitable material beyond the depth of 3 m is not normally
economically feasible);
Temporary dewatering is not required to support or facilitate the excavation;
The unsuitable soils can be dumped on site or can be disposed of safely elsewhere
close by;
Suitable fill materials are readily available to replace the volume of unsuitable
soils.
Page 3-16
Chapter 3
Road Embankments
Figure 3-9: Removal and replacement beneath an embankment
3.5 Bridge Approach Embankments

Usually, excess materials from a roadway excavation or a convenient borrow site are used
to construct bridge approach embankments. However, because only a small settlement is
desirable at abutments, requiring piles and drilled shafts, it is better to use select materials
and increase compaction requirements to prevent differential settlement.
Figure 3-10: Elements of a bridge approach embankment. From Briaud et al (1997)

At bridge approaches, deformation can occur both in the vertical and lateral directions.
Settlements are results of vertical deformation. As approach embankments and foundation
soils settle, the result is that materials surrounding deep foundation systems may cause
negative skin friction or a down-drag effect on individual piles or drilled shafts (Fig. 3-11).
Past studies have indicated that this effect can occur with as little as a 10 mm settlement. If
enough down-drag occurs, the axial capacities of piles or shafts may be exceeded.
Page 3-17
Chapter 3
Road Embankments
Figure 3-11: Settlement and down-drag in bridge abutments and piles. Modified from
US DOT FHWA 2006B
Therefore it is important to evaluate potential approach embankment settlements close to
the bridge structure and determine if down-drag will occur. Once it is determined that
down-drag is possible, an estimate of the negative skin resistance should be performed.
The use of a waiting period between the completion of the embankment and the installation
of foundations permits settlement to occur prior to driving piles or installing shafts. Downdrag loads may be considered negligible if the settlement following completion of the
waiting period is expected to be less than 10mm.
In addition, any large settlement near a bridge structure can lead to the formation of
differential settlements in the road surface.
Often, bridge approach slabs are used to provide a transitional road surface between the
pavement on the approach embankment and the actual structure of the bridge. Due to the
deformation of the approach embankment fills, these slabs can settle and/or rotate,
Depending on the configuration of the approach slab, e.g., how the slab is connected to the
abutment and/or the wing walls, voids may develop under the slab as the approach fill
settles. Such voids can then fill with water, and water pressure may act against structural
elements or soften the soils with associated reduction in strength. Generally the problems
in bridge approach embankments are classified as internal deformation within the
embankment and external deformation in foundation soils.
Internal deformation is a result of compression of fill materials, commonly related to
drainage problems. Poor drainage can cause softening of the embankment soils, reduce the
stability of soils near the slope, and potentially lead to migration of fill material and
creation of voids or substantial vertical and lateral deformations. External deformation is
due to the vertical and lateral deformation of the foundation soils on which the
embankment is placed. Furthermore, deformation may include both primary consolidation
and secondary compression depending on the type of foundation soils. Lateral squeeze of
the foundation soils can occur if the soils are soft and if their thickness is less than the
width of the end slope of the embankment.
Internal deformation within embankments can be controlled by using fill materials that
have the ability to resist the anticipated loads imposed on them. A well-constructed soil
embankment will not excessively deform internally. A typical approach embankment cross
section is shown in Figure 3-12. Special attention should be given to the interface area
between the bridge structure and the approach embankment, as this is where the bump at
the end of the bridge occurs. Usually, the reasons for the bump are poor compaction of
Page 3-18
Chapter 3
Road Embankments
embankment material near the structure, migration of fine soils into drainage material, and,
loss of embankment material due to poor drainage. Poor compaction is usually caused by
restricted access of standard compaction equipment to that area. Proper compaction can be
achieved by optimizing the soil gradation in the interface area to permit compaction to
maximum density with minimum effort.
Figure 3-12: Suggested details of a bridge approach embankment. Modified from US

DOT FHWA 2006B
Selected structural backfill is usually placed in relatively small quantities and in relatively
confined areas to minimize differential settlements. Table 3-3 lists specification
considerations for selected structural back fill to ensure the construction of a durable and
dense backfill.
In order to drain water from the embankment, under-drain filters can be constructed. The
drainage aggregate used for under-drain filters should consist of crushed stone, sand, or
screened gravel. Suggested properties for drainage aggregate are provided in Table 3-4.
The soundness of the drainage aggregate should also be tested. Generally, the aggregate
should not have a loss exceeding 20% by weight after four cycles of the magnesium
sulphate soundness test.
Page 3-19
Chapter 3
Road Embankments
Table 3-3: General considerations for specification of selected structural backfill.

From US DOT FHWA 2006B
Consideration
Lift thickness
Largest particle size
Gradation and % fines
Plasticity index
Durability
T99 density control

Compatibility
Comment
Limit to 150 mm to 200 mm, so compaction is possible
with small equipment.
Limit to less than of lift thickness.
Use well graded soil for ease of compaction. Typical
gradation:
Sieve Size
% passing (by weight)
100 mm
100
No. 40 (0.425 mm)
0 to 70
No. 200 (0.075 mm)
0 to 15
The limitation on percent fines (particles smaller than
No. 200 sieve) is to prevent piping and allow gravity
drainage. For rapid drainage, consideration may be
given to limiting the percent fines to 5%.
The PI should not exceed 10 to control long-term
deformation.
The material should be substantially free of shale or
other soft, poor-durability particles. A material with a
magnesium sulfate soundness loss exceeding 30
should be rejected.
Small equipment cannot achieve AASHTO T180
densities. A minimum of 100% of standard Proctor
maximum density is required.
Particles should not move into voids of adjacent fill or
drain material.
In areas where selected materials are not available, the use of geosynthetic materials to
reinforce the abutment backfill and approach area can reduce the differential settlement at
the end of the bridge. Such reinforced fills can be designed using the principles of
reinforced soil slopes.
Table 3-4: Suggested gradation for drainage aggregate. From United States DOT
FHWA (2006B)
Sieve Size (mm)
25.4
12.7
6.3 (No 3)
2.00 (No 10)
0.85 (No 20)
% passing (by weight)

100
30 100
0 30
0 10
05
In addition to overall and differential settlement problems, bridge approach embankments

can become saturated as a result of inundation during the occurrence of floods. When the
water level falls rapidly, excess pore pressures can develop and lead to instability of
embankment slopes.
Page 3-20
Chapter 3
Road Embankments
3.6 Stability Assessment

In addition to settlement, the design of embankments should also consider side slope
stability and bearing capacity. Stability problems in the form of rotational or sliding block
failures (Figure 3-13) most often occur when the embankment is built over soft soils such
as low strength clays and silts, or when the foundation soil is overstressed during or
immediately after construction. Failure can also occur if the fill materials are not
compacted to specification. In addition, failures can also occur when the fill materials at
the toe of the embankment are eroded. Dynamic forces from earthquakes, blasting or pile
driving can also trigger failures of embankment slopes. Usually, short-term stability of
embankments on cohesive soil is more critical than long-term stability, because the
foundation soil will gain shear strength as the pore pressures dissipate.
Figure 3-13: Modes of side slope failures in embankments. From IOWA State (2013)
and US DOT FHWA (2006B)
Instability of embankments can generally be classified as internal or external. Internal
stability generally results from the selection of poor quality embankment materials and/or
improper placement of the embankment fills. Shallow, planar slope failures in
embankment side slopes are examples of internal instability. Usually such kinds of failures
are manifested as sloughing of the surface of the slope. On the other hand, deep rotational
and planar failures that involve both the embankment and the foundation soils are
considered to be external.
In general, embankments that are 5 m or less in height with 1.5H:1V or flatter side slopes,
may be designed based on past precedence and engineering judgment provided there are no
known problem soil conditions such as organic and soft soils. Embankments over 5 m in
height or any embankment on soft soils, in unstable areas, or those comprised of
lightweight fill require more in-depth stability analyses, as do any embankments with side
Page 3-21
Chapter 3
Road Embankments
slope inclinations steeper than 1.5H:1V. Moreover, any fill placed near or against a bridge
abutment or foundation, or that can impact a nearby buried or above-ground structure, will
likewise require stability analysis.
Prior to commencing a stability analysis, the following key issues need to be addressed:
Is the site underlain by soft silt, clay or peat? If so, a staged stability analysis may
be required.
Are there geometrical and site constraints which need embankment slopes steeper
than 1.5H:1V? If so, a slope stability assessment may be needed to evaluate the
various alternatives. Is the embankment temporary or permanent? Factors of safety
for temporary fills may be lower than for permanent embankments, depending on
the site conditions and the availability of materials.
Does the new embankment have an impact on nearby structures or bridge
abutments? If so, more elaborate sampling, testing and analysis are required.
Are there potentially liquefiable soils at the site? If so, seismic analysis to evaluate
this and ground improvement may be needed.
Methodologies for analysing the stability of embankment slopes are available in many
reference books. A discussion on slope stability is also given in Chapter 4. Generally,
experience and observations of failures of embankments constructed over relatively deep
deposits of soft soils have shown that when failure occurs, the embankment settles, the
adjacent ground rises and the failure surface follows a circular arc of the type shown in
Figure 3-14. A slip circle failure in embankments may be a base circle, a toe circle, or a
slope circle. A base slip circle develops when there is a significant thickness of weak
foundation soil. The base of the failure arc is tangent to the base of the weak layer, and the
arc will have a significant portion of its length in the weak soil. A slip circle develops
within the embankment and intersects with the slope. A toe slip circle develops in the
embankment and intersects at the toe. This happens, sometimes, when the embankment
material becomes saturated and failure occurs.
In general, at failure, the driving and resisting forces act as follows:
The force driving movement consists of the embankment weight. The driving
moment is the product of the weight of the embankment acting through its centre of
gravity times the horizontal distance from the centre of gravity to the centre of
rotation (Lw).
The resisting force is the total shear strength acting along the slip plane. The
resisting moment is the product of the resisting force times the radius of the circle
(LS).
Page 3-22
Chapter 3
Road Embankments
Figure 3-14: Typical circular arc failure mechanism. From US DOT FHWA (2006B)
The factor of safety (FS) against failure is equal to the ratio between the resisting and
driving moments as given below. Failure takes place when the factor of safety is less than
one.
=
A rule of thumb based on simplified bearing capacity theory can be used to make a
preliminary estimate of the factor of safety (FS) against circular arc failure for an
embankment built on a clay foundation without presence of free water. This is as follows:
=
where c is the cohesion of the clay foundation soil, Fill is the unit weight of the fill and
HFill is the height (thickness) of the fill. Since the rule of thumb assumes that there is no
influence from groundwater in the embankment, c and Fill are effective stress parameters.
The equation is helpful only very early in the design stage to make a quick preliminary
estimation of whether stability may be a problem and if more detailed analyses should be
conducted. It can also be used in the field during investigation. If in-situ vane shear tests
are being carried out as part of the field investigation for a proposed embankment, the data
from vane strength tests on the underlying soils can be used with the equation to estimate
the FS in the field. This estimate can aid in directing the drilling and sampling programme
either for design or construction review and help to ensure that critical strata are adequately
explored and sampled. A more detailed stability analysis is needed when the FS obtained
in this way is less than 2.5 or when groundwater is expected to lie within the slip circle.
If the critical stability is under drained conditions, such as in sand or gravel, then effective
stress analysis using a peak friction angle should be used for stability assessment. In the
case of over-consolidated fine 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. 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 generally needed.
Page 3-23
Chapter 3
Road Embankments
Once the soil profile, soil strengths, depth of ground water table and other necessary
parameters are determined by field explorations and/or laboratory testing, the stability of
the embankment can be analysed using standard methods and a factor of safety estimated.
The method of analysis that should be selected to determine the factor of safety depends on
the soil type, strength characteristics and other parameters. General guidelines are given in
Table 3-5.
In general, for side slopes of any road embankment, a minimum design safety factor of 1.3
as determined by the ordinary method of slices (Chapter 4) is sufficient to maintain longterm stability. Embankments supporting or potentially impacting non-critical structures
should have a minimum safety factor of 1.3. For slopes that would cause greater damage
upon failure, such as slopes adjacent to bridge abutments, major retaining structures, and
major roadways, the design safety factor should be increased in the range of 1.3 to 1.5. All
bridge approach embankments and those supporting critical structures should have a safety
factor of 1.5. Critical structures are those in which failure would result in property damage.
If an embankment is provided with benches, these should be at least 1.5 m wide and not
more than 6m apart vertically. If springs or seepages are found near the embankment,
suitable drains should be provided to collect the flow.
3.7 Fill Slope Stabilization

A variety of techniques are available to mitigate inadequate slope stability for new
embankments, existing embankments or embankment widening projects. These techniques
include staged construction to allow the underlying soils to gain strength, base
reinforcement, ground improvement, use of lightweight fill, and construction of toe berms
and shear keys. Table 3.6 presents a summary of these solutions to mitigate embankment
stability problems.
3.7.1
Staged construction
Where soft compressible soils are present below a new embankment and when it is not
economical to remove and replace these soils with compacted fill, the embankment can be
constructed in stages to increase the strength of soils under the weight of the new fill. This
means that the rate of filling is governed by the increase in soil strength due to
consolidation. Usually the design is carried out using the undrained strength, and vertical
drains are used to increase the consolidation process. The stability and degree of
consolidation can be related to the gain in strength from the tests and observations of
excess pore water pressures.
Page 3-24
Chapter 3
Road Embankments
Table 3-5: Slope assessment guidelines for the design of embankments and cuts. From
US DOT FHWA (2006B)
Soil type
Type of analysis
Source of shear strength

parameters
Short-term
Embankments on
soft clays:
immediate end of
construction (cut),
= 0 analysis.
Cohesive
Staged
construction
Embankments on
soft clays: build
embankment in
stages with
waiting periods to
take advantage of
clay strength gain
due to
consolidation.
Long-term
Embankment on
soft clays and clay
cut slopes.
Granular
All types
Recommended methods of
analysis and remarks
Use Bishop method. An angle of
internal friction should not be
UU or field vane shear
used to represent an increase of
test or CU triaxial test.
shear strength with depth. The
Use undrained strength
clay profile should be divided
parameters at Po (Initial
into convenient layers and the
effective vertical stress)
appropriate
cohesive
shear
strength assigned to each layer.
Use Bishop method at each stage
CU triaxial test. Some
of embankment height. Consider
samples should be
that clay shear strength will
consolidated to higher
increase with consolidation under
than existing in-situ
each stage. Consolidation test
stress to determine clay data needed to estimate length of
strength gain due to
waiting
periods
between
consolidation under
embankment stages. Piezometers
staged fill heights.
and settlement devices should be
used to monitor pore water
Use undrained strength
dissipation
and
parameters at appropriate pressure
consolidation
during
Po for staged height.
construction.
CU triaxial test with pore

water pressure
measurements or CD
triaxial test.
Use effective strength
parameters.
Obtain effective friction

angle from charts of
standard penetration
resistance (SPT) versus
friction angle or from
direct shear tests.
Use Bishop method with

combination of cohesion and
angle
of
internal
friction
(effective strength parameters
from laboratory test).
Use Bishop method with an

effective stress analysis.
UU = unconsolidated undrained, CU consolidated undrained, CD = consolidated drained

Methods recommended represent minimum requirement. More rigorous methods such as
Spencers and Morgenstern-Price method should be used when the design demands.
Page 3-25
Chapter 3
Road Embankments
Table 3-6: Design techniques useful for mitigating embankment failure. From US
DOT FHWA (2006B)
Relocate highway
alignment.
Reduce grade line.
(flatten slope)
Counterweight
berms.
A shift of the highway centre-line to an area with better soils may be the
most economical solution.
A reduction in grade line will decrease the weight of the embankment and
will improve the stability of over-stressed soils.
A counterweight berm outside of the centre of rotation provides an
additional resisting moment that increases the factor of safety. Berms
should be built concurrently with the embankment. The embankment
should never be completed prior to berm construction since the critical time
for shear failure is at the end of embankment construction. The top surface
of a berm should be sloped to drain water away from the embankment.
Also, care should be exercised in the selection of materials and compaction
specifications to ensure that the design unit weight will be achieved for
berm construction.
Excavation of soft
soil and
replacement with
shear key.
The strength of soft soils is often insufficient to support embankments. In

such cases, the soft soils are excavated and replaced with granular material
that acts as a shear key.
Slow rate or staged

construction
Many weak sub-soils will tend to gain strength during the loading process
as consolidation occurs and pore water dissipates. For soils that consolidate
relatively fast, such as some silts and silty clays, this method is practical.
Proper instrumentation is desirable to monitor the state of stress in the soil
during the loading period to ensure that loading does not proceed so rapidly
that a shear failure occurs. Typical instrumentation consists of slope
inclinometers to monitor stability, piezometers to measure excess pore
water pressure and settlement devices to measure the amount and rate of
settlement. This option could also be used if weak sub-soils are pre-treated
with wick drains.
Lightweight fills.
In some countries, lightweight materials such as blast furnace slag,

shredded rubber tires, or expanded shale are available. Use of such
materials decreases the driving force as well as settlement.
Base reinforcement
Techniques such as stone columns, soil mixing, geosynthetics, soil nailing,

ground anchors, and grouting can be used to increase resisting forces.
Specialty contractors should be considered for these design solutions.
Reinforcement of
embankment soils.
The embankment soils can be strengthened by incorporating

reinforcements within them. The reinforcement permits steeper slopes
compared to unreinforced embankments.
Ground
improvement
Densification of the soil through a special compactor and altering the soil
composition may help to minimize embankment slope failure.
After the first fill placement, construction of the second and subsequent stages commences
when the strength of the previous layers is sufficient to maintain stability. Computer
programs are used to define the height of fill placed during each stage and the rate at which
it is placed, along with the time of settlement and the percent consolidation required for
stability.
Different approaches are used to assess the rate of fill placement and the necessary strength
gain on various types of foundation soils. These approaches differ on the basis of loading
conditions such as total stress, effective stress, and rapid draw-down (as applicable).
Page 3-26
Chapter 3
Road Embankments
An analysis based on total stress is often useful to simulate conditions that may exist
during or shortly after construction. In this approach, the rate of embankment construction
is performed using maximum fill heights and intermediate fill construction delays. During
these delay periods the fill that was placed is allowed to settle until an adequate amount of
consolidation of the foundation soil can occur. Once the desired amount of consolidation
has occurred and pore pressure dissipated, placement of the next layer of fill can begin.
The thickness of the fill and the intermediate delay periods are estimated during design.
For this approach, field 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.
In 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 ensure
embankment stability. The critical amount is generally controlled by use of the pore
pressure ratio, which is the ratio of pore pressure to total overburden stress. To accomplish
the 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. Some judgment is needed when interpreting such data and deciding
whether or not to reduce or extend the estimated delay period during fill construction, as
the estimate of the parameters may vary from the actual values in the field. 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.
Some roadway embankments may be subjected to water ponding at the base of the slopes
during flood events or nearby standing water or lakes. This situation may cause
embankment and foundation soils to become saturated. Soils may not drain as quickly as
the water recedes and may remain saturated for some period after the water returns to its
normal lower elevation. This situation can create a critical embankment stability condition
commonly referred to as a "rapid draw-down" condition (Figure 3-15). Stability analyses
performed to evaluate this situation should model the embankment as being saturated up to
the high water elevation, and should be performed using effective stress parameters for
foundation soils and embankment materials.
Figure 3-16 shows the typical result of an analysis using the total stress approach. Each
time fill is added, the fill starts to consolidate, while the soft subsoil and previous fills have
already had time to react to the stress increase due to the fills applied earlier. At the end of
the analytical process, a weighted average of the percent consolidation that has occurred
for each stage up to the point in time (or the time for full height) should be used to
determine the average percent consolidation of the subsoil due to the total weight of
the fill. In general, it is best to choose as small a fill height and delay period increment as
practical. Typical fill height increments range from 60 cm to 120 cm, and delay period
increments range from 10 to 30 days.
Page 3-27
Chapter 3
Road Embankments
Figure 3-15: Effect of flooding and rapid-drawdown on embankment stability
Figure 3-16: Concept of calculating the percent consolidation in staged construction.

From Washington State DOT (2013)
3.7.2
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 shear strength of the underlying soil has increased sufficiently as a result of
consolidation under the weight of the embankment. Therefore, the base reinforcement does
not need to meet the same design requirements as permanent base reinforcement regarding
creep and durability.
Page 3-28
Chapter 3
Road Embankments
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. 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 pins and not simply overlapped. Where base reinforcement is used,
the use of gravel borrow areas, instead of earth materials, may also be appropriate in order
to increase the embankment shear strength.
3.7.3
Ground improvement
Ground improvement can be used to mitigate inadequate slope stability for both new and
existing embankments, as well as reduce settlement. Most foundation problems occur from
high void ratios, low strength materials and unfavourable water content in the soil.
Therefore, basic concepts of soil improvement include densification, cementation,
reinforcement, soil modification or replacement, drainage, and other water content
controls. In addition to these categories, wick drains may be used in combination with
staged embankment construction to accelerate strength gain and improve stability and
accelerate long term settlement. The wick drains in effect significantly reduce the drainage
path length, thereby accelerating the rate of strength gain. Other ground improvement
techniques such as stone columns can also accelerate strength gain in the same way as
wick drains. Columns made of stone or chemically stabilized soil increase the stiffness of
the foundation and can substantially increase stability and decrease settlement.
3.7.4
Lightweight fills
Lightweight fills are other means of improving embankment stability. Situations where
they may be required include conditions where the construction schedule does not allow
the use of staged construction.
3.7.5
As in the case of settlement, the very soft compressible cohesive soils are excavated and
replaced with better materials (e.g. compacted sand or suitable fill) to provide a stable
foundation. If the soft material is much deeper than the practical excavation depth, partial
excavation and replacement is also possible. However the effect on stability and long term
settlement of the remaining soft material should be considered. Sometimes partial
excavation and replacement of soft material is used with ground treatment techniques to
overcome the above problems. This method will be more difficult if the groundwater level
lies above the base of the excavation.
3.7.6
Toe berms and shear keys
Toe berms and shear keys are 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 (Figure 317a). The side slopes of the toe berms are often gentler than the fill embankment side
slopes, but the berm itself should be checked for stability. The use of berms may increase
Page 3-29
Chapter 3
Road Embankments
the magnitude of settlements as a consequence of the increased size of the loaded area. Toe
berms increase the shearing resistance in the following ways:
By adding weight, and thus increasing the shear resistance of granular soils below
the toe area of the embankment;
By adding high strength materials for additional resistance along potential failure
surfaces that pass through the toe berm;
By creating a longer failure surface, thus adding more shear resistance, as the
failure surface must pass below the toe berm rather than the embankment and the
berm.
Shear keys function in a manner similar to toe berms, except instead of being adjacent to
the toe of the embankment, the shear key is placed under the fill (Figure 3.17b) and
frequently below the toe of the embankment. Shear keys are best suited to conditions
where they can be embedded into a stronger underlying formation. Shear keys typically
range from 1.5 to 4.5 m in width and extend 1.2 to 3.0 m below the ground surface. They
are typically backfilled with quarry waste or similar materials that are relatively easy to
place below the groundwater, require minimal compaction, but still have high internal
shear strength. As with 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.
Figure 3-17: Use of a counterweight berm (a) and a shear key (b). From US DOT
FHWA (2006B)
Page 3-30
Chapter 3
Road Embankments
3.8 Embankments in Hilly Areas

The design of embankments in hilly and mountainous regions often takes a different form
from those on flat areas. This is because many embankments in these places are
constructed by cut and fill operations. The procedure is that soil and rock are cut, if
suitable for use as fill, and compacted to form side-long sliver fills (Figure 3-18). The
use of these predominantly granular materials limits the amount of vertical deformation or
settlement of the type observed in embankments on soft soils in flat areas. However, poor
compaction techniques used on such fills located on inclined, side-long hill slopes often
results embankments that are only marginally stable.
Figure 3-18: Typical construction of embankments in hilly areas. From FAO (1998)
The main problem of embankments in hilly areas is the overall stability of the fill and the
foundation layers. The maximum permissible angle of side-slopes with which it is possible
to maintain long-term stability is, therefore, a major consideration during design. An
examination of embankment failures along a number of mountain roads shows that many
are caused by:
Inadequate under-drainage under conditions of pronounced seepage;

Incomplete removal of vegetation and organic material and lack of benching prior
to embankment construction;
Page 3-31
Chapter 3
Road Embankments
Construction of embankments on loose spoil material derived from earlier

excavations;
Erosion on slopes immediately below the embankment;
Presence of pre-existing shear surfaces beneath the embankment the presence of
unfavourably orientated planes of weakness in the soil or rock beneath the
embankment.
Figure 3-19 shows the types of slope failures that are commonly observed in fills and the
underlying hill slopes. Slope failures in fill slopes constructed in flat areas are often in the
form of small-scale shallow translational or rotational slides, where failure is contained
entirely within the embankment side slopes and maximum depth of rupture does not
exceed 2 m. However, the types of failure often found in embankments in hilly areas can
extend beneath the entire slope upon which the embankment is constructed, as shown in
Figure 3-19. This is especially true when slope conditions are exacerbated by pore water
pressure and seepage during the rainy season.
Figure 3-19: Types of slope instability commonly seen in fills and the underlying hillslope. From MPWT (2008)
Sometimes when valley slopes are exposed to high stresses exerted by side-cast spoil, they
may start to fail. In addition, failure is sometimes associated with the interface between
the natural ground and the fill.
In addition, most earth embankments can be prone to erosion problems arising from
rainfall runoff and road runoff, as well as land-use practices. Excessive erosion can lead to
the formation of rills and gullies that ultimately affect the side slope stability. The amount
of erosion is normally a function of runoff source, rainfall or runoff intensity, soil type,
slope angle, length of slope, degree of compaction, and vegetation cover. Slope failures are
common where rivers erode side slopes that eventually undermine the stability of fill
slopes constructed on the slope above.
Generally, the overall stability of a fill slope on a hillside is difficult to quantify. Unlike
relatively homogenous embankments on flat areas, the mechanisms of failure of
embankments in hilly terrain are very difficult to analyse using conventional limit
Page 3-32
Chapter 3
Road Embankments
equilibrium methods. This is because failure surfaces often involve both the fill and
underlying hill slope, each with significantly different material properties. In addition, the
cross-section of embankments in hilly terrain is different from that on flat ground as they
are usually constructed only on one side of the road. Hence, stability and fill side slope
angles are often designed on the basis of local experience, based on the properties of the
material forming the fill.
Table 3-7 shows some slope stabilization techniques appropriate for fill and underlying hill
slopes. In many cases, these options are site specific and are selected and designed based
on the characteristics of the fill and slope materials in the project site. Generally, before
constructing a fill in hilly areas, it is necessary to assess the stability condition of the slope
against shallow and deep failures. Although the weakest layer is often just below the fill
and the strength of soils increases with depth, the potential for failure along a deeper
surface in the ground beneath should always be considered. This is especially true when
the fill is placed on colluvium, or where the stratigraphy is such that weak volcanic
deposits (such as tuff and ash) underlie layers of stronger material, or where marl and shale
are overlain by limestone and sandstone.
Table 3-7: Slope stabilization techniques for embankments on hill slopes. Modified
from MPWT (2008)
Instability
Failure within fill slopes

(internal)
Failure in fill slopes and

underlying hill slopes
(external)
Failure within underlying

hill slopes
Stabilization options
Reduce the slope angle and remove excess material

Properly compact fill material
Consider the use of a retaining wall
Ensure road-side drainage is controlled
Bio-engineering is usually important to prevent surface erosion
Re-grade the slope and remove excess material

Properly compact fill material
Before placing fill, prepare benches on the slope to intercept
potential planes of failure and to provide a key
Consider the use of a retaining wall
Reduce side slope if sufficient space exists

Retaining wall
and increase the resistance of the surface soil.
Problems also frequently occur when rock strata beneath the fill are dipping parallel to the
ground slope 1, or where the groundwater table is at or very close to the surface. Adversely
1
Or are dipping out of the slope at an angle that is less than the slope angle but greater than the friction angle
along joint or bedding/foliation planes
Page 3-33
Chapter 3
Road Embankments
orientated rock planes can cause the slope and the fill above to slide, triggered by increased
load, or increased pore pressure along the failure plane. Groundwater from different
sources can soften the founding material, or cause the fill material to be undermined
through seepage erosion. In these situations, fill slopes require surface and sub-surface
drainage structures to keep groundwater away from the area.
3.9 Fill-slope Angles and Benches

When deciding fill slope angles for design without stability analysis, it is advisable to
consider the type of material (rock or soil, and the strength parameters of each) that is
going to be used. For example, fills containing high amount of fines may show surface
cracking when dry. The design should also consider the stability of existing fill slopes in
the surroundings of project sites. Observation of the existing natural slopes should include
the vegetation, in particular the types of plants that may indicate wet soil. Indirect
relationships, such as subsurface drainage characteristics, may be indicated by vegetative
pattern springs and seepage lines in the area should also be checked.
Table 3-8 shows preliminary or provisional fill slope batters based on types of materials. In
general, for embankments in hilly terrain, where fills are dominantly granular, side slopes
are often designed using a slope ratio of 1.5H:1V as shown in Figure 3-20, assuming that
the specifications for particle size, drainage and compaction are met. Larger-sized rock
blocks (rip-rap) may be placed on the lower side of the fill to reinforce the embankment
and drain surface water. Earth fill may be placed on top of rock fill, separated by a cap
layer, if rock is scarce or load is an issue. Moreover, smaller sized rock fragments larger
than the average size of the fill itself could be placed underneath the fill to drain water
away from the embankment and foundation soil.
Table 3-8: Preliminary fill slope angles
Fill materials
<5m
Rock fill
1.5H:1V
5-10 m
10-15 m
2H:1V
Well graded sand, gravels, and

1.5H:1V 2H:1V
sand or silt mixed with gravels
2H:1V
Poorly graded sand
2H:1V 3H:1V
Sandy clay soils, silty clay soils

2H:1V
and stiff to hard clayey soils
3H:1V
Soft clay soils, plastic clays
3H:1V
In more gently sloping ground, the side-slope can be relaxed to accommodate weaker
material or earth fills. The common practice for side-slopes of earth fills is to design them
with 2H:1V or lower angle as shown in Figure 3-21. Depending on the type of earth fill,
rip-rap could be placed on the downslope side of the fill for additional slope protection.
The size of the rock should be large enough that it withstands the tractive force of runoff
water. A 300mm thick under-filter may also be needed to prevent potential piping.
Environmentally, it is preferable to avoid high fills so that the road is less conspicuous in
the landscape.
Page 3-34
Chapter 3
Road Embankments
Figure 3-20: Typical side-slopes of a rock fill embankment
Figure 3-21: Typical side-slopes of an earth fill embankment
The necessity for benching the existing natural slope beneath an embankment and their
width and vertical spacing is decided on the basis of the length and inclination of the slope
(often > 15%), material properties, groundwater conditions and other environmental
factors. Fill benches are horizontal or near-horizontal steps that are constructed by cutting
into the natural slope.
In high embankments, berms up to 5m width may be constructed to give access to sideslopes for maintenance or for the control of surface drainage (Figure 3-22). They are also
important to prevent erosion provided the surface water they collect is properly controlled.
Steps or shear keys cut into the hill slope prior to embankment construction (Figure 3-23)
increases the resistance to failure along the natural ground-fill interface.
Page 3-35
Chapter 3
Road Embankments
Figure 3-22: Fill embankment on a hill-side with outward dipping berms
Figure 3-23: Embankment on inward inclined hill-side benches. From Keller and
Sherar (2011)
Page 3-36
Chapter 3
Road Embankments
Figure 3-24: Benched fill on a benched hill-side slope. From JKR (2010)
When berms are utilised, they normally dip outwards (Figure 3-22) by up to 5%. The
purpose of these benches is mainly to drain water from the embankment. Benches can also
be constructed both on the hill-side and fill slopes as shown in Figure 3-24 and made to
incline outward. In this case, a geotextile separator may be used to separate the fill from
slope materials. In general, the direction of bench inclination should be decided by the
engineer on site depending on the slope of the hill, the type of the fill (earth or rock), and
material properties.
3.10 Wall-supported Embankments

Sometimes, retaining walls are needed to support fill on hillside slopes. The situations
where these structures are most frequently used include when fill needs to be confined
either because there is not enough space for its construction or where the hillside slope is
too steep to form a stable fill slope. Retaining walls may also be needed at the base of a
bridge approach embankment. They may also be essential on road widening projects in
urban areas. Retaining walls are generally classified as gravity, semi-gravity, and nongravity cantilevered and anchored. Gravity walls derive their capacity to resist lateral loads
through the dead weight of the wall. The gravity wall type includes rigid gravity walls,
mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls, and prefabricated modular gravity walls. Semigravity walls are similar to gravity walls, except that they rely on their structural
components to mobilize the dead weight of an embankment fill to derive their capacity to
resist lateral loads. Non-gravity cantilevered walls rely on structural components of the
wall partially embedded in foundation materials or hill-side slope to mobilize passive
resistance to resist lateral loads.
Anchored walls derive their capacity to resist lateral loads by their structural components
being restrained by tension elements connected to anchors and additionally by partial
embedment of their structural components into existing ground. The anchors may be
ground anchors (tiebacks), passive concrete anchors, passive pile anchors, or pile group
anchors. Ground anchors are connected directly to the wall structural components whereas
the other three types of anchors are connected to the wall structural components through tie
rods.
Page 3-37
Chapter 3
Road Embankments
Figure 3-25: Typical use of retaining structures in road embankments

Selection of appropriate wall type for embankment support is based on an assessment of
the design loading, depth to adequate foundation support, presence of deleterious soils or
groundwater, physical constraints of the site, cross-sectional geometry of the site both
existing and planned, settlement potential, desired aesthetics, constructability,
maintenance, and cost.
Rigid gravity walls may be constructed of stone masonry, mass concrete, or reinforced
concrete and can be used to retain both cut and fill slopes and failed slopes. They have
relatively narrow base widths, and are generally not used when deep foundations are
required. Figure 3-26 presents a schematic diagram of gravity and semi-gravity retaining
structures. They are most economical to support low height embankments of less than 6 m.
Due to their rigidity, they should only be used where their foundations can be designed to
limit total and differential settlements to acceptable values.
Page 3-38
Chapter 3
Road Embankments
Figure 3-26: Gravity and semi-gravity retaining walls

Semi-gravity cantilever, counterfort and buttress walls are constructed of reinforced
concrete. Semi-gravity walls have relatively narrow base widths, and can be supported by
both shallow and deep foundations. The position of the wall stem relative to the footing
can be varied to accommodate right-of-way constraints. These walls can support
embankments, sign structures, and cut slopes. They can accommodate drainage structures
and utilities. Often, they are most economical at wall heights of up to 10 m. The most
common terminology associated with the design of semi-gravity structures is given in
Figure 3-27.
Figure 3-27: Terminology associated with semi-gravity retaining walls

Non-gravity cantilevered walls are constructed of vertical structural members, usually
consisting of partially embedded soldier piles or continuous sheet piles. Soldier piles may
be constructed with driven steel piles, treated timber, precast concrete or steel piles placed
in drilled holes and backfilled with concrete or cast-in-place reinforced concrete.
Continuous sheet piles may be constructed with driven precast pre-stressed concrete sheet
piles or steel sheet piles. These types of walls are suitable to stabilize fills but are most
Page 3-39
Chapter 3
Road Embankments
suitable for cut slope support. Because of the narrow base width, they are useful for
situations with tight space or right-of-way constraints.
3.11 Mortared Masonry Walls

The most commonly used gravity retaining walls for embankment stabilization are
mortared masonry and gabion walls. These structures use locally available rock, are
labour-intensive to construct and are usually very cost effective. Mortared masonry walls
are useful for the support of natural, cut or fill slopes up to 6m depending on whether they
are constructed as a single unit or stepped structures.
A mortared masonry wall design uses its own weight and base friction to balance the effect
of earth pressures. Retaining walls should be designed to withstand lateral earth and water
pressures, the effects of surcharge loads, the self-weight of the wall, and in special cases,
earthquake loads. Masonry walls are very rigid and cannot tolerate large settlements. They
are especially suited to uneven founding levels, and where adequate founding conditions
exist, usually rock.
The base width to height ratio of mortared masonry walls usually lies between 0.5 - 0.75:1.
If the wall foundation is stepped, movement joints should preferably be positioned to
reflect the differing wall heights, so that limited differential movements can be
accommodated. For high durability, it is important to ensure that the stone is of good
quality and is not significantly weathered, that the cement mortar conforms to a strength
criterion, and that the wall does not contain uncemented voids. The permeability of the
wall is improved by providing weep-holes. These holes are generally provided at 1-2 m
lateral and vertical intervals. They are inclined forwards at a slope of 2o 3o, constructed
preferably using a 75mm polythene pipe. The first row of weep holes should be as close to
the base of the wall as possible.
3.12 Gabion Supported Embankments

Gabion walls are constructed from rectangular steel wire mesh baskets that are filled on
site with stone or rock to form a gravity retaining structure. They are strengthened at the
corners by higher gauge wire and mesh diaphragms that divide them into compartments.
The wire should be galvanized, and sometimes PVC coated for greater durability. The
baskets usually have a double twisted hexagonal mesh, which allows the gabion wall to
deform to an extent without the boxes breaking or significant loss their strength.
Gabion is commonly used for walls of up to 6 m high. Because of their inherent flexibility,
they are not favoured immediately below sealed roads due to the likelihood of movement
of the backfill and subsequent pavement cracking. Where gabion walls are nevertheless
used to support sealed roads, additional care should be taken to locate the base of the wall
on a good foundation, in order to avoid potential movements.
In general, gabion walls have the following advantages:
Gabions can be easily stacked in different ways, with internal or external

indentation improving stability
They can accommodate some movement without significant loss of strength
They allow free drainage through the wall,
The cross section can be varied to suit site conditions,
Page 3-40
Chapter 3
Road Embankments
The boxes can take limited tensile forces to resist differential horizontal movement
Their disadvantages include:

Gabion walls need a large space to fit the wall base. This base width normally occupies
about 40 to 60% of the height, and gabions may not be a good solution where space is
limited. Their high degree of permeability can result in a loss of fines through the wall. In
embankments, this can result in settlement behind the wall and on the surface of the road.
Often this problem can be avoided by using a geotextile between the wall and the backfill
as shown in Figure 3-28.
Figure 3-28: Typical types of gabion walls

Gabion walls may be stepped on either the front or back face as shown in Figure 3-28. The
design of both types is based on the same principles. Often, it is not recommended to
construct vertical faced gabion walls as any movement that occurs during backfilling may
give the wall an appearance of bulging. Stepping is ideal where space is not an issue as it
increases stability. The maximum recommended step at each course is half of the depth of
the unit. In some cases, the bases of gabion walls can be inclined by up to 6o into the slope
to increase stability. In order to keep the back-slope as dry as possible, it is advisable to
provide outlet drains from the lowest point of the wall, and ensure that drainage discharge
can be visually inspected from these outlets into catch-pits.
Page 3-41
Chapter 3
Road Embankments
3.13 Reinforced Embankments

When embankments are required to be constructed with steeper than usual slopes where
limited right of way and construction constraints exist, then there is a need either to
reinforce the slope or construct a retaining wall. Reinforced embankments permit increased
height and angle of the embankment side slopes and may also reduce any potential slope
failure passing through the foundation. Often, granular soils are relatively strong under
compressive stresses. When these soils are reinforced, significant tensile strength can be
induced to the fill, resulting in a composite structure which can withstand both
compressive and tensile forces. Reinforced slopes are a form of mechanically stabilized
earth that incorporate planar reinforcing elements in the constructed embankment with face
inclinations of up to 70 degrees. Metallic strips, geosynthetics, and polymer and wire grids
are used as reinforcing elements. However, geosynthetics may provide a better solution
because of reduced cost and ease of construction. A geosynthetic reinforced wall face can
sometimes be near-vertical depending on internal stability.
Reinforced embankments have been used in road construction for many decades. They are
used in new construction to steepen side slopes and increase embankment heights thereby
reducing fill requirements (Figure 3-29). They are also used to replace conventional
retaining walls and repair failed slopes. The most prominent use of reinforcement is,
however, for widening and reconstruction of existing roads. The use of reinforced
steepened slopes to widen roadways improves mass stability, eliminates additional rightof-way, and often speeds construction.
Reinforcement also helps to provide lateral resistance at the edges of a compacted fill. This
allows compaction equipment to operate more safely near the edge of the slope. Further
compaction improvements can be obtained in cohesive soils through the use of
geosynthetics with in-plane drainage capabilities (e.g. non-woven geotextiles) that allow
for rapid pore pressure dissipation in the compacted fill. In addition, secondary
geosynthetic compaction aids placed as intermediate layers between main reinforcements
in steepened slopes, as shown in Figure 3-30, may provide improved face stability and
reduce the total cost of the use of geosynthetics.
Page 3-42
Chapter 3
Road Embankments
Figure 3-29: Application of reinforced slopes in road construction. From New York
State DOT (2007)
The spacing and anchorage length into the slope of secondary geosynthetics is determined
on the basis of the geometry, loading and performance requirements for the design, the
degree of stability required, the types of materials in the fill, and the engineering properties
of in-situ soils. Often, the spacing is about 0.5 m and the anchorage length is greater than
1.5 m. The spacing increases upward from the ground surface to the top of the
embankment.
In the case of primary geosynthetic reinforcement, there are a number of different
calculations used to compute the spacing and anchorage lengths. In most situations, the
result is that the reinforcement spacing is inversely proportional to reinforcement depth.
However, this approach often adds construction difficulties. In practice it is common to
divide the reinforced mass into zones of constant reinforcement spacing (increasing
towards the wall top from zone to zone) (Ortigao and Sayao 2004). The anchorage length
should also be greater than the deepest expected failure surface, to reinforce the soil mass
properly. When the length is uniform and equal to the base width of the wall, the base
width itself should satisfy all the stability conditions.
The economic advantages of geosynthetic reinforced soils would normally be the resulting
material and right-of-way savings. In the stabilisation of landslides it may also be possible
to re-use the slide debris rather than import high quality backfills. Right-of-way savings
can be a substantial benefit, especially in hilly, rural areas where acquiring alternative
agricultural land could be a problem. Reinforced embankments may also provide an
economical alternative to retaining walls. The use of vegetated-faced reinforced soil slopes
will blend with the environment and provide an aesthetic advantage over retaining wall
Page 3-43
Chapter 3
Road Embankments
structures. Generally, there is a lower risk of long-term stability problems developing in

reinforced slopes. Reinforcement may also bring about strength gains in soil layers over
the course of time through improved drainage.
Figure 3-30: Typical construction of reinforced fills. From NY State DOT (2007)
The major factors that influence the selection of a reinforced embankment alternative for
any road construction project include geologic and topographic conditions, environmental
conditions, size and nature of the structure, aesthetics, durability considerations,
performance criteria, availability of materials, foundation condition, experience with a
particular system or application and cost.
There are several approaches to the design of reinforced slopes. Most use rotational limit
equilibrium methods. The reason is that this geometry provides a simple means of directly
increasing the resistance to failure with the inclusion of reinforcement. It is also adaptable
by most slope stability computer programs and agrees well with experimental results.
The overall design requirements for reinforced embankment slopes are similar to those for
unreinforced slopes. That means the factor of safety must be adequate for both the shortterm and long-term conditions and for all possible modes of failure. However, there are
three possible failure modes (Figure 3-31) for reinforced slopes: internal, external and
compound. The internal mode of failure occurs when the slip plane passes through
reinforcing elements. In the case of the external mode, the failure surface passes behind
and underneath the reinforced soil. The failure is said to be compound when the failure
surface passes behind and through the reinforced soil mass (Figure 3-31).
The reinforcement is represented by a concentrated force within the soil mass that
intersects the potential failure surface. By adding the failure resistance provided by this
force to the resistance of the soil, a factor of safety equal to the rotational stability safety
factor is applied to the reinforcement. The tensile capacity of a reinforcement layer is
considered as the minimum of its allowable pullout resistance behind the potential failure
surface or its long-term allowable design strength. The slope stability factor of safety is
Page 3-44
Chapter 3
Road Embankments
taken from the critical surface requiring the maximum amount of reinforcement. Final
design is performed by distributing the reinforcement over the height of the slope and
evaluating the external stability of the reinforced section. The flow chart presented in
Figure 3-32 shows the steps required for design of reinforced soil slopes.
Figure 3-31: Failure modes for reinforced soil embankments. From US DOT FHWA
(2001)
The first step is to establish the geometric, loading and performance requirements for
design. The geometric and loading requirements are the embankment slope height, slope
angle, external surcharge loads, and traffic barriers. The performance requirements are
related to external, compound and internal stabilities. Hence, external (sliding, deep seated,
overall stability, local bearing failure or lateral squeeze), compound, and internal failures
need a factor of safety greater or equal to 1.3. The safety factor for dynamic loading and
the magnitude and time rate of post constriction settlement based on project requirements
are also important.
In step two, there is a need to determine the engineering properties of in situ soils. These
include: the foundation and retained soil (i.e. soil beneath and behind reinforced zone),
strength parameters (cu and u, or c and ) for each soil layer, unit weights wet and dry,
consolidation parameters (Cc, Cr, Cv and p), location of the ground water table and
piezometric surfaces, and for slide repair, the identification of the location of previous slip
planes and cause of failure.
The third step involves the determination of the properties of reinforced fill and, if
different, the retained fill, namely, gradation and plasticity index, compaction
characteristics (dry, 2% of optimum moisture content, and opt), compacted lift thickness,
shear strength parameters (cu and u, or c and ), and the chemical composition of the
soil (pH).
The fourth step is concerned with the evaluation of the design parameters for
reinforcement. One of these parameters is the allowable geosynthetic strength (Tal). It is
defined as the ultimate strength (Tult) divided by the reduction factor (RF) for creep,
installation damage and durability. For granular backfill, RF = 7 may be conservatively
used for preliminary design and routine, non-critical structures where the minimum test
Page 3-45
Chapter 3
Road Embankments
requirements are satisfied. The second parameter is the pullout resistance that is modelled
with a factor of safety of 1.5 for granular soils, 2 for cohesive soils, and a minimum
anchorage length (Le) of 1 m is also needed.
Figure 3-32: Steps for design of reinforced soil slopes. From US DOT FHWA (2001)
A preliminary design of reinforced embankments can also be made by the use of charts.
The use of these charts can be extended for final design in low fills with a slope height of
less than 6 m.
Page 3-46
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
ROADSIDE SLOPES
Unstable natural slopes and road cuts often create a considerable problem to road users in
Ethiopia during the rainy season. These unstable slopes or landslides typically occur where
a natural slope is over-steep or where cut slopes in weathered rock and soil encounter
groundwater. Unless stabilized early, failed natural slopes and road cuts may enlarge and
can affect large areas, requiring major reinstatement and/or continued maintenance. They
can also be a major source of sediment to local river systems.
Slope stabilization and landslide control usually utilises a number of methods to mitigate
the causes of failure, together with measures to improve the stability of the slope.
Techniques commonly used to control the occurrence of landslides include earthworks,
bioengineering, and surface drainage. Stabilization methods that need more substantial
engineering works can involve anchoring, retaining, piling and deep subsurface drainage.
Other options that need to be considered during design include avoidance through
alignment selection, realignment or perhaps even tunnelling, depending upon
circumstances.
In this chapter, roadside slopes are defined as those slopes that are either cut or fill slopes,
or adjacent natural slopes, both within and outside of the Right of Way, as illustrated in
Figures 4-1 and 4-2, but which can influence the stability of the road.
Figure 4-1: Terms used commonly to define a road and associated slopes
Page 4-1
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
Figure 4-2: Natural and cut slopes adjacent to a road

4.1. Natural Slopes
Many roads in Ethiopia are constructed in mountainous or hilly areas. As a result, slopes
that have been stable for many years may fail because of changes in stress conditions or the
effects of road construction on drainage. Often, the susceptibility of natural slopes to
failure is little understood in advance of construction, even with a complete geotechnical
study. Table 4-1 describes different types of natural slopes and associated slope stability
problems.
Natural slope failures are commonly classified as actively unstable or previously unstable
based on their history of failure. Inactive landslides or slope failures are those that have
failed in the past but for which there is no evidence of movement currently or in recent
times. These inactive slopes may be "dormant", when the causes of failure remain
potentially recurrent and movement may occur again, or they may be "stabilized" when the
factors causing the movement have been removed or reduced naturally or artificially. A
"relict" landslide is an inactive landslide which developed under climatic or slope
conditions considered to be different from those that exist at present. Figure 4-3 presents
an illustration of these different terms in the case of a toppling failure.
Page 4-2
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
Table 4-1: Slope stability problems associated with natural slopes. Modified from
Hearn and Hunt (2011)
Facet
Topographic features
Rounded relief
Sharp relief
Ridge top
Irregular relief
Asymmetric relief
Ridge lines generally
Slope > 40
Slope = 25 - 35
Continuous rock slopes with
constant dip
Valley sides
Small farms or crop fields
Elongated mid-slope benches

Vegetated areas
Slopes at margins of rivers
Valley floor
Forested slopes behind river

terraces
Typical stability problems

Deeply weathered soils likely
Landslides possible
Rock outcrop possible
Costly and difficult rock excavation
Rock falls and slides possible
Difficult alignment along ridge top
Landslides possible
Joint controlled slopes govern stability of
alignment and cut slope
Landslides possible
May be subject to intense erosion
Landslides possible
Probably underlain by rock
Landslides unlikely
Colluvium or landslide material
Landslides likely
Joint sets control long-term stability
May be problematic for excavation
Rock slides possible
Drainage problems likely
May be colluvial in origin
Potentially unstable
Ancient river terraces or rock benches
Stable or easy for road construction
Landslides unlikely
Possibly areas of wet ground
Landslides possible
Possibly actively unstable
Very difficult for road alignment
Possibly old periodically active instability
Slope failures on active natural slopes may involve two or more mechanisms, occurring
either at different places on the slope, at different depths or at different times due to
changes in ground conditions once initial failures have occurred. On these slopes, the
engineering implication of a slope failure will vary according to whether it is a first-time
failure or reactivated failure. First-time failures have an immediate effect on roads in their
path but may not represent a long-term maintenance problem because the failed mass may
come to rest at an angle significantly lower than that from which it failed, and remain
stable unless disturbed by toe erosion or road construction earthworks. Reactivated slope
failures, however, are often the most problematic for road construction and maintenance.
Page 4-3
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
Figure 4-3: Illustration of the terms used to describe stages of slope failure. From
Cruden and Varnes (1996)
Reactivation can be advancing or retrogressive. In an advancing landslide the rupture
surface extends in the direction of movement. This is relatively uncommon. In a
retrogressive landslide the rupture surface extends in the direction opposite to the
movement of the displaced material, i.e. upslope. An example of this is shown in Figure 412 later. Most landslides that expand progressively in area are retrogressive. The materials
most likely to exhibit retrogressive failure are often clays and shale with some cohesive
strength that allow steep back scarps to form that then become subject to failure. In a
widening landslide the rupture surface extends into either or both flanks. When the volume
of displaced materials is decreasing downward, a landslide is said to be diminishing.
Figure 4-4 illustrates these terms.
Page 4-4
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
Figure 4-4: Graphic description of the evolution and extent of slope failure. From
Cruden and Varnes (1996)
In the case of inactive landslides, the knowledge that old slip surfaces exist may make it
easier to understand and predict the behaviour of the slopes during road construction. The
shear strength along existing slip surfaces is lower than the peak for the materials involved,
and is referred to as residual strength.
4.2. Cut Slopes
During road construction in mountainous areas and along valley sides, the alignment of the
road and the design will usually require the excavation of slopes to accommodate or widen
the roadway. Cut slopes should be designed to be stable for the anticipated groundwater
regime, but they frequently become unstable when either the ground conditions exposed
during excavation are different from those envisaged during design or when steeper slopes
have to be constructed due to space constraints. In such cases, measures should be
considered to increase stability.
Most natural slopes are in a state of equilibrium under normal climatic conditions. This
equilibrium is often disturbed by slope excavation. Other influences (e.g. rainfall,
earthquake, material weathering, blasting, external loading and toe erosion) can also trigger
slope failure. Hence cut slopes should be designed to have enough resistance against the
worst credible combination of conditions that may develop after excavation.
Page 4-5
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
Cut slope design requires the determination of the angle at which excavated slopes will
remain stable for the assumed or observed groundwater conditions that will apply. This
involves the examination of soils and rock from surface exposures and studies of the
performance of existing natural slopes and cut slopes in the area. The information needed
for the design of cut slopes includes the nature and strength of the materials that will be
excavated, the groundwater conditions, the inclinations of rock strata, the degree of
weathering, and the extent of joints or any other potential weaknesses.
The methods to use in the design of an individual cut slope will vary according to the
conditions at the site. In many cases, slopes often contain a mix of materials and are
heterogeneous, making it virtually impossible to determine the average or effective shear
strength of the slope forming materials by laboratory tests. In such cases, stability analyses
will help very little in determining the safe angle of cut, and the cut slope design must be
accompanied by the application of judgment and experience.
Often, it is difficult to adopt variable cut slope angles at a location where the soil type
changes within short distances laterally or vertically. In these situations, the safe angle
should be determined from an overall evaluation of the predominant soils encountered. In
the event of uncertainty, it is necessary to select a conservative angle of inclination.
In general, for low volume roads, the practice is that cut slopes need to be as steep as
possible, and at a steeper angle than fills since they constitute relatively undisturbed in-situ
soil or rock. Steep cuts, accompanied by the relevant stabilization and protection measures,
are especially necessary when there are Right-of-Way or property line constraints. In areas
where there is a high water table condition or erosion and sliding is apparent, it becomes
more difficult to design safe cut slopes to steeper angles without the use of other measures,
such as expensive retaining structures.
The steepness or inclination of cut slopes is normally expressed using a slope ratio, percent
or degree. In Ethiopia, the slope ratio is the ratio between the horizontal distance and the
elevational change written in the form of H:V.
The choice of cross-section dictates the geometric requirements for cut slope design, and
options include box cut, full cut, and a balance or partial balance of cut and fill (Figure 45). The selection of cross-section in any situation is dependent on topographical and
geological conditions, geometric requirements, and cost.
A box cut is required where the outside of the road formation is unable to daylight on the
adjacent slope, as a result of topography and vertical alignment. It is normally used where
the ground must be cut through to avoid an overly steep road grade, such as on a steep hill
crest. The material excavated from a box cut, as with all cuts, should as a rule be
transported and used elsewhere along the road rather than side-cast as spoil. Figure 4-6
shows an example of a box cut in Ethiopia.
Page 4-6
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
Figure 4-5: Types of cross-section design. Modified from Keller and Sherar (2011)
Most roads are constructed partially in cut and partially in fill, other than those constructed
in flat terrain. This type of design is normally called a cut and fill approach whereby
materials cut from a hill slope are used to build an adjacent fill for the purpose of
supporting part of the road. If the amount of material from excavations roughly matches
the amount of material needed to make fill slopes and embankments, then the process is
called a balanced cut and fill operation, assuming the excavated material is suitable for
use as fill. Theoretically, balancing is achieved along the centreline of the road. In practice
this is rarely the case as ground elevation with respect to the centreline can change abruptly
and balanced cut and fill is normally used to describe the situation whereby the balance can
be achieved within a short distance along the alignment.
During cut and fill construction, it is important to avoid side-casting of waste material and
especially to prevent it from entering streams and other watercourses. All cut material
used as fill should be compacted to specification and not side-cast.
For full cuts, the excavated material is either used elsewhere along the alignment as fill or
is properly disposed of in designated safe and environmentally secure disposal sites. Full
cut road construction is typically found in terrain with side slopes of 40 degrees and above.
Page 4-7
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
Figure 4-6: Example of a box cut

Full cut cross-sections usually result in deep cut slopes. Weak rocks and rock masses with
adverse rock structure, including soft or highly fractured/closely jointed sedimentary rocks
may not be suitable for full-cut designs. Cut slopes in these materials can result in
significant slope instability. Similarly, silty clays and other low strength soils may also be
unsuitable for forming deep cut slopes. In such situations fill slopes and retaining walls
may need to be considered or the alignment modified accordingly.
An example of a full cut cross-section is shown in Figure 4-7.
Often cut slopes are benched, i.e. excavated in steps in order to enhance drainage control
and intercept falling debris. Benched cut slopes are usually deployed in rock and weathered
rock and should not be used in weak soils, such as colluvium. As a rule, excavation should
be performed from the upper part of the slope to the lower part to maintain stability. Figure
4-8 shows a typical example of bench construction.
The height and width of benches depends on the characteristics of the slope materials, and
is usually specified in design and earthworks manuals. Water control is key in benched cut
slopes and drainage from above must be transported laterally using ditches at the toe of
each cut section and discharged into adjacent streams or via chutes and cascades into
culverts.
Page 4-8
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
Figure 4-7: Full cut cross-section
Figure 4-8: Schematic profile of cut slope benches

4.3. Landslides
A landslide is the movement of rock, debris or earth down a slope. It results from the
failure of materials which make up a natural slope or cut or fill slope and is driven by the
force of gravity.
Landslides, both on natural slopes and in earthworks slopes, can be classified on the basis
of the type of movement and material involved. The material in a landslide mass is either a
rock or soil (or both). The type of movement describes the internal mechanics of the
landslide mass during displacement. Types of movement categories include "fall",
"topple", "slide", "spread", "flow" and "creep". Landslides are often described using two
Page 4-9
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
terms that refer to material and movement type (for example: rock fall, debris flow, etc).
Landslides may also form a complex failure mechanism containing both rock and soil and
encompassing more than one type of movement.
In terms of quantity, landslides may range from a single boulder in a rock fall or topple to
tens of millions of cubic metres of material in a large, deep-seated landslide or debris flow.
They can also vary in their extent, with some occurring very locally and impacting a very
small area, road section or hill slope while others affect much larger slopes and drainage
channels beneath them. The distance travelled by landslide material can also range
significantly from a few centimetres to many kilometres depending on the volume, water
content and the gradient of the slope.
Moreover, the movement of land slide material can vary from abrupt collapses to slow
gradual slides and at rates which range from the almost undetectable to the extremely
rapid. Sudden and rapid events are the most dangerous because of a lack of warning and
the speed at which material can travel as well as the force of its resulting impact.
Extremely slow moving landslides might move only millimetres a year and the movement
can be active over many years. Although these types of landslides are not usually a threat
to people they can cause damage to roads and other infrastructure.
Landslides can also be divided into shallow and deep-seated based on the depth of the slip
plane. Slides with a sliding depth of less than 3-5 m are considered to be shallow. Often,
these types of landslides involve the soil mantle Deep-seated landslides are those slides in
which the slide plane is more likely to be within weathered rock. These are usually deeper
than 5m. Further discussion on shallow and deep-seated landslides is presented in the Site
Investigation Manual of the Ethiopian Road Authority (ERA).
In Ethiopia, landslides often occur after periods of prolonged and heavy rainfall. Often, this
is most likely to happen during the wet season between July and the end of September. In
the southern part of the country, this period may extend into October and November as
severe and localized rainfall can occur during this time.
4.3.1. Types of landslides
Table 4-2 summarises the different types of landslides. While this classification system is
useful as a general guide, classifying landslides in practice is often very difficult. For
example, a landslide which is described as a flow often initiates through sliding along
discrete shear surfaces. Hence, since both the type and rate of movement can change with
motion, there is often a need to survey the area and understand the history of ground
movement before finalizing its classification. Methods to investigate a landslide are
described in the ERA Site Investigation Manual.
A brief description of the different types of landslides is given below.
Page 4-10
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
Table 4-2: Simple classification of landslide types. Modified from Cruden and Varnes
(1996)
Type of material
Type of movement
Rock
Fall
Rock fall
Topple
Rock topple
Rock slide
Rock slump
Rock spread
Rock flow
Rock creep
Slide
Planar
Rotational
Spread
Flow
Creep
Soil
Debris
Earth
Debris fall
--
Debris slide
Debris slump
--Debris flow
---
-Earth (mud) slide

Soil slump
Soil spread
Earth (mud) flow
Soil creep
A fall is a form of movement in which the mass in motion travels most of the distance
through the air after detachment. Often, it includes movement by bouncing. A fall starts
with the detachment of material from a steep slope along a surface in which little or no
shear displacement takes place.
Toppling occurs as a result of forces that cause an over-turning moment about a point
below the centre of gravity of the mass. A topple is very similar to a fall in many aspects,
but does not involve a complete separation at the base of the failure
A spread is characterized by the lateral extension of a more rigid mass over an underlying
ground surface or through a deforming underlying material in which the controlling basal
shear surface is often not well-defined.
A slide is a slope movement by which the material is displaced more or less coherently
along well-defined shear surfaces, either single or multiple. Slides can be rotational (the
slip surface is curved), translational (the slip surface is more or less planar) or wedge (the
slip surface is formed by two or more intersecting surfaces). Rotational slides are relatively
infrequent and occur in cohesive soils or very weak rock masses with little or no structural
control. Translational slides occur in rock masses with discontinuity planes that dip
unfavourably or in granular soils. These failures are the most common.
A flow is characterized by internal deformation in which the individual particles travel
separately within the mass, analogous to the movements in liquids. Flows can be slowmoving, if in fine-grained soils, or rapid to very rapid in granular soils and failed rock
masses. Often, they start as a slide on steep slopes.
Creep is a long-term movement of non-increasing velocity without well-defined sliding
surfaces. In some cases creep failures may represent a deep-seated (or viscous) flow.
4.3.2. Causes of landslides
The susceptibility of a slope to the occurrence of landslides is often related to an increase
in shear stress (driving force) or a reduction in shear strength (resisting force). The
processes that increase the shear stress or decrease the shear strength in a slope are
normally termed as landslide preparatory or triggering factors. Preparatory
Page 4-11
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
(preconditioning) factors make the slope increasingly susceptible to failure without

actually initiating movement. Triggering factors are events that finally initiate movement.
Thus geological and topographical parameters are usually regarded as landslide
preparatory factors. Triggering factors include rainfall, earthquakes, toe erosion and manmade activities.
The causes of landslides on natural slopes can be divided into external and internal.
External causes are responsible for an increase in shear stress through an increase in the
height and steepness of the slope, for example due to road cuts or river scour and down
cutting, and any structural load increases, such as those caused by fill slope construction,
spoil dumping and earthquake loading. Internal causes are those which occur without any
change in the external conditions of the slope. They are associated with a loss of the shear
strength of materials. An increase in pore pressure or a reduction of cohesion due to
weathering are considered as internal causes of landslides. Table 4-3 lists some of the more
common internal and external causes of landslides.
Table 4-3: Common landslide causal factors. Modified from Nettleton et al (2005)
Internal causes
Materials:
Soils subject to strength loss on contact
with water or as a result of stress relief
(strain softening).
Fine-grained soils which are subject to
strength loss due to weathering.
Weak rocks with adversely orientated
discontinuities characterized by low shear
strength such as bedding planes and
joints.
Weathering:
Physical and chemical weathering of soils
causing loss of strength (apparent
cohesion and friction).
Pore-water pressure:
High pore-water pressures causing a
reduction in effective shear strength.
External causes
Removal of slope support:
Undercutting by water (waves and
stream incision).
Washing out of soil.
Man-made excavations.
Increased loading:
Natural accumulations of water,
snow, talus.
Man-made pressures (e.g. fill and
buildings).
Transient effects:
Earthquakes and tremors.
Shocks and vibrations (blasting).
Often, a number of factors contribute to the occurrence of a landslide both on natural

slopes and cut slopes. However, it is usual to find that only one factor triggers the actual
movement. This triggering factor may be natural or artificial. Table 4-4 shows a number of
common natural and artificial preparatory and triggering factors.
Page 4-12
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
Table 4-4: Natural and artificial causes of landslides

Natural causes
Ground conditions:
Plastic and otherwise weak material
Sensitive and collapsible material
Weathered and sheared material
Jointed or fissured material
Adversely
orientated
structural
discontinuities (including joints faults,
flexural shears, lithological contacts)
Contrast in permeability and its effects on
groundwater and pore-pressures
Contrast in stiffness (stiff, dense material
over less dense and weaker material)
Geomorphological processes:
Tectonic and volcanic uplift
Fluvial erosion of the slope toe
Subsoil erosion (solution, piping)
Natural loading of the slope by
accumulation of material from above
Undercutting of cliffs and river banks
Physical processes:
Intense, short period rainfall
Prolonged high precipitation
Rapid drawdown following floods
Increase in pore water pressure
Earthquake loading
Freeze-thaw, i.e. mechanical weathering
Shrink and swell of expansive soils.
Artificial causes
Removal of vegetation
Interference with, or changes to,
natural drainage
Modification of slopes during the
construction of roads, railways,
buildings, etc
Overloading slopes
Mining and quarrying activities
Vibrations from heavy traffic,
blasting, etc
Drawdown (of reservoirs)
Irrigation
Defective maintenance of drainage
systems
Side casting of uncompacted spoil
Table 4-5 presents another way of dividing landslide causes based on geology, topography,
climate and hydrology. Geological causes may be jointed rocks exposed on rock slopes and
in cliffs (Figure 4-9), or colluvium overlying rock head surfaces. Weathering may for
example form a mantle of weak soils overlying harder rocks which provide an interface or
potential shear surface along which landslides can initiate. Topographical causal factors
may include steep hillsides which can promote gravity induced slope failures and concave
slope facets which can hold moisture for long periods of time, thus leading to lower
effective stress and reduced strength.
Page 4-13
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
Table 4-5: Geological, topographical and hydrological causal factors

Geological causes
Rock type, weathering grade, jointing and
fracture patterns
Presence of faults or shear zones
The direction and angle of dip and joints in
underlying bedrock compared to the angle
and orientation to the slope, particularly if
bedrock is exposed or at a shallow depth
beneath the surface,
The persistence of joints and clay filling
The sequence of the underlying strata,
particularly if this includes weak or
impermeable layers
The presence of colluvium and
unconsolidated materials.
Climatic causes
Periods of prolonged and/or intense
rainfall that could lead to saturation of the
slope
Anomalous high rainfall.
Topographical causes
Steep slopes
Un-vegetated steep slopes, susceptible to
erosion;
Irregular depressions or undrained
swampy areas on slopes.
Hydrological causes
Periods of prolonged and/or intense
rainfall that could lead to saturation of
the slope
Anomalously high rainfall
The presence of a river or stream at the
base of the slope, particularly if this
could cause toe erosion during periods
of flood or high flow
The presence of a drainage course at or
above the crest of the slope
Any indications of a high or
temporarily perched water table within
the slope, e.g. seepages and springs.
Some landslides are triggered by a rise in groundwater level during or soon after heavy
rain. The effect of groundwater on the initiation of landslides can occur in several ways.
The water may increase the weight on a slope thereby increasing the total stress or driving
force. Alternatively, it may increase pore pressures within a slope or decrease the
coefficient of friction on a potential sliding surface. This leads to a decrease in shear
strength. Groundwater can also cause clays to hydrate and expand and make them
susceptible to failure.
A common observation in many areas of Ethiopia is that a road cut or a natural slope may
be perfectly stable during the dry season but may fail after the rains begin. This seasonal
change in stability is due mainly to the rapid increase in the level of groundwater within
shallow perched aquifers. Often, a perched water table is created in unconsolidated soils
that lie above an underlying impermeable rock stratum (Figure 4-10). Perched water of this
nature is common in the highlands of Ethiopia where closely jointed basaltic rock masses
are present in association with weak volcano-clastic rocks.
Another contribution of groundwater to the occurrence of landslides is through the
development of a seepage force. A seepage force is a drag force that moving water exerts
on each soil particle in its path, contributing to the driving force. The concept of the
seepage force may be visualized by noting how easily portions of a coarse-textured soil
may be dislodged from a road cut when the soil is transmitting a relatively high volume of
groundwater.
Page 4-14
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
Figure 4-9: Adversely jointed rock mass that can fail if joints become undercut by
excavation
Figure 4-10: Perched water table and the formation of landslides on road cuts
4.3.3. Roadside landslides
Landslides can occur either above or below the road, or through the road in the case of
deep-seated failures. Landslides which occur below the road can involve fill slopes as well
as the underlying natural slope material. These failures are discussed in Chapter 3.
Landslides above the road can occur in the cut slope or can involve movement of the
natural slope above. These types of failures are discussed below.
Figure 4-11illustrates landslides commonly observed above a road. These include failures
that affect the cut slope only, those which involve the cut slope and natural slope together,
and those that are confined to the natural slope.
Page 4-15
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
Figure 4-11: Landslides above a road. From Hearn and Hunt (2011)
An example of a retrogressive landslide developed on a natural slope is given in Figure 412.
Figure 4-12: Retrogressive landslide developed on a natural slope

Most cut slope failures are shallow. Sometimes, however, even small, shallow failures can
develop into major failures and result in frequent road closures. Figure 4-13 shows a
landslide developed in a deep cut slope formed in colluvium. This landslide initiated in the
weaker soils of the upper portion of the cut slope and travelled as a flow to block the road.
Failures that involve the cut slope and the natural slope above are often shallow but can be
retrogressive, ultimately affecting large areas of slope. While most develop in the cut slope
and propagate upslope (retrogression) some may initiate in the natural hill slope and spread
downwards (advancing). The reduction of support in the cut and the percolation of water
from above through tension cracks are often responsible for failures that encompass the cut
Page 4-16
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
and natural slopes. Knowledge of the presence of slip surfaces in natural slopes makes it
easier to understand and predict the performance of cut slopes within previously failed
material. The materials most likely to exhibit retrogressive failures that encompass both
natural and cut slopes are fissured clays where positive pore pressures are allowed to
develop within the discontinuities.
Figure 4-14 shows a landslide which affected both the cut and the natural slope at the
above.
Figure 4-13: Landslide on a cut slope
Figure 4-14: Landslide affecting both the cut and natural slope above
Fill slope failure commonly occurs either within the fill itself or at the fill/natural ground
interface. This is mainly due to inadequate compaction of the fill, leading to saturation by
surface infiltration and shallow failure, or due to the development of a perched
Page 4-17
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
groundwater table resulting in a preferential slip plane at the fill/natural ground interface.
In the latter case, benching of the natural ground prior to filling, and the prior provision of
drainage where seepages are seen to occur at the interface, should prevent such failures
from occurring.
Figure 4-15 depicts a fill slope failure that has extended to the road centreline.
Figure 4-15: Failure of a fill slope

Deep-seated landslides are common where elevational differences are large, such as in
deep gorges, such as the Blue Nile, where the stratigraphical, hydrological, and
topographical conditions favour their development.
4.3.4. Roadbed landslides
Occasionally, landslides may occur across the width of a road as shown in Figure 4-16,
with or without affecting the cut and natural slopes above. These types of failure are most
frequent in areas where the entire road formation is constructed on colluvium and
weathered rock, or on fill. Usually, a major triggering factor in the initiation and
acceleration of these movements is toe erosion, reactivation of much larger movements of
which the one affecting the road is only a part, and the presence of a water source above
the road that is hydraulically connected with a spring below the road.
Page 4-18
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
Figure 4-16: Example of a failure affecting the entire road

This type of ground movement also occurs where runoff percolates through road layers and
soaks the sub-grade because of a drainage problem or the absence of sufficient crossdrains. In many cases, irrigation or agricultural activity in the surrounding area can
aggravate the problem through improper and uncontrolled drainage. Stream erosion below
the road can also worsen the situation.
Features that indicate the occurrence of landslides within and above a road are summarized
in Table 4-6.
Page 4-19
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
Table 4-6: Indications of slope instability at or above a road

Things to look
for
Heave in
pavement.
Pavement
elevation rising
Implication
Course of action
May indicate unstable slope

above the road and circular
failure
Monitor and record locations

and changes.
Stabilise through
Avoid cutting
earthworks, retaining walls
and/or drainage
Surface cracking May indicate unstable slope

in surrounding
above the road
area
May indicate additional
unstable area
Springs
above the road
May contribute water and loss
of stability
Bulging or
above the road.
compression
ridges in slope
unstable area
Tilted features,
such as trees,
above the road
poles, walls,
fences
unstable area
above the road
Blocked drainage May contribute water and loss
of stability
May cause distress
Loose debris on above the road
slope.
unstable area
Things to avoid
Avoid
disturbing until
and changes.
stability
Properly drain
evaluated
Avoid
disturbing until
and changes
stability
Properly drain
evaluated
and changes.
Properly drain
and changes.
Properly drain

and changes
Unblock drain
Avoid
Monitor and record locations disturbing until
stability
and changes
evaluated
4.3.5. Landslide stabilisation

Once a landslide is identified on a natural, cut or fill slope, the remedial measures must
provide a reduction in the driving forces, an increase in the resisting forces, or both. The
study and identification of landslides is normally carried out using the methods discussed
in the ERA Site Investigation Manual. Table 4-7 contains a list of the most common
methods that can be used to stabilize or remedy the effects of landslides. While one
remedial measure may be sufficient to minimize the effect of a landslide, most remedial
works usually involve a combination of two or more methods. The selection of appropriate
remedial measures depends on engineering feasibility, economic viability, and
environmental acceptability. Detailed discussions on some of the methods listed in Table
4-7 are given in Sections 4.5 and 4.6.
Page 4-20
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
Table 4-7: Common landslide remedial measures. From Sassa and Canuti (2008)
Modification of slope geometry:
Retaining structures:
Removing material from the area adjacent Gravity retaining walls
to the crest of the slope(with possible Crib walls
replacement by lightweight fill)
Gabion walls
Adding material to the area at the base of Passive piles, piers and caissons
the slope(counterweight berm or fill)
Cast-in situ reinforced concrete walls
Reducing the overall slope angle.
Reinforced earth retaining structures
Retention nets for rock slopes
Drainage:
Surface drains to divert water from Shear key.
flowing into the slide area
Internal slope reinforcement:
Shallow or deep trench drains filled with Rock bolts
free-draining materials (coarse granular Micropiles
fills and geosynthetics)
Soil nailing
Buttress counterforts of coarse-grained Anchors
materials
Grouting
Vertical (large diameter) wells with Stone columns
gravity draining
Freezing
Sub-horizontal drains
Bioengineering.
Drainage tunnels, galleries or adits
Dewatering by pumping
Drainage by siphoning.
4.4. Soil slope cuts
Soil slopes contain a variety of materials that may range from loose colluvial deposits to
cohesive residual clays. The stability of these slopes in a road cut is usually a function of
groundwater and drainage regime, the size and composition of the constituting materials,
the processes of consolidation that these materials have undergone throughout their
depositional history in the case of sediments, the inherent properties and structure of the
parent rocks in the case of residual soils, and any secondary precipitates or cementing
materials. Normally, soil slopes that can stand for some time after excavation are those
which contain appreciable amounts of clay with associated negative pore pressures.
Depending upon the rate of reduction in factor of safety, landslides may occur suddenly as
the slope is being excavated, or after the slope has been standing for some time. In
cohesive soils, wetting and drying (swelling and shrinkage) can result in the development
of shrinkage cracks that allow water ingress, thus exacerbating the situation. In granular
soils, saturated slopes may be susceptible to debris slides and flow slides. Shallow failures
and ravelling of surface materials are a common feature of Ethiopian roads.
Generally, the stability of cut slopes consisting of granular soils depends on the slope
angle, the angle of internal friction, the unit weight of soil, and pore pressures. When
failure is confined to large landslides, the safe angles of excavation can be determined
using simple slope analyses. The shear strength parameters for these stability analyses are
determined from laboratory tests and can be corroborated from empirical correlations. In
areas where long lengths of road are affected by shallow instability, the determination of
cut slope angles based on experience is a more practical approach.
Page 4-21
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
In cohesive soil slopes, stability is a function of consolidation history, soil density, slope
angle, and pore pressures. Figure 4-17 shows the general variations of shear strength, pore
pressure, load and factor of safety (stability) with time for a clay cut slope. The initial shear
strength is often equal to the undrained shear strength on the assumption that no drainage
occurs during excavation. In contrast to embankment slopes, the pore pressure within a
clay cut slope increases over time. This increase is accompanied by swelling, which results
in reduced shear strength. Thus, the factor of safety decreases over time until an unstable
condition is reached. This, for the most part, explains why clayey cut slopes sometimes fail
a long time after initial excavation.
In situ shear strength is a direct function of the maximum past overburden pressure for cuts
in over-consolidated clays. The higher this pressure is, the greater the shear strength.
However, over the long term, its strength no longer depends on the prior loading and will
decrease with time. The loss in strength is attributed to reduction of negative pore pressure
after excavation, and its magnitude depends on the rate of dissipation of this pore pressure.
Long-term cut slope stability is also dependent on seepage forces and, therefore, on the
ultimate groundwater level in the slope. The presence of groundwater within or just below
a proposed cut will affect the slope angle required to achieve and maintain stability. After
excavation, the groundwater surface will usually drop slowly to a stable zone at a variable
depth below the new cut surface. This drawdown usually occurs rapidly in cut slopes made
up of granular materials but is usually much slower in clay. Generally, groundwater adds to
seepage forces, raises pore pressures, and causes a corresponding reduction in effective
stress and shear strength. It also adds weight to the soil mass, increasing driving forces.
Hence it is important to identify seepage within proposed cut slopes so that adequate
drainage designs are prepared in advance.
Figure 4-17: Stability condition of a clay cut slope over time From Bishop and
Bjerrum (1960) reproduced in Abramson et al (2002)
Page 4-22
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
4.4.1. Design considerations

Cuts slopes in soils up to a height of about 3 to5 m are generally designed based on past
experience with similar materials in the surrounding area. Observations and experience in
the performance of cut slopes in the region provides knowledge of stable cut slope angles
and common stability issues affecting large cuttings in soil.
Cut slopes greater than 5 m in height may require geotechnical analysis, depending upon
the risk they pose. Any cut slope where failure would result in large rehabilitation costs or
threaten public safety should normally be designed using rigorous techniques. In addition,
deep cuts and cuts with irregular geometry and varying stratigraphy (especially with weak
layers), cuts where high groundwater or seepage forces are likely, cuts involving soils with
questionable strength, and cuts in old landslides or in areas susceptible to landslides should
also be analysed using standard geotechnical approaches.
The major parameters in relation to design of cut slopes are the slope angle and height of
the cut and its constituent materials and water condition. For dry granular soils in which
the anticipated mode of potential failure is planar, stability is largely independent of height,
and therefore slope angle becomes the parameter of most interest. For purely cohesive
soils, the height of the cut becomes a critical design parameter. For soils with both
cohesion and friction, and saturated soils, slope stability is dependent on both slope angle
and the height of the cut. Also critical to the proper design of cut slopes is the groundwater
level (pore pressure) and its fluctuation.
In principle, the stability of cut slopes in clay soils during design should be evaluated for
both the end-of-construction and the long-term conditions. For major roads and highways,
the long-term condition is usually the more critical. As shown in Figure 4-17, the stability
of a cut slope in clay soil decreases with time after excavation as pore pressures increase
and the soils within the slope swell and become weaker. As a result, the critical condition
for stability of cut slopes is normally the long-term condition, when increase in pore water
pressure and swelling and weakening of soils is complete. If the materials in which the cut
is made are so highly permeable that these changes occur completely as excavation and
construction proceeds, as will mainly be the case for Ethiopian conditions, the end-ofconstruction and the long-term conditions are the same.
The short-term condition is computed using total stress methods (undrained condition). If
the cut is designed to be permanent, the long-term condition should be analysed using
effective stress methods assuming that excess pore pressures dissipate completely during
that time. The strength parameters = 0 and cu (undrained strength) are used for total
stress analysis assuming that the soil behaviour is exclusively cohesive. For effective stress
analyses, drained strength (c' and '), along with pore pressure, u, will be required. Cuts
along mountain roads in Ethiopia are usually in rock, granular soil or in situ weathered
residual soil. In many cases it would be acceptable to assume c' = 0.
In principle, it is advisable to analyse stability using effective stress methods since the
strengths of soils are governed by effective stresses under both undrained and drained
conditions. In practice, however, it is virtually impossible to determine accurately what
excess pore pressures will result from excavation. Because of this, performing accurate
analyses of stability using effective stress procedures is often difficult.
Page 4-23
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
4.4.2. Cut slope angles, profiles and benches

Table 4-8 shows cut slope angles (H:V) recommended for preliminary design purposes. A
schematic illustration of these slope ratios is shown in Figure 4-18. These values are fairly
close to the long-term equilibrium conditions, and can be especially important in places
where the heterogeneity of the soil and rock layers makes any kind of stability analysis
very difficult. They can normally be used for relatively dry slopes. If near surface
groundwater or seepage water exists or is expected to occur during the design life of the
slope, then the slope angles should be flatter than those given in this table, or appropriate
drainage measures should be taken. When two different soil layers are present, the cut
slope angle should be varied, where possible, to take advantage of stronger materials.
Figure 4-18: Typical cut slope ratios in most soil types

Generally, the use of the cut slope angles shown in Table 4-8 or other customized values
should target a design factor of safety of 1.3. This factor of safety is considered as a
minimum value for static roadside slope stability. The reason for using a factor of safety
greater than one is to take into account the variation of soil properties in slopes and the
uncertainty over longer term groundwater conditions. If temporary road closures and debris
clearance can be tolerated, as would be the case for low trafficked roads, then steeper
slopes with a factor of safety of 1.1 may be used, even for long-term cases. The advantages
of steep slopes is that they result in less Right-of-Way width, less excavated material, less
spoil disposal, and a shorter length of slope exposed to erosion. Their disadvantages are
that they are difficult to vegetate and are more prone to failure.
Page 4-24
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
Table 4-8 Soil cut slope ratios (H:V) for preliminary design purposes
Type of Material
Cutslope total height (m)

36
6 - 10
10 - 15
Residual clay soils
1:1
1:1
Heavy, plastic clay soils
1.5:1
2:1
1.5:1
2:1
0.75:1
1.5:1
2:1
Reduce the upper portion to 1:1 to

limit gully formation or widening.
1:1
1.5:1
2:1
Cover the slope with grass and other

suitable plants and keep the slope
dry.
Granular soils with some

clays
Dense transported soils (subangular cobbles, gravels and
sands in a fine matrix)
Loose to medium dense
transported soils (boulders,
sub-angular cobbles and
gravels in a fine matrix), or
talus
2:1
---------
Remark
Consider benching when the slope
height is above 6 m. Vegetation
cover is highly recommended.
Keeping the slope dry is extremely
important.
Keep a constant slope. Appropriate
drainage and vegetation is necessary.
Note: Slope angles are indicative and require site-specific assessment.

Roadside cut slopes are generally not designed for seismic conditions unless slope failure
could impact major structures. This issue and whether higher factors of safety are needed,
should be decided on a case by case basis depending on the consequences of failure, past
experience with similar soils, and uncertainties in the analyses.
Cut slope profiles can be single-sloped, multi-sloped or benched (Figure 4-19). Singlesloped profiles are usually cut in dense soils with enough resistance against failure. Their
height is often limited to 6 m. Multi-sloped profiles are cut where an excavation encounters
soil overlying rock or where the stratigraphy consists of two or more soil or rock layers
with different strength characteristics. Benched slopes are designed when there is a need to
slow down and intercept surface runoff, or to contain falling debris from one bench to
another, as would be the case for an excavation in jointed rock.
There is no fixed rule regarding the appropriate dimension of a bench. Good practice might
be to provide a bench width equal to one third of the height of the cut immediately above
it.
Page 4-25
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
Figure 4-19: Types of cut-slope profiles

For benches to perform properly, in terms of drainage and collecting falling debris, they
should be designed with an inward slope of 3-5% and have a longitudinal gradient. Care
should be taken to avoid undercutting planes of weakness or over-steepening weak soil or
rock layers. The benched slope should be designed accordingly, or a uniform slope
selected instead. Benches should be well maintained and cleaned regularly to ensure that
they will not create a problem by blocking drainage.
4.4.3. Colluvium and talus slopes
Colluvium is a term used to describe a fine-grained slope deposit. It has become widely
misused to include heterogeneous transported soils of mixed origin and mixed sizes to the
extent that any transported soil on a slope is now acceptably referred to as colluvium. Talus
(scree) on the other hand is a term commonly used to describe broken rock fragments
derived from rock cliffs and deposited at their angle of repose in a cone or an apron below
the exposed face. Both colluvium and talus deposits are characterized by high permeability
and compressibility, and potential for renewed movement.
The composition of colluvial deposits varies according to the nature of the bedrock sources
and the climate under which weathering and transport occurred. Generally, they consist of
a heterogeneous mixture of soils and rock fragments ranging in size from clay particles to
rock boulders.
Colluvium and talus deposits are often only marginally stable, and can be rendered
unstable by heavy rainfall, temporarily perched water tables, or other external factors.
Among the possible causes of movement is the reduction in shear strength at the interface
between the colluvium and the residual soil/bedrock interface due to the increase in pore
pressures. Reactivation is sudden and can occur anytime during heavy rain or if support is
removed in excavations. Most failures in colluvium are planar, although slumps and flows
can also be encountered. Retrogression is also common in these soils.
Page 4-26
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
Figure 4-20: Road cut on a colluvial slope

The shear strength of colluvium is generally governed by the matrix of granular and finegrained fractions. On most mountain hillsides, colluvium is treated as a cohesionless
material. Reliable representation of pore pressure distribution is critical in the stability
analysis of colluvial slopes. The pore pressure distribution can be represented by the pore
pressure ratio (ru), which is the ratio of the water pressure to the weight per unit area of the
overburden at any point within the soil mass. More frequently, the pore pressure
distribution may best be represented by a groundwater or perched water table.
Often, good indication of the strength of colluvium is obtained by pit excavation and
Standard Penetration Tests, although the results can be misleading if large boulders are
present.
Colluvial deposits frequently occur in the highlands of Ethiopia. They are especially
common on the hill sides of deep gorges such as those of the Blue Nile basin. Figure 4-20
shows an example of a road cut on a colluvial slope along the Gundewein to Mekhane
Selam road in the Blue Nile Gorge. Road cuts in colluvium and talus deposits are expected
to be stable if they have a slope of 33o (1.5:1) for a cut height of less than 10m as shown in
Table 4-8. If a relatively thin colluvial cover overlies bedrock or a residual soil layer on
inclined ground, it is advisable to remove it during cutting if it is practical to do so.
4.4.4. Residual soils
Residual soils are formed by in-situ weathering of rocks, and usually (though not always)
contain a high proportion of clays. They often occur on flat ridge tops and structural
benches where in situ weathering has predominated over erosion and transportation. Unlike
colluvium, these soils have not been disturbed and can exhibit an additional cohesion
associated with the residual rock structure, which increases their strength. Figure 4-21
illustrates the formation of residual soils and the associated effect of erosion and
consolidation.
Page 4-27
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
Figure 4-21: Simplified illustration of the formation of residual soils

Depending on rock type and climate, residual soils (Weathering Grade IV and V) may
present special problems with respect to slope stability and erosion. Such soils may contain
relict structures from the original bedrock that act as planes of weakness and their strength
properties may vary significantly over short distances due to variations in weathering
grade. Weathering Grade V materials are often highly prone to erosion. Because of this, it
may be difficult to determine design shear strength parameters from laboratory tests.
Groundwater also tends to be complex within in situ weathered soils, again due to relict
structural variations in the soil mass and variations in weathering grade and rock head
level. In this case, shear strength parameters should be determined by back-analyzing slope
failures and by using empirical design procedures based on local experience.
Generally, slopes formed in in situ weathered soils should be designed using both total and
effective stress approaches to assess short-term strength and also long-term stability.
Because of the cohesive nature of the fine grained component of Weathering Grade V-VI
materials and the maintenance of soil suctions when slopes are kept largely dry, these soils
can often be cut steeply for appreciable heights. Figure 4-22 shows a 1:1 road cut slope
through residual red clays.
Page 4-28
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
Figure 4-22: Relatively steep 1:1 cut slope in residual clay

In Ethiopia, residual soils are found in many parts of the country usually associated with
basaltic rocks that can weather easily. Pore pressures in residual soil slopes often react
quickly to heavy rainfall and any infiltration can eliminate soil tensions and increase
positive pore pressure by raising either perched water or groundwater tables. On slopes,
failure can occur either during or sometime after the rainfall ends. Along roads, any
percolation from the top of cuttings can lead to softening and slope failure, as illustrated in
Figure 4-23.
Figure 4-23: Failure in black cotton soil due to infiltration of water

4.4.5. Collapsible soils
Collapsible soils undergo a reduction in volume upon wetting. They have usually a low dry
density and low moisture content. Such soils have considerable strength and stiffness in
their dry natural state and can withstand a large applied vertical stress with a small
compression. When they are wet, however, they experience much larger settlements, even
with no increase in vertical pressure.
Collapsible soils are present in the central and southern part of the Ethiopian Rift Valley in
the form of silty loess-type deposits. These soils contain a large amount of void space, and
particles are held together by the clay component. They can stand at steep slopes (0.5:1)
Page 4-29
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
indefinitely provided the moisture content remains low. However, upon wetting, the soil
loses its strength and because of the open internal structure, may undergo large rapid
deformations that can result in slope failures. Slope failures in collapsible soils can occur
as either shallow planar slides or minor slumps.
Surface erosion and subsurface piping are most common problems on slope cuts containing
collapsible, in situ weathered and other sensitive soils. All cut slopes should be designed
with adequate drainage to limit erosion and piping as much as possible. The amount of
erosion that occurs on a slope is a function of soil type, rainfall intensity, slope angle,
length of slope, and vegetative cover. For cuts in collapsible soils, consideration should be
given to preventing earthwork activity during the wet season.
4.4.6. Latosols
Latosols (often referred to incorrectly as laterites) form a group comprising a wide variety
of red, brown, and yellow, fine grained in situ weathered tropical soils (Weathering Grade
IV and VI) as well as nodular gravels (concretions) and cemented soils (ferricretes and
bauxites). They vary significantly in density and texture, depending upon weathering
history, from medium dense soils to rock-like material, known as laterite. They are
characterized by the presence of iron and aluminium oxides or hydroxides responsible for
the red colour of the soil. When some of these soils (plinthites) are exposed to the air,
irreversible hardening occurs, producing a laterite material suitable for use as a building or
road stone. Often, strength under field conditions tends to be much higher than is indicated
by the laboratory tests.
The stiff nature of some in situ weathered tropical soils allows steep cuts to be formed to a
height of 3 to 6 m. These slopes can remain stable for long periods of time, as long as they
remain dry and protected from surface erosion and piping through drainage control.
Figure 4-24: Cut through weathered rock and residual soils

In Ethiopia, lateritic soils are distributed in the north western, western, and southern part of
the country, including especially areas around Assossa and many places in western Gojam.
Page 4-30
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
4.5. Rock Cut Slopes

Roads in mountainous areas often require rock excavation. Unlike soil slopes, rock cut
slope stability is influenced by a number of factors such as the type of rock, the strength of
intact rock blocks, the characteristics of discontinuities, the degree and extent of the rock
mass weathering, and the groundwater conditions.
Intact rock strength is the strength of a block of rock or specimen that is not affected by
discontinuities. It depends on the physical properties of the constituent minerals and the
bond and cementation that exist. It is often difficult to reproduce field conditions in the
laboratory. Hence, in situ tests such as point load or Schmidt Hammer rebound tests may
be needed to estimate intact rock strengths and correlate them with unconfined
compression values. Intact rock made up of minerals susceptible to weathering is usually
weak. Others composed of minerals such as quartz are relatively strong. In most rock
masses (except where discontinuities are widely spaced) intact rock strength usually
exceeds the strength of discontinuities, and discontinuity orientation and friction angle
usually control rock slope stability.
4.5.1. The role of discontinuities
The term discontinuity is used for all structural breaks in geological materials with
negligible or zero tensile strength. They include bedding planes, joints, faults, foliations
and shear zones. Table 4-10 summarizes the characteristics of these discontinuities.
Discontinuities present in a rock mass are the most significant factors affecting rock slope
stability and the primary controlling parameters for rock cut slope design. The influence
and shear strength of discontinuities in a rock mass are controlled by their orientation,
persistence, spacing, aperture, infillings, and roughness.
Orientation is measured in the field using dip and dip direction (or strike) as shown in
Figure 4-25. The orientation of discontinuities with respect to applied loads can be critical
to deformation or stability. If the orientations of the discontinuity surfaces are inclined out
of the slope (daylight), they can have a significantly negative influence on the stability of
slopes. Seepage pressures are also controlled by discontinuity orientation and connectivity.
Persistence refers to the lateral extent of a discontinuity as is shown in Figure 4-25. It is an
important parameter because it defines the potential volume of the failure mass. Recording
trace lengths to describe joint persistence is useful in determining the stability and ultimate
cutting angles of deep excavations.
Page 4-31
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
Table 4-9: Types of discontinuities and their characteristics. From GWP Consultants
(2008)
Discontinuity
Bedding planes
Joints
Faults
Foliation
Shear zones
Descriptions
Arising from the deposition of sediments in layers, they are distinct physical
discontinuities. They may occur at the interface between different rock types at
various spacings within a single rock unit. They may be persistent and
generally extend over greater areas than any other type of discontinuity. In
some rock types, movements along bedding planes may have developed
weakened shear zones. The nature and inclination of bedding is always of
prime importance when considering slope stability in sedimentary rocks.
Joints are developed to some degree in almost all rocks. They are planar
fractures formed to relieve stresses, across which there has been little or no
movement. Jointing plays some part in the majority of slope failures in rock
masses since intact rock is generally stronger than the discontinuities.
Faults occur less frequently than joints and may have undergone substantial
displacements. Faulting often produces continuous or persistent planes of
weakness. Fault zones may develop in which the fault occurs as a series of
displacement surfaces in an area of distorted, crushed and often weathered
material (termed gouge). Faulting can occur in any rock. Faults can provide
the shearing or release surfaces for several modes of failure.
Foliation is a structural property exhibited only in metamorphic rock types.
Slate, crystalline metamorphic rock and tightly folded sedimentary rocks show
closely spaced laminations which are not directly related to bedding features.
Discontinuities associated with cleavage are likely to be smooth and
continuous. Within the rocks affected, they are likely to be a major factor
controlling slope stability.
A structural break where differential movement has occurred along a surface or
zone of geological failure; characterized by polished surfaces, striations,
slicken sides, gouge, breccia, mylonite, or any combination of these. Shear
zones involve volumes of rock deformed by shear stress under brittle-ductile or
ductile conditions. They often occur at the edges of tectonic blocks, forming
joints that mark distinct terrains.
Spacing is the distance between two discontinuities of the same set measured normal to the
discontinuity surface. Spacing affects block size and geometry in the rock mass. The
spacing of adjacent joints largely controls the size of individual blocks of intact rock. It
also controls the mode of failure. Spacing is a required input to several rock mass
classification systems. When a set can be distinguished from parallel or sub-parallel joints,
the true or apparent spacing can be measured as illustrated in Figure 4-25.
Page 4-32
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
Figure 4-25: Description of different discontinuity parameters

Aperture is the openness or separation within a given discontinuity and is measured normal
to the discontinuity surfaces. Aperture affects the strength, deformability, and seepage
characteristics.
Materials that fill the aperture of discontinuities are termed as infillings. The presence of
infillings affects the permeability and shear strength of a discontinuity. Secondary minerals
such as quartz and calcite may provide significant cohesion to the rock mass if present as
infillings. Descriptions of infillings are site specific but must address the thickness of
fillings, their type or composition, degree of alteration, and hardness.
The shape and roughness of a discontinuity constitute its surface characteristics.
Roughness is a measure of the surface unevenness and waviness of the discontinuity
relative to its mean plane. It can be a small scale surface irregularity or unevenness, or a
large scale undulation or waviness. It can also be described as stepped, undulating, and
planar in metre scale, or rough, smooth, and slickensided in centimetre scale.
Roughness affects the shear strength of the discontinuity directly and is an important
parameter for stability analyses. Discontinuity strength is rarely the same in all directions,
since even small steps or undulations, known as asperities, strongly influence the potential
for sliding along that surface. This effect is most pronounced when the asperities are
oriented perpendicularly to the direction of sliding. The shear strength and any associated
slope failure are also controlled by the relative positioning of these asperities. Hence, while
movement through two fully interlocked joints is very unlikely, failure can occur where
waves and undulations are in point contact.
The degree of fracturing of a rock mass is described by fracture density, fracture frequency
and rock quality designation (RQD). Fracture density is based on the spacing between all
natural fractures in an exposure or in cores from boreholes. Fracture frequency on the other
Page 4-33
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
hand is defined as the number of discontinuities per metre length. Common descriptions of
fracture density are summarized in Table 4.11, but it should be noted that core recovery is
also dependent upon the strength of the rock mass and the method of drilling.
Table 4-10: Fracture density. Modified from US DOI Bureau of Reclamation (1998)
Fractured density
Unfractured
Slightly fractured
Moderately fractured
Highly fractured
Extremely fractured
Description
No observed fractures, or core recovered mostly in lengths
greater than 1 m.
Core recovered mostly in lengths from 300 mm to 1 m with
few scattered lengths less than 300 mm or greater than 1 m.
Core recovered mostly in lengths from 100 to 300 mm with
most lengths about 200 mm.
Lengths average from 30 to 100 mm with fragmented
intervals. Core recovered mostly in lengths less than 100
mm.
Core recovered mostly as chips and fragments with a few
scattered short core lengths.
RQD is a measure of the degree rock fracturing. It is defined as the percentage of rock
cores that have a length equal or greater than 100 mm over the total drill length.
=
100
100%
If cores are broken by handling or the drilling process, the broken pieces are fitted together
and counted as one piece (provided that they form the requisite length of 100 mm); highly
weathered, soft, fractured, sheared, and jointed rocks yield lower RQD values. The length
of cores is measured along the centreline of the core. Figure 4-26 illustrates the system of
determining RQD from rock cores and outcrops.
Page 4-34
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
Figure 4-26: Graphical illustration of the rock quality designation (RQD)

4.5.2. The role of weathering
Rock weathering takes place by mechanical and chemical processes and involves the
disintegration and decomposition of a rock mass. The degree of weathering is governed by
the interaction between the rock mass and different internal and external factors such as
geology and climate.
Weathering in rock masses often starts along discontinuity surfaces. Hence, as it advances
deep into rock masses through joints and bedding planes, it affects the physical and
mechanical properties of rock masses. Each weathering grade boundary marks sharp or
gradational changes in geotechnical properties.
Weathering effects generally decrease with depth, although zones of differential
weathering can occur and may modify the weathering profile. Examples include
differential weathering within a single rock unit, apparently due to relatively higher
permeability along discontinuities, differential weathering due to compositional or textural
differences, differential weathering of contact zones associated with thermal effects such as
interflow zones within volcanic rocks, directional weathering along permeable joints,
faults, and bedding planes, along which weathering penetrate more deeply into the rock
mass, and differential weathering because of topographic effects.
Weathering is important in rock slope design because it may be the primary criterion for
determining cut slope angle, depth, method and ease of excavation, and use of excavated
materials. Porosity, absorption, compressibility, shear and compressive strengths, density,
and resistance to erosion are the major engineering parameters influenced by weathering.
Weathering generally is indicated by changes in the colour and texture of the body of the
Page 4-35
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
rock, colour, and condition of fracture fillings and surfaces, grain boundary conditions, and
physical properties such as hardness. The ERA Site Investigation Manual describes
weathering classification in the field.
4.5.3. The role of groundwater
Groundwater occupying the discontinuities within a rock mass can significantly reduce the
stability of a rock slope. Water pressure within a discontinuity reduces the effective normal
stress acting on the plane, thus reducing the shear strength. Water pressure within
discontinuities that run roughly parallel to a slope also increases the driving forces.
Further, the presence of water in both intact rock and discontinuities can promote
weathering thus reducing shear strengths, or can erode infilling materials.
Where a rock mass has many discontinuity sets, which are closely spaced, the groundwater
may behave much as it would in a soil; there is a high degree of connection of voids and
groundwater levels vary only gradually over large areas. However, in rock masses with
only a few sets of discontinuities and where the discontinuity spacing is large, water
pressures can vary appreciably from one fracture to the next. Seemingly erratic
groundwater levels can also develop when geological dykes and sills, high angle faults or
steeply dipping strata act as barriers. Water levels may be significantly different on either
side of these barriers. Figure 4-27 illustrates the effect of type, orientation and persistence
of discontinuities on groundwater levels.
Surface recharge can have a marked effect on groundwater levels in rock slopes. A low
porosity closed jointed rock mass may experience a rapid rise in groundwater level of
several metres as a result of only a few millimetres of rain since infiltrating water is
concentrated in a small number of fractures with low aperture. Where groundwater
intercepts the slope face, the flow can erode material below the seepage level, which can
contribute to slope failure.
Page 4-36
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
Figure 4-27: Effect of discontinuity characteristics on groundwater level

Determination of groundwater levels and pressures includes measurements of the elevation
of the groundwater surface and variations of this elevation based on seasonal fluctuation.
Also important is the location of perched water tables, the location of aquifers, and the
presence of artesian pressures. Water pressure in rock slopes reduces the stability of the
slope by reducing the available shear strength of potential failure surfaces. Changes in
moisture content of the rock, particularly those rock types with low slake durability, causes
materials to lose strength over time. Thermal expansion or freezing of groundwater causes
ice wedging and may effectively block drainage of discontinuities in the rock mass,
increasing pore pressures and resulting in an increased rock fall potential and the potential
for more large scale failures.
Determination of the permeability of the rock strata is important because the discharge of
water from slopes along a highway can necessitate the requirement for increased
maintenance as the result of pavement deterioration and the need for higher capacity
drainage systems. Figure 4.28 shows an example of a rock slide initiated by groundwater
seepage.
Page 4-37
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
Figure 4-28: Rock slide initiated by groundwater seepage out of the slope
4.5.4. Mode of failures
The mode of rock slope failure is primarily controlled by the orientation and spacing of
discontinuities within the rock mass as well as the orientation of the excavation and the
angle of inclination of the slope. The modes of failure common in rock cuts can be divided
into planar (translational), wedge, toppling, and circular.
Planar failure is governed by a single discontinuity surface dipping out of the slope face
(Figure 4-29). A single block with potential for sliding along a single plane represents the
simplest of planar sliding. The mechanism is kinematically possible in cases where at least
one joint set strikes approximately parallel to the slope strike and dips toward the
excavation slope. Failure will occur if the joint plane intersects the slope and dips at an
angle greater than the angle of internal friction () of the joint surface.
Page 4-38
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
Figure 4-29: Modes of failure in rock slopes. Modified from GWP Consultants (2008)
Planar failure along stepped planes is possible in cases where a series of closely spaced
parallel joints strike approximately parallel to the excavation slope and dip toward the
excavation slope. The parallel joints may or may not be continuous. However, at least one
joint plane must intersect the slope plane to result in failure. In the case of continuous
parallel joints, a second set of joints is necessary to act as release joints. These release
joints must also strike more or less parallel to the slope and the magnitude and direction of
the joint dip angle must be such that the joint plane does not intersect the slope plane.
Wedge failure involves a failure mass defined by two discontinuities with a line of
intersection that is inclined out of the slope (Figure 4-29). In addition, this mode of failure
requires that the dip angle of at least one joint-intersect is greater than the friction angle of
the joint surfaces and that the line of joint intersection intersects the plane of the slope.
Page 4-39
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
Multiple wedges can be formed by the intersection of four or more sets of discontinuities.
Although conceptually possible, the sliding failure of a multiple wedge system rarely
occurs because of the potential for kinematic constraint.
Toppling failure involves slabs or columns of rock defined by discontinuities that dip
steeply into the slope face. It involves overturning or rotation of rock layers. Closely
spaced, steeply dipping discontinuity sets that dip away from the slope surface are
necessary prerequisites for toppling. In the absence of cross jointing, each layer tends to
bend down-slope under its own weight thus generating flexural cracks. If frequent cross
joints are present, the layers can topple as rigid columns. In either case, toppling is usually
initiated by layer separation with movement in the direction of the excavation. Layer
separation may be rapid or gradual. Rapid separation is associated with block weight
and/or stress relief while gradual separation is linked with environmental processes such as
thermal expansion and freeze/thaw cycles. An example of toppling failure in a layered and
vertically jointed limestone is given in Figure 4.30.
Circular failures are commonly associated with soil slopes, but they may also occur in
highly weathered and decomposed rock masses, highly fractured rock masses, or in weak
rock such as marls and shale.
4.5.5. Design considerations
Successful rock slope design demands a sound and complete understanding of the
combined influence of intact rock strengths, characteristics of discontinuities and
groundwater conditions. In practice, the design process is a balance between stability and
other considerations, such as constructability, economics, potential environmental impacts,
and the accepted level of risk. Steeper cut slope angles result in lower construction costs,
require less Right-of-Way, require a smaller volume of rock excavation, and because the
cut height is generally less and the excavation footprint smaller, may be perceived as a
more environmentally sensitive design. This needs to be contrasted, however, with the
increased risk of slope failure.
Page 4-40
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
Figure 4-30: Example of toppling failure

Usually, rock cuts made steeper than their discontinuities may require expensive measures
to maintain stability. Alternatively, provision would need to be made for rock fall
containment, although in steep terrain there is a limit to the area that can be made available
for this purpose and a compromise may be required.
Superimposing a slightly steeper cut onto an already steep natural slope may present
problems associated with difficult access to begin the excavation. Furthermore, a sliver
cut may be unsafe to excavate because the narrow work area provides inadequate room for
construction equipment.
As in the case of soil slopes, a rock slope is assessed to be stable or unstable on the basis of
the factor of safety. The factor of safety is primarily dependent on the geometry of the
potential slip plane (mode of failure) with respect to the cut slope orientation and profile
and the shear strength along this plane. In addition, other factors such as the potential for
rock fall and aspects of drainage, land take (Right of Way), ease of construction and
maintenance should also be considered. Table 4-12 gives a summary of the factors that
need to be considered during design.
Rock falls from cut slopes are generally more dominant in the early years after excavation
when the rock slope has been freshly cut. Weathering, relaxation and rainfall can lead to
rock slope failures exposing fresh rock and inducing further rock falls. Over a period of
time the rock fall quantity should ordinarily reduce. The natural establishment of
vegetation also tends to slow any rock fall after a period of time.
Page 4-41
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
Table 4-11: Aspects to be considered during rock cut slope design.
Stability
Potential rock fall
Drainage
Land take (Right of

Way)
Construction
Vegetation
Maintenance
The overall cut slope profile (slope angle and possible use of benches)
should be determined to ensure stability, taking into account the
stratigraphy and characteristics of discontinuities in the rock mass,
groundwater condition, and weathering. Major discontinuities such as
adversely dipping persistent joints, bedding planes and sheet joints, weak
weathered seams, and fault zones should be given special attention in the
design of rock cuts.
The practice of relying on generalised assumptions about strength of
discontinuities and groundwater may not adequately cater for local zones
in the rock mass. In areas where failure can lead to major damage to
properties and structures or significant road blockage, the rock face should
be mapped in detail by experienced engineering geologists.
Benches should be provided between batters of significantly different
gradients. Benches are generally not necessary in massive hard rock from
a stability point of view.
Where benches are provided, possible bouncing of rock fall should be
assessed.
Benches if provided should be as wide as possible (preferably at least 2
min fresh rock) in order to contain small rock falls and debris and allow
access for maintenance.
For large rock slopes, the potential risk of rock fall can be difficult to
assess. If practicable and economically feasible, a catch ditch or fence
should be provided along the toe of the cut to contain falling rocks.
Unless it is considered that there is no potential for surface erosion,
drainage ditches should be provided along benches. Bench drainage
ditches would reduce the velocity and volume of runoff on the slope, with
consequent reduction of erosion and infiltration. Benches constructed
without drainage provision may encourage infiltration of surface water,
leading to reduced stability
A rock slope without benches can minimize land take. If stability is
assured, this should be considered.
The option of providing a catch ditch or a rock fall barrier at road level
may not necessarily take up significantly more space than the provision of
benches on the slope. This should be considered as an alternative.
The construction process (e.g. blasting) often weakens the rock mass,
particularly at bench locations if they are considered in the design.
Controlled techniques (e.g. hand scaling, pre-splitting, trimming) should
be employed to minimize damage.
The slope gradient and the topsoil should support vegetation growth.
Aspects of maintenance inspections and works, including provision of safe
access should be considered and agreed during design.
Benches can facilitate access for maintenance.
The maintenance of benches is such that they should be regularly cleaned,
especially during rainy seasons.
Generally, the design of rock cut slopes is a progressive process. It starts with adequate
exploration of the project site within which each rock slope along the road is divided into
design units. The classification of the slope and the formation of design units are generally
based on slope material properties, discontinuity conditions, the stratigraphy of the slope,
the degree of weathering, and the influence of groundwater.
Page 4-42
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
A design unit is defined as a portion of a roadside slope that can be cut at a consistent
angle with or without benches. It may contain a single rock type or different rock types of
similar intact rock strength. The difference in discontinuity characteristics (orientation,
persistence, spacing, infillings, etc) in the entire unit should be allowed for in the design.
The degree of weathering should also be the same throughout, and groundwater seepage
requiring the same drainage measures.
Once design units are formed, the safest and most economical design which best
accommodates the site geology and project-specific constraints is prepared. Like soil
slopes, any design option in rocks should target a minimum factor of safety of 1.3.
4.5.6. Safe angles of cut and benches
In a procedure that does not involve detailed rock slope stability analyses, rock quality
designation (RQD) or fracture frequency can be used in the field to assess the overall
stability of a design unit and the safe angle of excavation. Alternatively, a suitable cut
slope for a design unit can also be decided by inspecting existing cuts in similar materials
along the proposed route or adjacent alignments. Other factors being equal, new cuts can
be formed at the same slope as stable existing cuts. However, material properties,
discontinuity characteristics, groundwater conditions and the degree of weathering should
also be the same.
Table 4-13 provides cut slope angles developed from the condition of rock cuts in Ethiopia
and considering the type of rocks in the country. In general, when the geological conditions
affecting slope stability are favourable and constructability is not a controlling factor, a
steep cut (0.25H:1V) may be possible. It is important to note that changes to the
orientations of cut slopes, even slight, may decrease slope stability significantly by
increasing the feasibility of movement along joint sets. This outcome might require rock
fall mitigation and protection measures to compensate. In such cases, the economic
advantages afforded by a steeper slope can be lost and a flatter, more stable slope (0.5H:1V
or less) may be needed.
Page 4-43
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
Table 4-12: Indicative maximum cut slope angles (H:V) for rock slopes (without
discontinuity control)
Type of Material
Fractured and slightly
to moderately
weathered basalt
Fractured and
weathered basalt in
blocks, cobbles and
gravels of all sizes in a
matrix of silt or clay
Weathered tuff,
volcanic breccias or
agglomerate
Fractured, slightly
weathered, thickly
bedded limestone with
intercalations
Cut-slope height
<10m
10-15m
15-20m
0.25:1
0.75:1
1.00:1
1.00:1
1.25:1
1.50:1
1.00:1
1.25:1
1.50:1
0.25:1
Slightly weathered and

fractured mudstone and 1.00:1
marl
Slightly weathered,
poorly cemented
sandstone, with poorly
defined stratification
0.25:1
Weathered, highly
friable shale and jointed 1.00:1
mudstone
0.50:1
1.25:1
0.50:1
1.50:1
Remark
Remove hanging blocks before cutting.
This minimizes the formation of
overhangs
1.00:1
Apply controlled excavation; benches

and drainage are needed at different
heights.
1.50:1
Remove weathered and unconsolidated

portion at low angles. Drainage is
important to keep the slope dry.
Reinforcement works and erosion
controlling measures may be needed.
1.00:1
Controlled or trim blasting is

recommended so as not to damage the
rock behind the cut face.
2.00:1
Shale has a characteristic of being

deformed when wet. Hence, drainage
systems are needed to keep the slope
dry. Benches may also be required.
For discontinuity-controlled slopes, each will need to be assessed on a case by case basis.
When the rock is fresh and no significant weathering is observed, similar cut slope angles
may be used for one or more design units. If differential weathering is observed or
anticipated, vertically or laterally, the use of variable cut slope angles is advisable.
Critical factors to consider when fixing bench dimension are summarized in Table 4-13.
Page 4-44
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
Table 4-13: Factors controlling bench dimension on rock slopes. Modified from
GWP Consultants (2008)
Bench width
Bench height
Bench inclination
The optimum width of a bench depends on geotechnical parameters and

the purpose of the bench itself. In relatively unweathered rock, a
minimum bench width of 2 m is recommended. In all cases, benches must
have suitable drainage measures included in the design. Benches usually
require access for maintenance (ditch cleaning, debris removal) and this
should be accommodated in the design.
The height of benches is dictated generally by stability issues (including
rock fall and safe working arrangements for scaling the face). For ease of
working, it is advisable to limit the height of benches to 6m.
The bench face angle, or slope, depends on stability and rock properties
(including permeability and weathering).
Generally, the following points should be considered during the design of benched cut
slopes.
Benches on rock slopes should be at least 2 m wide and sloped in wards to retain
falling blocks and to facilitate drainage
For incompetent materials thicker than 3 m, benches should be made wider as
necessary based on specific conditions. Engineering judgment must be used to
determine site-specific minimum thickness of a weathered rock unit or a weak layer
bed that requires benching.
For inter-layered rocks, engineering judgment should be used to determine the sitespecific bench size required.
Where permeable formations overlie impermeable ones (including areas of
fractured flow), the configuration of benches must consider drainage issues.
Benches must be adjusted during construction to follow changes in the character of
discontinuities and bedding surfaces.
Installing a bench drain along the contact between competent and incompetent rock
units where groundwater is anticipated is advisable.
Access for maintenance equipment should be provided to the lowest (foot) bench,
and if feasible to all higher benches.
Benches should always be maintained and regularly cleaned.
4.5.7. Methods of rock excavation

Rock excavation for road cuts is normally carried out by techniques of digging, ripping,
breaking or blasting. Figure 4.31 shows the situations when these activities are applied
during rock excavation. Digging is used in high weathered and relatively weak rocks.
Ripping is a process of breaking up rock and soil with a large tooth or teeth attached to the
back of a bulldozer. Ripping is generally preferred over breaking and blasting because it is
considerably less expensive. Ripping is also less dangerous and requires fewer precautions.
Ripping can be done in close proximity to populated areas where noise and vibration from
breaking and blasting are restricted.
Page 4-45
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
Figure 4-31: General guide to select a method of rock excavation. From Pettifer and
Fookes (1994)
However, ripping is limited to weak and fractured rock. In hard rock with few
discontinuities, light blasting is sometimes performed before ripping or breaking. Once
rock is loosened by ripping, an excavator can be used to construct the designed slope.
Breaking is carried out with a hydraulic hammer (also known as a breaker or hoe ram)
fitted to an excavator. It is used to break up rock in areas where blasting is prohibited due
to environmental or other constraints. Like a ripper, a hydraulic hammer can be used in
most rock types, although when shaping of a slope face is needed, it works best in weak
and moderately to highly fractured rock. Existing discontinuities in the rock act as presplit
lines, minimizing hammer induced scars and fractures while creating a slope face that
appears to be naturally weathered.
In areas where the amount of rock needed to be excavated is high, rock blasting may be
used. Blasting is accomplished by discharging an explosive placed in a borehole (confined)
or in mud capping boulders (unconfined). A confined charge uses high gas energy,
whereas an unconfined charge works by shock energy output.
4.5.7.1 Blast design
The degree of rock blasting depends on blast design, which in itself is controlled by factors
such as side burden, sub-drilling, stemming (collar distance), spacing, hole depth, delays,
and blast-hole diameter and pattern. The meaning of some of these terms is graphically
described in Figure 4-32.
Page 4-46
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
The side burden is defined as the distance from a blast hole to the nearest free face of the
rock mass at the instant of detonation. Too large a side burden will produce inadequate
fragmentation, toe problems, and excessive ground vibrations. An insufficient side burden
will cause excessive air-blast and fly-rock. Sub-drilling is the distance drilled below the
floor level to ensure that the full face of rock is removed. In road construction, sub-drilling
is generally limited to 10% or less of the bench height (H).
Stemming is the distance from the top of the explosive charge to the collar of the blast
hole. This zone is usually filled with an inert material to give some confinement to the
explosive gases and to reduce air-blast. Well-graded, crushed gravel works best as
stemming, but it is common practice to use drill cuttings because of availability and
economics. A stemming that is too short results in excessive violence in the form of airblast and fly-rock and may cause back-break (breaking beyond the desired limiting wall).
Stemming that is too long creates large blocks in the upper part of the rock mass.
Spacing is defined as the distance between adjacent blast holes, measured perpendicular to
the side burden. Spacing is calculated as a function of the side burden and also depends on
the timing between holes. Spacing that is too close causes crushing and ponding between
holes. Spacing that is too wide causes inadequate fracturing between holes, toe problems,
and is accompanied by humps on the rock face
In any blast design, the side burden and the blast-hole depth (or bench height) must be
reasonably compatible. The rule of thumb for bench blasting is that the hole depth-to-side
burden ratio should be between 1.5 and 4.0. A hole depth less than 1.5 times the side
burden causes excessive air blast and fly rock and, because of the short, thick shape of the
side burden, gives coarse and uneven fragmentation. Hole depths greater than four times
the side burden are also undesirable, as poorly controlled blasting will result.
Figure 4-32: Blast design parameters. Modified from US DOI Bureau of Reclamation
(1998)
Page 4-47
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
4.5.7.2 The role of geology

Rock mass properties are critical variables affecting the design and results of a blast. A
detailed drill log that contains information on drilling resistance and the depth of various
geological boundaries and discontinuities is required to effectively design a blast. Slow
penetration, excessive drill noise, and vibration indicate a hard rock that will be difficult to
break. Fast penetration and a quiet drill indicate a weaker, more broken zone of rock. Total
lack of resistance to penetration, accompanied by a lack of cuttings or return of water or
air, indicates that the drill has encountered a void. Lack of cuttings or return water may
also indicate the presence of an open bedding plane, joint or fissure.
The density of rock is a major factor to determine how much explosive is needed to
displace a given volume (powder factor). The burden-to-charge (hole) diameter ratio varies
with rock density, changing the powder factor. Aside burden-to-charge diameter ratio of 25
to 30 is used for average density rocks. Denser rocks such as basalt require smaller ratios
(higher powder factors). Lighter materials such as some sandstone can be blasted with
higher ratios (lower powder factors). Figure 4-33 shows the effect of blasting in limestone,
the density and tensile strength of which is in between those of basalt and sandstone.
Blasting in limestone usually results in fine fragmentation and dust.
Jointing is probably the most significant parameter in blasting design. Close jointing
usually results in good fragmentation. Widely spaced joints, especially where the jointing
is persistent, often results in a very blocky blasted mass because the joint planes tend to
isolate large blocks in place. Where possible, the perimeter holes of a blast should be
aligned with principal joint sets. This produces a more stable excavation. Rows of holes
perpendicular to a primary joint set produce an unstable perimeter.
Bedding has a pronounced effect on both the fragmentation and the stability of the
excavation perimeter. Open bedding planes, open joints, or beds of weaker materials
should be treated as zones of weakness. In a bed of hard material greater than 1 m thick, it
is often beneficial to load an explosive of higher density than is used in the remainder of
the hole. In bench blasting, the presence of a pronounced horizontal foliation, bedding
plane, or joint can be conveniently used for the bench floor.
Page 4-48
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
Figure 4-33: Blasting in limestone

Steeply dipping joint sets that daylight in the cut face can cause stability problems and
difficulty in breaking the toe of the excavation. By contrast, when joints dip into the
excavation wall, the stability of the slope is enhanced. However, the inclination can still
create toe problems because the toe rock tends to break along bedding or foliation planes.
In this case, advancing the opening perpendicular to dipping beds may be a compromise.
Blast hole cut-offs (part of a column of explosives not fired) caused by differential
movement along joints may also occur. However, undetected voids and zones of weakness
such as solution cavities, mud seams, and shears pose serious problems to blasting
because explosive energy always seeks the path of least resistance, resulting in poor
fragmentation. When charging the blast-hole, inert stemming materials rather than
explosives should be loaded through these weak zones and voids. If the presence and exact
depth of voids is in doubt, the top of the powder column should be checked frequently as
loading proceeds. A void exists if the column fails to rise as expected. The presence of
weak rocks can be known by observing adjacent exposures or information from boreholes.
Alternate zones of hard and weak rock exposed for the same explosive energy usually
result in unacceptably blocky fragmentation and unnecessary displacement of the hard
rock. Displacement can also occur if there is a void between the bedding in hard rock.
Figure 4-34 shows an example of a thickly bedded rock mass displaced outward by about 1
m because of excessive blasting. In this case blasting has also widened vertical joints and
solution cavities, and created some overhangs. In this situation, the best approach is to use
smaller blast holes with smaller blast pattern dimensions. This allows a better powder
distribution in the rock mass. The explosive charges should always be concentrated in the
hard strata and stemming should be added through weak zones and voids. Alternatively, it
is possible to use techniques of controlled blasting.
Page 4-49
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
Figure 4-34: Rock displacement as a result of uncontrolled blasting

4.5.7.3 Controlled blasting
Depending on the purpose of rock excavation and the degree of stability required, two
types of blasting are commonly used for road construction. These are bulk (massive or
heavy) blasting and controlled blasting. Bulk blasting uses large explosive charges that are
designed to fragment a large amount of side burden. Hence, it typically creates radial
fractures around the blast hole and back-breaks (fractures that extend into the final slope
face), which reduce the strength of the remaining rock mass and increase its susceptibility
to slope ravelling and rock fall. Bulk blasting should only be used for road aggregate
production where stability is not a concern.
Controlled blasting is used for removing material along the final slope face without
disturbing the general stability of the rock mass. It creates less back-break than bulk
blasting because it removes less side burden and uses more tightly spaced drill holes with
lighter charges. In some cases, it is also used before bulk blasting to create an artificial
fracture along the final cut slope, which will prevent the radial cracks caused by the latter
from penetrating back into the finished face.
There are different types of controlled blasting techniques. The difference between these
techniques is most importantly in the amount of side burden they remove and the type of
powder they use. The most common techniques are pre-splitting blasting, smooth blasting,
and cushion blasting. A summary of the advantages and limitations of these methods is
given in Table 4-15.
Page 4-50
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
Table 4-14: Controlled blasting techniques. From US DOT FHWA CFLHD (2011)
Procedure
Pre-splitting
Smooth
blasting
Cushion
blasting
Description
Advantages
Protects the final cut by
Presplit holes are blasted. producing a fracture plane
Procedure uses small
along the final slope face.
diameter holes at close
Can produce steeper cuts
spacing and lightly loaded with less maintenance
with distributed charges. issues. Performs well in
hard competent rock
Limitations
The small diameter borings
limit the blasting depth to
shallow depths (15 m).
Borehole traces are present
for entire length of boring.
Does not perform well in
highly fractured, weak rock.
The small diameter boring
Produces smooth, stable
limits blasting to shallow
Smooth blast holes are
slope. Can be done on
depths (15 m). Borehole
blasted after main blasts.
slopes years after initial
traces are present for much of
Procedure uses small
construction. Drill hole
the boring length. Does not
diameter holes at close
traces are less apparent than protect the slope from damage
spacing and lightly loaded
pre-splitting. Performs best caused by main blasting.
with distributed charges.
in hard, competent rock.
Does not perform well in
highly fractured, weak rock.
Cushion blasting is done Reduces the amount of
Radial fractures are more
after main blasts. Larger radial fracturing around the abundant than presplit and
drill holes are used with borehole and also reduces
smooth blasting. Slope face is
small diameter, lightly
borehole traces. The large more prone to ravelling.
loaded distributed loads. diameter holes allow
Borehole traces still apparent
Space around the
blasting depths up to 30 m. in hard, competent rock.
explosive is filled with
Produces a ragged final
crushed rock to cushion slope face. Performs well in
the explosive force.
all rock types
Pre-splitting is used before bulk blasting to protect the final rock face from damage caused
by the latter. Pre-splitting creates a fracture plane along the final slope face, which prevents
the radial cracks created by bulk blasting from penetrating into the finished face. Without
pre-splitting, bulk blasting damage can extend up to a considerable depth into the final
slope face. Pre-splitting also allows for steeper and more stable cuts than any other blasting
procedure. In massively bedded, competent rock, such as the limestone shown in Figure 434, a properly charged presplit blast will contain drill hole half cast for almost the entire
length of the blast line and will have no back-break because the energy from the blast will
travel uniformly, thus creating a continuous fracture between holes.
Pre-splitting requires relatively small drill holes, from 50 to 100mm in diameter because
the goal is to create discrete fractures, not massive breaking. However, because the small
hole diameter allows the drill bit to deviate from the anticipated line more readily than a
larger drill diameter, the maximum depth of pre-splitting is usually about 15 m. For this
reason pre-splitting is used only for relatively small blasting operations. Because of these
limitations, pre-splitting is most often used on slopes steeper than 1H:1V, which helps the
drillers to maintain adequate hole alignment at depth.
Pre-splitting performs best in competent, hard to extremely hard rock. It is most difficult in
highly fractured, weathered, and/or weak rocks, where there is a requirement for the use of
closely spaced drill holes and/or uncharged guide holes. Table 4-16 gives a summary of the
parameters used to carry out pre-splitting. Theoretically, the side burden for presplit
blasting is unlimited. But in reality, variations in geology that are not visible on the outer
Page 4-51
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
face of the slope can limit that burden. Thus, the condition of the rock in the interior of the
slope needs to be ascertained before determining the blasting design. In any case, a
minimum of 10 m of side burden is recommended for any presplit blasting procedure.
Table 4-15: Parameters used for drilling in presplit, smooth and cushion blasting.
From US DOT FHWA CFLHD (2011)
Blasting
method
Pre-splitting
Smooth
blasting
Cushion
blasting
Hole
(mm)
38-44
50-64
75-90
100
38-44
diameter
Spacing (m)
Side Burden (m)
0.3-0.46
0.46-0.6
0.6-1.0
0.6-1.2
0.6
--------1
Explosive charge
(kg/m)
0.03-0.1
0.03-0.1
0.05-0.23
0.23-0.34
0.05-0.55
50
0.75
1.06
0.05-0.55
50-64
75-90
100-115
127-140
152-165
1.0
1.2
1.5
1.8
2.1
1.2
1.5
1.8
2.1
2.7
0.03-0.1
0.05-0.2
0.1-0.3
0.3-0.45
0.45-0.7
Smooth blasting, also called contour blasting or perimeter blasting, can be used before bulk
blasting as an alternative to pre-splitting. It is also used after bulk blasting, either as an
entirely different event or as the last delay of the bulk blast. Smooth blasting uses drill
holes with roughly the same diameter and depth as those used in pre-splitting, spaced
slightly further apart and loaded with a slightly larger charge density. If the side burden is
adequately reduced, smooth blasting produces a more ragged slope face with minimal
back-break. Smooth-blasted slopes may require more maintenance than presplit slopes due
to increased radial fractures from the controlled blasting and overall fracturing from bulk
blasting.
Smooth blasting is best preformed in hard, competent rock, although it can be used in weak
or highly fractured rock by increasing the spacing of the drill holes and/or adding
uncharged guide holes to the pattern. The advantages of reducing over-break usually
outweigh the cost of the additional perimeter or guide holes. Smooth slope blasting can be
used on a variety of cut slope angles and is effective in developing contoured slopes with
benches or other slope variations. The spacings and side burdens commonly used to drill
for smooth blasting operation are given in Table 4-16.
Cushion blasting, sometimes referred to as trim blasting, uses a row of lightly loaded
buffer holes filled with crushed stone over the entire depth of the hole, which reduce the
impact on blasting holes and protect the surrounding rock mass from the shock caused by
the blast, thus minimizing the stress and fractures in the finished slope face.
The maximum diameter for cushion holes used in road projects is typically 75 mm. The
drill steel used to advance these smaller holes tends to drift at depth, meaning the
maximum depth is usually held to 12 m. Cushion blasting creates some back-break, which
can make a slope more prone to ravelling and rock fall.
Page 4-52
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
Cushion blasting is more demanding than presplit or smooth blasting because the hole
spacing, burden, and charge density must be carefully chosen and continually reassessed in
order to minimize back-break. It can also be more time consuming because more drilling is
required and charges take more time to load. Cushion blasting produces better results than
smooth blasting or pre-splitting in poorly lithified, moderately to highly fractured and
weathered rocks. Suggested blast parameters for conducting cushion blasting are
summarized in Table 4-16.
4.6. Soil Slope Stability Analyses
Soil slope stability analysis is an iterative process through which traditionally a factor of
safety (FS) is computed and potential sliding surfaces are determined. In road construction,
the primary purpose of slope stability analysis is the contribution to the safe design of cut
and embankment slopes. It is concerned with identifying critical soil properties that govern
the stability of these slopes. Some of the objectives of slope stability analyses are
summarized as follows:
To understand the development of natural slopes and the processes responsible for
modifying these slopes, and the influence of environmental factors.
To evaluate the possible occurrence of landslides.
To assess the stability of existing landslides and natural slopes.
To assess the stability of cut and embankment slopes under short-term (often during
construction) and long-term conditions.
To study the effect of groundwater conditions, seismic loadings and other factors
on natural slopes, cut slopes and embankments.
To enable the redesign of failed slopes and the planning and design of preventive
and remedial measures (Chowdury et al 2009).
A slope stability analysis in soil commonly requires the following parameters to be

determined:
The depth and configuration of the failure surface in the slope section.
The strength and density of soil materials and the configuration of soil layers.
The groundwater table and/or soil moisture condition.
An accurate cross-section for analysis.
For failed slopes, back analysis is undertaken to determine the condition of the slope at the
time of failure. A factor of safety of 1.0 is assumed and, if the pre-failure topography can
be reasonably deduced, then the unknown parameters are reduced to the failure surface
location, the strength parameters and the groundwater condition.
Both in initial stability (first-time failure) and back analyses procedures, sensitivity
analysis is sometimes performed by varying the water table according to drainage
measures and the strength parameters to assess their effects on factor of safety.
There are different methods that can be used to analyze the stability of soil slopes. These
include conventional limit equilibrium methods, numerical (finite element and finite
difference) analyses, probabilistic approaches, and stability charts.
Page 4-53
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
The conventional limit equilibrium methods of soil slope stability analysis in geotechnical
practice investigate the equilibrium of a soil mass tending to move down slope under the
influence of gravity. A comparison is made between forces, moments, or stresses tending
to cause instability of the mass, and those that resist instability. Often two-dimensional
sections are analyzed and plane strain conditions are assumed. These methods assume that
the shear strengths of the materials along the potential failure surface are governed by
linear (Mohr-Coulomb) or nonlinear relationships between shear strength and the normal
stress on the failure surface.
The finite element method can be used to compute stresses and displacements in earth
structures. The method is particularly useful for soil-structure interaction problems, in
which structural members interact with a soil mass. The stability of a slope cannot be
determined directly from finite element analyses, but the computed stresses in a slope can
be used to compute a factor of safety. Use of the finite element method for stability
problems needs software developed for this purpose. With the advance in technology, the
use of relatively complex finite difference computer programs for stability analyses is also
becoming common to refine results obtained from traditional methods.
Probabilistic approaches consider the magnitudes of uncertainties related to shear strengths
and other parameters involved in computing the factors of safety. In the traditional
(deterministic) approaches, the shear strength, slope geometry, external loads, and pore
water pressures are assigned specific values. In probabilistic methods, the possibility that
these parameters may vary is considered, providing a means of evaluating the degree of
uncertainty associated with the computed factor of safety. Although probabilistic
techniques may not be required for routine design purposes, their use allows addressing
issues beyond those tackled by deterministic methods.
The stability of slopes can be analyzed quickly using stability charts. Although the charts
assume simple slopes and uniform soil conditions, they can be used to obtain reasonably
accurate answers for the analysis of a variety of short-term and long-term conditions if
irregular slopes are approximated by simple slopes, and carefully determined average
values of unit weight, cohesion, and friction angle are used (Duncan et al 1987).
This manual focuses on limit equilibrium methods. Discussions on numerical and
probabilistic approaches are available in many geotechnical engineering reference books.
Users are strongly encouraged to refer to these books.
4.6.1. Limit equilibrium methods
Most limit equilibrium methods are based on the principles of statics, i.e. summation of
moments, vertical forces, and horizontal forces. They assume the validity of Coulomb's
failure criterion along an assumed failure surface and utilize the MohrCoulomb expression
to determine the shear strength along the sliding surface. Most of the methods of stability
analysis currently in use for slope design fall in this category.
The procedure in limit equilibrium methods is that a free body of the slope is considered to
be acted upon by known or assumed forces. Shear stresses induced on the assumed failure
surface by the body and external forces are compared with the available shear strength of
the material. The shear stress at which a soil fails in shear is defined as the shear strength
of the soil. The requirements for static equilibrium of the soil mass are used to compute a
Page 4-54
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
factor of safety with respect to shear strength. Limit equilibrium methods do not account
for the load deformation characteristics of the materials.
The factor of safety (FS) is defined as the ratio of the available shear resistance to that
required for equilibrium. Limit equilibrium analyses assume the FS is the same along the
entire slip surface. An FS of greater than 1.0 indicates the available strength exceeds the
required resistance and that the slope is stable with respect to sliding along the assumed
slip surface. The slope will be unstable if the FS is less than 1.0.The slope is said to have
reached limit equilibrium when the FS is equal to 1.0. Figure 4-35 shows some other
means of defining the FS using force and moment equilibrium.
In most limit equilibrium methods, the soil mass above the assumed slip surface is divided
into vertical slices for purposes of convenience in the analysis. Each of these methods may
result in different values of FS because they employ different assumptions to make the
problem statically determinate, and some of the methods do not satisfy all conditions of
equilibrium mentioned in Figure 4.35.
Figure 4-35: Equilibrium conditions used to define the factor of safety

Table 4-17 presents different types of limit equilibrium method useful for soil slope
stability analyses. Some methods are simple, and are suitable for preliminary design while
others are rigorous and should be favoured for evaluation of final designs.
The infinite slope method assumes that the slope is of infinite longitudinal extent and that
sliding occurs along a plane surface parallel to the face of the slope. For slopes composed
of uniform cohesionless soils (c' = 0), the critical slip surface will be parallel to the slope.
The Infinite slope method is a special case of the force equilibrium procedure, with one
Page 4-55
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
slice. With only one slice, two equations are available (horizontal and vertical force
equilibrium), and two unknowns must be evaluated (the factor of safety and the normal
force on the base of the slice).
The ordinary method of slices relies on solving moment equilibrium conditions and is
applicable to circular failure surfaces only. This method does not solve either vertical or
horizontal force equilibrium conditions. This method is relatively simple and can be solved
by hand calculators. Hence, it is rarely used for final design.
The simplified Bishop method was developed by Bishop in 1955. It solves two of the
equilibrium equations, moment and vertical. This method assumes that horizontal forces
are not only perpendicular to the vertical sides of the slice, but are equal and opposite.
Therefore, the horizontal forces are assumed to cancel each other out during mobilization.
Since horizontal equilibrium is not satisfied, the simplified Bishop method is rarely used in
designs that include provision for seismic forces. Like the ordinary method of slices, the
simplified Bishop methods can only be used on circular failure surfaces.
Simplified Janbu is a force equilibrium method in which the moment equilibrium is either
ignored or assumed to be zero. Like any other force equilibrium methods, the simplified
Janbu solves both the horizontal and vertical forces. The main assumption required in
using this method is the inclination of the horizontal forces on the given slice. The
inclination of the horizontal forces acting on a slice may be either the slope angle or the
average slope angle if multiple slopes are involved. This method uses non-circular failure
surfaces and, therefore, may be solved graphically.
Spencers method solves all three conditions of equilibrium and is therefore termed a
complete limit equilibrium method. The method was originally developed to determine the
stability of circular failure surfaces, but can now be used for non-circular failure surfaces
as well. The method assumes that the inter-slice forces are parallel and act on a certain
angle from the horizontal. This angle is one of the unknowns in this method. Therefore, the
first approximation of the angle should be the slope angle. The other unknown is the factor
of safety that is solved through an iterative process by using computer programs.
The Morgenstern and Price method is very similar to the Spencer approach. The main
difference between the two methods is that Spencer solves for the inter-slice angle, while
the Morgenstern and Price method solves for the scaling parameter that is used as a
function that describes the slice boundary conditions. The Morgenstern and Price method
provides added flexibility using the inter-slice angle assumptions.
Page 4-56
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
Table 4-16: Commonly used limit equilibrium methods

Method
Infinite slope
Ordinary
methods of
slices
Bishop
Janbu
Failure surface
Assumptions
Planar (Straight
line)
Assumes a slope of infinite longitudinal Relatively simple

for manual
extent and that sliding occurs along a
calculation.
plane surface parallel to the slope.
Circular
Forces on the sides of the slice are

neglected. The normal force on the base
of the slice is calculated by summing
forces in a direction perpendicular to
the bottom of the slice. Moments are
summed about the centre of the circle
to compute FS.
Useful when
calculation must be
done by hand using
a calculator.
Circular
Considers force and moment

equilibrium for each slice. The interslice forces are horizontal. Simplified
methods assume the resultant of the
vertical forces is zero on each slice.
Rigorous method assumes values for
the vertical forces on the sides of each
slice until all equations are satisfied.
Simplified method
compares well with
other advanced
methods. Very
efficient and
relatively common.
Computer programs
readily available.
Non-circular
Simplified procedure satisfies force

equilibrium in both the horizontal and
vertical directions, but not moment
equilibrium. Generalized procedure
considers force and moment
equilibrium on each slice.
Realistic shear
surfaces can be
used. Suitable for
shallow landslides.
Routine analysis
can be easily
handled by a
Advantages
Limitations
Failure surface
assumptions are
always an
approximation.
Does not consider the
forces on the sides of
the slice. The method
does not satisfy
equilibrium of forces
in either the vertical
or horizontal
directions.
Circular failure
surface may not be
representative of all
failures; horizontal
equilibrium of forces
is not satisfied (not
suitable to analyze
the effect of
earthquakes for
example).
Computed values are
for homogeneous
materials (can give
large errors in slopes
composed of more
than one material).
Factor of Safety is
Recommendation
Suitable for plane failures
over long slopes,
especially for those with a
thin layer of weathered
soil over rock.
The method also may be
used to overcome
problems that may develop
near the toe of steep shear
surfaces.
Useful where circular

failure surface is assumed.
Final design should be
checked using Spencer or
Morgenstern-Price
methods.
The method is
recommended for use in
hand calculations where
noncircular slip surfaces
are being analyzed
Page 4-57
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
Spencer
Non-circular
(Rigorous)
Morgenstern- Non-circular
Price
(Rigorous)
Page 4-58
programmable
calculator or by
hand.
Handles any
geometry and
loads. Gives
The side forces are parallel (all side
forces are inclined at the same angle). statically complete
Satisfies fully the requirements for both solution.
Implemented in
force and moment equilibrium.
many computer
programs.
Handles any
geometry and
loads. It can
simulate internal
Considers forces and moments on each
shearing. Often
slice like Janbu generalized procedure.
considered as a
benchmark.
Computer programs
available.
underestimated in
simplified procedure.
Requires computer
software to perform
the calculations.
It should also be used as a

check on final designs
where the slope stability
computations were
performed by simpler
methods.
Computer help is
necessary.
Most useful for back

analyzing failed slopes and
to refine analyses
performed by simple
methods.
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
4.6.2. The use of computer programs

Many of the limit equilibrium methods discussed above are at present implemented in most
slope stability computer programs. The use of reliable and verified slope stability analysis
software is essential in cases where conditions are complex. Computer programs provide a
means for efficient and rapid detailed analysis of a wide variety of slope geometry and load
conditions. Issues that should be remembered when using any computer program are:
A thorough knowledge of the capabilities of the software and knowledge of the

theory of limit equilibrium slope stability analysis methods is important to
determine if the software is appropriate for any given situation.
The software analyzes a failure geometry that reasonably reflects the actual
condition. An understanding of the possible modes of failure is crucial to the
successful application of the result of the analysis. This is particularly important in
profiles where the mode of failure is governed by geological factors. Failures of
colluvium over bedrock or failures in weathered rock most frequently occur along
the surfaces dictated by structure. In such cases, circular failures do not generally
occur and shallow non-circular analysis would be appropriate.
The analytical program being used must be compatible with the critical elements of
the slope problem to be investigated, for example drainage condition, loading
condition, or layering of materials within the soil-rock mass.
Appropriate shear strength and pore water parameters must be used for the
analyses. In cases where the accuracy of parameters is in doubt, it is appropriate to
undertake a sensitivity analysis to determine the effects on factor of safety of
variations in these parameters. Back analysis of similar existing failures may also
be an issue to consider.
It is often recommended to check results from computer programs, if possible by
hand or spreadsheet methods. If this is not possible then a sample parallel check
using another program is recommended. The program output should be checked to
ensure that results are reasonable and consistent. Important items to check include
the weights of slices, shear strength properties, and pore water pressures at the
bottom of slices. The user should be able to determine if the critical slip surface is
passing through the relevant material.
Any search scheme employed in computer programs is restricted to investigating a
finite number of slip surfaces. In addition, most of these schemes are designed to
locate one slip surface with a minimum factor of safety. The schemes may not be
able to locate more than one local minimum. The results of automatic searches are
dependent on the starting location for the search and any constraints that are
imposed on how the slip surface is moved. Automatic searches are controlled
largely by the data that the user inputs into the software. Regardless of the software
used, a number of separate searches should be conducted to confirm that the lowest
factor of safety has been calculated.
4.6.3. Determination of shear strength parameters

The shear strength parameters (c, , c' and ') are normally determined using laboratory
tests. Depending on drainage allowed, three types of test are possible; unconsolidatedundrained (UU), consolidated-undrained (CU), and consolidated-drained (CD). The choice
Page 4-59
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
depends on the state of stability at the time of testing (end-of-construction (short term),
steady-state seepage (long term), or rapid drawdown).
Cohesive soil shear strength parameters should be obtained from undisturbed soil samples
using consolidated-undrained (CU) triaxial tests with pore pressure measurement if
portions of the proposed slope are saturated or might become saturated in the future.
Effective strength parameters from these tests should be used to analyze cohesive soil cut
slopes and to evaluate long term effects.
Consolidated-drained (CD) loading procedures are used to determine the effective stress
shear strength parameters of freely draining soils. These soils will drain with relatively
short testing times and the consolidated-drained loading procedure comes closest to
representing the loading for long-term, drained conditions in the field. Consolidateddrained tests procedures are also used to measure the residual shear strength of clays using
a direct shear test.
Unconsolidated undrained (UU) triaxial tests can be used to obtain undrained shear
strength parameters for short term stability analysis, or when it is determined that total
stress (strength) parameters are sufficient.
It should be noted that for unsaturated soils, particularly cohesive soils, the natural
moisture content of the soil at the time of testing must be determined since this will affect
the shear strength parameters. Consideration should be given to future changes in moisture
content, particularly if field testing was performed during the dry season.
If laboratory test data are not available, or if the interest is a preliminary design only,
strength parameters may be estimated using in situ tests such as the Standard Penetration
Test (SPT). Correlations between strength parameters and other soil properties such as
grain size and plasticity may also assist in selecting approximate values.
4.6.4. Stability analysis procedures
Determine soil strength parameters. This usually involves laboratory testing.

Distinguish clearly between first-time landslides and possible renewed movements.
Rely only on the residual strength along parts of assumed slip surfaces that
correspond to existing, or prior shear zones (Chowdury et al 2009).
Establish the geometry of the slope, including the ground surface and subsurface
boundaries between various materials.
Establish seepage and groundwater conditions. Consider the possibility of artesian
pressures and perched water tables by examining geological details. The
assumption of a single groundwater level, above which all slope materials are dry,
is an oversimplification in most situations. A reasonable representation of
groundwater conditions can be obtained by combining observed water tables with
knowledge of subsurface variations in geology and soil permeability.
Select loading conditions for analysis. Make decisions concerning the use of
effective or total stress types of analysis. In particular, consider the type of
materials, whether analysis is for short-term or long-term conditions, whether
reliable estimates of pore pressures can be made in advance, and whether pore
pressures are to be monitored in the field (Chowdury et al 2009).
Select trial slip surfaces and compute factors of safety. Attempt to visualize the
probable shape of the slip surface or surfaces. Special attention must be given to the
Page 4-60
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
existence of major discontinuities, existing slip surfaces, stratification, nonhomogeneity, tension cracks, and open joints. In homogeneous soil slopes without
discontinuities, assume a slip surface of circular shape unless local experience
dictates otherwise. In embankments, give consideration to method of construction,
zones of different materials, and nature of foundation in order to visualize the
probable shape of the slip surfaces (Chowdury et al 2009).
Repeat selecting slip surfaces until the critical slip surface has been located. The
critical slip surface is the one that has the lowest factor of safety and which,
therefore, represents the most likely failure mechanism.
Compare the computed factor of safety with experienced-based criteria
The design assumptions should be verified during construction. This may require
repeating the above steps and modifying the design if conditions are found that do
not match previous assumptions
Following construction, the performance of the constructed slope should be
monitored. Actual groundwater levels based on pore water pressure measurements
should be compared with those assumed during design.
Table 3-6 in Chapter 3 summarizes the types of analysis, sources of shear strength data and
the type of limit equilibrium methods suitable for cohesive and granular soils.
4.7. Rock slope stability analyses
The stability of hard rock slopes is normally controlled by discontinuities (joint and joint
sets) within the rock. Failures tend to occur as discrete blocks. Therefore, kinematic
analysis of the discontinuities is performed first to determine the most likely mode of
failure, and second by slope stability analyses to determine the factor of safety.
4.7.1. Kinematic analysis
A kinematic analysis is the first step in evaluating slope stability. This analysis establishes
the possible failure modes of the blocks that comprise the slope. The analysis determines if
the orientations (dip and dip direction) of the various discontinuities will interact with the
cut slope orientation and inclination to form discrete blocks with the potential to fail
without regard to any forces that may be involved. Failure modes typically fall within one
of three categories: plane failure, wedge failure, or toppling. Where a rock mass is highly
fractured by randomly orientated discontinuities or composed of very weak rock, the mode
of failure may be circular as in a soil slope.
The analysis involves a comparison of the orientations of the dominant discontinuity sets
with the orientation of the cut slope. Where discrete blocks are formed and where the
failure surfaces that bound these blocks dip out of the slope at an angle steeper than the
shear strength along the discontinuity, failure is kinematically possible. A stereonet is used
to display the discontinuity and slope data in this analysis. The advantages and limitations
of conventional rock slope analyses are summarized in Table 4-18.
Page 4-61
Chapter 4
Roadside Slopes
Table 4-17: Advantages and limitations of conventional rock slope analyses. From
Eberhardt (2003), modified from Coggan et al (1998)
Analysis
method
Critical parameters Advantages
Kinematic
(using
stereographic
interpretation)
Critical slope and

discontinuity
geometry;
representative shear
strength
characteristics.
Relatively simple to use;

gives initial indication of
failure potential; may
allow identification and
analysis of critical keyblocks using block
theory; links are possible
with limit equilibrium
methods; can be
combined with statistical
techniques to indicate
probability of failure.
Limit
Equilibrium
Representative
geometry and
material
characteristics; soil
or rock mass shear
strength parameters
(cohesion and
friction);
discontinuity shear
strength
characteristics;
groundwater
conditions; support
and reinforcement
characteristics.
Wide variety of
commercially available
software for different
failure modes (planar,
wedge, toppling, etc.);
can analyse factor of
safety sensitivity to
changes in slope
geometry and material
properties; more
advanced codes allow for
multiple materials,
reinforcement and/or
groundwater profiles.
Limitations
Only really suitable for
preliminary design or design of
non-critical slopes; critical
discontinuities must be
identified; need to be used with
representative discontinuity or
joint shear strength data;
primarily evaluates critical
orientations, neglecting other
important joint properties.
Mostly deterministic
producing single factor of
safety (but increased use of
probabilistic analysis); factor
of safety gives no indication of
instability mechanisms; many
methods available all with
varying assumptions; strains
and intact failure not
considered; probabilistic
analysis requires well-defined
input data to allow meaningful
evaluation.
4.7.2. Limit equilibrium analyses

Limit equilibrium analyses are routinely used in the analysis of rock slope stabilities where
movements occur on distinct failure surfaces. Analyses are undertaken to provide either a
factor of safety or, through back-analysis, a range of shear strength parameters at failure. In
general, these methods are the most commonly adopted in rock engineering, though many
failures involve complex deformation and fracturing.
All limit equilibrium techniques share a common approach based on a comparison of
resisting forces/moments mobilized and the disturbing forces/moments. Methods may only
vary with respect to the failure mechanism (e.g. translational or rotational sliding), and the
assumptions adopted in order to achieve a determinate solution (Eberhardt 2003).
Page 4-62
Chapter 5
Geotechnical Report and Checklist
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND CHECKLIST
A geotechnical report is a document used to communicate the site conditions and design
and construction recommendations to the design and construction personnel. Site
investigations for transportation projects provide specific information on subsurface soil,
rock, and water conditions. This information is normally compiled in a site investigation
report. Interpretation of the site investigation information by a geotechnical engineer,
results in design and construction recommendations that should be presented in the
projects geotechnical report. The geotechnical report summarizes all of the pertinent
information that will be used in road design. It provides findings from the field
explorations, laboratory testing, preliminary and final geotechnical evaluations as they
relate to the project, and construction planning reviews. It also contains design (and
construction) recommendations for the alignment and Right of-Way issues, and for
structures such as bridges. The primary audience for the report are highway designers and
construction supervisors and contractors.
Depending on the project stage and the extent of information needed, geotechnical reports
can be divided into preliminary and final level reports as discussed below.
5.1 Preliminary Level Geotechnical Report

A preliminary level geotechnical report is typically used to provide geotechnical input in
the early stage of project development and reconnaissance studies (pre-feasibility,
feasibility, and possibly even preliminary design stages). It may also be prepared for rapid
assessment or emergency repair needs (during the occurrence of landslides, rock-fall,
bridge foundation scour, etc.).Early submittal of geotechnical information and
recommendations or engineering evaluation of preliminary data may be necessary to
establish basic design concepts or design criteria. This is commonly the case on roads
passing through difficult terrain where alignment and/or grade changes may be necessary
because of stability issues or excavation problems.
A preliminary level geotechnical report is prepared based on a minimum of a desk study
review of existing geotechnical data for the site, and generally consist of feasibility
assessment and identification of geologic hazards. Geotechnical design for a preliminary
level report is typically based on engineering judgement and experience at the site or
similar sites. For preliminary level design, a geotechnical reconnaissance of the project site
and a limited subsurface exploration is often sufficient, as well as some detailed analyses
to characterize key elements of the design, to assess potential alternatives, and to estimate
preliminary costs. For preliminary design of more complex road projects with potentially
unusual subsurface conditions, a geotechnical reconnaissance of the site should be
conducted in addition to the desk study review to assess the site conditions.
A preliminary level geotechnical report should contain the following contents:
A general description of the project, project elements, and project background;

A brief summary of the regional and site geology. The amount of detail included
will depend on the nature of the project;
A summary of the field exploration and laboratory testing conducted;
A description of the project soil and rock conditions. For preliminary design reports
in which new borings have been obtained, soil profiles for key project features (e.g.
bridges, retaining walls, etc.) may need to be developed;
Page 5-1
Chapter 5
A summary of geological hazards identified that may affect the project design (e.g.
landslides, rock-fall, debris flows, liquefaction, soft ground, expansive soils,
seismic hazards, etc.);
A summary of the conceptual or preliminary geotechnical recommendations;
Appendices that include any boring logs and laboratory test data obtained, soil
profiles developed, any field data obtained, and any photographs.
5.2 Final Level Geotechnical Report

A final level geotechnical report is developed for final design and construction review
purposes. It is prepared based on a desk study review of existing geotechnical data, a
detailed geological assessment of the site, complete subsurface investigation and
laboratory programmes, and detailed analyses and interpretations. The development of a
final geotechnical report will not normally be completed until the design has progressed to
the point where specific recommendations can be made for all of the geotechnical aspects
of the work. In road construction, final alignment, grade, and geometry will usually have
been selected prior to issuance of the final geotechnical report.
A final geotechnical report should contain the following contents:
A general description of the project, project elements, and project background;

Project site surface conditions and topographic assessments;
A summary of geotechnical conditions that briefly describes the subsurface and
groundwater conditions for key areas of the project where foundations, cuts, fills,
etc., are to be constructed. This document should also describe the impact of these
subsurface conditions on construction. Regional and local geology. This section
should describe the site stress history and depositional/erosional history, bedrock
and soil geological units, etc.
Regional and site seismicity for major bridges, potential source zones, potential
magnitude of shaking, frequency, historical activity, and location of nearby faults;
A summary of the site data available from project or site records (e.g. final
construction records for previous construction activity at the site, as-built bridge or
other structure layouts, existing test hole logs, geological maps, previous or current
geologic reconnaissance results, etc.);
A summary of the field exploration conducted, if applicable, with a description of
the methods and standards used as well as a summary of the number and types of
explorations that were conducted. A description of any field instrumentation (e.g.
piezometers) installed and its purpose should be included.
A summary of the laboratory testing conducted with the description of the methods
and standards used, as well as a summary of the number and types of tests that were
conducted;
A description of the soil/rock units encountered at the project site, groundwater
conditions including the identification of any confined aquifers, artesian pressures,
perched water tables, potential seasonal variations, any influences on the
groundwater levels observed, and direction and gradient of groundwater, if known.
If multiple groundwater level readings were obtained over time, the dates and
depths measured, or as a minimum the range of depths measured and the dates the
highest and lowest water level readings were obtained. Also a brief description of
the method used to obtain groundwater levels (open standpipe, vibratory
piezometer, pneumatic piezometer, etc.).
Page 5-2
Chapter 5
The descriptions of soil and rock conditions illustrated with subsurface profiles (i.e.
parallel to road centreline) and cross-sections (i.e. perpendicular to roadway
centreline) of the key project features, as appropriate. A subsurface profile or crosssection is defined as an illustration that shows the spatial distribution of the soil and
rock units encountered in the borings and probes. As such, the profile or crosssection will contain the existing and proposed ground line, the boring logs
(including SPT values, soil/rock units, etc.), and the location of any water level(s).
Interpretive information contained in these illustrations should be kept to a
minimum. What appears to be the same soil or rock unit in adjacent borings should
not be connected together with stratification lines unless that stratification is
reasonably certain. The potential for variability in the stratification must be
discussed in the report.
A subsurface profile for bridges, viaducts, and other significant structures. For
retaining walls, subsurface profiles should always be provided for soil nail walls,
anchored walls, and non-gravity cantilever walls, and all other walls in which there
is more than one boring along the length of the wall. For other wall situations,
judgement may be applied to decide whether or not a subsurface profile is needed.
For cuts, fills, and landslides, soil profiles should be provided for features of
significant length, where multiple borings along the length of the feature are
present. Subsurface cross-sections must always be provided for landslides, and for
cuts, fills, structures, and walls that are large enough to warrant multiple borings to
define the underlying geology.
A summary of geological hazards identified and their impact on the project design
(e.g. landslides, rock-fall, debris flows, liquefaction, soft ground or expansive soils,
etc.), if any. The location and extent of the geologic hazards should be described.
For the analysis of unstable slopes (including existing settlement areas), cuts, and
fills, the following data is needed:
o The analytical approach and assumptions used,
o Values of the design parameters,
o A description of any back-analyses conducted, the results of those analyses,
and comparison of those results to any laboratory test data,
o Any definition of acceptable factors of safety or discussion of acceptable
risk of failure.
Proposed cuts and excavations should be considered in terms of temporary (shortterm) and long term and stability analyses performed for those that have a potential
for failure. Global and local stability conditions should be analysed as appropriate.
The level of analysis should be consistent with the consequences of slope failure.
Special attention is required for very high cuts and fills, steep cuts, and cuts with
adverse geological structure. The stability analyses used must be appropriate for the
slope conditions. For example, a circular failure model should not be used to
analyze a cut in rock where discontinuities will control the stability. The method of
analysis should be stated, along with the input data and any assumptions made. If
stereographic analyses are used, the stereo-nets should be appended and the results
of the analyses summarised.
Geotechnical recommendations for earthwork (fill design, cut design, usability of
on-site materials as fill). The design of embankment features such as fill slope
angles, the foundation, and subsurface drainage should include analysis of
settlement, slope stability, groundwater conditions, subsidence, compaction
characteristics and potential problems with the materials to be used in the
embankments. Embankment design recommendations should include the slope
Page 5-3
Chapter 5
required for stability, any measures that need to be taken to provide a stable
embankment (geosynthetic reinforcement, wick drains, controlled rate of
embankment construction, light-weight materials, etc.), embankment settlement
magnitude and rate, and the need for and extent of removal of any unsuitable
materials below. Cut design recommendations should contain the slope angle
required for stability, seepage and piping control and erosion control measures
needed, as appropriate, and any other special measures required to produce a stable
slope. In addition, cut slope and other on-site materials should be identified as to
their feasibility for use as fill, with a discussion on the type of fill material for
which they could be utilised, the need, if any, for aeration to reduce the moisture
content, and the effect of environmental factors on their usability.
Geotechnical recommendations for rock slopes and rock excavation. Such
recommendations should include any special measures to produce a stable rock
slope such as rock bolting/dowelling as well as any recommendations to prevent
erosion and undermining of intact blocks of rock, internal and external slope
drainage requirements, feasible methods of rock removal and rock excavation, and
the need for controlled blasting or any other special techniques that may be
necessary.
Geotechnical recommendations for stabilization of unstable slopes (e.g., landslides,
rock-fall areas, debris flows, etc.). This section should provide a discussion on
mitigation options, and detailed recommendations regarding the most feasible
methods for mitigating the unstable slopes, including a discussion of the
advantages, disadvantages, and risks associated with each option.
Geotechnical recommendations for retaining walls and reinforced slopes with a
discussion on considered wall/reinforced slope options, the recommended
wall/reinforced slope options, foundation type and design requirements (for
strength limit state: ultimate bearing resistance, lateral and uplift resistance if deep
foundations have been selected; for service limit state: settlement limited bearing,
and any special design requirements), seismic design parameters and
recommendations (e.g., design acceleration coefficient, extreme event limit state
bearing, uplift and lateral resistance if deep foundations have been selected), design
considerations for scour when applicable, and lateral earth pressure parameters. For
reinforced slopes requiring internal stability design (e.g., geosynthetic walls, and
soil nail walls), recommendations on minimum width for external and overall
stability, embedment depth, bearing resistance and settlement, soil reinforcement
spacing, strength, and length requirements, and dimensions to meet external
stability requirements are needed. For other retaining walls, minimum width for
overall stability, embedment depth, bearing resistance, settlement, and design
parameters for determining earth pressures should be provided. For anchored walls,
achievable anchor capacity, no-load zone dimensions, and design earth pressure
distribution.
Recommendations on aggregate and borrow materials, including sketches of local
sources and regional location maps, the quality of materials and their suitability for
the different road structures, and estimated quantity. The limits of the material
source relative to the proposed alignment should be defined, the approximate
quantity of material available described, the amount of overburden to be stripped,
and material excavation characteristics.
Geotechnical recommendations for bridges and hydraulic structures, foundation
options considered, foundation design requirements (for strength limit state: the
ultimate bearing resistance and depth, and lateral and uplift resistance; for service
Page 5-4
Chapter 5
limit state: settlement limited bearing, and any special design requirements),
seismic design parameters and recommendations (e.g., design acceleration
coefficient, soil profile type for response spectra development, liquefaction
mitigation requirements, extreme event limit state bearing, uplift, and lateral
resistance, and soil spring values), design considerations for scour if applicable,
earth pressures on abutments and walls in buried structures, and recommendations
regarding bridge approach slabs.
Construction considerations. Address issues of construction staging, shoring needs
and potential installation difficulties, temporary slopes, potential foundation
installation problems, earthwork constructability issues, dewatering, etc.
Long-term or construction monitoring needs which should include
recommendations on the types of instrumentation required to evaluate long-term
performance or to control construction, and the zone of influence for each
instrument.
Appendices. Typical appendices should include layouts showing boring locations
relative to the project features and stationing, subsurface profiles and typical crosssections that illustrate subsurface stratigraphy at key locations, all boring logs used
for the project design (includes older borings as well as new borings), including a
boring log legend for each type of log, laboratory test data obtained,
instrumentation measurement results, and special provisions needed, design charts
for foundation bearing and uplift, design detail figures.
5.3 General Geotechnical Report Outline

The objective of using any standard outline to prepare a report is to provide a degree of
uniformity in the presentation of geotechnical data, while retaining enough latitude in the
contents to reflect the individuality of each project. A sample outline with contents that
need to be covered in a geotechnical report for road construction is given below.
1. Project scope:
Proposed construction, reconstruction, resurfacing or rehabilitation
Project limits of the various construction operations
Proposed alignment changes
Specific geometric design features (number of lanes, widths, turn lanes, bypass
lanes)
Proposed structures (bridges, culverts, interchanges, etc.) type, number, locations,
description of any proposed rehabilitation
2. Project background information:
Site topography
Type and amount of relief
Land use
Seismicity
Water courses, ponding areas and wetland locations
3. Surface geology and features of interest
General soil types
Extent and uniformity
Bedrock features
Page 5-5
Chapter 5
Rock type/formation/extent
Weathering conditions
General subsurface conditions (depth to bedrock, refusals, etc.)
Drilling information (field logs and observations)
Soil and bedrock profile, topsoil horizons
In-situ (SPT, DCP, CPT, etc.) test results
Geophysical information
Instrumentation
4. Groundwater conditions
Levels (including types of piezometers)
Springs
Nearby wells
5. Laboratory test data
Optimum moisture contents, gradations, Proctor compaction results, maximum
densities, Atterberg Limits, textural classifications, percent passing No. 200 Sieve,
CBR, Modulus, etc.
6. Subgrade conditions
Sub-cuts (length, depth, drainage, backfill material, typical section)
Road, widened sections
Turn lanes and curvatures
Embankments and road cuts
Fill-slope analyses
Cut-slope analyses
The use of excavated materials for fill
7. Rock excavation
Recommended techniques of excavation (blasting, ripping, etc.)
Description of excavated material and their use
8. Aggregate and borrow sources
Possible sources of aggregate
Materials available (quality, quantity, use)
9. Landslides and unstable areas
Description of landslides
Causes of landslides
Stability analyses
Correction measures
10. Retaining walls and reinforced slopes
Design requirements
Earth pressures
Foundation analysis
11. Shallow and deep foundations (walls and bridges),construction considerations
Page 5-6
Chapter 5
Appendices
Project location map

Borehole logs and descriptions
Subsurface profiles
Laboratory results
Photos, etc.
References
5.4 Checklist
The checklist given in Table 5-1 covers important information that should be presented in
geotechnical reports. The advantage of using this checklist is to ensure that pertinent data
are not forgotten or overlooked, and to provide an overview of aspects that need to be
investigated further. Upon completing the checklist, the geotechnical engineer should
summarize the responses and use the result to determine if additional follow-up actions are
appropriate.
Page 5-7
Chapter 5
Table 5-1: Checklist of important information in geotechnical reports

Tasks to be completed for geotechnical report
Y N
Laboratory test data:
Were lab soil classification tests such as natural moisture content, gradation, Atterberg
limits, performed on selected representative samples to verify field visual soil
identification?
Are laboratory test results such as shear strength, consolidation, etc., included and/or
summarized?
Subgrade:
Has the subsurface investigation adequately characterized the soil or rock?
Are there weak or problem soils at the subgrade level and have soft-spots been properly
identified throughout the road alignment?
If these materials are to be removed and replaced, have the station limits, depth, and
lateral limits for the planned removal been provided?
Do subsurface investigations and existing moisture contents for the proposed subgrade
soils indicate the need for subgrade stabilization?
If stabilization is needed, is the detail of this treatment shown on the report, including
depth, station limits, lateral extent, and specifications?
Is a design CBR value (or an equivalent of it) provided?
If drainage or groundwater is an issue with the proposed subgrade, has an appropriate
drainage system (pipe, under drains, etc.) been recommended?
Embankments:
If soil conditions and project requirements warrant, have settlement and stability issues
been addressed?
Have the consolidation properties of the foundation soils been determined?
Has the total expected embankment settlement and the time of consolidation been
estimated?
If differing foundation soil and/or loading conditions occur throughout the embankment
area, have sufficient analyses been completed to evaluate consolidation at locations
representative of the most critical conditions?
Have the total settlement and the time of consolidation analyses indicated acceptable
values at all locations for the scope of the embankment work?
If total settlement or time of consolidation is unacceptable, have the stations and lateral
extent of the problem areas been defined?
Has a method (change alignment, lower grade, using stabilizing counter-berms,
excavate and replace weak subsoil, lightweight fill, geotextile fabric reinforcement, etc.)
been chosen as a solution to the settlement issues?
Based on accepted design practices, were there any attempts to evaluate the
effectiveness of the chosen solution(s)?
Has an economic analysis been performed to evaluate the cost benefits of the
recommended solution compared to other methods?
For bridge approach embankments, are recommendations made to accelerate the
settlement before the bridge abutment is constructed (waiting period, surcharge, or wick
drains)?
Has the effect of any foundation soil consolidation (including differential settlement)
been evaluated with regard to adjacent structures (e.g., bridges, buildings, culverts,
utilities) which may also undergo settlement due to the consolidation of the surrounding
Page 5-8
Chapter 5
soil?
Has the total (short term) and effective (long term) shear strength of the foundation soils
been determined?
Have calculations been performed to determine the F.S. for stability?
Are the following Factor of Safety (F.S.) criteria achieved or exceeded, as determined
by the calculations, for the given stability conditions: 1.30 for short and long term
conditions, 1.10 for rapid drawdown (flood condition), and 1.50 for embankment
supporting bridge abutments?
When differing soil or loading conditions occur throughout the embankment area, are
station to station recommendations included for fill slope design?
If the F.S. was not met or exceeded, have the stations and lateral extent of the problem
areas been defined?
Has a method been chosen as a solution to the stability issues?
Has an economic analysis been performed to evaluate the cost benefits of the
recommended solution compared to others?
Has the effect of the solution being used been evaluated with regard to structures (e.g.,
bridges, buildings, culverts, utilities) which may be subject to unusual stresses or require
special construction considerations?
If geotechnical instrumentation is proposed to monitor fill stability and settlement, are
detailed recommendations provided on the number, type, and specific locations of the
proposed instruments?
If piezometers will be used, has the critical groundwater table been determined and the
appropriate information included in the reports
Are water-bearing zones properly identified and their impact addressed?
Cuts and excavations:
Does drilling provide continuous stratigraphic sections for the range of elevations that
represent proposed cut slope areas?
Do the cut slopes have a minimum stability F.S. of 1.30
If there is a potentially unstable soil or rock layer within the cut slopes, was this layer
considered as a possible failure zone?
Have erosion protection measures been addressed for back slopes, side slopes, and
ditches (including riprap recommendations or special slope treatments)?
Is the usage of excavated soils and rocks properly addressed?
Are station to station recommendations included for excavation limits of unsuitable
materials, erosion protection measures for back slopes, side slopes, and ditches, and
specific drainage structures?
Are there evidences of springs and excessively wet areas?
Did the design consider additional drainage in the cut slope (springs / seeps) and
roadway base?
Are recommended slope designs and blasting specifications provided for rock slopes?
Are rock slope designs based on orientation of major rock joints and weathering
conditions rather than template design procedures (such as designing all rock slopes at
0.25:1)?
Is the effect of blast-induced vibrations on adjacent structures and slopes evaluated?
Was controlled blasting considered in the design?
Landslides:
Has a site investigation been conducted to define the limits and depth of the landslide?
Is a site plan and scaled cross-section provided showing ground surface conditions both
Page 5-9
Chapter 5
before and after failure?

Was the history of the landslide area studied, including movement history, maintenance
work, and past corrective measures?
Has a site specific geotechnical investigation been performed to investigate the landslide
area?
Has the vertical and lateral extent of defined landslide conditions been included on cross
sections and profile sheets?
Are detailed slide features, including location of ground surface cracks, head scarp, and
toe bulge, shown on these cross sections and profiles?
In the case of rock-falls, were the cause and effect of any existing rock-fall conditions
determined?
Were bedding and jointing of the bedrock formations identified as a significant factor
affecting the slope stability?
Was there any groundwater monitoring programme to identify the phreatic surface
through the landslide area?
Is the landslide failure plane and mode of failure determined from field observations or
instrumentation?
If groundwater (static or flowing) significantly influences the stability of the landslide,
has the source of recharge been identified?
Is a stability analysis carried out to determine the F.S. for stability?
Is a Factor of Safety (F.S.) of 1.3 achieved or exceeded, as determined by the
calculations, for the given stability conditions?
Is a landslide correction or stabilization method determined?
Has a cost comparison been performed to evaluate the effectiveness of stabilization
alternatives?
Is long-term monitoring necessary?
Retaining walls:
Is/are the most suitable and cost-effective wall type(s) selected for the project site
conditions?
Are reasons given for the choice and/or exclusion of certain wall types (gravity,
reinforced soil, tieback, cantilever, gabion, etc.)?
Are the soil strength parameters used to compute the design factor of safety for
overturning, sliding, and external slope stability?
Are the groundwater level and proper loading conditions known?
If applicable, has the influence of groundwater been taken into account with regards to
soil unit weights and active pressures?
Are standard methods used to determine the lateral earth pressures?
Was an economic analysis performed to evaluate the cost benefits of the chosen wall
type compared to others?
Does the design lateral earth pressure include the effects of soil backfill strength, slope
geometry, and surcharge loads?
Are all the required F.S. computed? Do the F.S. values meet or exceed the minimum:
Bearing Capacity (F.S. = 3.0), External Stability (F.S. = 1.3) Overturning (F.S. = 2.0),
Sliding (minimum F.S. = 1.50)?
If poor foundation soils are present, has a solution been determined with respect to
excessive settlement, inadequate bearing capacity, sliding, and global stability?
If special drainage details are needed behind and/or beneath the wall, are recommended
details provided in the geotechnical report?
Page 5-10
Chapter 5
Are excavating requirements covered (safe slopes for open excavations, need for
sheeting or shoring)?
Has the effect of the wall design and construction procedure been determined and
accounted for on the construction schedule of the road?
Are all the necessary notes, specifications, special provisions, and details for the
construction of the wall system included in the geotechnical report?
Page 5-11
Chapter 5
REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
References
AASHTO (1993). Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington D.C., USA.
ASTM 4546. Standard Test Methods for One-Dimensional Swell or Collapse of Cohesive
Soils. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2003, DOI: 10.1520/C0033-03,
www.astm.org
Abramson, LW, Lee, TS, Sharma, S and Boyce, GM. (2001). Slope Stability and
Stabilisation Methods, J Wiley.
Austroads (1998). Guide to Stabilisation in Roadworks. Austroads, Sydney, Australia.
BRAB (1978). The Design and Construction of Residential Slabs-on-Ground. State of the
Art. Building Research Advisory Board, Washington, DC, USA.
Bishop, AW and Bjerrum, L. 1960. The relevance of the triaxial test to the solution of
stability problems. Proc ASCE Conf on Shear Strength of Cohesive Soils. Boulder,
Colorado, 437-501.
Briaud, JL, James, RW and Hoffman, SB. (1997). Settlement of Bridge Approaches.
NCHRP Synthesis 234. Transportation Research Board/NRC, Washington, DC.
CED Engineering. (1998). Geosynthetic Engineering: Geosynthetic Separators. Course No
G04-005
Chowdury, R, Flentje, P and Bhattacharya. (2009). Geotechnical Slope Analysis, CRC
Press.
Coggan, J.S., Stead, D., and Eyre, J.M. (1998). Evaluation of Techniques for Quarry Slope
Stability Assessment. Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, London, UK.
Cruden, D and Varnes, DJ. (1996) Landslide types and processes. In: Landslides,
Investigation and Mitigation. Spec report 247, TRB/NRC Turner, AK and Schiuster, RL
eds.
Eberhardt, E. (2003). Rock Slope Stability Analysis Utilization of Advanced Numerical
Techniques. Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
Canada.
FAO. (1998). Watershed management field manual. Ch 6 in: Road Construction
Techniques 13/5.
GWP Consultants. 2008. Slope Design. Quarry Design Handbook, pre-publication draft,
Appendix 4-4
Guyer, P. (2011). Soil Stabilisation for Pavements. An Engineering SoundBite.
Hearn, G.J. and Hunt, T. (2011). C1. Route corridor and alignment selection. In: Hearn,
G.J. (ed). Slope Engineering for Mountain Roads. Engineering Geology Special
Publication No 24, Geological Society of London, 135-144.
Holtz, R.D. and Kovacs, W.D. (1981). An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering.
Prentice-Hall Inc., Eaglewoods Cliffs, N.J., USA.
Page 6-1
Appendix A
Soil Stabilization
JKR. (2012). Guidelines for Slope Design. JKR 21500-0011-10. Slope Engineering
Branch, Malaysia.
Keller, G and Sherar, J. (2011). Slope stabilisation and stability of cuts and fills. Ch 11 in:
Low Volume Roads Engineering. Best Management Practices. Field Guide, US Dept
Agriculture Forest Service.
MPWT (2008). Slope Maintenance Manual.
Transport, Vientiane, Laos.
Ministry of Public Works
and
Montana DOT. (2008). Laboratory testing. Ch 9 in: MDT Geotechnical Manual. Montana
Department of Transportation.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program. (1997). Harmonised Test Methods for
Laboratory Determination of Resilient Modulus for Flexible Pavement Design. 1-28A,
Transportation Research Board, Washington DC, USA.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (2001). Guide for Mechanistic and
Empirical - Design for New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures. FHWA/TRB/NRC.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (2004). Development of Project 1-37A
Design Guide Using Mechanistic Principles to Improve Pavement Design. Transportation
Research Board, Washington D.C., USA.
National Lime Association (1972). Lime Stabilization Manual. National Lime Association,
Arlington, Virginia, USA.
Natural Resource Managament. 2008. Dispersive Soils - High Risk of Tunnel Erosion,
Southern Tasmania.
Nettleton, IM, Martin, S, Hencher, S and Moore, R. (2005). Debris flow types and
mechanisms. In: Debris Flow Risk Assessment and Mitigation on the Scottish Trunk Road
Network. Scottish Executive, Crown Copyright.
Ortigao, JAR and Sayao, A. (2004). Handbook of Slope Stabilisation, Blackwell/Springer,
Berlin.
Paige-Green, P. 2008. Dealing with road subgrade problems in Southern Africa. 12th
International Conference of the International Association for Computer Methods and
Advances in Geomechanics, 4345-4353.
Pettifer, GS and Fookes, PG. (1994). A revision of the graphical method for assessing the
excavatibility of rock. Quart Jnl Engng Geol, 27, 145-164.
Rollings, M.P. and Rollings, R.S. (1996). Geotechnical Materials in Construction. New
York, McGraw-Hill, USA.
Sassa, K and Canuti, P. (2008). Landslides - Disaster Risk Reduction. Springer.
US ACE. (2002). Use of Geogrids in Pavement Construction. ETL - 1 - 188. Department
of the Army, US Army Corps of Engineers.
US DOI Bureau of Reclamation. (1991). Characteristics and Problems of Dispersive
Clays. P-91-09. Materials Engineering Branch, US Department of the Interior, Denver,
Colorado
US DOI Bureau of Reclamation. (1998). Engineering Geology Field Manual. Vol 1 and 2.,
Page 6-2
Chapter 5
US Department of the Interior, Denver, Colorado..

US DOT FHWA (2006A). Geotechnical Aspects of Pavements. NHI 05-037. Dept of
Transportation, Federal Highways Administration, Washington DC, USA.
US DOT FHWA (2006B). Soil and Foundations. Reference Manual. CED Engineering,
FHWA NHI-06-088. Dept of Transportation, Federal Highways Administration,
Washington DC, USA.
US DOT FHWA CFLHD. (2011). Rock excavation methods. Ch 3 in: Context Sensitive
Rock Slope Design Solutions. Publ No Federal Highways Authority, FHWA-CFL/TD-11002, Central Federal Lands Highway Division, Colorado.
University of Iowa. 2013. Foundations on weak and/or compressible soils. Foundation
Engineering, Foundations of Structures, University of Iowa, 53:139.
Washington State DOT. (2013). Soil cut design. Ch 10 in: Geotechnical Design Manual
M46-03.08, WS Department of Transportation.
Bibliography
APAI (undated). Asphalt Paving Design Guide. Asphalt Paving Association of Iowa.
Abramson, LW, Lee, TS, Sharma, S and Boyce, GM. (2001). Slope Stability and
Stabilisation Methods, J Wiley.
BRAB (1978). The Design and Construction of Residential Slabs-on-Ground. State of the
Art. Building Research Advisory Board, Washington, DC, USA.
CED Engineering. (1998). Geosynthetic Engineering: Geosynthetic Separators. Course No
G04-005.
Caltrans. (2004). Retaining Walls. Ch 3 in: Bridge Design Specification. California
Department of Transportation.
Caltrans (2013). Geotechnical Manual. California Department of Transportation.
Eberhardt, E. (2003). Rock Slope Stability Analysis Utilization of Advanced Numerical
Techniques. Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
Canada.
GWP Consultants. (2008). Slope Design. Quarry Design Handbook, pre-publication draft,
Appendix 4-4.
Illinois DOT. (2005). Subgrade Stability Manual. Bureau of Bridges and Structures,
Illinois Department of Transportation.
Indiana DOT. (2008). Design Procedures for Soil Modification or Stabilisation. Indiana
Dept of Transportation.
Iowa State. (2013). Embankment Construction. Ch 6D in: Geotechnical Design Manual.
Revised Edition, Statewide Urban Design and Specification (SUDAS), Iowa State.
Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government. (2005). Engineering Analysis and
Evaluations. Ch 6 in: Geotechnical Manual. Lexington, Kentucky.
Montana DOT (2009). Measurement and Evaluation of Subgrade Parameters: Phase 1
Synthesis of Literature. State of Montana Dept of Transportation and US DOT FHWA,
MDT Research Programs.
Page 6-3
Appendix A
Soil Stabilization
National Cooperative Highway Research Program. (2004). Guideline and Recommended

Standard for Geofoam Applications in Highway Embankments. NCHRP Report 529.
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, USA.
New York State, DOT. (2013). Reporting and Documentation. Ch 26 in: Geotechnical
Design Manual. New York State Department of Transportation.
Pavement Interactive (2007). Triaxial Test. www.pavementinteractive.org/article/triaxialtest
South Carolina Dept of Transportation. (2010). Embankments. Ch 17 in: Geotechnical
Design Manual.
US ACE. (1984). Stabilisation with lime. Ch 4 in: Soil Stabilisation for Pavements,
Mobilisation, Construction. EM 1110-3-137. US Army Corps of Engineers, Department of
the Army.
US ACE.(1994). Cut slope stability. Ch 8 in: Slope Stability. EM 1110-2-1902,
Department of the Army, US Army Corps of Engineers.
US ACE. (2010). Constructively Speaking, Collapsible Soils, Issue No 3, Afghanistan
Engineer District. US Army Corps of Engineers.
US ACE. (2012). Soil stabilisation for roads and airfields. Ch 9 in: Military Soils
Engineering. MCRP 3-17.7G/TM 3-34.64. FM 5-410. US Army Corps of Engineers. First
published 1992.
US DOI Bureau of Reclamation. (1991). Characteristics and Problems of Dispersive
Clays. P-91-09. Materials Engineering Branch, US Department of the Interior, Denver,
Colorado.
US DOI Bureau of Reclamation. (1998). Engineering Geology Field Manual. Vol 1 and 2.,
US Department of the Interior, Denver, Colorado.
US DOT FHWA. (1975). A Review of Engineering Experiences with Expansive Soils in
Highway Subgrades. Report No FHWA-RD-75-48. US Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station.
US DOT FHWA (2001). Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes
Design and Construction Guidelines. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Authority Publication No. NHI-00-043. Washington D.C., USA.
US DOT, FHWA. (2003). Checklist and guidelines for review of geotechnical reports and
preliminary plans and specifications. Department of Transportation, Federal Highways
Authority Publ No ED-88-053, Washington DC, USA.
US DOT FHWA (2006A). Geotechnical Aspects of Pavements. Dept of Transportation,
Federal Highways Authority, NHI 05-037, Washington, DC, USA.
US DOT FHWA (2006B). Soil and Foundations. Reference Manual. CED Engineering,
FHWA NHI-06-088. Dept of Transportation, Federal Highways Authority, Washington
DC, USA.
Page 6-4
Chapter 5
US DOT FHWA CFLHD. (2011). Rock excavation methods. Ch 3 in: Context Sensitive
Rock Slope Design Solutions. Publ No Federal Highways Authority, FHWA-CFL/TD-11002, Central Federal Lands Highway Division, Colorado.
University of Iowa. 2013. Foundations on weak and/or compressible soils. Foundation
Engineering, Foundations of Structures, University of Iowa, 53:139.
Washington State DOT. (2013). Soil cut design. Ch 10 in: Geotechnical Design Manual
M46-03.08, WS Department of Transportation.
Page 6-5
Appendix A
Soil Stabilization
APPENDIX A - SOIL STABILIZATION

Soil stabilization is a general term that involves the use of mechanical or chemical
modifiers to enhance the strength of soils and reduce the change in moisture. The process
is often called soil modification when the purpose is to change the physical properties and
thereby improve the quality of the subgrade soil. Soil stabilization is usually performed for
the following reasons:
As a construction platform to dry very wet soils and facilitate compaction of the
upper layer. For this case, the stabilized soil is usually not considered as a structural
layer in the pavement design process.
To strengthen a weak soil and restrict the volume change potential of a highly
plastic (expansive) or compressible soil. For this case, the modified soil is usually
given some structural value in the pavement design process.
The thickness, depth or zone of the subgrade that may be selected for soil improvement
depends upon a number of factors. Among these are the anticipated traffic loads, the
importance of the transportation network, constructability, the drainage characteristics, the
geometric design, and the purpose of stabilization. When only a thin zone or short roadway
length is subject to improvement, removal and replacement can usually be the preferred
alternative, unless a suitable replacement soil is not economically available. The thickness
of the subgrade to be treated is based primarily on the project economics and the objective
of stabilization.
Table A-1 presents a summary of the stabilization methods used in pavement design and
constructions the types of soils for which they are most appropriate, and their intended
effects on soil properties. Mechanical stabilization using thick gravel layers, in conjunction
with geotextiles or geogrids is an effective technique for improving roadway support over
soft, wet subgrades. The use of gravel layers has been discussed in Section 2.4.2.
Blending gravel and, more recently, recycled pavement material with poorer quality soils
can also provide a working platform. The gravel acts as filler, creating a dryer condition
and decreasing the influence of plasticity. However, if saturation conditions return, the
gravel blend can take on the same poorer support characteristics of the natural subgrade.
Stabilization with admixtures, such as lime, cement, and asphalt, has been used outside
Ethiopia to control the swelling and frost heave of soils and improve the strength
characteristics of unsuitable soils. Literally hundreds of chemicals or additives have been
tried in the past few decades. To stabilize expansive subgrades and reduce volume change
for example, ion exchange (addition of divalent and trivalent salts), cation fixation in
expanding clays (with potassium), deactivation of sulphates (with calcium chloride),
waterproofing (silicones, asphalts), cementation (silicates, carbonates, phosphoric acid),
and alteration in permeability and wetting properties (surface active agents, wetting agents)
have all been attempted. However, lime continues to be the most widely used and most
effective additive for stabilization of subgrades and rapid gain of strength.
A flow chart for the determination of chemical treatment options for soil stabilization
based on the percent of materials that pass the No. 200 sieve (75 m) and the PI of the soil
is shown in Figure A-1. This chart should only be used as a broad guideline.
Page A- 1
Appendix A
Soil Stabilization
Table A-1 Stabilization methods for pavements. From Rollings & Rollings (1996)
reproduced in US DOT FHWA (2006A)
Stabilization method
and materials used
Mechanical
More gravel
Blending
Geosynthetics
Portland cement
Soil type
None
Reduce dynamic stress

level
Moderately plastic
None
Too difficult to mix
Others
Silts and clays
Improved gradation,
reduced plasticity,
reduced breakage
Strength gain through
minimum disturbance
and consolidation
Plastic
------
Coarse
-----Rapid drying, rapid

strength gain, reduce
plasticity rapidly,
coarsen texture rapidly,
slow long-term
pozzolanic cementing
Lime
Admixtures
Remarks
Silts and clays
Plastic
Fast, plus provides longterm separation

Less pronounced
hydration of cement
Hydration of cement
------
Coarse with fines
Same as plastic soils
Dependent on quantity
of plastic fines
Non-plastic
Same as lime
None
Same as lime
No reactive material
Covers broader range
Same as lime
Same as lime
Covers broader range
Coarse
Strengthen/bind
waterproof
Some fines
Fines
Same as coarse
None
Asphalt cement or
liquid asphalt
Liquid asphalt
Cannot mix
Pozzolans and
slags
Silts and coarse

grained material
Acts as a filler,
cementing of grains
Dense and strong, slower

than cement
Chemicals
Plastic
Strength increase and

volume stability
Difficult to mix
Asphalt
Plastic and
collapsible
Reduce change in
moisture
Long-term moisture
migration problem
Geomembranes
Plastic and
collapsible
Reduce change in
moisture
Long-term moisture
migration problem
Lime-fly ash
Lime-cementfly ash
Bitumen
Water
proofers
Improvement
Page A- 2
Appendix A
Soil Stabilization
Figure A-1 Guide for selection of admixture stabilization methods. From Austroads
(1998), reproduced in US DOT FHWA (2006A)
A.1 Lime modification
Lime treatment or modification consists of the application of 1 3% hydrated lime to aid
drying of the soil and permit compaction. Lime modification may also be considered to
condition a soil for follow-on stabilization with cement or asphalt. Lime treatment of
subgrade soils is intended to speed up construction, and no reduction in the required
pavement thickness should be made. Lime may also be used to treat expansive soils. If it
has been determined that a soil has potential for excessive swell, lime treatment may be
appropriate. Lime will reduce swell in an expansive soil to greater or lesser degrees,
depending on the activity of the clay minerals present. The amount of lime to be added is
the minimum amount that will reduce swell to acceptable limits.
In the case of expansive subgrades, efforts have been directed elsewhere towards
modifying deeper layers using electrical, drill-hole, pressure injection, and deep-plough
techniques. This is in addition to the conventional mix in-place or batch mixing
approaches. Generally, the use of an electric potential to increase the rate of lime migration
has showed little success and is rarely used.
The use of drill-holes consists basically of drilling holes into the subgrade and backfilling
with a lime slurry or lime slurry-sand mixture. Once placed in the holes, the lime migrates
or diffuses into the soil initiating the soil-lime reactions. However, this diffusion process
can be quite slow and time-consuming before a substantial quantity of the soil is affected.
This technique has been mainly used for rehabilitation projects and new construction.
Generally, 300 mm diameter holes with depths ranging from 1.8 m to 6 m, depending upon
the extent of treatment desired, on 1.5 m by 1.8m grids, are needed for better results. Some
Page A- 3
Appendix A
Soil Stabilization
experiences showed that lime migration was quite limited to the periphery of the hole.
However, a definite improvement in serviceability index was also noted for treated
sections compared to companion untreated areas. Such techniques are better suited for
treating existing failed pavements on highly trafficked roads due to cost. For new roads
other more economic measures should be adopted such as excavation and replacement and
drainage.
In an attempt to obtain greater distribution of lime in swelling subgrades, the technique of
lime slurry pressure injection (LSPI) was developed. The technique consists of pumping
lime slurry under pressures of up to 1400KPa, depending upon soil conditions, through
hollow injection rods into the subgrade. The injection rods penetrate the soil in
approximately 300 mm intervals, and the slurry, 1 kg to 1.5 kg of lime per gallon of water,
is injected to refusal. Refusal is reached when soil will not take additional slurry, the slurry
is running freely either around the pipe or out of previous injection holes, or the slurry has
fractured the surface and is flowing out. A wetting agent is often added to the slurry to
assist in migration. The lime slurry left on the surface immediately following injection is
mixed into the top 100-150mm of soil and re-compacted.
A.2 Lime stabilization
Lime stabilization is a technique for improving soft and weak subgrades beneath flexible
pavements. A primary benefit of lime stabilization is a greatly increased stiffness as a
function of the lime content. Consequently, the effect of lime content on subgrade
properties and the thickness of the stabilized subgrade are the primary variables for
stabilization design. Lime is applicable in clay soils (CH, CL, MH and ML and in granular
soils containing clay binder (GC and SC, with a PI greater than 10 and with at least 10%
passing the No. 40 sieve. Lime reduces the PI and renders a clay soil less sensitive to
moisture changes.
The most common varieties of lime for soil stabilization are hydrated lime (Ca(OH)2),
quicklime (CaO), and the dolomitic variations of these high-calcium limes (Ca(OH)2MgO
and CaOMgO). Often, hydrated lime is used in powder form, or as slurry (a mix of water
and lime). While hydrated lime remains the most commonly used lime stabilization
admixture in many countries, use of the more caustic quicklime has also grown steadily
over the past two decades. Lime is usually produced by calcining limestone or dolomite,
although some lime, typically of more variable and poorer quality, is also produced as a
by-product of other chemical processes.
For lime stabilization of clay (or highly plastic) soils, the lime content should be from 3
8% of the dry weight of the soil, and the cured mass should have an unconfined
compressive strength of at least 350 KPa within 28 days. The optimum lime content should
be determined with the use of unconfined compressive strength and Atterberg limits
measured for different lime-soil mixtures moulded at varying percentages of lime. The pH
values can be used to determine the initial, near optimum lime content value. The
pozzolanic strength gain in clay soils depends on the specific chemistry of the soil (if it has
sufficient silica and alumina minerals to support the pozzolanic reactions). Plasticity is a
rough indicator of reactivity. A PI of about 10 is commonly taken as the lower limit for
suitability of inorganic clays for lime stabilization. The lime-stabilized subgrade should be
compacted to a minimum density of 95%, as defined by AASHTO T99.
Page A- 4
Appendix A
Soil Stabilization
During stabilization, hydration of the lime absorbs water from the soil and causes an
immediate drying effect. The addition of lime also introduces calcium (Ca+2) and
magnesium (Mg+2) cations that exchange with the more active sodium (Na+) and
potassium (K+) cations in the natural soil water chemistry. This cation exchange reduces
the plasticity of the soil, which, in most cases, corresponds to a reduced swell and
shrinkage potential, diminished susceptibility to strength loss with moisture, and improved
workability. The changes in the soil-water chemistry also lead to agglomeration of
particles and a coarsening of the soil gradation; plastic clay soils become more like silt or
sand in texture after the addition of lime. These drying, plasticity reduction, and texture
effects all occur very rapidly (usually with one hour after addition of lime), provided there
is a thorough mixing of the lime and the soil.
When soils are treated with lime, it has been observed that the lime-soil mixture may be
subject to durability problems, the cyclic freezing and thawing of the soil. The durability of
lime stabilization on swell potential and strength may be adversely affected by
environmental influences such as water, leaching processes, carbonation, and sulphate
attacks.
Although most lime stabilized soils retain 70% to 85% of their long-term strength gains
when exposed to water, there have been instances of poor strength retention when exposed
to soaking. Therefore, testing of stabilized soils in the soaked condition is prudent. Freeze
and thaw cycles can lead to strength deterioration, but this is not a problem in many most
parts of Ethiopia. If the problem is expected, then the most common design approach is to
specify a sufficiently high initial strength gain to retain sufficient residual strength after
freeze and thaw damage.
Leaching of calcium can decrease the cation exchange in lime stabilized soils, which, in
turn, can reverse the beneficial reduction in plasticity and swell potential. The potential for
these effects is greater when low lime contents are used. Carbonation is another problem
that is common after lime stabilization. If atmospheric carbon dioxide combines with lime
to form calcium carbonate, the calcium silicate and calcium aluminate hydrate cements
may become unstable and revert back to their original silica and alumina forms, reversing
the long-term strength increase resulting from the pozzolanic reactions. Carbonation may
be minimized by the use of ample lime content, careful selection, placement, and
compaction of the stabilized material to minimize carbon dioxide penetration, as well as
prompt placement after lime mixing, and good curing.
Sulphates present in the soil or groundwater can combine with the calcium from the lime
and the alumina from the clay minerals to form ettringite (a hexacalcium aluminate
trisulphate hydrate, common in hydrated Portland cement), which has a volume that is
more than 200% larger than that of its constituents. Massive irreversible swelling can,
therefore, occur in the subgrade, and the damage it causes can be quite severe. It is difficult
to predict the exact combinations of sulphate, lime, clay mineralogy, and environmental
conditions that will trigger sulphate attack. Consequently, if there is a suspicion of possible
sulphate attack, the lime stabilized soil should be tested in the laboratory to see whether it
will swell when mixed and exposed to moisture.
Conventional soil-lime construction techniques are normally limited to maximum depths of
200 300 mm. However, if greater depths of stabilization are required in one lift, these
conventional techniques are inadequate. The deep plough lime stabilization method was
created in light of this problem. The technique consists of:
Page A- 5
Appendix A
Soil Stabilization
ploughing the subgrade to a depth of 300 mm prior to spreading the lime;

spreading the lime required for stabilization of the layer;
mixing the lime and soil with three passes of the plough to a depth of 600 mm;
spraying water over the subgrade after initial dry mixing;
final mixing using a deep ripper;
compacting the 600 mm depth of stabilized material in one lift using either
sheepsfoot or vibratory sheepsfoot rollers, and finally;
compacting and test rolling using a 50-ton roller making six passes.
A special three-toothed ripper attachment with a trapezoidal shaped shoe-plough bolted to

the teeth is normally used for ripping operations. Tests taken at various depths (0 200
mm, 200 - 400 mm, and 400 - 600 mm) should reveal that adequate densities (greater than
95% at standard compaction), are obtained within the subgrade.
In order to choose the preferred lime content in a subgrade soil, the preferred method is to
prepare several mixtures at different lime treatment levels and determine the pH of each
mixture after one hour. The pH is a good indicator of the desirable lime content of a soillime mixture. In this technique, the lowest lime content producing the highest pH of the
soil-lime mixture can be taken as the initial design lime content. Most lime, when placed in
a water solution, has a pH of about 12.4. The reaction that takes place when lime is
introduced to a soil generally causes a significant change in the plasticity (plastic and
liquid limits) of the soil. The following is the procedure to determine the optimum lime
content using a pH test.
A sufficient amount of lime should be added to soils to produce a pH of 12.4 or

equal to the pH of lime itself. The optimum lime content should be determined
corresponding to the maximum pH of the lime-soil mixture.
Representative air-dried samples, equal to 20 g of oven-dried soil, are weighed to
the nearest 0.1 g and poured into 150-ml (or larger) plastic bottles with screw on
tops.
It is advisable to set up five bottles with lime content of 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 %. This
will insure that the percentage of lime required can be determined in one hour.
Weigh the lime to the nearest 0.01 g and add it to the soil. Shake the bottle to mix
the soil and dry lime.
Add 100 ml of CO2 free distilled water to the bottles.
Shake the soil-lime mixture and water until there is no evidence of dry material on
the bottom. Shake for a minimum of 30 seconds.
Shake the bottles for 30 seconds every 10 minutes.
After one hour, transfer part of the slurry to a plastic beaker and measure the pH.
The pH meter must be equipped with an electrode and standardized with a buffer
solution having a pH of 12.00.
Record the pH for each of the lime-soil mixtures. If the pH readings go to 12.40,
then the mix with the lowest percent of lime will be chosen to stabilize the soil.
If the pH does not go beyond 12.30 and two or more mixes gave the same readings,
the mix with the lowest percent of lime is the amount required to stabilize the soil.
If the highest pH is 12.30 and only one mix gave this value, then additional test
bottles should be prepared with larger percentages of lime. Besides, additional tests
are needed if the pH is anything below 12.30 for various reasons.
Page A- 6
Appendix A
Soil Stabilization
An alternate method of determining initial design lime content is by the use of Figures A.2.
Specific values required to use this figure are the PI and the % of material passing the No.
40 sieve. These properties are determined from the Atterberg limit and gradation tests on
the untreated soil. The following procedures are needed in order to estimate the initial lime
content from Figures A-2.
Determine the PI (wet method) and the percent of soil binder (% passing No. 40
sieve).
Mark the % of soil binder on the Y-axis of Figure A.2 and the PI on the upper Xaxis.
Enter the plot from the upper X-axis where the PI value is marked.
Follow the curved line starting from the PI value down to the intersection point
with the horizontal line (drawn from the percent of soil binder mark on the Y-axis).
At the intersection with the percent of soil binder mark, move vertically upward to
the 100% soil binder line.
Read the percent of lime represented at the intersection with the 100% soil binder
line.
For example, for a soil having a P1 of 39% and 55% soil binder, the lime required
is about 4.25% as shown in Fig A.2.
Figure A-2 Chart to determine the initial lime content. From National Lime
Association USA (1972)
Page A- 7
Appendix A
Soil Stabilization
A.3 Cement stabilization

Portland cement is used widely for stabilizing low-plasticity clays, and sandy and granular
soils, and improves strength and stiffness. Increasing the cement content increases the
quality of the mixture. At low cement contents, the product is termed a cement-modified
soil, which has improved properties of reduced plasticity or expansive characteristics. At
higher cement contents, the end product is termed soil-cement. High cement contents will
unavoidably induce high incidences of shrinkage cracking caused by moisture and
temperature changes.
For soils to be stabilized with cement, proper mixing requires that the soils have a PI of
less than 20 and a minimum of 45% passing the No. 40 sieve. However, highly plastic
clays that have been pre-treated with lime are sometimes suitable for subsequent treatment.
For cement stabilization of granular and/or non-plastic soils, the cement content should be
3 to 10% of the dry weight of the soil, and the cured material should have an unconfined
compressive strength of at least 1050 KPa within seven days. The Portland cement should
meet the minimum requirements of AASHTO M 85. The cement-stabilized subgrade
should be compacted to a minimum density of 95%, as defined by AASHTO T 134. Only
fine-grained soils can be treated effectively with lime for marginal strength improvement.
Small amounts of Portland cements may reduce swell potential of subgrade soils.
However, Portland cement generally is not as effective as lime, and may be considered too
expensive for this sort of application. The determination of cement content to reduce the
swell potential of fine-grained plastic soils can be accomplished by moulding several
samples at various cement contents and soaking the specimens along with untreated
specimens for four days. The lowest cement content that eliminates or reduces the swell
potential to the minimum is the design cement content. Procedures for measuring swell
characteristics of soils are found in ASTM D 4546. The cement content that accomplishes
soil modification should be checked to see whether it provides an unconfined compressive
strength great enough to qualify for a reduced pavement thickness design (Guyer 2011).
A.4 The application of bitumen
Often, bitumen-stabilized soils have been used elsewhere in the world for sub-base
construction for engineering and economic reasons. Use of bitumen as a stabilizing agent
produces varied effects, depending on the soil, and may be divided into three major groups:
Sand-bitumen, which increases strength in cohesionless soils, such as clean sands,

or acts as a binder or cementing agent.
Soil-bitumen, which stabilizes the moisture content of cohesive fine-grained soils.
Sand-gravel bitumen, which provides cohesive strength and waterproofing for pitrun gravelly soils with inherent frictional strength.
The durability of bitumen-stabilized mixtures can be assessed by measurement of their

water absorption characteristics.
Bitumen increases the cohesion and load-bearing capacity of the soil and renders it
resistant to the action of water. Usually, bituminous stabilization is performed in place with
the bitumen being applied directly on the soil or soil-aggregate system with the mixing and
compaction operations being conducted immediately thereafter.
Page A- 8
Appendix A
Soil Stabilization
A.5 Geosynthetics
Geosynthetics are a class of geo-materials that are used to improve soil conditions for a
number of applications. They consist of polymeric materials manufactured in different
forms. The most common applications to roads are for reinforcing embankments and
foundation soils, creating barriers to water flow in liners and cut-offs, and improving
drainage.
A.5.1 Types of geosynthetics
The generic term geosynthetic is often used to cover a wide range of different artificially
manufactured materials, including geotextiles, geogrids, and geomembranes.
A geotextile is a permeable geosynthetic comprised solely of textiles. These materials are
also known as engineering fabrics, which are usually created from polymers, most
commonly polypropylene, but also potentially including polyester, polyethylene, or nylon.
Geotextiles are usually classified as either woven or non-woven. Both use a polymer fibre
as raw material. Depending on the application, the fibres may be used singly or spun into
yarns by wrapping several fibres together, or created by a slit film process. Woven
geosynthetics are manufactured by weaving fibres or yarns together in the same way as any
form of textile, although generally only fairly simply weaving patterns are used. Nonwoven geosynthetics are made by placing fibres in a bed, either in full-length or in short
sections. The fibres are then bonded together, either by raising the temperature, applying
an adhesive chemical, or by mechanical means.
Geogrids, as their name suggests, consist of a regular grid of plastic with large openings
(called apertures) between the tensile elements. The function of the apertures is to allow
the surrounding soil materials to interlock across the plane of the geogrid. Hence, the
selection of the size of the aperture is partially dependent on the gradation of the material
into which it will be placed. The geogrid is manufactured using high-density polymers of
higher stiffness than are common for geotextiles. These polymers are then punched in a
regular pattern and drawn in one or two directions. Alternatively, a weaving process may
be used in which the crossing fibres are left wide apart and the junctions between them are
reinforced. Existing commercial geogrid products include extruded geogrids, woven
geogrids, welded geogrids, and geogrid composites.
Geomembranes are used to retard or prevent fluid from penetrating the soil and as such
consist of continuous sheets of low permeability materials. These materials are made by
forming the polymer into a flat sheet, which may have a roughened surface created to aid
in the performance of the membrane by increasing friction with the adjacent soil layer.
Geocells are designed to protect slopes against erosion, stabilize steep slopes, provide
protective linings for channels, support heavy construction traffic on weak subgrade soils,
and provide multi-layered earth-retaining structures. Geocells are typically constructed of
high-density polyethylene (HDPE). The cells in three dimensional panels are opened and
filled with granular material, which adds weight to make the multi-layer system act as a
gravity retaining wall.
Geocomposite materials are often created by combining two or more of the products
described above to take advantage of multiple benefits. Furthermore, geocomposites may
be formed by combining geosynthetics with more traditional geo-materials, the most
Page A- 9
Appendix A
Soil Stabilization
common example being the geosynthetic clay liner. A geosynthetic clay liner consists of a
layer of bentonite sandwiched together with geomembrane or geotextile materials to create
a very low permeability barrier.
A.5.2 The use of geosynthetics in pavements
The three primary uses of a geosynthetics in a pavement system are to serve as a
construction aid over soft subgrades, improve or extend the estimated service life of the
pavement, and reduce the thickness of the structural cross section for a given design
period. Some or all of these objectives are normally achieved through at least one of the
four functions (separation, reinforcement, filtration (drainage), and containment) as shown
in Figure A-3.
Figure A-3 Main functions of geosynthetics in pavement systems

Geotextile and geogrid materials are the most commonly used geosynthetics in pavement
design. This is especially true when only the pavement itself is considered without fills and
cut slopes, abutments, or drainage facilities. Stabilization using these materials is achieved
through a combination of separation, filtration, and reinforcement. The separation function
of a geotextile prevents the subgrade and the sub-base from intermixing (Figure A-4),
which might occur during construction and later in-service due to pumping of the subgrade
by traffic loads. The filtration function is required because soils requiring stabilization are
usually wet. By acting as a filter, the geotextile retains the subgrade without clogging,
while allowing water from the subgrade to pass up into the sub-base, permitting the pore
pressure to dissipate, and promoting strength gain due to consolidation.
Page A- 10
Appendix A
Soil Stabilization
Figure A-4 Use of geosynthetic to separate a sub-base from the subgrade

Geosynthetics also provide some level of reinforcement by laterally restraining the base or
sub-base and improving the bearing capacity, thus decreasing shear stresses on the
subgrade. Soft subgrade soils provide very little lateral restraint (containment). Hence,
when the granular material moves laterally, ruts develop on the surface and also in the
subgrade. A geogrid with good interlocking capabilities or a geotextile with high frictional
capacities can provide tensile resistance to lateral aggregate movement. Geosynthetics also
increase the system bearing capacity by forcing the potential bearing surface under the
wheel load to develop along alternate, longer mobilization paths and, thus, higher shear
strength surfaces.
Geotextiles serve best as separators, filters and, in the case of non-woven geotextiles,
drainage layers, while geogrids are better at reinforcing. Geogrids, as with geotextiles,
prevent the sub-base from penetrating the subgrade. When geogrids are used, either the
sub-base has to be designed as a separator or a geotextile must be used in conjunction with
the geogrid, either separately or as a geocomposite.
Table A-2. Function of geosynthetic with respect to subgrade properties. From CED
Engineering (1998)
Undrained shear
strength (KPa) of
subgrade
60-90
CBR% of
subgrade
Geosynethetic function
2-3
Filtration, some separation
30-60
1-2
Filtration, separation, some reinforcement
<30
Below 1
Filtration, separation, reinforcement
In general, as indicated in Table A-2, the specific function to be provided by a geosynthetic

in pavements depends on soil properties, and the range of functions potentially served
increases as the subgrade strength decreases. Table A-3 lists subgrade conditions that are
considered to be the most appropriate for the use of geosynthetics. These are conditions
where the subgrade is unlikely to support conventional pavement construction without
substantial rutting.
Page A- 11
Appendix A
Soil Stabilization
Table A-3 Appropriate subgrade conditions for geosynthetic use. Modified from CED
Engineering (1998)
Condition
Related Properties
Poor soils
USCS: SC, CL, CH, ML, MH, OH, or PT soils; or

AASHTO: A-5, A-6, A-7, or A7-6 soils
Low strength
Undrained shear strength < 13 KPa, CBR < 3, or MR< 30 MPa
High water table
Within zone of influence of surface soils
High sensitivity
High undisturbed strength compared to remoulded strength
When used as reinforcement, it is very important to place a geosynthetic in a taut or

stretched condition so that it can develop full tensile resistance. If placed with wrinkles or
in a loose condition on a weak subgrade, the wheel load will create excessive rutting in the
underlying soil before the geosynthetic develops enough tension to provide the required
restraint. Generally, high elastic modulus geosynthetics undergo less deformation, and
hence less soil rutting, to develop the tensile resistance required for subgrade restraint.
Thus, the elastic modulus could be used as an important factor for selecting geosynthetic
products of similar cost.
A.5.3 Design considerations
There are at least three design approaches which are in use for incorporating geosynthetics
in pavements. These are: design by cost, design by specification, and design by function.
Often, the use of geosynthetics for stabilization is completed using the design-by-function
approach. A key feature of this approach is the assumption that the structural pavement
design is not modified in the procedure. The pavement is designed according to standard
procedures, as if the geosynthetic was not present.
Reinforced flexible pavement subgrade design
Different combinations of geosynthetics are recommended for use in flexible pavements
based upon the subgrade soil conditions. Geosynthetics used to construct roads over very
soft subgrade conditions typically serve to mechanically stabilize the subgrade, and any
design is determined by the subgrade strength. As the subgrade strength increases, the
application of the geosynthetics transforms from mechanical subgrade stabilization to base
reinforcement.
The first step in designing an effective reinforced pavement system is to determine the
properties of the subgrade including the grain-size distribution, Atterberg limits, and in-situ
shear strength or bearing capacity. In addition, the location of the groundwater table,
AASHTO and/or USCS classifications and sensitivity are also needed for comparison with
the information given in Table A-3. The in-situ shear strength can be measured directly
using vane shear devices or indirectly using bearing capacity correlations from CBR. The
design subgrade shear strength is defined as the 25th percentile shear strength, which
corresponds to the value at which 75% of the recorded soil strength readings of the top 450
mm of the subgrade are higher.
Once the design subgrade conditions have been determined, an assessment of the
applicability of geosynthetics should be conducted using the following guidance and Table
A-4.
Page A- 12
Appendix A
Soil Stabilization
Table A-4 Recommendations for geosynthetic use in flexible pavements. From US

ACE (2003)
Design subgrade soil strength and geosynthetic applicability
CBR < 0.5
Use a geotextile and
a geogrid at the
subgrade/base
interface. No
aggregate thickness
reduction is
recommended. Use
the aggregatesurfaced procedure to
design a working
platform with
geosynthetics. Then,
use local procedures
for flexible pavement
thickness design.
0.5 < CBR < 4.0

A geotextile is
recommended for finegrained subgrades with
a design CBR of less
than 4. Geogrid
reinforcement should be
evaluated. Design an
unreinforced flexible
pavement. Then, use
this design procedure to
determine the reinforced
aggregate thickness
reduction. Perform a life
cycle cost analysis.
4.0 < CBR < 8.0

A geotextile is generally
NOT recommended
unless prior experience
has indicated separation
problems. Design an
unreinforced flexible
pavement. Then use this
design procedure to
determine the appropriate
aggregate thickness
reduction. Perform a life
CBR > 8.0

The design
subgrade strength
exceeds the existing
practice. Do not use
this design
procedure. Use
geosynthetic
reinforcement to
solve site-specific
construction
problems. Perform a
life cycle cost
analysis.
For design subgrade CBR strengths of 0.5 or less, the primary application is
mechanical subgrade stabilization. At these soil strengths, it is recommended that a
construction platform be designed to facilitate the construction of the flexible
pavement. The construction platform will serve as the sub base for the flexible
pavement system.
For design subgrade CBR strengths of 4.0 or less, both the mechanical subgrade
stabilization and base reinforcement applications are appropriate. A non-woven
geotextile is recommended for separation of fine-grained subgrades, and the use of
a geogrid for reinforcement should be considered. Thus, for this subgrade strength
level both a geotextile and a geogrid may be necessary and the aggregate thickness
can be reduced using empirical reinforced pavement thickness equivalency charts.
For subgrade CBR strengths greater than 4.0, a geotextile separator is not
recommended unless there is an experience of separation problems with the
construction materials. For design subgrade CBR strengths between 4.0 and 8.0, the
primary geogrid application is base reinforcement. Research has indicated
substantial extensions in pavement service life and significant potential for base
thickness reductions. A life cycle cost analysis should be made to determine the
cost effectiveness of geogrid reinforcement.
When the subgrade CBR is higher than 8.0, a geotextile separator is not
recommended unless prior separation problems have been noted for specific
construction materials. The primary application of a geogrid at high subgrade soil
strengths is base reinforcement.
If the use of a geotextile and/or geogrid is warranted based upon the applicability
assessment, the following procedure can be used to design the reinforced flexible
pavement:
1. The subgrade soil CBR can be determined using Fig. A-5 based upon shear strength
(c). The shear strength (c) can be directly measured using vane shear devices. Each
aggregate layer, base and sub-base must meet strength and gradation requirements.
Page A- 13
Appendix A
Soil Stabilization
2. The next step is to determine the design traffic. The design traffic should be
determined according to local practices which results in a design index (DI). The
design index combines the effect of average vehicle axle loadings and expected
traffic volume as expressed by the road classification systems used for design
purposes.
3. At the end, there is a need to design an unreinforced flexible pavement for a given
subgrade conditions. This can be done using a graph prepared earlier using local
environmental conditions. The graph should contain various curves represent
design indexes (DI), and correlate the subgrade CBR strength with required
pavement thickness. Using the CBR and the appropriate DI, it is possible to
empirically determine the required unreinforced pavement thickness above the
subgrade from the graph.
4. The reinforced aggregate thickness is determined by using again a locally prepared
reinforced pavement thickness equivalency chart. Entering the chart with the
unreinforced flexible pavement thickness, a line is drawn to the intersection of the
equivalency curve to get the thickness of the equivalent reinforced thickness.
Figure A-5 Relationship between CBR and shear strength (c). Modified from US
ACE (2003)
Aggregate-surfaced reinforced pavement design
Geosynthetics in aggregate-surfaced roads can be used to support two pavement
applications: mechanical subgrade stabilization and aggregate base reinforcement. The
application is pre-determined by the subgrade soil strength. The type of geosynthetics
recommended for use in aggregate-surfaced roads is based upon the subgrade soil
conditions. Geosynthetics used to construct pavements over very soft subgrade conditions
typically serve to mechanically stabilize the subgrade. As the design subgrade strength
increases, the primary application of the geosynthetic changes from mechanical subgrade
stabilization to base reinforcement.
Once the index and other relevant properties of the subgrade are determined as mentioned
above, the decision to use geosynthetics is made on the basis of the following procedure:
For design subgrade CBR strengths of 0.5 or less, the primary application is
mechanical subgrade stabilization. At these soil strengths, the use of a non-woven
geotextile is recommended for separation, and a biaxial geogrid is recommended
Page A- 14
Appendix A
Soil Stabilization
for aggregate reinforcement. At these low material strengths, the full depth of the
aggregate fill should be used and no reduction in aggregate thickness is
recommended. Thus, the unreinforced aggregate thickness design should be used
for subgrade strengths of 0.5 CBR or less. The non-woven geotextile is placed
directly on the subgrade followed by the geogrid and then the aggregate fill. The
construction platform serves as a bridge over very soft material, a compaction aid
for obtaining target densities, and a construction expedient.
For design subgrade CBR strengths of 2.0 or less, both the mechanical subgrade
stabilization and base reinforcement applications can be carried out. A non-woven
geotextile is recommended for separation at subgrade strengths with a CBR of 2 or
less. The use of a biaxial geogrid for reinforcement is also generally cost-effective
in terms of aggregate savings. Thus, for this subgrade strength level, both a
geotextile and geogrid are generally recommended, and the aggregate thickness can
be reduced using the appropriate reinforced bearing capacity factor as described in
the following paragraphs.
The use of a non-woven geotextile for separation is generally recommended for
fine-grained subgrades with design CBR values of less than or equal to 4. A nonwoven geotextile should also be used for separation when the designer has
experienced separation problems with the construction materials during previous
construction projects. For design subgrade CBR strengths between 2.0 and 4.0, the
primary geogrid application is base reinforcement. However, the cost effectiveness
of using a geogrid at these subgrade strengths should be determined by performing
a life-cycle cost analysis.
The primary geosynthetic application for subgrade CBR strength of greater than 4
is base reinforcement. Geogrid reinforcement is generally considered costprohibitive for these types of subgrades. Instead, geogrids can be used as a
construction expedient to solve site-specific problems, such as site mobility and
localized soft soil deposits.
Once it is known that geosynthetics are needed based upon the above applicability
assessment, the following procedure can be used to design the reinforced aggregatesurfaced pavement:
1. If the use of a geotextile and/or geogrid is necessary, the subgrade soil strength
must be converted from CBR to shear strength (c) using Figure A-5. The shear
strength (c) can also be directly measured using vane shear devices.
2. The next step is to determine the design traffic. The design traffic gear should be
based upon the gear configuration of the heaviest vehicle expected in the traffic
mix, defined as either a single wheel load, a dual-wheel load, or tandem-wheel gear
load. The combined weight on the selected gear is used as the design vehicle
weight. For example, use one-half of the single- or dual-wheel axle load for singleaxle vehicles. For multiple-axle vehicles, use one-half of the total load on the
heaviest two neighbouring axles.
3. Next it is necessary to determine the reinforced bearing capacity factor (Nc). Both
the unreinforced and reinforced bearing capacity factors should normally be
determined using empirical data obtained from local test sections. The unreinforced
bearing capacity factor (Nc) is usually 2.8. The reinforced bearing capacity factor
for a geotextile alone is 5.0. The bearing capacity factor for a geotextile separator
and geogrid reinforcement is 6.7. Recommended bearing capacity factors are
summarized in Table 2-10. Selecting Nc based on allowable subgrade ruts is also
Page A- 15
Appendix A
Soil Stabilization
common: Nc = 5 for a low rutting (< 50 mm), 5.5 for moderate rutting (50 100
mm), and 6 for large rutting (> 100 mm). These values reduce to Nc = 2.8, 3.0, or
3.3, respectively without a geotextile.
4. Determine the subgrade bearing capacity by multiplying the reinforced or
unreinforced bearing capacity factor (Nc) by the shear strength of the subgrade (c).
5. In order to find out the required aggregate thickness, the procedure requires the use
of curves drawn by using the subgrade bearing capacity (cNc) and the expected
single, double and tandem wheel loads. Choosing the curve for specific design
wheel loads and using an appropriate cNc enables determining the required
aggregate thickness.
Table A-5 Recommendations for geosynthetic use in aggregate-surfaced pavements.
From US ACE (2002 and 2003)
Design subgrade soil strength and geosynthetic applicability
CBR < 0.5
Use a geotextile and
a geogrid at the
subgrade/base
interface. No
aggregate thickness
reduction
recommended.
0.5 < CBR < 2.0

Both a geogrid and a
geotextile are recommended.
Use this design procedure
for aggregate thickness
reduction.
2.0 < CBR < 4.0

A geotextile is required for
fine-grained subgrades. A
geogrid may also be costeffective. Perform a life
Nc1
Nc
Geotextile Geogrid Both2 Geotextile Geogrid
CBR > 4.0

Perform a
cost
analysis.
Both
5.0
6.7
6.7
5.0
6.7
6.7
The unreinforced bearing capacity factor, Nc, is often 2.8.
2
Both a geotextile and a geogrid are recommended, with the former serving primarily as a
separation fabric.
1
Page A- 16

Geotechnical Design Manual Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Geotechnical Design Manual Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FEDERAL DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF ETHIOPIA

ETHIOPIAN ROADS AUTHORITY

Geotechnical Design Manual - 2013

Ethiopian Roads Authority

Geotechnical Design Manual 2013

Route Selection Manual

Ethiopian Roads Authority

Geotechnical Design Manual - 2013

Addis Ababa, 2013

Zaid Wolde Gebriel

Ethiopian Roads Authority

Geotechnical Design Manual 2013

ETHIOPIAN ROADS AUTHORITY

Submitted by: Name:____________________________________Designation:_______________________________

Approval / Provisional Approval / Rejection of Change:

Ethiopian Roads Authority

Geotechnical Design Manual - 2013

List of Persons Contributing to Peer Group Review

Abebe Asefa, Ato

Ethiopian Roads Authority

Alemayehu Ayele, Ato

Ethiopian Roads Authority

Asnake Haile, Ato

OMEGA Consulting Engineers

Asrat Sewit, Ato

Colin Gourley, Dr.

Daniel Nebro, Ato

Ethiopian Roads Authority

Efrem Degefu, Ato

BEACON Consulting Engineers

Fikert Arega, W/ro

Ethiopian Roads Authority

Muse Belew, Ato

Ethiopian Roads Authority

Shimelis Tesfaye, Ato

Tewodros Alene, Ato

Ethiopian Roads Authority

Zerihun Nuru, Ato

Ethiopian Roads Authority

Geotechnical Design Manual 2013

AFCAP Coordinator for

Addis Ababa, 2013

Zaid Wolde Gebriel

Ethiopian Roads Authority

Geotechnical Design Manual - 2013

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1-1

ROAD EMBANKMENTS ................................................................................................. 3-1

Types of Embankments .......................................................................................... 3-1

Ethiopian Roads Authority

Geotechnical Design Manual 2013

ROADSIDE SLOPES ...................................................................................................... 4-1

Natural Slopes ........................................................................................................ 4-2

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND CHECKLIST ................................................................. 5-1

Ethiopian Roads Authority

Geotechnical Design Manual - 2013

REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................. 6-1

APPENDIX A - SOIL STABILIZATION ..................................................................................... 1

Ethiopian Roads Authority

Geotechnical Design Manual 2013

Ethiopian Roads Authority

Geotechnical Design Manual - 2013

Geotechnical Design Manual 2013

Ethiopian Roads Authority

Geotechnical Design Manual - 2013

Submitted by: Name:______Designation:_