IRC: 751979
Published by
THE INDIAN ROADS CONGRESS
Jamnagar House, Shahjahan Road,
New DelhiilOOll
1979
Price As 48/
(Plus packing and postage)
<<
1RC: 751979
<<
MEMBERS OF THE SOIL ENGINEERING COMMiTTEE
<<
CONTENTS
Page
Notations x to xii
<<
vi
Part B
SYMBOL REPRESENTS
I. General
Time
,e ,\cceleration due to gravity
r Volume
It Weight
ii Nloinent
I Factor of Safety
3. Soil Properties
<<
ix
(b) Consistency
WLLL Liquid limit
Wp/PL Plastic limit
I,,Pt Plasticity index
(C) Permeability
K Coefficient of permeability
q Rate of flow per unit area
v Velocity of flow
i Seepage force
(d) Consolidation
C~ Compression index
C~, Coefficient of consolidation
rn~ Coefficient (or modulus) of volume change
Consolidation time
Tu Time factor
U Degree of consolidation/Pore pressure force
C Coefficient of secondary compression
av Coefficient of compressibility
<<
General Considerations 1
General
Considerations
<<
1
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
1.1. Introduction
Construction of earth embankments for engineering purposes
is as old as civilisation itself. Until the advent of soil mechanics,
the design and construction of embankments was more an art than
a science. Experience, intuition and engineering judgement no
doubt continue to play important part in the design of embankments,
but developments in soil mchanics have provided a framework
through which one can approach the subject in a rational manner.
In recent years, demands on the performance of earth structures
have become more exacting. Embankrnents are required to be
constructed on poor foundation materials with a wide variety of
soils, and to considerable heights. This has been rendered possible
only on account of advancements in soil mechanics which have
provided the means for quantitative analyses and rational designs.
<<
Soil Investigations 9
Soil
Investigations
<<
2
SOIL INVESTIGATIONS
2.2.2. Reconnaissance
2.2.2.1. Reconnaissance includes a review of available topo
graphic and geological information, aerial photographs and data
from previous investigations and site examination. Geophysical
methods could also be adopted for getting some idea about location
of boundaries of various types of strata.
2.3.6.2. The statistical relation between the liquid limit and the
compression index c~is given by the equation c~=0.0O9(LLIO).
This provides an alternative method of determining C~ where
consolidation test results are not available. For a normally
loaded clay of ordinary sensitivity, the value obtained by means
of this equation is accurate enough for most practical purposes.
However, if the clay is extra sensitive, the correct value of C~ ~S
likely to be higher than the computed one and if it is precompressed,
the correct value is considerably lower.
<<
So~ ~nvest~gationS
Name of Project
State ~. ~~ S 

 .
Section Iocation
Bore Hole ~
DaLe of ~   ~
1
 IWATER
ICONTENT/J
DEPTH PROHLE HELD IDENTIFICAT~N SHEAR STRENGTH kg/cm STANDARD PEt~TRATIONTEST[ LEGEND BULK DENSITY
FROM DESCRIPTION N0 OF BLOWS N EER
3
GL tP1~A5TtCUMITX
ILIQUIDUMITO TONNEIm
(m) 0 02 04 06 08 0 2 4 6 20 40 6C 2
. i i
0~ J.x 0
  LATERITIC FILL ~
~
I I 4~)~I
o
I
~
100 DARKGREYCLAYEY 
~ 
K
E HE E3 3
:: ~
~
EEH
SILT ~ ~3 ~ 0
400 ~  ~ ~ ~
~_ SAND CLAY
I
f~ ~
I o
500 \ ~
~ ~ x) ~
~ REDDISH BROWNISH ~ ) X~ 0
GRE VISH LATERITIC I
6O~O CLAYS AND SILT
~__
WITH PIECES OF
LATERITE I
,1~
14
700 ~ ~ x~o
VANETESTS I
s UU. IRA XAL
,w,~ROCK LIGHT GREY ~
j~

DOLERITE   ~~ 
Unconsolidated undrain
Mechanical Analysis ed* triaxial test at 95~
maximum densiy and
Sample Depth Field Specific ~oi~ure content of
R.L of Descrip
No. Gravel Sand Gravity +
sample tion
above .06 to
2mm 2mm cuu
0/ 0
10 /0 kg~cni~ Degrees
*Nole: If some other type of shear test has been adopted, the same should be specified here and the appropriate c and
values may be reported.
<<
Appendix 2. /
REQUiREMENTS FOR 1~I)rV~fL ~U1j~. DESC~~.AI~J
(1)
5)
0
>
5)
.~ U
on .~
~ ~ I U U Co
5) in
TEl U 5) en CU
Ce V
~ C On 11)
:~ ~
0000000000 00 0
Color2 0 00 U)
Odor
C ~ C Texture and structure 0 0000000 00
5) Dilatancy~ 000 000
Grain properties~ 0 00 0
(~22~ Plasticity 000000 00
C.?
Dry strength6 000000 00
<<
Appendix 2.1 (Continued)
0)
NOTES
1. Table borrowed from Foundation Engineering by Peck, Hanson and Thornburn.
2. The symbol 0 indicates the particular property that is relevant to the particular type of soil.
<<
28 Soil Investigations
AppendIx 2.2
<<
Soil Investigations 29
while lowering the sampler, precaution must be taken with samplers
~ntaining piston rod extensions to prevent an upward rise of the
piston.
(iii) Securing piston rods: Provide piston extension rods with
a positive locking device at ground surface, and securely lock piston
rods before sampling.
(iv) Penetration: Force the sample tube past the locked piston
by uninterrupted hydraulic pushing. Do not rotate sample tube
during downward movement.
(v) Length of penetration: Length of sample penetration should
never exceed length of sampler. For sampling tube of 20 mm ID
(without diameter), penetration should be exceeded 10 times ID for
cohesionless soils and 15 times ID for cohesive soils.
(vi) Withdrawal: After penetration, allow sampler to sit for
at least 10 minutes before withdrawal. Then rotate sample tub~
two to three revolutions and withdraw slowly using moderate up
ward pull on drill rod avoiding sudden acceleration, shock, or
vibration.
(vii) Tube removal: After withdrawing the sampler from the
hole, take care not to drop it on the ground. Remove the tube
from the sampler head without disturbing the sample.
(e) Sample preservation: The procedure for sample preserva
tion is as follows:
<<
Stability Analysis 31
Stability
Analysis
<<
3
SrABILITV ANALYSIS
PART A
3.1. General
3.1.1. Highway embankment instability may result from a
variety of causes~ and the modes of failure can be numerous.
Failures occur in almost every conceivable manner, slowly or
suddenly, and with or without any apparent provocation. Failures
within the body of the embankment may arise due to adoption of
incorrect design practices, poor fill materials, unsatisfactory con
struction methods and lack of quality control. Failures involving
foundation may occur due to insufficient consideration of the foun
dation conditions, inadequate subsoil investigations, or improper
implementation of the design solutions during construction.
Instability may also be caused by some excavation near or under.
cutting at the foot of the existing slope, gradual disintegr~ationof the
soil structure due to some reason, increase of pore water pressure
in an exceptionally permeable layer, or by a sudden shock which
liquefies the soil.
<<
34 Stability Analysis
3.2. Types of Failure
3.2.1. Most embankment failures occur in one of the follow
ing forms, depending on the type of strata and property of soil in
the embankment and foundation:
(i) Sliding of cohesionless material
(ii) Rotational failure
(iii) Planar and composite failure
(iv) Sinking failure
(v) Plastic squeezing of foundation soil
(vi~ Liquefaction of embankment and or foundation
<<
Stability Analysis 35
FAILUaE
to)
FIRM STRATUM
FAILURE
(c 1
Fig. 3.1 Rotational and composite failures
<<
Stability Analysis 37
_
under these conditions is given by the expression:
~ (an_U)
ian~Y
E~
where a,~denotes the total stress normal to the potential failure sur
face and u denotes the porewater pressure. The definition is the
same as that adopted by Taylor the factor of safety with respect to
shear strength, and is in accord with that enunciated earlier by
Fellenius (1927). It has the advantage of being applicable to circular
and noncircular slip surfaces alike without modifications and ope
rates directly on the relevant strength parameters. (Bishop &
Morgenstern, 1960).
void ratio, i.e. the density and the confining stress at which the
sand exists. For dry loose sands, as in case of dumped sand or
gravel, ~ is essentially equal to angle of repose. But slopes steeper
than angle of repose can be built in stable condition when the angle
of friction is improved by compaction in thin layers. It is important
to note that the angle of stable slope of cohesionless materials is
independent of the height which may be indefinite, Sand dunes
represent examples of natural slopes of varying height but constant
slope. Furthermore, weight of the material does not affect the
stability of slope, so that the safe angle for a submerged sand slope
is the same as that for a slope composed of dry sand, with the ex
ception of the special case of damp sand which has a high angle of
<<
Stability Analysis 43
repose due to capillary attraction. However limitation is imposed
on height by other considerations like base failure and erosion.
<<
44 Stability Analysis
way embankment problems it is sufficient to useapproximate methods
even though these may not fully satisfy the requirements of static
equilibrium. Guidance about calculations involved in applying the
different methods can be had from standard texts. The different
methods available are however reviewed broadly in this section.
Analysis in each case can be either by total stress analysis or
effective stress analysis.
035
Ty~piculcross section
and failure arc in
Zone A. Critical
circle passes
030 Case2 C ~e1 ~ through toe urd
U O~5.fl~
VOt~ i~L~S stability number
CQfl iderediriZn~ represented or chart
by toll lines.
C sot 1h0,riLsld n~o~ ittls~i~l ~
th ugh th toe r IinO~ h
Wote ill ~ii no do not ~p r, lbs Cu 5 rot
appreciably different tin n Cute 2
Case 2 Criro ci le p~ ri t no, ,e~ nfeU
try Ii rrg do bed hr sir ch I ore log oinhed hrres
0,25 do not appeal Its, cri ulc.role posses through
flip toe,
Case 3 ~ face of ledge o st tratwr, at the
elesatroir o the toe ID ~ II repreneirtait by shod
dashed roes Iii churL
liii II ill
~020
U
I i~iit tt1~~~L~
E +
~Frr~~=0and1
C
seeFg. ~
h~+ ~Li~
~ 0 t5
all
~:LU~Th1~U/~ I l~f
~? ~r
ft~
009
0
0 10
ft~
20 40 50 60
I
30 70 80 90
Skrpe angle i
<<
Fig. 32. Chart of stability numbers
46 Stability Analysis
0.I8n~
017
0.16
0.15
~ 0.14
40
.0
E
[
C
~ 0.13
a 
on
of)
0.11
0,09 1
1~tEH:1:t~ ~WH H H
1 2 3 4
Depth factor D
Fig. 3.3. Chart of stability numbers for the case of zero friction
angle and limited depth
<<
Stability Analysis 47
safety with reference to Fig. 3.4 is given by:
...Eqn. (3.13)
where h is the depth of the point in the soil mass below the soil
surface, and y is the bulk density of soil. The expression then
becomes:
2 a) tan .Eqn. (3.14) ~ . .
~Wsin~
![cI .
f W COS ~ (1 ~ sec
The recommended method of reco~dingthe calculations is given
in Table 3.1. A graphical approach to these calculations is also
available (Murthy 1974).
be in errol where the central angle a and the pore pressure factor r~
are large. The error increases with increasing values of o. and u.
However, it is on the conservative side. This is the reason why
engineers continue to prefer the conventional procedure. But in
large scale work and high emhankments, the conventional procedure
results in overdesign and uneconomical sections. In such situations,
* (a) The r
1~facior is 1 nearly related to factor of s~tlety F for range of r5
values from 0,0 to 0,7 usually cncrruntcred in engineering practice
(Btshop 1952, I 955, Bishop and Morgen~ic n, l9frO), The extra
ordinary advantage of this reIark:insli~pis that it gives an immediate
picture of the influence ofpore pressure (in factor of safety,,
(h) Generelly spea1~ing, r~is not conslailt atl along the slip surface.
<< but in most stability problems an average value can readily he
calculated and used with little loss of accuracy.
o CENTRE or ROTATION w
F ~Lcttw1~)t~n0i I
R
/
R
<<
TnI.Ie 3.1 C)
0~O
0)
0~
1 2 I 3 4 51 6 7 8 10 :~, 12 1, 13 15
4
S
1.
Weight of
the Slice 
Pore Water
Pressure
W sin (W ~
Factor
of safety
(W cos Col. 10 +Col. 14
0)
C 2 COSa sin b ul c~l~C05 2 2Ul) atu!) U)
E Average Weight Pore Pore (I)
Water Pressure
No. fit W fit. U
CD
<<
50 Stability Analysis
Bishops solution is preferable. This method also follows the
method of slices but in addition recognises the existence of side
forces on each slice. There are two versions of the Bishops method,
one rigorous and the other simplified. Both are reviewed below:
~
I tan a tan ~\
) .,Eqn. 3.17
...._...i{{~. Wti_~).~
1~~j.
(~ccNTnr oc ~OTA1iCN
/
/
4 j
:i: : :
I rr ~o
E ~ .~ ~ E
~
~
4O~3b ao io~ o
: .t~~r *o~ 20 30 40 5~ w ~d
<<
Table 3.2 01
1 2 3 4 5 ~1 7 8J 9 10 II 12 13 14
S Weight
L
I Sec ~
of the shea
C b h at sin at Wsina cb W(1.r~~)tan
~ S+9 sec ~ tan ~
tan d~tan a lOx 13
E Mean Weight F
No. Pr. W
4
0)
0)
U)
<<
Stability Analysis 53
In pi actical application of this method, as F a ppears on both
sides of the cci uation, F has to he assumed in advance and ma is to
he en teubated for this F. For this purpose, a chart is gisen in Fig.
3.5 wh cii provides ma for known values of a and fi and assumed F.
The factor of safety is worked out as (ol. (14) Col, (7) of Table 3,2.
This is compa red with the assumed value of F. If they do not agree,
a new v~ih.ieof F is assumed and the process repeated. The new
trial requires only additional subcolumns under columns 13 and 14.
Thus, after two or three trials, the correct factor of safety is evalua
led for this assumed fail ure surface. To obtain the factor of safety
for the slope, several failure surfaces has e to he tried,
woere iiia:::.::cos a / I +
tanatan~\) ...Eqn. 3.19
I $
,I I
t S
(a)
C; E~,
1
tsne:*~t5~.+
( b) Ic)
U a)
Cr)
In
0 ~ ~
zU
C 4
rf~ ~ 1~
a,
F 01
~Z (8)
<<
Stability Analysis
<<
Stability Analysis 57
right angles t the surface of the slope and several times the minor
xis, The centre of critical slip circle is usually located close to and
slightly abcs e the perpendicular bisector of the slope.
S .
2C tank(r ~
~\
2 ) ...Eqn. 3.21
<<
58 Stability Analysis
see Kenney (1956), Janbu (1956), Nonveilier (1965), Morgenstern
and Price (1965 and 1967). Of these, the method suggested by Janbu
(1956) is iccommended, since it permits easy band calculations
(refer Fig. 3.7). The expreaion for factor of safety, n ith reference
cb(Wub)tanf
to Fig. 3.7 is given by:
ZCJ
cos a
F=f, EWiana .. .Eqn. 3.25
F f..
~ p tan*~
b
SLOPE PROFILE
1.3
1.2
I
11 1 111 = = ~~5R~E~

l~1
5
C 1.0 11 Ii14,
0
I
_~1~
z
0 40 30 20 0 o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
I
C>0,~0>0
C,
(c) CALCULATION OF fl~
TABLE 34
0
U
c~O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
S
1 ,
~ ~t t&n~ p ii c taa~ stan. c(pu)tan* F~? c.(p
n
e 4
No. .
0.1 0.2
GEOMETRIC RATIO,
03
AC1i~E wU~E
SU~P~6~
P4SS~V! .t(
SOFT CL*O
FIRM STRASUM
<<
62 Stability Analysis
F= ...Eqn. 3.26
Similarly for equilibrium in terms of effective stress, factor of safety
is given by the expression:
F cL+(WU) tan 9Y
 ... E qn. 327
y h.~
2JV~1N~2C1z1 N~
~,,,i,
where PA= ~=.=~~ ...Eqn. 3.28
P~= N~+2C ~ h
N~=tan(45.4.~~2) ..~Eqn.3.30
W=the total weight hf the sliding block
U==u.L.
i~rr.thepore water pressure acting on the sliding block
q=surcharge, if any.
<<
Stability Analysis 63
...Eqn. 3.33
~~ ~ ...Eqn. 3.34
r PD i 2P4
The true squeezing failure will occur only for a limited range
of high values of WbD ratio. As the depth of the soft stratum in
creases, the W~/Dratio decreases and the failure is likely to be in a
different manner, such as by rotation.
ASSUMED EM~ANb(MENT
P~OPtLE
ACTUAL
1:
w C!)
SOFT CLAY U,
0 a.
~//~////~///.//T//
FIRM 5T~ATUM 0)
Fig. 3.9 Plastic squeezing of the foundation stratum (p
<<
Stability Analysis 65
up of excess hydrostatic pressure within the pore fluid bringing down
the value of effective stress to zero.
<<
66 Stability Analysis
. RESULTANT FQCE
/
/
ROLLEO 3tm
CINDR :.:..i.
~r.~r~
~ i ~# ~
SLIP CIRCLE
Fig. 3. 1. Improvement of stability by use of light weight
material and balancing berm
3.7.3. Removal of material likely to slip: One obvious
method of reducing the weight of soil causing a slip is to flatten
the slope as shown in Fig. 3.12(a) by either adding or removing
material.
The slipping surface of embankment is sometimes built up
oldifterent soil types, with a stronger and more frictional material
on top. In such circumstances, the weaker material can be trimmed
to a flatter slope to form a composite slope as shown in figure
312 (b).
PE?~OVt
(a)
Fig. 3.12. improving stability by removing material causing instability
Solution:
(a) Submerged Case
Fom Fig. 3.2 for f==45 degrees and ~=20 degrees
Stability Number= 0.062
 006~= = 
  buoyant
F~<~ XH F(21)xl2
F= =403 (safe)
<<
Stability Analysis 69
F
O.11x2x12
=1.138 (Just Safe)
(c) Normal Case with Embankment Saturated
For &=2Oand i=45,
Stability number=0.062,
O.062=~
Fx2x12
3
F=2.Ol (Safe)
Q3.2. (a) An instrumented test embankment, which could be
assumed to be homogeneous/with the foundation
soil saturated, was rapidly built to failure. The
geometry of the failed embankment and the loca
tion of failure surface, as measured at the time of
failure, are shown in Fig. 3.13. What was the value
of average undrained shear strength mobilised at
failure?
(b) Suggest an approach to determine the dimensions of
the berms which would provide an endofconstruc~
tion factor of safety of 1.3, if the embankment geo
metry, the placement specifications and the subsoil
profile, etc., remain unaltered?
Solution:
According to the question:
(a) The embankment could be considered homogene
ous with the foundation soil
(b) It was rapidly constructed and assumption Of satu
rated condition of the fill and the foundation is
justified
(c) The construction resulted in failure
Each of the three statements noted above has a vital message
to convey. An embankment, if it could be assumed to be homoge
neous with the foundation soil, implies that
(1) The stressdeformation behaviour of the fill and the
<<
70 Stability Analysis
~  ...    I    ~ ...
~ .............. rn ,~
~ I ~,,
,~
/ ~
;~, ;
4..orn . . . .
,/~ N
/ 

~
~ I
p
~
~

~~
~

).
~ I ~
rn.  .. ~. ~ ~ ~  ~
I ~
 ~... ... .  4__
,
a,

._~. .__i
1
p3
t
j
.~ .~. ~.
~,

, ~ 
P1)
 ... rn  ...
~ .. ~ ....
a. ,
~ ~
~
~
L ~...
I ~
~N1
.. ~ ~
o
H E T~TE I
   \ ~:\

~ ~ ~
~      ...
I
. . .~,
I
II I I I ~ ~ I L I I I I .1 I I
i~ x x
   .~ rn  rn
1
k
~
. i ~t
d
 . . . ,
II I I I ~ I II IIII I ~.

~
~4/
*
.
~
.. ~

..
.........

~
H I I I ~I~I I I I I I I ~~
<<
TABLE 3.5 C;)
4
a.
Slice h b r3 (W) W,~ 1
(m) Factor of Safety
No. (m) (in) T/m
>
RZ6u.1
1 1.0 0.8 1.8 2.736 8.9 24.35 3.1 F~
5 3.7 311.90
2.0 1.8 20.52 3.00 61.56 2.1 193.6 =.1.61 T/m
0.8 2.0
6 2.4 2.0 1.8 17.84 1.0 17.84 2.0
2.3 2.0 36595
2.8 1.8 16.856 1.4 23.8 2.9
7 0.9
2.2 2.0
<<
72 Stability Analysis
foundation material would be quite similar, meaning that
there would exist a reasonable straincompatibility between
the embankment and its foundation
This slip surface passes through layers of different unit weights and
different undrained shear strengths. For the convenience of calculat
ing weights and nett disturbing moments, the sliding mass enclosed
within the slip surface can be divided ii~to several triangles,
<<
Fig. 3 14
<<
Stability Analysis 75
<<
II.
0
114
115 IIG 56
.0 0 0 0
IIl
p
go
0
W~3
1g. ,.5l
a
1.17
0 O~~
Cl,
4
0,
C.
0,
C~IlTlCAL SLIP SURFACE,
ACTUAL SLIP SURFACE 0)
Fig. 3.15
<<
0
Table 3.6
>
RESISTING FQR~1 _______
DRIVING FORCE
SECTION
SECTION LENGTH I C~ ARM MOMENT
 ~ti.~) _____ U)
I ,. 2103 1lb
I 23SO 234 21
1501 5~45 2
p
802 205 85493 FACTOR OF SAFETYI 5i:~1.11
520
.4
.4
<<
78 Stability Analysis
Q. 34. (a) A railway embanl~mentis to be routed over tidal swamps
of the Little Rann of Kutch. The longitudinal subsoil
profile, based on preliminary borings, is shown in
Fig. 3.16 together with the proposed bank levels. For
design of embankment section, it is proposed to divide
th~entire embankment length into suitable zones within
which the depth of soft clay foundation could be assum
ed to be constant. A tentative proposal for one of the
zones is shown in Fig. 3.17. Examine the propQsal
from the stal~ility point of view assuming that the
entire embankment is to be placed in a single stage in
the shortest possible time.
<<
U,
r4
a)
~ 1200 ~ 0~
SOF~ CLAY 5CALE < ~
CLAY
STIFF
L~1_0 4 ~ *44,0
O~101000
6160, lob I
6*45 1 a)
~O3O 16 120 1 0 V 0 1 ~
cn
0,
lANA
F06M4tl0*
LI~LS
,JI4fl1!1~Tft+~ft0~UJ1~
~
000
1000 0
0
0
0 0
0
~L
0
4,
0
0
0
0
0
0 4,
0
0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0 0
4,
0
0 0
0 0
0
00000
00000 0
0 0
0
ill~kU
0000
00 041
0 0 0
01N4,~0l~N
00000
060IJNOLEV(L$ ~0_~ ~
~ ~ co.n,. n10 01.? .0 a 014,4 4*4 .04.0 ae.,Sw 5.
010 0401 0104,4,4,4,4, 4,4,4, 4,p4 4,0 InN to 4,014,4, 5.1 4,4,0 5)?
00000 0 0 0 1) 0 4 0 0 0 1; 00 000 00
CKAINAGt S 1 0 4, 10 5) to 04 01 .01.04,105) 5) 10 0) 4, 04 55
I Ft.. 60*11* 1 ~ In (0 0 10  N 4, 5401
0 0 0
0 0
0 #1. 1 Fr~. JOUNO
10
Fig. 3.16
<<
0
1~~LEH0.I V
I 91
2 6 2CM
2 845
3 .45
4 1.06
5 76
F  ~
o.amH 23 In
C,)
9
.7/___ fit ~ ~i/ ~ iii ~ iV ~ /i/~~. ~ ~ i/I ~_.  S... ~ (~  ~f __~. #uI I,, ~ 1,1  ~    
0)
9
STIV~ CLAY
Fig. 3,17
0,
(3
(I)
<<
Stability Analysis 81
Q.3.5 An embankment having uniform side slopes of 1.5 horizon
tal to I vertical was built at a very slow rate to a height of
6 m on rocky foundation with the provision ofa toe filter as
shown in Fig. 3.18. The average effective stress parameters
ot the embankment material (ra=2Tfm), were found to be
cs440 kg/rn and #32. Determine the stability of the
sliding mass in terms of effective stress using (a) Swedish Slip
Circle Method (b) Bishop Routine Method. Assume that the
pore water pressures along the potential slip surface are
governed by the steady state seepage flow net.
santion: The sliding mass could be divided into any finite
number of vertical slices. In the present case, the embankment
slope being uniform and its composition being homogeneous, seven
slices In all, Fig. 3.18, are considered adequate.
<<
82 Stability Analysis
00
.4
<<
(F,
P4
U)
cr
Swedish Shp Ctrcle Method
P4
~
lable 3.7 ~ W~n~
1 ci)
T~_1~FiI1i~i~1iiiL_
~ i~i WEIGHT OF PORE WATER 
0 ~Il( 12~ J_____
j ~*cTOP
U)
U)
3 221~3~S 36 0 0 0
95T66 ~
2 12 ~TQ ~A l13L 8 I ~2 ~ 80 ~ Si~ 54 810 66~ 142
~
3 ;2 92; ~0~12 12 2321603 2 2 4I~565 ~6i 2.27 ~7O
L~
A 31 054 013114 ~2 ~76 660 i.~2 32 IS~ 615 565 14 311!
L.~. ~ 
3 AO 746 ~ 415 12 270 647 102 11.02 159 685 297 415 338
 ~~~:~ ~ ~ ~.
6 51 629 771 101 l~2 2 AO 575 28 48 ~Z 81.0 362 441. 270
~ ~ ~J~i9L~ ~5345
~iTh___ ~174I ~237I
~ ~
0)
<<
____ sec~
Table 3.8
; A 9rs
t.
Wsdth ..~
I ~ EiI~=~ 1~ c~ ~
w < j~~f3Cb ~ (w~)3aW
F:~~
I
0 0 366x 6248~22B
~~_____ ~4
2 a (92 69 I2~ 208 92 790 84 ISI s2O1624e~ 33 409 (02 212 91 925 3725 35
~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ____ ~_~ i ~
3 12 252
6OS 220 375 227 530 (2 44 46!%5248~z2B7 34 078 404 875 09 297 305
~

 2L76 66
I
3~~5_34 530 32 58 62483143,a~t
~
~ ~ ~4 ~ ~
5 
12 27 647 40 643 4(6 530 (02 22 52SX624B~3.2~361 305 839 .555 .93 336 354
6 (2 24 575 771 444 530 046 575 ~624B~24377 589 (235 935 (0 351 377
7 09 (08 635 895 72 395 0 0 I~2X6248~i2 ~ 2241 200 (05 114 (68 62
1741 tO 3
~ 2~s75~22.S2
XtO~
21675 i2~ 2252
* IWub) tan ~ W(ru) tan ~V $I (7.4$ F~, X10
3= ~
<<
Stability Analysis 85
<<
86 Stability Analysis
f~~
~WxQa
METRE
0 5 10 ~~~ S
_~1
X482.5 X 52.39
O.Q =O~8X8~9 FI
Z ~896
Fig. 3.19
<<
Stability Analysis 87
IdE 4119
STIFF
SURFACE
N LLI
I 100 07! 211 6.75 51 2110
~0qP(8P0I4Dl~~G TO ~= 042
3 041 085 228 ~ 2 2 1589 9.06
AND P08 ((~~ 0>)
5 049 095 25 325 22 892 770
4 07.1 0 95 26.9 4 23 22 9.42 972
5 0.25 09 154 313 22 410 755
~ ~ ~ 9 102 ~511 29  IOR 950
F 21.07 s5.eA ROT 136
SS84
Fig~3.20
<<
88 Stability Analysis
tion of undrained shear strength almost at the same strain justifies
the use of average undrained shear strength values in the analysis.
Deeper failure surfaces need not be considered in view of the fact
that stiff clay extends to considerable thickness.
<<
Stability Analysis
89
P~tt~2
3~S(apt
70500
~ 9920
156
D20m i
p=eooo K~/m2
4 ~ ~ & ~ &L.
25 ~ 4I~~\ rl~M CLAY
t Ill 4.~~kiL~i~
Hz 4rii ~ 11 Cti~15OOK~/ m2
//~// / / // / / / / / / / ///I~
Based on the above criterion, thi~ anpi ied stress Slit uld not
exceed $500 kg m2. Using a 45 stress il stribution, one would huLl
that the applied stress intensity act ual works out a be (~00 i~a~ w~2
indicating possibilities of pernia nent ground deformation 10 ~
<<
92 Stability Analysis
Q.3.l0 A compacted fill 6.0 m height is placed on soft clay sub
strata with a sloping hard stratum underneath as shown in
Fig. 3.23. The properties of material are also shown
in the Fig.. Find the factor of safety by block sliding
method.
So}ution:
yh2 2Ch
1 ,~ ghi
~ ~2N~ ~rj~ z~
2C~/N~xh~fq.Nqk h7
2(45 ...f~/2)=tan2 12.5)
(45+
V~lFihI)==taa
=tan2 (57.5)
=(l .56969)2
=2.46
A~!e(subsoil)=tan2 (45 + 0)= 1
l.92~3.O~ ~x(l.921.0)x3.O2
~ 2~2.46 ~46
L92x3.02 + ~(47_1.0)~<3.52
2.46
2x2.93x3.5 8.52x3.5
 1.0 1.0
3,512+ l.682+7.02442.87820.5~+29.82=24.406 t/rn2
p~~ 3,02 x 1 +3.Ox LOx 3.5=4.5410.4=15.0 t/m2
~
<<
CD
0)
r0m 15
~4tk~~
RESULTANT OF NET PORE WATER PRESSURE
ACTIVE WEDGE k35rn ACTING ON THE TWO ENDS OF THE CENTRAL
WEDGE >
W~,H 0)
3.RESULTANT HORIZONTAL FORCE FROM WEIGHT
U)
OF CENTRAL WEDGE ii,
26 m
Fig. 3...!3 CO
<<
Settlement Analysis 95
Settlement
Analysis
<<
4
SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS
4.1. General
This chapter concerns itself with one particular mode of un
satisfactory behaviour that an embankment can be subjected to. The
reference is to detrimental settlement which is distinctly different
from other types of unsatisfactory behaviour such as those caused by
shear failure at the base of the embankment, sliding, lateral flow etc.
In the case of road embankments, especially on approaches to struc
tures such as bridges, settlements can cause problems of unacceptable
riding quality and heavier than usual maintenance due to the need
to make up levels with expensive bituminous coated material, It is,
therefore, essential to pay attention to this aspect on high embank
ments so that the postconstruction settlement is contained within
reasonable limits.
<<
98 Settlement Analysis
Because of the complexity of the mechanical properties of soils
and the dktuibin~i tifli~nceof stratification, settlements cannot be
accurately predicted except under exceptional conditions. Never
theless, a theoretical analysis of the stressdeformation phenomenon
is indispen~ab~e since the results permit the engineer to at least recog
nise the factors that determine the magnitude and distribution of
stresses and the resulting settlements. A knowledge of these factors
is a prerequisite for converting construction experience into semi
empirical rules for the design of ernbankments.
4.3.7. For clays which are normafly loaded and which are of
ordinary sensitivity, experience has shown that the Compression
index C~ is related to the liquid limit of the soil by the statistical
relationship C=O.009 (LLlO). It may, therefore, be prudent
to take advantage of this relationship to evalpate C~in case of
normally loaded clays without resorting to extensive consolidation
tests. However, consolidation tests would be necessary where the
embankment is built on deep deposits of soft clay and where both
marnitude and rate of settlement have to he determined to formulate
the method of foundation treatment and or the method of construc
tion. Consolidation tests would also be necessary in the case of
clays which are known to be overconsolidated or preloaded and
sometimes even to determine whether a clay is normally loaded or
preloaded. For over.consohidated clays, the C~value obtained from
laboratory consolidation tests is apt to be lower whereas for under
consolidated clays, the C~value obtained from laboratory consoli
dation tests is apt to be higher than for a normally consolidated
clay. The prediction of settlements using the C~value ignoring the
tact that the clay had been preconsolidated and treating it as
though it had been normally consolidated would result in an error
<<
102 Settlement Analysis
on the conservative side and the error may happen to be apprecia
ble if the degree of overconsolidation is particularly high.
<<
C/)
CD
.4
CD
3
CD
z 0
SI .4
SI >
20 CD
I
4 (I)
0
I
4 C,
0
0
I. ~~0iATI0NS
0 _______ U,
60
SI
mtt
SI
I,
Si
0 3:
Ili
~MPERVI0US Ut
I,
4 0~E~WAY TWOWAY
DRAINAGE DRAINAGE PORE PRt5SURE
> I I I III
4
001
0
CI,
104 Settlement Analysis
Degree of Consolidation, ~i
1 2 3 4
<<
Settlement Analysis 105
Degree of Consolidation, ,~
Time
Factor, 4~H
<<
106 Settlement Analysis
in which
t2==total elapsed time since load was applied to soil
<<
108 Settlement Analysis
4.5. Consolidation Settlenients visavis the Loading
4.5.1. The loading period is generally preceded by excav~don
and then the load is applied at a varying rate. Frequently, the
loading is approximated by a uniforni rate (Leonards. 1962) and
the settlement at the end of the loading period is assumed to he the
same as thai which would have resulted in half the loading period,
had all the load been applied at once. In priflc1ple, the rate of
primary consolidation can be calculated for any variation of load
ing to any degree of precision desired by splitting up the increasing
load into small increments, calculating the rate of settlement for
each increment independently, and adding the resulting values.
This approach is too cumbersome for practical purposes.
<<
Settlement Analysis 109
r*~6 r,,+3,~ ~. 9m 4 6
EXAMPLES
FIG. (C)
Fig. 4.2. Influence chart for vertical stress embankment loading infinite extent boussinesq case
<<
Settlement Analysis 111
<<
112 Settlement Analysis
nation. Some of the more important methods and variations of
each are discussed furtheron.
/27 7777~7)~7
I ~
tb~ r~~ii:~
StZC7lOP~S
Sabstrata
C,sO.2634 (from consolidation test result)
C.O.947x 10 cm/sec (_4o_)
Sp. gr. G2.67
dl.45 gm/cc
naO.486
Embaakmat Sell
y...a2.30 gmjcc
ya 2.08gm/cc
Determine (1) the total settlemeni
(ii) Time for total settlement
<< (iii) Settlement at the end oflyr.,2yrs.,3yrs.,4yrs,,
and S yrs.
116 Settement Analysis
Solution:
Assuming the worst case i.e. embankment to be saturated
and substrata as submerged.
y,~,for subsoil=(ln) Gy,~~ny~
=1.006 gmcc
2.671.45
1.45
=0.841
P
0= Yb x depth
=0.906x ~=h94 gm/cm2
2
L~P=y,~.
xh=2.30x400=1840 gm/cm
Total Sett1ement=H~log
10
1+e0 P0
0.2634
=427x 1+0.841 . log10 194+1840
194
=62.42/sec
cms.
=0.247 x 10
Cv~r0.247><10~cm
x 365 x 24 x 60 x 60 cm~/yr
=2985 cm2/yr.
to
Time Factor T= H2
Solution:
Initial void ratio, e
0=2.65x0.18=0.477
2
Initial load,
Initial thickness, P, =0.4
H=l.9 cmkg/cm
Change in thickness,~H=0.05cm
Final load, P=0.8 kg/cm2
MI
Change in void ratio, e= ~j~(l
e~)
= ~ (1.477)=0.034
Compression index, C~= ~
log Plog P
0
0.034
log 0.8log 0.4
<< 0.034
0.113
Solution:
C~0.009(L L 10)
=0.009 (45 l0)~ 0.315
c.
D1ogio~ .
L r(o L ~
=2.78x ~~=l.ll2
2.78+1.112
= xI 1=0.840 gm/cm3
=840 kgm3
=17.655 kgm2
Increase in pressure, AP= 12,000 kg/rn2
Average settlement,
0.315 rl7,6s5~12,000
 I 112 7.6 log
1 L_~~T~35
<< =0.24970 m
=24.97 cm
Settlement Analysis 119
Jf
1=~=l.25 cm.
500
~e. t,=(900). ~1.2 ~ seconds
=2960 days.
a
4
0 225 C)
CD
250 CD
CD
275o;
a,
TIME MINUTES (LOG SCALE) 0,
Fig. 4.4 U)
<<
Settlement Analysis 121
<<
Some Soil MechanicS 123
Considerations in the
Placement of Fill
5
Some Soil
Mechanics
Considerations
in the Placement
of Fill
<<
5
SOME SOIL MECHAN1C~CONSIDERATIONS IN THE
PLACEMENT OF FILL
<<
~26 Some Soil Mechanics Considerations
5.2.3. Altering the water content of the soil from the borrow
area before placement of soil is the only usual soil processing in
embankment construction. Water content is increased by spraying
water on the soil usually after it has been spread at the embank
ment site, and water content is reduced by scarifying the soil surface
at the borrow area and letting the water evaporate before soil is
transported to the embankment site.
<<
128 Some Soil Mechnics Considerations
(a)
t
z
w
0
t
z Energy reqd. to obtc.in
epec. Td (b)
U
z
9
I.
ti
0
0
mm. Woc
~ range
selected
WAlER CONIEN1 U3~.
5.5.2. Today (see Table 5.1) this fact is well recognised that
it is not possible to produce the ideal soil, having all the required
properties to the desired degree. When one gains on a particular
point, one loses on another. The process of choosing compaction
conditions is very much a problem in optimization. For a large
project, it should indeed be treated as an optimization prob
hem; for smaller projects, one still needs to define the desirable
set of soil properties and in a qualitative fashion, choose compaction
conditions to achieve these properties. From construction angle,
it is not practical to specify single moisture content or density
and a tolerance is generally necessary. Since the moisturedensity
curve has greater steepness on the wet side, greater tolerance is
allowed on drier side than on wetter side. That is why the pre
valent specifications (e.g. IRC 36Recommended Practice for the
Construction of Earth Embankment for Road Works) stipulate
moisture content2 to + I per cent of OMC. For highly expansive
clays, the situation is somewhat different and compaction is usually
done wet of optimum to avoid large swelling in service.
<<
Field Controls and 133
Observational Method
of Embankment Design
Field Controls
and Observatio
nal Method of
Embankment
Design
<<
6
FIELD CONTROLS AND OBSERVATIONAL METHOD
OF EMBANKMENT DESIGN
3
1. Gradation/sand content IS: 2720 Pt. lv  of test per 8000 m
12soil
2. Plasticity index IS: 2720 Pt. V do
3. Standard Proctor Test IS: 2720 Pt. VII do
4. Deleterious constituents IS: 2720 Pt. XXVII As required
5. Natural molatrc ~pntent IS: 2720 Pt. II One test per 250 m
of soil
6. Natural dry density IS: 2720 Pt. XXVIII do
n
CD
0.
SOFT lOst. C)
04
C
0
U)
Pi9zom*tarl 0)
4 a
0
0~
U,
e*OIAS~ CD
0)
4
0
0)
Fig. 6.1 Installation of devices used i~m~a;uringembankment and foundation soil movement CD
.4
:,.
0
a.
<<
CD
a
C)
0
I
.4
~1
0
U)
0)
V
I 0
a
.~1
Pig ?~t)Lo~a!ionoc hc~vc
(~ ~ for ~ f~uiu~~
(0
<<
140 Field Controls and Observational Method
length driven into ground with a horizontal cross piece on the top.
Reference marks are put on the vertical and horizontal surface of
the stake to aid observations about the vertical and horizontal
movements. Fig. 6.3. illustiates a simple heave stake. It can have
many differt.~ntdesigns, Alternatively, 50x 50x75 mm timber pegs
driven into ground and surrounded by concrete may also serve the
purpose.
IOXIOOXI000S?AKI
1_i
cCRouND_LEVIL
~ ~ ._~ ~ ~
_________________ ___________
~
.Iioo ~ .1101.
<<
Field Controls and Observational Method 141
Piez~meters
6.2.8, Piezometers are used to measure the hydrostatic or excess
air Or fluid pressure in the pores of saturated or unsaturated soils. A
knowledge of these neutral~stressesis very helpful in controlling the
rate of construction and in analysing the stability of embankment and
its settlement, There are four basic types of piezometers (a) open
stand pipe (b) hydraulic (c) pneumatic and (d) electric. Of these
type (a) is the simplest and most common in use. Fig. 6.6. (a) and
(b) show typical installation of piezometers.
Incilnometers
6.2.9. These consist essentially of a flexible pipe embedded
vertically in the embankment with an inclinometer probe which is
lowered into the flexible casing. The inclination developed in the
<<
i 42 F~!d Contr~g and ObservatjonaJ Method
I
1~IE
~ Ji~
~OI~ PIU TNRIADED
J
~
~1T
H l5O~d
_~j ~ ~T~Et. WEJ.0141 FLANaI VON $o$W PIPE
_J;io ~ lOX ~TUL PLATE
~ 0511 1
i~
ha~cs~tt(ement platform
64 i~a)S~~el
SIJ~A~E
 ~OFfl_L
SM ~S jJ
~~~RED
401dM 011
FLU5H401p41 PIPE
ISM
ORIGINAL GROUND
SURFACE
CU
m ___. ~t1m,, 0
T
3
Fig. 6,5 Typical cross section ofearth embankment with instrumentation a)
Notes:l. Piezometers and vertical settlement gauge should be staggered longrtudinally to avoid interference with CD
each other, 3.
2. All instruments to be protected by chamber of approximate size 30 cmx3O cmx45 cm depth where 0
a.
necessary.
<<
144 Field Controls and Observational Method
SCREW CAP OR SCREW CAP OR
C WOODEN PLUG
L~000~ PLUG
 CEMENT/SAND ~7~CEMENT/SAND
OR PUDDLED j OR PUDDLED
CLAY BACKFILL CLAY BACKFILL
4 BACKFILL
T
0Gm _PUDOLED CLAY
BACKFILL
PERFORATED
r SAND OR SAND
1
0 Gm
WOODEN
_PUDDLED CLAY
PLUG
Fig. 6.6 (a) DetaIls of an open stand pipe s ater level recorder
10mm TUBING
SEAL
ID FILTER
<<
Pield Controls and Observational Method 145
<<