IRC:75-2015

Guidelines for the Design of

High Embankments

(First Revision)

Published by:

INDIAN ROADS CONGRESS

Kama Koti Marg,
Sector-6, R.K. Puram,
New Delhi-110 022
June, 2015

Price : ` 935/-
(Plus Packing & Postage)
IRC:75-2015

First Published : October, 1979

First Revision : June, 2015

(All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication shall be reproduced,

translated or transmitted in any form or by any means without the
permission of the Secretary General Indian Roads Congress)
IRC:75-2015

Contents

S. No. Description Page No.

Personnel of the General Specifications and Standards Committee i-ii
Introduction 1
1. General Considerations 3
2. Geotechnical Investigations 7
Annexure 2.1 Requirements for Adequate Soil Description 20
Annexure 2.2 Important Instructions for Obtaining Undisturbed Samples: 22
Annexure 2.3 Geophysical Characterization for Design of High Embankments 24
3. Stability Analysis 26
4. Settlement Analysis 59
5. Ground Improvement 72
Annexure 5.1 Additional Ground Improvement Methods 85
6. Instrumentation and Monitoring of Embankment on Soft Soils 87
Appendix A Solved Examples 101
References 126
IRC:75-2015

PERSONNEL OF THE HIGHWAYS SPECIFICATIONS

AND STANDARDS COMMITTEE
(As on 12th January, 2015)

1. Das, S.N. Director General (Road Development) &

(Convenor) Special Secretary to Govt. of India, Ministry of
Road Transport & Highways, New Delhi.
2. Addl. Director General, Ministry of Road
(Co-Convenor) Transport & Highways, New Delhi.

3. Prasad, Vishnu Shankar Chief Engineer (R) S,R&T, Ministry of Road
(Member-Secretary) Transport & Highways, New Delhi.
Members
4. Basu, S.B. Chief Engineer (Retd.), MORTH, New Delhi
5. Bongirwar, P.L. Advisor, L & T, Mumbai
6. Bose, Dr. Sunil Head, FPC Divn. CRRI (Retd.), Faridabad
7. Duhsaka, Vanlal Chief Engineer, PWD (Highways), Aizwal (Mizoram)
8. Gangopadhyay, Dr. S. Director, Central Road Research Institute, New Delhi
9. Gupta, D.P. DG (RD) & AS (Retd.), MORTH, New Delhi
10. Jain, R.K. Chief Engineer (Retd.), Haryana PWD, Sonipat
11. Jain, N.S. Chief Engineer (Retd.), MORTH, New Delhi
12. Jain, Dr. S.S. Professor & Coordinator, Centre of Transportation Engg.,
Dept. of Civil Engg., IIT Roorkee, Roorkee
13. Kadiyali, Dr. L.R. Chief Executive, L.R. Kadiyali & Associates, New Delhi
14. Kumar, Ashok Chief Engineer (Retd.), MORTH, New Delhi
15. Kurian, Jose Chief Engineer, DTTDC Ltd., New Delhi
16. Kumar, Mahesh Engineer-in-Chief, Haryana PWD, Chandigarh
17. Kumar, Satander Ex-Scientist, CRRI, New Delhi
18. Lal, Chaman Director (Project-III), NRRDA (Ministry of Rural
Development), New Delhi
19. Manchanda, R.K. Consultant, Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats
Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi
20. Marwah, S.K. Addl. Director General, (Retd.), MORTH, New Delhi
21. Pandey, R.K. Chief Engineer (Planning), MORTH, New Delhi
22. Pateriya, Dr. I.K. Director (Tech.), NRRDA, (Ministry of Rural Development),
New Delhi

i
IRC:75-2015

23. Pradhan, B.C. Chief Engineer (NH), PWD, Bhubaneswar

24. Prasad, D.N. Chief Engineer (NH), RCD, Patna
25. Rao, P.J. Consulting Engineer, Faridabad
26. Raju, Dr. G.V.S. Engineer-in-Chief (R&B), Rural Roads, Director Research
and Consultancy, Hyderabad
27. Representative of BRO (Shri B.B. Lal), ADGBR, HQ DGBR, New Delhi
28. Sarkar, Dr. P.K. Professor, Deptt. of Transport Planning, School of
Planning & Architecture, New Delhi
29. Sharma, Arun Kumar CEO (Highways), GMR Highways Limited, Bangalore
30. Sharma, M.P. Member (Technical), NHAI, New Delhi
31. Sharma, S.C. DG (RD) & AS (Retd.), MORTH, New Delhi
32. Sinha, A.V. DG (RD) & SS (Retd.), MORTH, New Delhi
33. Singh, B.N. Member (Projects), NHAI, New Delhi
34. Singh, Nirmal Jit DG (RD) & SS (Retd.), MORTH, New Delhi
35. Vasava, S.B. Chief Engineer & Addl. Secretary (Panchayat) Roads &
Building Dept., Gandhinagar
36. Yadav, Dr. V.K. Addl. Director General (Retd.), DGBR, New Delhi
37. The Chief Engineer (Shri Kaushik Basu), MORTH, New Delhi
(Mech.)
Corresponding Members
1. Bhattacharya, C.C. DG (RD) & AS (Retd.), MORTH, New Delhi
2. Das, Dr. Animesh Professor, IIT, Kanpur
3. Justo, Dr. C.E.G. Emeritus Fellow, 334, 14th Main, 25th Cross, Banashankari
2nd Stage, Bangalore
4. Momin, S.S. Former Secretary, PWD Maharashtra, Mumbai
5. Pandey, Dr. B.B. Advisor, IIT Kharagpur, Kharagpur

Ex-Officio Members
1. President, (Bhowmik, Sunil), Engineer-in-Chief,
Indian Roads Congress PWD (R&B), Govt. of Tripura
2. Honorary Treasurer, (Das, S.N.), Director General
Indian Roads Congress (Road Development), & Special Secretary to Govt. of
India, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways
3. Secretary General, Nahar, Sajjan Singh
Indian Roads Congress

ii
IRC:75-2015

Guidelines for the Design of

High Embankments

INTRODUCTION

IRC:75, “Guidelines for the Design of High Embankments” has been prepared to assist
technical personnel in Highway engineering profession possessing a basic knowledge of
Geotechnical Engineering to solve numerical problems of embankment design and to identify
problems which will call for services of Geotechnical specialists. These will be of special
interest and use to Engineers who have to build embankments in routine circumstances.
The guidelines deal with a wide spectrum of issues including general design considerations,
sub surface and borrow area investigations, laboratory testing , stability analysis, settlement
computation , quality control , construction alternatives, instrumentation etc. Detailed design
procedures that are easily available in text books are not repeated. Earth Embankments are
included but not embankments consisting of rock- fill.
IRC:75 was first published in 1979. Considering the new concepts developed in design of high
embankments since the earlier publication it was decided to revise the design guidelines. A
sub group was constituted by H4 committee with experts in the field of Road Embankment
design .The convener of the subgroup was Mr. P.J. Rao, other members were, Mr. Sudhir
Mathur , Mr. Guru Vittal, Ms.Minimol Korulla, Ms. Atasi Das , Mr. Saurabh Vyas , Mr. Atanu
Adhikari and Ms. Anusha Nandavaram. After many deliberations in H-4 committee on the
modifications incorporated in IRC:75 clauses, the draft document was submitted to HSS
committee and the same was discussed during the meeting on 12th January 2015. The HSS
committee recommended to place the document in council conducted in Bhubaneswar on 19th
January 2015 with few suggestions for modifications. The subgroup modified the document
as per the HSS recommendations and submitted the document to Council. On 19th January
2015, the document was approved by the council for printing.
The composition of the H-4 Committee is as given below:
Kumar, Mahesh -------- Convenor
Rao, P.J. -------- Co-Convenor
Guruvittal, U.K. -------- Member-Secretary

Members
Bagli, Shahrokh P. Khan, Ms. Shabana
Chand, Faqir Korulla, Mrs. Minimol
Gajria, Maj. Gen. K.T Kumar, Jaswant
Gupta, A.K. Kumar, Satander
Gupta, Sanjay Lal, B.B.
1
IRC:75-2015

Jain, N.S. Jain Mathur, Sudhir

Jain, Naresh Chand Mazumder, Prof. S.K.
Jalota, Dr. A.V. Mishra, Digvijay
Pandey, Dr. V. Sen, Samiran
Pradhan, B.C. Shahu, Dr. J.T.
Ranjan, Gopal Sreedhar, G.
Sangal, M.M. Verma, M.S.
Seehra, Dr. S.S.

Corresponding Members
Madhav, Prof. M.R. Rao, Dr. G.Venkatappa
Rajagopal, Dr. K. Thomas, Dr. Jimmy

Ex-Officio Members
President, (Bhowmik, Sunil), Engineer-in-Chief,
Indian Roads Congress PWD (R&B), Govt. of Tripura
Honorary Treasurer, (Das, S.N.), Director General
Indian Roads Congress (Road Development) & Special
Secretary to Govt. of India, Ministry of
Road Transport & Highways
Secretary General, Nahar, Sajjan Singh
Indian Roads Congress

In brief, the major modifications incorporated in the present document compared to the
earlier one are the following: (a) Design of high embankments for seismic conditions.
(b) Liquefaction analysis and control measures. (c) Various types of ground improvement
that are being widely followed are presented. (d) Instrumentation and monitoring is discussed

2
IRC:75-2015

Chapter-1

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

1.1 Introduction
A structure of earth, gravel, light-weight material, etc. raised to prevent water from overflowing
a level tract of land and to carry a roadway is called an embankment. For the purpose of
guidelines, the terminology “high embankment” refers to a raised structure of height 6 m and
above built for the purpose of road transportation. It consists of a series of compacted layers
or lifts of suitable material placed on top of each other until the level of the subgrade surface
is reached. The subgrade surface is the top of the embankment and the surface upon which
the sub-base, base and pavement layers are placed.
Though the guidelines specifically indicates “high embankments” as those exceeding 6 m in
height, embankments of any height less than 6 m founded on soft/compressible and/or loose
strata are also considered as high embankments here. Design methodologies discussed
herein apply for such cases also.
High embankments within the road networks are mostly joining to various types of structures
such as bridges, vehicular/pedestrian underpasses, etc. apart from the requirement of
geometric alignment due to right-of-way constraints, subsoil issues, etc.

1.2 General Considerations in Design

1.2.1 Most problems of embankment design and construction can be divided into three
categories:
a)
Routine cases such as embankments constructed over firm or reasonably
favourable ground, using sand, gravel and other approved suitable fill
materials.
b)
Special cases where the difficult ground extends over a limited length; soft
foundation layer/loose stratum exist for a shallow depth; or the embankment
fill material is relatively un-favorable such as clays or organic material.
c)
Exceptional cases in which embankments are routed over long distances on
marine clays, tidal swamps, peats, creeks, floodplains, etc., where conditions
could be critical in causing instability, and post-construction settlement might
assume serious proportions and/or strata is expansive in nature exhibiting
swelling characteristics/liquefaction potential due to the occurrence of loose
soil at or up to deeper depths.

1.2.2 In all the above situations, failure of embankments generally takes place by one of
the following modes:
i) Slip circle failure through the slope or through slope and base;
3
IRC:75-2015

ii) Block sliding over weak soil strata in the foundation;

iii) Plastic squeezing;
iv) Liquefaction induced failure of embankment and foundation soil;
v) Excessive and uneven settlement of embankment and foundation soil;
vi) Erosion of embankment;
vii) Instability and scouring in vicinity to water bodies/rivers/ponds;
viii) Collapse due to inadequate drainage;
ix) Overtopping and subsequent washout by flood water.
A design cannot be considered as complete unless safety against failure by all the above
modes is ensured. However, before actually embarking on design of the embankment, a
designer must give due consideration to “engineering” and “economic” factors involved in
design.

1.3 Engineering Consideration in Design

1.3.1 Each earth embankment is unique by itself since engineering considerations which
determine the design of embankments are different for each situation. Some of the specific
engineering considerations are:

i) Foundation conditions
Foundation conditions differ from site to site. The nature of the foundation material has a
significant influence on the design of the embankment. For example, embankments resting
on hard or favorable ground need to be analyzed essentially for slope failure. On the other
hand, embankments resting on soft ground have to be analyzed not merely for slope stability,
but also for base stability and anticipated settlement.
Also, if a thick layer of weak clay is sandwiched between stronger layers; a wedge failure
across the weak layer will be more likely and design procedure must be tailored accordingly.
An inclined hard stratum at shallow depth may indicate slippage along the stratum slope.
It is, therefore, essential that the soil profile below a proposed embankment should be
investigated carefully and the physical and engineering properties of the subsoil be determined
properly by in-situ and/or laboratory tests.
In case of embankments, bearing capacity problems assume significance if the embankment
is resting on soft clay. The consideration for evaluating bearing capacity and settlement has
been dealt with in the publication IRC:113 “Guidelines for the Design and Construction of
Geosynthetic Reinforced Embankments on Soft Sub-soils”.

ii) Materials available at site

A highway embankment, like all civil engineering structures is founded on earth. The only
difference is that the structure also consists of earth fill. While building embankments,
one has to consider, for economic reasons to use fill material available near the site. The
4
IRC:75-2015

variables that the designer can control are the water content of fill material during compaction,
the amount of compaction, rate of loading and type of compaction. Choice of placement
variables determines the density and structure of the compacted fill and in turn determines
the engineering properties of the compacted fill.

iii) Other considerations

In addition to the above, several other parameters like climatic conditions, seismic effect,
nature of loads, acceptable performance criterion such as global stability, settlements,
bearing capacity and the time available for construction should be considered for design.

1.3.2 When designing a highway embankment over difficult foundation conditions, the
designer may have to consider one or more of the following solutions:
• Ground Improvement by replacement of poor sub soil
• Provision of proper surface and subsurface drainage
• Provision of suitable erosion control measures
• Construction of embankment with berms
• Use of light weight material for subsoil/fill material for embankment
construction
• Chemical stabilization
• Stage construction
• Preloading
• Sub soil stabilization by Prefabricated Vertical Drains (PVDs) or stone
columns
• Basal reinforcement or Basal mattress
• Dynamic compaction
• Displacement of weak subsoil by surcharge weight or blasting
• Embankment fill supported on piles
• Pile Supported basal reinforced embankments
• Mitigation measures for expansive soil with swelling characteristics
• Mitigation measures for liquefiable soils
If one or more of the above solutions do not make the high embankment construction viable,
then alternatives such as viaducts, relocation of alignment, etc. may be considered.
1.3.3 The different solutions should be evaluated objectively at the planning stage
itself keeping in view the construction and maintenance costs, ecological and environmental
effects, time available for construction, availability of fill soil and the right of way limitations.
This can be possible only if the initial investigations recognize the various possibilities and
5
IRC:75-2015

consider all the pros and cons before a final decision has been taken about the final route
alignment.
1.4 In the present guidelines, attempt has been made to address the designer’s
queries in a concise form within the chapters themselves.
Chapter 2: “Geotechnical Investigations” provides guidance on the selection of the field
and laboratory investigations including geophysical investigations with advantages and
limitations, which are necessary and appropriate for the design and construction of the high
embankment.
Chapter 3: “Stability Analysis and Seismic Considerations” focuses on slope stability
analyses taking into account earthquake forces and evaluation for liquefaction potential and
corresponding design inputs and related considerations.
Chapter 4: “Settlement Analysis” addresses design inputs and major considerations for
computation of settlement.
Chapter 5: “Ground Improvement” covers various methods in brief.
Chapter 6: “Instrumentation and Monitoring of Embankment” on soft soil deals with the
instrumentation techniques available for the monitoring of embankment constructed on soft
foundation strata.
1.5 Complete design and construction of highway embankment requires supplementary
inputs as indicated below. For details of these requirements reference may be made to the
documents mentioned therein.
• Selection and testing of fill materials, compaction and quality control-Ref.
MORTH: Specifications for Roads and Bridge works Section 900
• Erosion control of slopes covered in IRC:56 “Recommended Practices for
Treatment of Embankment and Roadside Slopes for Erosion Control” (First
Revision). Also refer MORTH Section 300
• IRC:34 “Recommendations for Road Construction in Areas Affected by Water
Logging, Flooding and/or Salt Infestation”.
• IRC:SP:42 “Guidelines on Road Drainage”.
1.6 Unconventional materials beyond the range specified by MORTH are
increasingly coming into use, during the past few years, in the construction of highway
embankments. Such materials include waste of mines of different ores and also fly ash from
different thermal power plants etc., in all such cases it is desirable to take the advice of
Geotechnical Engineer.

6
IRC:75-2015

Chapter 2

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS

2.0 This chapter contains information related to soil exploration planning, methods and
techniques including use of test pits, test borings, penetrometers and geophysical methods.
Also presented is information on methods of sampling, measuring in situ properties of soil
and rock, and field measurements. This chapter also covers laboratory test procedures,
typical test properties, and the application of test results to design and construction of high
embankments.

2.1 Planning For Field Investigations

The initial phase of field investigations shall consist of detailed review of project details,
geological conditions at the site and in its general environs. This should include a desk study
of available data including aerial photography, and field reconnaissance. The information
obtained should encompass the following and should be used as a guide in planning the
exploration.

Project details
• Plan and profile drawing of the project along with general cross-sections.
• The maximum height of the embankment.

Site specific details

• The nature, thickness and variation of soil strata along length of embankment.

• Procuring representative samples for assessing the physical properties of

the soil strata encountered.

• The seasonal variations in ground water table and their possible effects on
the soil parameters

• Properties including range of values of shear strength and compressibility of

soil layers.

2.2 Exploration Phases

Project geotechnical exploration can generally have four phases:

i) Reconnaissance/feasibility exploration;
ii) Preliminary exploration;
iii) Detailed/final exploration; and
iv) Construction/post construction phases.
7
IRC:75-2015

Additional exploration may be required during construction. Frequently, all preconstruction

phases are combined into a single exploration effort.
Further, the geotechnical exploration includes embankment foundation or subsurface
investigation, embankment fill materials or soils and materials investigation.
i) Reconnaissance/feasibility
Reconnaissance includes a review of available topographic and geologic information, aerial
photographs, data from previous investigations, and site examination. Geophysical methods
are applicable in special cases. Reconnaissance/feasibility frequently reveal difficulties which
may be expected later in exploration phases and assists in determining the type, number and
locations of borings.

ii) Preliminary exploration

This may include borings to recover samples for identification tests only.

iii) Detailed exploration

This phase normally includes borings, disturbed and undisturbed sampling for laboratory
testing, standard penetration resistances, and other in situ measurements. At critical sites it
may also include test pits, piezometer measurements, permeability test, other in-situ tests
like pressure meter etc.

iv) Construction/post construction phases

Further evaluation of embankment foundation conditions may be required during the
construction phase. Monitoring of the site or structure may be necessary throughout the
construction and post construction phases.

2.3 Embankment Foundation or Subsurface Investigation

The objective of subsurface investigation is to determine the suitability of the soil or rock
for the embankment foundation. Soil borings are the most common method of subsurface
exploration in the field. Guidance may be taken from the following Codal provisions.
i) IS 1892 – Code of Practice for Subsurface Investigation for Foundations may
be utilized for guidance regarding investigation and collection of data.
ii) Tests on soils shall be conducted in accordance with the relevant part of IS
2720 – Methods of Test for Soils. The tests on undisturbed samples shall
be conducted as far as possible at simulated field conditions to get realistic
values.
iii) IS 1498 – Classification and Identification of Soils for General Engineering
Purposes. May be referred to the extent required for the purpose of
embankment design. The data from subsoil investigation shall be plotted in
a tabular form along with the subsoil profile.
8
IRC:75-2015

A. Boring methods.
A common method of exploring sub surface conditions is by drilling exploratory borings along
the proposed alignment. Shallow borings can be made with light weight hand operated augers
while the deep borings can be made by adopting power driven rotary drilling or wash boring
or percussion drilling depending on the sub soil conditions and requirements. The diameter
of casing shall not be less than 150 mm diameter for boring up to the level of rock

B. Boring depth.
The boring depth is controlled to a great degree by the characteristics and sequence of the
subsurface materials encountered.

C. Boring layout.
As a general guideline, for bridge approaches, where the extent of the high embankment
is limited to 1 km or less, a minimum of three boreholes shall be drilled; where the extent
is more than 1 km, one borehole per kilometer shall suffice in general conditions. For soft/
incompressible and/or loose subsurface (as noted in Tables 2.1 and 2.2), the intermediate
spacing of boreholes within a kilometer shall be left to the judgment of the Engineer-in-
charge.
General guidelines while deciding on the boring layout are given below:
1) Provide three borings in staggered way (BH1, BH2 and BH3 in Fig. 2.1)
across the Critical section. Where detailed settlement, stability, or seepage
analyses are required, include a minimum of two borings to obtain undisturbed
samples of critical section for cohesive soil. Undisturbed samples may be
collected as required for the tests
2) Boreholes to be so located to obtain geological profile in transverse direction.
For design of high embankment the following general layout shall be followed additionally
where subsoil conditions differ, criteria for depth of boring are given in general termination
criteria.

BH 1

BH 4

BH 6

BH 2

BH 5

BH 3

CRITICAL
SECTION

Fig. 2.1 General Boring Layout for High Embankments

9
IRC:75-2015

Termination Criteria:
Depth of borehole shall normally be twice the height of embankment from the existing ground
level. The boreholes shall be terminated at a lesser depth if rock is encountered or refusal
(N-value > 50) is met for two consecutive values of SPT conducted at an interval of 1.5 m.
Further guidelines are provided below on site investigation while deciding on the termination
depth of the boring.
i) The soil investigation shall start from 0.5 m depth from existing ground
level. This will enable to collect soil samples from top and determine their
properties.
ii)
Unsuitable Foundation Strata: All borings shall extend through unsuitable
foundation strata, such as unconsolidated fill; peat; highly organic materials;
soft, fine-grained soils; and loose, coarse-grained soils to reach hard or
compact materials of suitable bearing capacity, which may extend to a depth
beyond twice the height of embankment
iii)
Fine-Grained Strata: Extend borings in potentially compressible fine-
grained strata of great thickness to a depth where stress from superposed
load is low that consolidation of lower layers will not significantly influence
surface settlement.
iv)
Compact Soils: Where stiff or compact soils are encountered at shallow
depths, extend boring(s) through this material to a depth where the presence
of an underlying weaker stratum cannot affect stability or settlement.
Method of Sampling From Borings
The size of the bores shall be chosen so that samples as required for the various types of
tests are obtained. The method of taking samples shall be as given in IS 1892 and IS 2132.
The tests on the samples shall be conducted as per relevant part of IS 2720.
The number and type of samples to be collected/recovered depend on the stratification and
material encountered.
a)
Disturbed samples: These are the hand, auger and wash samples and
are primarily used for identification and soil classification tests. Take
representative disturbed samples at vertical intervals of not less than 1.5 m
and at every change in strata.
b)
Undisturbed samples: These are collected in thin walled (also called
Shelby tube) sampling tube and are taken primarily for laboratory strength
and compressibility tests and in those cases where the in-place properties
of the soil must be studied. Normally, sampling (disturbed and undisturbed)
shall be carried out alternatively at an interval of 1.5 m or change of strata
whichever is earlier.
10
IRC:75-2015

Points to be noted for soil sampling:

• Undisturbed samples should comply with the following criteria: they should
contain no visible distortion of strata, or cracks or softening of materials;
specific recovery ratio (length of undisturbed sample recovered divided by
length of sampling push) should exceed 95 percent; and they should be
taken with a sampler with an area ratio (annular cross-sectional area of
sampling tube divided by full area of outside diameter of sampler) less than
15 percent.
• Undisturbed samples in cohesive soil strata may be obtained such a way
that there is at least one representative undisturbed sample in each boring
for each 3 m depth.
• Relatively undisturbed cohesive and C-φ sample can be recovered by using
Open tube thin walled sampler (IS: 2132). Detailed specifications of the
sampler can be obtained from IS: 11594.

Additional cautions include the following:

1) Caving: Use casing or viscous drilling fluid to advance borehole, if there is
danger of caving. If groundwater measurements are planned, drilling fluid
should be of the revert type.
2) Above Groundwater Table: When sampling above groundwater table,
borehole shall be maintained dry whenever possible.
3)
Below Groundwater Table: When sampling below groundwater table,
borehole shall be maintained full of water or drilling fluid during cleanout,
during sampling and sample withdrawal, and while removing cleanout tools.
Where continuous samples are required, casing should remain full for the
entire drilling and sampling operation.
4) Soft or Loose Soil: Collection of sample in the same sampling tube shall
be avoided, when the sample is collected from a soft or loose soil directly
below a stiff or compact soil in the same tube should be avoided. Discontinue
driving of sample tube when a sudden decrease in resistance occurs.

2.3.1 Characterization of Sub-soil (Embankment Foundation) by In-situ Tests:

Several in-situ tests define the sub-soil and obtain direct measurements of soil properties
and geotechnical parameters. The common tests include: Standard Penetration (SPT), Static
Cone Penetration Test (SCPT), Pressuremeter Test (PMT), and Vane Shear Test (VST).
Each test applies different loading schemes to measure the corresponding soil response in
an attempt to evaluate material characteristics, such as strength and/or stiffness. Fig. 2.2
depicts these various devices. Brief descriptions of these tests are given in the subsequent
sections and details are provided in relevant standards.
11
IRC:75-2015

Fig. 2.2 Schematic Representation of various In-situ Tests

2.3.1.1 Penetration resistance tests

The most common test is the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) which measures resistance
to the penetration of a standard sampler in borings. The method is rapid and when tests are
properly conducted in the field, they yield useful data, although there are many factors which
can affect the results. A more controlled test is the cone penetrometer test in which a cone
shaped tip is jacked from the surface of the ground to provide a continuous resistance record.
i) Standard Penetration Test (S.P.T) (IS: 2131).
This test provides an indirect measure of shear strength and is especially suitable when
undistributed samples cannot be extracted from cohesion less strata. Detailed test procedure
and interpretation of SPT N–value can be referred from IS 2131.

ii) Static Cone Penetration Test (SCPT) (IS: 4968).

This field test enables continuous exploration throughout the stratum. SCPT is advantageous
as compared to SPT especially in soils where in-situ soil density is likely to alter due to boring
process. Detailed method is explained in IS: 4968.

Static Cone Penetration Test equipment, hydraulically operated is usually capable of

conducting test up to 30 m depth as per site conditions.

The SPT N-value and SCPT-value obtained from the field exploration (SPT and SCPT tests
respectively) provides a ready indication of the relative firmness of the strata and broad
correlations are included in Tables 2.1 and 2.2.
12
IRC:75-2015

Table 2.1 N vs. Compactness

SPT N-value Compactness

0-4 Very loose
4-10 Loose
10-30 Medium
30-50 Dense
>50 Very Dense

Table 2.2 N and SCPT Value (kPa) vs. Compactness

Unconfined compressive SCPT value (kPa)

Consistency SPT N-value strength (kPa) (according to correlation
given by Akca in 2003)

Very soft 0-2 <25 0 – 400

Soft 2-4 25-50 400 – 800

Medium 4-8 50-100 800 – 1600

Stiff 8-15 100-200 1600-3000

Very stiff 15-30 200-400 3000-6000

Hard >30 >400 > 60000

Values given in Table 2.2 are indicative (refer IRC-113, Table:2 )

2.3.1.2 In-Situ vane shear test (IS: 4434)

Vane shear apparatus is used for measuring the undrained shearing resistance and the
sensitivity of the soft deposits of clay. Such tests are generally carried out in the bore hole after
extracting an undisturbed sample. Equipment is also available with which vane shear test
may be run on soft soils without making boring. If the soil contains thin layers or laminations
of sand or dense silt, the results obtained by vane shear test may be misleading.

2.3.1.3 Pressuremeter test (ASTM D4719)

Pressure meter test is an in-situ test conducted in a size NX borehole (76 mm). It was
developed to measure the strength and deformability of soil and rock. The test is conducted
in a pre bored hole with a diameter that is between 1.03 and 1.2 times the nominal diameter
of the probe.

2.3.1.4 Flat Dilatometer test (DMT) (ASTM D6635)

In addition to the listed methods, measurements can also be made in the field by using
the Flat Dilatometer Test (DMT) wherein the dilatometer blade is advanced into the ground
using a cone penetrometer or with a drill rig at a rate of 2cm/sec. The results obtained can
be interpreted in terms of various soil parameters for application in various fields of civil
engineering like computing settlement of shallow foundation, axially loaded pile, laterally
loaded pile and pile groups, detection of slip surfaces in over consolidated clay slopes and
determining liquefaction susceptibility at a particular site.
13
IRC:75-2015

2.3.1.5 Geophysical exploration (IS: 1892)

Geophysical testing can be used as part of the initial site exploration to provide supplementary
information to the data collected by other means (i.e., borings, test pits, geologic surveys,
etc.). Geophysical testing can be used for establishing stratification of subsurface materials,
the profile of the top of bedrock, the depth of groundwater, the boundaries of various types
of soil deposits, the presence and depth of voids, buried pipes, and existing foundations.
However, data from geophysical testing should always be correlated with information from
the direct methods of exploration already discussed.

2.3.1.5.1 Types of geophysical tests

There are different types of geophysical in-situ tests that can be used to obtain stratigraphic
information from which engineering properties can be estimated. Annexure 2.3 provides
a summary of the various geophysical methods that are currently in practice and can be
used to economic advantage. A general discussion regarding the major test methods listed
in Annexure 2.3 is presented below, with particular emphasis on potential applications to
highway engineering.

i) Seismic methods
These methods are becoming increasingly popular for geotechnical engineering practice
because they have the potential to provide data regarding the compression and shear wave
velocities of the subsurface materials. The shear wave velocity is directly related to small-
strain material stiffness which in turn is often correlated to compressive strength and soil/
rock type. These techniques are often used for assessing the vertical stiffness profile in a
soil deposit and for assessing the location at depth of the interface between soil and rock.
Seismic refraction method involves measurement of time of arrival of the initial ground motion
generated by the energy source while the seismic reflection method involves measurement
of the energy arrival after the initial ground motion.

ii) Electrical Resistivity methods

These methods are usually used to locate voids or locally distinct materials. Electrical
resistivity methods provide qualitative information only and are usually part of a two- or three-
phased exploration program.

iii) Gravity and Magnetic methods

These methods are similar to electrical methods, except that they rely on correlations between
the potential gravitational and/or magnetic influence of voids and subsurface anomalies and
measured differences in the earth’s micro-gravitational and/or magnetic fields, rather than on
changes in electrical fields. These methods provide measurements at specific points unlike
seismic and electrical methods that provide measurements over large areas.
iv) Borehole methods
Downhole geophysical methods provide reliable indications of a wide range of soil properties.
For example, downhole/crosshole methods provide reliable measures of shear wave velocity.
14
IRC:75-2015

As indicated previously, shear wave velocity is directly related to small-strain stiffness and is
correlated to strength and soil/rock type. Although downhole logging methods have seen little
use in highway construction, they have been the mainstay for deep geologic characterization
in oil exploration. The principal advantage of downhole logging is the ability to obtain several
different geophysical tests/indicators by “stringing” these tools together in a deep borehole.
Near surface nuclear methods have been used for several years for compaction control of
fills in the field. Through careful calibration, it is possible to assess the moisture content and
density of compacted soils reliably. These methods have been widely adopted as reliable
quantitative methods

2.3.1.5.2 Advantages and limitations of geophysical tests

As with the other methods of exploration, geophysical testing offers some advantages and
some limitations that should be considered before these techniques are recommended for a
specific application. These are summarized as follows:

2.3.1.5.2.1 Advantages of geophysical tests

i) Many geophysical tests are non-invasive. Therefore, such tests offer
significant benefits in cases where conventional drilling, testing, and sampling
are difficult (e.g., deposits of gravel, talus deposits, etc.) or where potentially
contaminated soils may occur in the subsurface.
ii) In general, geophysical testing can cover a relatively large geographical area
thereby providing the opportunity to characterize large areas with relatively
few tests. Geophysical testing is particularly well-suited to projects that have
large longitudinal extent such as new highway construction.
iii) Geophysical measurements are used to assess the properties of soil and
rock at very small strains.

2.3.1.5.2.2 Limitations of geophysical tests

i) Most methods work best for situations in which there is a large difference in
the property being measured between adjacent subsurface units. In seismic
methods, it is difficult to develop good stratigraphic profiling if the general
stratigraphy consists of hard material overlying soft material.
ii) Each geophysical method has limitations that may be associated with
equipment, signal noise, unfavorable site and subsurface conditions, and
processing constraints.
iii) Results can be non-unique and are generally interpreted qualitatively.
Therefore useful results can be obtained only through analyses performed
by a geotechnical specialist experienced with the particular testing method.
iv) Specialized and more electronically sophisticated equipment is required
as compared to the more conventional subsurface exploration tools thus
rendering it expensive in the Indian scenario.
15
IRC:75-2015

2.3.1.5.2.3 Examples of uses of geophysical tests

The following are a few examples where geophysical testing could be used on highway
projects to compliment conventional exploration.
i) Highly Variable Subsurface Conditions: In several geologic settings, the
subsurface conditions along a transportation corridor may be expected to
be variable. This variability could be from underlying karsts development
above limestone; alluvial deposits, including buried terrace gravels, across
a wide floodplain; buried boulders in a talus slope, etc. For these cases,
conventional exploration techniques may be very difficult and if “refusal”
is encountered at certain depth, there is a strong likelihood that different
materials could underlie the hard strata region. Development of a preliminary
subsurface characterization profile by using geophysical testing could prove
advantageous in designing future focused explorations.
ii) Regional Studies: Along a transportation corridor it may be necessary to
assess the depth to (and through) rippable rock or highly cemented caliche.
Alternative alignments may or may not be possible, but the cost implications
may be significant. Therefore, it is important to obtain a profile related to
rock/soil stiffness. Geophysical testing is a logical consideration for this
application as a precursor to invasive explorations.
iii) Settlement Sensitive Structures: The prior two examples related to cases
where the geophysical testing served as the front-end of a multi-phase
project. In the case where a settlement-sensitive structure is to be founded
on deposits of sands, knowledge of the in-situ modulus of the sand deposit
is critical. After the characteristics of the site are assessed, it may be helpful
to quantify the deformation modulus by the use of geophysical testing at the
specific foundation site.

2.3.2 Characterization of Sub-soil by Laboratory Tests:

Suitable selection of appropriate laboratory tests on the collected samples is of utmost
importance. The following tests will normally be included in the test schedule.
i) Sieve Analysis/Hydrometer : IS: 2720 (Part IV)
ii) Natural Moisture Content/Bulk/
Dry Density : IS: 2720 (Part II)
iii) Specific Gravity : IS: 2720 (Part III)
iv) Liquid Limit/Plastic Limit/Plasticity Index : IS: 2720 (Part V)
v) Direct Shear Test (for non-cohesive soils) : IS: 2720 (Part XIII)
vi) Unconfined Compressive Strength Test
(Cohesive Soils) : IS: 2720 (Part X)
16
IRC:75-2015

vii) Tri-axial Test (Cohesive Soils)* : IS: 2720 (Parts XI and

XII)
viii) Consolidation Tests (Cohesive soils below
water table) : IS: 2720 (Part XV)
ix) Chemical Analysis on Soil Samples : IS: 2720 & IS 3025
* The selection of the particular type of Tri-axial Test is discussed in Chapter 3.

2.4 Embankment Fill Material Investigation

For reaches involving new embankment construction, it is important to ensure that (a)
each layer of embankment is constructed with select materials of approved borrow areas
in layers of specified thickness and that necessary compaction is achieved before placing
the subsequent layer; (b) suitable construction methodology is adopted on expansive clay
stretches; and (c) all sources of materials (being used in embankments) have undergone full
range of tests for compliance as per specifications.

2.4.1 Field Investigation

Detailed borrow material survey shall be conducted at closest lead distances, identify select
ones at an interval of 5 km on both sides of the alignment, then dig test/trial pits for sample
testing for suitability. Normally, test pits are dug up to 1 m to 2 m depth and disturbed samples
are taken for testing.

2.4.2 Laboratory Tests

There are three basic requirements for a compacted embankment, namely:
a) Adequate shear strength.
b) Good drainability
c) Limited settlement within the body of the embankment.
The following tests will normally be included in the test schedule.
i) Sieve Analysis : IS 2720 (Part-IV)
ii) Atterberg’s Limits : IS 2720 (Part-V)
iii) Compaction Test (Modified Proctor Test) : IS 2720 (Part-VIII)
iv) CBR at Single/Three energy level* : IS 2720 (Part-XVI)
v) Free Swell Index (if LL>50%) : IS 2720 (Part-XL)
vi) Shear Parameters (Direct Shear test/
Triaxial shear test) : IS 2720 (Part-XI, XII
and XIII)
vii) Permeability Test : IS 2720 (Part-XVII)
Details of shear tests required for stability analysis are presented in Chapter 3 and
consolidations tests required for settlement calculations are presented in Chapter 4.
17
IRC:75-2015

*CBR tests usually get conducted at 3 different energy levels corresponding to 10, 30 and
65 blows. During tests, normally 3 specimens of about 7 kg are compacted, so that their
compacted densities may range from 95% to 100%.

2.5 Reporting and Presentation of Data

The results of reconnaissance, field and laboratory investigation should be consolidated in to
a well-knit report. The record of findings and recommendations, if any, may be presented in
the form of written text, graphs, Figures and tables, as appropriate for different types of data
and findings.
Information and data to be contained in the report should include general location
map, pertinent geological information on reconnaissance observations, sub-soil profile
(Fig. 2.3) boring logs and summary of sub-soil properties (Fig. 2.4) graphs and tables
related to laboratory investigations, results of borrow area investigations (Fig. 2.5) and
recommendations, if any.

State----------------------
N. H. No. -----------------
Section-------------------
Location------------------

Fig. 2.3 Longitudinal Profile of the Subsoil

Name of Project………….. Section Location……………

State…………………………… Bore Hole No…………………
Name of Road…………….. Date of Boring……………….

18
IRC:75-2015

Fig. 2.4 Boring log and Summary of Sub-Soil Properties

Location of Borrow area Name of Road………..

With reference to Index Map……. Section………..
Depth of Water table……. Location of Embankment………….

Sample Depth Field Particle Size Analysis Atterberg Limits Standard Proctor Specific Unconsolidated
No. R.L. of Description Test Gravity undrained triaxial
Sample test at 95%

Gravel Sand Silt .002 Clay Below L.L.% P.L. % P.I. % Density OMC % Cuu φuu
above .06 to to .002 mm% kg/m3 kPa Degrees
2 mm% 2 mm% .06 mm% kg/cm2

Fig. 2.5 Results of borrow area investigation

19
IRC:75-2015

Annexure 2.1

REQUIREMENTS FOR ADEQUATE SOIL DESCRIPTION

Sand and gravel

Modified Loess

Organic Clay
Inorganic silt

Organic silt
Glacial Till

Lake Marl
Hardpan

Loess

Peat
Clay

Marl
Color 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
from field examination

Odour 2
0 0 0
General Information

Texture and structure3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Dilatancy 4
0 0 0 0 0 0
Grain Properties5 0 0 0 0
Plasticity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dry Strength6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Natural water content, w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Intact Samples1

Natural void ratio7, e 0 0 0 0

Unconfined Compressive 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Strength,
qu
Results of classification tests

Sensitivity8, St 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unit weight of solid constituents, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
γs
Maximum void ratio9, emax 0 0 0 0
Representative samples

Minimum void ratio , emin

9
0 0 0 0
Liquid Limit, Lw 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Plastic Limit10, Pw 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Shrinkage Limit, Sw 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mechanical Analysis11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Carbonate Content12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Organic Matter Content13 0 0 0 0

1. If no undisturbed or tube samples are obtained, use the spoon samples.

2. If the odour is faint, heat the sample slightly. This intensifies the odour.
3. Describe appearance of fresh fracture of intact sample (granular, dull, smooth,
and glossy). Then rub small quantity of soil between the fingers, and describe
sensation (floury, smooth, gritty, and sharp). If large specimens break up readily
into smaller fragments, describe appearance of walls of cracks (dull, slicken sided)
and average spacing of cracks.
20
IRC:75-2015

4. Perform shaking test. Describe results (conspicuous, week, none), depending on

intensity of phenomenon observed.
5. Describe shape (angular, sub angular, sub rounded, rounded, well rounded) and
mineralogical characteristics of macroscopic soil particles only. Mineralogical
characteristics include type of rocks and minerals represented among the grains
so far as they can be discerned by inspection under the hand lens. Describe rock
fragments (fresh, slightly weathered, or thoroughly decomposed; hard or friable).
If a sand contains mica flakes, indicate mica content (slightly, moderately, or very
micaceous). In connection with peat, the term grain properties refer to the type
and state of preservation of the predominant visible remnants of plants such as
fibres, twigs or leaves.
6. Crush dry fragment between fingers, and indicate hardness (very low, low, medium,
high, and very high).
7. If no undisturbed samples have been obtained, substitute results of standard
penetration test or equivalent.
8. Applies only to clay and fine silt at a water content above the plastic limit.
9. emin is the void ratio of the soil in its densest state, usually achieved by packing the
soil into a container by means of a combination of static pressure and vibration.
10. In addition to numerical value of Pw state whether threads were tough, firm,
medium, or weak.
11. Present results either in from of semi-logarithmic graph, or else by numerical
values of D10 and U= D60/D10 accompanied by adjectives indicating the type of
grain-size grading.
12. Calcium carbonate content can be detected by moistening the dry material with
dilute HCI. Describe results of test (strong, weak, or no effervescence).
13. To determine presence of organic matter, determine, Lw first in fresh state and then
after drying in over at 108ºC. describe results of test (highly or slightly organic).
14. Add to data on texture a description of general appearance, structure, and degree
of cohesiveness of chunks in fresh state and after soaking in water.
15. Add to data on texture a description of the macroscopic features of the loess, such
as diameter and spacing of root holes.
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.

21
IRC:75-2015

Annexure 2.2

Important Instructions for Obtaining Undisturbed Samples:

a) When sampling above ground water table, maintain bore hole dry, whenever
possible. When sampling below ground water table, maintain bore hole full of
water or drilling fluid during cleaning out, sampling, sample withdrawal and while
removing clean out tools. If necessary, this should be accomplished by positive
inflow at ground surface.

b) Cleaning of bore hole

i) Use jet auger that deflects the flow of water or drilling fluid upward. Downward
nor sideward jetting is not permitted when cleaning below casing. Cleaning
with jet bits that direct the flow downward or sideward is permitted within
the casing but should not be done within four inches of the intended top
of samples. The last 100 mm are cleaned out with a jet auger that deflects
water or drilling fluid upward.
ii) When casing is extruded to sample depth, all soil must be cleaned out up
to the casing trip at least and preferably 100 mm below the trip. Where
continuous samples are taken, allow for 100 mm when determining final
depth of casing before sampling. Coarse washed material must be removed
from bore holes before sampling and the hole should be cleaned so that soil
at the intended top of the sample is as nearly undisturbed as possible.

c) Sample retrieval
Take the sample as soon as possible after cleaning the hole. Cleaning of the hole should not
be attempted if sampling is to be delayed.

d) Sampling operation
i) Preparation: Sampler and tube must be properly cleaned with vents, valves,
piston packing, etc. checked for proper placement and function.
ii) Lowering Tube: Lower sampler slowly and carefully to bottom of hole without
dropping. When encountering water table while lowering the sampler,
precaution must be taken with samplers containing 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.
22
IRC:75-2015

v) Length of penetration: Length of sample penetration should never exceed

length of sampler. For sampling tube 20 mm ID (with internal diameter),
penetration should be exceeded 10 times ID for cohesionless soils and 15
times ID cohesive soils.
vi) Withdrawal: After penetration allow sampler to sit for at least 10 Min. before
withdrawal. Then rotate sample tube 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 preservation is as follows.
i) Handling: Handle sample tubes with extreme care at all times after removal
from borehole.
ii) Sealing: Before sealing, remove any disturbed material from the tube and
clean tube walls to provide good contact for sealer wax. After waxing the
ends of the tube, place snugly fitting metal caps at each end tape them to
the sample tube. Again, immerse the tube ends in wax. When there is an
annular clearance between the sample and tube that cannot be completely
sealed, remove the sample from the tube and wax the sample completely in
a large container. If too great an inside tube clearance is suspected, obtain
new tubes having a smaller clearance before further samples are taken.
iii) Identification: Mark sample tubes with boring number, sample number,
depth, total drive, measured recovery of undisturbed soil before trimming
and description of soil type at the upper end of the tube.
iv) Protection: Protect sample from extreme heat and freezing after withdrawal
from hole and during transportation.
v) Packing: Pack sample tubes for shipment with sawdust in sturdy boxes.
vi) Sample Retention: Indefinite storage of samples is not warranted. They
should normally be retained only until the construction contract is awarded.

23
 Annexure 2.3 Geophysical Characterization for Design of High Embankments
Stage of Objective Suggested Method Basic Field Procedure Limitations Relevant Codes
Project
Preliminary Ground 1. Multichannel Impact load is applied to Resolution decreases significantly (1)   IS: 1892- Code of
Survey Characterization    Analysis of the ground surface. Surface with increasing depth; interpretation practice
IRC:75-2015

during -   depth to bedrock Surface waves propagate along ground is difficult if a stiff layer overlies a soft for subsurface
Preliminary -   depth to water    Wave (MASW) surface and are recorded on layer and soft layer properties are investigation for
Engineering    table    / Spectral the ground surface with two desired. In absence of MASW test, foundation
-   soft/compressible Analysis geophones positioned along a suitable and justified field correlation
    and weak/loose    of Surface Wave line. between Standard Penetration Test (2)  IS: 15681-
   strata    (SASW) (SPT) – N value with shear wave Geophysical
-   thickness and velocity may be recommended under exploration
   relative stiffness the guidance/supervision of a subject by geo physical method
    soil/rock layers expert. (eismic refraction)
-  direct Code of Practice
   measurement of
   shear wave (3)  IS: 15736-
   velocity (dynamic Geophysical
   soil property) exploration by geo
physical method
2.  Electrical DC current is applied to the Slow; must install electrodes directly (Electrical resistivity)

24
Imaging ground by electrodes. Voltages in Code of Practice
  (2D) are measured at different points the ground; resolution decreases
on the ground surface with significantly with increasing depth;
other electrodes positioned resolution is difficult in highly
along a line. heterogeneous deposits

3. Seismic Impact load is applied to Does not work if stiffness decreases

Refraction the ground surface. Seismic with depth or if soft layer underlies stiff
energy refracts off soil/rock layer; works best when sharp stiffness
layer interfaces and the time discontinuity is present
of interval is recorded on the
ground surface using several
dozen geophones positioned
along a line or performing
repeated events using a single
geophone.
Detailed • Ground 1.  All/part of above - Do - Noted above
Survey Characterization
during • Design Parameters
Detailed
Engineering
 Stage of Objective Suggested Method Basic Field Procedure Limitations Relevant Codes
Project
Engineering • Measurement of 2. Crosshole/ Energy sources and geophones Requires one or more borehole and (1) IS:13372 (Part 1):
wave velocities Downhole are placed in boreholes and/ significant support field equipment 1992, “Seismic
for seismic site Seismic test or on ground surface; interval Testing of Rock
response analysis (CHST/DHST) travel times are converted Mass- Code of
• Liquefaction Risk into seismic wave velocity Practice- Part 1:
as a function of depth in the Within A Borehole”,
• Earthquake borehole. Bureau of Indian
generated Standards, Delhi.
ground-surface
movements (2) ASTM D7400-
08, “Standard
Test Methods for
Downhole Seismic
Testing,” American
Society for Testing and
Materials.
(3) American Society for
Testing and Materials,
“Standard Test
Methods for Cross-

25
hole testing,” ASTM
D4428-D4428M-00.
Four independent 3. Seismic CPT The addition of a geophone in
measurements the piezocone body enables
with depth: cone tip the collection of seismic wave
resistance, sleeve data and the calculation of
friction, penetration shear and compression wave
porewater pressure, velocities during the cone
and downhole shear penetration test.
wave velocity.
IRC:75-2015
IRC:75-2015

Chapter 3

STABILITY ANALYSIS

3.1 Introduction
Failures may occur slowly or suddenly, and stability analysis is meant to determine whether
the proposed embankment slope will meet the safety requirements against failure arising
from shear stress exceeding the tolerable limits. The analysis is generally made for the worst
conditions which may occur during the service of the embankment. In this task, besides
knowledge of the analytical method, experience and judgment are essential.
Stability of high embankment depends on various factors like foundation profile, fill
material quality, extent of compaction, drainage arrangement both surface and sub-surface,
and embankment geometry like height of embankment, slope angle, ground profile etc.,
external factors like traffic or earthquake load or presence of any water body by the side
of the embankment or development of pore water pressure due to infiltration from heavy
rain. All these parameters and conditions will make significant impact on overall stability of
the embankment. Hence, it is very important to understand and evaluate these site specific
conditions and interpretation of design parameters correctly before proceeding with design.

3.2 Types of Failure

Failure of highway embankments generally occurs in the following modes
a) Failure of an embankment: Embankments fail when a part of the soil mass moves
in an outward and downward direction. This is often called as slope failure or a
slide. The term “slide” is also associated with failure of natural slopes.
In the case of embankment failure the mass moving out may include soil in the
fill only or such movement may include the fill and the natural ground or subsoil.
Generally speaking, failures occur in rotational mode in soil slopes. Failure surface
forms an arc of a circle, isolating the failed mass from the rest of the embankment.
If the failure arc cuts the slope it is called as slope failure, if it meets the toe it
is called toe failure. If the failure circle goes into the subsoil it is called as base
failure. Presence of weaker layer may cause a failure surface to take a composite
shape. Fig. 3.1a & 3.1b shows the failure surfaces discussed above. Generally,
base failures do not occur if the foundation soil is firm and has an angle of internal
friction greater than 300. i.e. if the soil is sandy or gravelly.
Long slopes of purely cohesionless soils may fail along planar surfaces.
b) Bearing capacity failure: Embankment may fail in bearing capacity if the soil
on which it is founded does not have enough shear strength. In this mode
embankment sinks into the ground causing large vertical settlements as well as
lateral displacements in the soil adjacent to the toe.
26
IRC:75-2015

Embankments also experience settlements and sometimes such settlements may occur over
a long period of time and this process depends on many factors. Excessive settlements
causes distress and are a cause of concern hence it is necessary that the magnitude and
rate at which settlements progress is also evaluated.
In this chapter, methods of analysis of failure of embankments are discussed. Settlement
analysis is dealt with in Chapter 4.

Fig. 3.1.a Rotational Failure Along Circular Surface

Fig. 3.1.b Composite Failures along non Circular Surface

Note: The failure surface is usually tangential to the weak zone

3.3 Basic Considerations in Design

There are some basic factors which influence analysis of slope stability problem. Principal
among these are the choice of method of analysis (i.e. effective stress or total stress method),
stage of construction for which the analysis is carried out (i.e. short term or long term condition)
and the proposed factor of safety. Before going into the actual analysis, understanding of
these factors is important.
27
IRC:75-2015

3.3.1 Total and Effective Stress Methods

Analysis of stability can be done either in terms of total stress or effective stress depending
upon the soil properties, loading conditions and the prevailing stage of construction.

a) Total stress method

Stability analysis may be carried out using either by total stress or effective stress method.
Total stress method is applicable where an embankment is constructed on saturated clays of
low permeability and no change in water content occurs in the subsoil prior to failure. Shear
strength in this case may be given as follows
τ=cu+σntanφu …Eqn. 3.1
Where cu and φu are called undrained shear parameters. Saturated clays when tested to
failure under undrained conditions yield shear strength parameter φu =0 and cu = (σ1-σ3)/2.
This analysis also called φu =0 analysis. This method is applicable to conditions where no
dissipation of pore water pressures has yet occurred subsequent to loading. With the lapse
of time the pore water pressure decreases. Under such conditions stability analysis may be
carried out using total stress method by determining the new value of cu by laboratory or filed
tests. The above procedure may be repeated at as many time intervals as required in the
project. The above statements are valid only for fully saturated clays.

b) Effective stress method

Effective stress method of analysis takes into account the pore water pressures for the stage
at which stability is to be analysed. The relationship between shear strength and applied
normal stress used in such analysis is given by the expression:
τ=c'+(σn-u)tanφ' …Eqn. 3.2
c’ and ø’ are called as effective stress parameters. These parameters have to be determined
from appropriate type of laboratory tests on soil samples.
Table 3.2 gives the type of laboratory tests to be carried out for undrained and drained shear
strength parameters.
Using effective stress parameters, stability of the embankment can be determined any time
during the life of embankment. Porewater pressures at the desired point of time shall be
used.

3.3.2 Porewater Pressure

In making this analysis, the porewater pressure, ‘u’ at any point in the embankment is obtained
from the expression:
u=u0+ Δu …Eqn. 3.3
Where, uo represents the initial value of pore water pressure, and Δu denotes the incremental
pore water pressure in the soil due to change in stress.
28
IRC:75-2015

i) Porewater pressure (Hydrostatic pressure)

Arises from the presence of free water level within the vicinity of the embankment (uo). The
value of initial pore water pressure may be obtained from field piezometer measurements. If
there is seepage through embankment the values may be obtained from flownets.

ii) Hydrostatic excess pressure

Arising from any additional load acting on the free body. The magnitude of such hydrostatic
excess pressure is a function of load acting as well as properties of the material of the
embankment. This component of pore water pressure is calculated using the following
relationship (Skempton, 1954) where A and B are determined from laboratory tests.
Δu=B [Δ σ3 + A (Δσ1 - Δ σ3) …Eqn. 3.4
Generally for saturated clays B=1
Where Δσ1 denotes the incremental total major principal stress
Δσ3 denotes the incremental total minor principal stress
Use of Skempton’s formula involves the use of following steps:
a. Determine Coefficients A and B from laboratory tests on undisturbed samples
b. Calculate Δσ1 and Δσ3 at different points in subsoil layer.
For this purpose it is necessary to calculate Δσh, Δσv and shear stress at different points,
using standard charts or formulae. From this stresses Δσ1 and Δσ3 can be calculated
Since the above procedure is complex, hence it is used in important cases. Generally Δσu is
equated to Δσv and this is on the safe side.

iii) Porewater pressure ratio

Porewater pressure ratio at any depth is defined by the term:

…Eqn. 3.5
Where u is the pore water pressure, γh= total vertical stress at the same depth, (h is the
depth of the point in the soil mass below the soil surface). ru can be easily used for estimating
slope stability from charts.

3.3.3 Factor of Safety

The results of the stability analysis are normally expressed in terms of a factor of safety with
respect to shear strength. The factor of safety is defined as the factor by which the shear
strength parameters (in terms of effective stress) c’ and tanø’ can be reduced before the
slope is brought into the state of limiting equilibrium. The shear strength mobilized under
these conditions is given by the expression

…Eqn. 3.6
29
IRC:75-2015

Where σn denotes the total stress normal to the potential failure surface and u denotes the
pore water pressure. The definition is the same as that adopted by Taylor “the factor of safety
with respect to shear strength”, and is in accordance with that enunciated earlier by Fellinius
(1927). It has the advantage of being applicable to circular and non circular slip surface alike
without modifications and operates directly on the relevant strength parameters (Bishop &
Morgenstern, 1960).

Loading Conditions
Live Load (External Traffic Load) 24 KN/m2 is considered across the width of carriage way
Dead Load: Self weight of embankment and any structures resting on embankments
Static Case: Live Load + Dead Load
Seismic case: 50% Live load + Dead load + seismic load (As per IRC-6)
Table 3.1 Summary of Recommended Minimum Factors of safety (FOS) For Stability Analysis

Loading Condition FOS under static loads FOS under Seismic loads
Static Case 1.4 1.1
(at the end of construction)
1.2
(*initial factor of safety)
Sudden Drawdown 1.3 1.0
Steady Seepage 1.3 1.0

*Initial factor of safety 1.2 is applicable to situations where there is a gain in shear strength of subsoils due to
ground improvement methods leading to increase in factor of safety with time. In such cases it is important
that construction is continuously monitored for changes in pore water pressures, progress of settlements and
occurrence of lateral deformations.
It should be remembered that maintenance of the design factor of safety in execution will invariably require a
strict control over rate of construction in order to allow partial dissipation of pore water pressure at stages critical
from the point of view of stability.

3.3.4 Short Term and Long-Term Conditions

Two types of slope stability problems occur in clayey soils; short term stability (end of
construction case) and long term stability. When an embankment is constructed on a clayey
soil, shearing resistance of the soil is drastically reduced by the development of excess pore
water pressure during construction. Pore water pressure developed depends on the state
of stress resulting from the weight of superimposed layer and the drainage conditions. With
passage of time, porewater pressure is dissipated and soil improves its shearing strength.
The rate of dissipation of pore water pressure is clearly related to the permeability of the soil.
The critical period of shear failure in clayey soils is, therefore during construction and shortly
after the completion of the embankment at which stage full embankment load is acting, but
pore water pressure may not have completely dissipated. Eventually, the excess pore water
pressure is dissipated and porewater acquires a state of equilibrium with ground water table,
generating a steady state flow pattern. This stage is referred to as the long term stability
30
IRC:75-2015

or steady seepage case. In between there would be an intermediate stage when partial
dissipation of pore water pressure has occurred and this is important for stage construction
analysis. In embankments built of and resting on gravels, sands or cohesionless soils, the time
required for dissipation of excess pore water pressure is very less and as such the stability is
to be checked for long term condition only which is the same as short term condition.
The type of shear test /shear strength parameters depending on the stability analysis for the
short term or long term stability is given in Table 3.2
Table 3.2 Strength Parameters for Stability Analysis
Sl. Stage in the life of the embankment Strength Shear test Type of analysis
No. parameters

1. (a) During construction or immediate cuu, φuu Unconsolidated undrained triaxial Total stress analysis assumes
post construction shear test on undisturbed samples no drainage in field.
and on as compacted embankment
material
IS 2720 Part XI

(b) -do- su Unconfined compression strength Total stress analysis for

(UCS – a special case of UU test preliminary design
where the confining pressure is
zero) in laboratory or vane shear
test.
IS 2720 Part X

Total strength parameters may be used in case of stage construction provided the undrained strength parameters are determined
either in the field or in the laboratory for each stage of loading.

(c)-do- c’, φ’ Consolidated Un-Drained (CU) Effective stress analysis.

test with pore water pressure Assumes effective stress in
measurement on ‘as compacted’ partially saturated soil is same
soil samples of embankment as in saturated soil.(The above
material and on undisturbed assumption neglects suction
samples effects)
IS 2720 Part XII

2 Long-term stability c’,φ’ -do- Effective stress analysis.

Used primarily for design of
embankment constructed in
stages provided pore water
pressures at every stage are
known.

Effective stress analysis may be used for stability analysis at the end of construction or after construction. It is assumed that the porewater
pressure regime is stable or subjected to known changes

3.3.5 Bearing Capacity of Embankments

Where subsoils are competent and have adequate bearing capacity to carry the load of
the embankment , bearing capacity may be calculated according to the formulae given in
IS: 6403 “ Code of practice for determination of breaking capacity of shallow foundations”
Qnu= cNc+ q (Nq-1) + 0.5γBNγ …Eqn. 3.7
Where Qnu is net ultimate bearing capacity
c is cohesion, B= base width
Nc, Nq and Nγ are the bearing capacity factors which may be obtained from table
1 of IS: 6403
31
IRC:75-2015

Effect of Water Table on Bearing Capacity

Modified bearing capacity formula considering water table effect is
Qnu= cNc+ q (Nq-1)+ 0.5γBNγW’ …Eqn. 3.8
a) If the water table is likely to permanently remain at or below a depth of
(Df + B ) beneath the ground level surrounding the footing then W' = I.
b) If the water table is located at a depth Df or likely to rise to the base of the
footing or above then the value of W' shall be taken as 0.5
c) If the water table is likely to permanently got located at depth Df < D" <
(Df +B) t then the value of W' be obtained by linear interpolation.
Since embankments have large base width and subsoil may consist of many layers having
varying values of c and ø in such a case weighted average of c and ø values over a depth of
1.5 H may be used.
Factor of Safety for Bearing Capacity of Embankments
Where subsoils are competent, minimum factor of safety of 1.5 shall be considered against
bearing capacity failure.
Table 3.3 Recommended Factor of Safety for Bearing Capacity

Ground Improvement
With Only Basal
Reinforced Mattress PVD’s with stage construction Stone columns
(IS: 15284-part 2) (IS:15284-part 1)

1.25 ( at the end of construction of a

Bearing capacity 1.5 particular stage) 2.0
1.5 ( at the end of waiting period
specified for the stage)

Where sub-soils are soft and non frictional and ground improvement methods are used,
bearing capacity may be calculated as per the formula given in FHWA NHI-95-038 (1998),
Geosynthetic Design and Construction Guidelines. Participant Notebook for NHI Course
No.1 3 213, and IRC:113
Nc may be calculated as given below
Nc = 5.14 for B/D <2
Nc= 4.14 + 0.5 B/D for B/D>2
Where B is the width of bottom of the embankment
D is the Depth of soft soil

3.4 Stability of Cohesionless Slopes

The stability of fill slopes built of cohesionless gravels, sands and silty sands, depends on;
(a) the angle of internal friction of the fill material, ø’, (b) the slope angle, (c) the unit weight
of the fill, and (d) the pore water pressures. The critical failure mechanism is usually surface
raveling or shallow sliding which can be analyzed using simple infinite slope analysis.

32
IRC:75-2015

The values of ø’ for stability analyses may be determined by drained triaxial or direct shear
tests. Porewater pressure due to seepage through the fill reduces the stability of the slopes.
But static water pressure with the same water level inside and outside the slopes has no
effect on stability. The factor of safety of slopes formed by cohesionless materials resting on
firm foundation can be determined as indicated below:
Tan'
F=
Tan …Eqn. 3.9
Where ø’ = angle of internal friction; and
β= angle of slope with horizontal.
The maximum stable slope angle of sandy embankment is related to the peak friction angle
ø’. However, ø’ is a function of 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, ø’ is essentially equal
to angle of repose. But slope 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 exception of the special case of damp sand which has a high angle of repose due
to capillary attraction. However limitation is imposed on height by other considerations like
base failure and erosion.
Special conditions exist with partially submerged sand slopes affected by tidal conditions or
seepage conditions (sudden draw down condition) or seepage condition which may cause
the stability of fine sand slope to be considerably less than for dry or submerged sand. Factor
of safety in such conditions is given by:
-w Tan '
F= 
Tan  …Eqn. 3.10
–w
Since  ratio is typically about half for sands, the maximum stable slope is about half of
that for dry or submerged condition.

Slopes in fine sands, silty sands, and silts are susceptible to failure by erosion due to surface
runoff. Benches, paved ditches, and turfing on slopes can be used to reduce runoff velocities
and retard erosion.

3.5 Slip Circle Analysis for Cohesive Soil Slopes

The first sign of imminent failure of slope is usually an outward or upward bulging near the
toe and development of cracks usually along length wise direction and near the crest of the
slope. Though in actual practice the failure plane may be a complex surface, in most stability
analysis cases a circular cylindrical rupture surface is assumed to simplify the computations.
The analysis consists of drawing trial circles and calculating the factor of safety separately
for each circle. For any given centre, several circles are drawn, passing through the toe,
33
IRC:75-2015

through the weakest sub-strata, and through other soil layers depending on the conditions
obtaining, and the lowest factor of safety recorded. Analysis may be either by considering the
stability of slope en-mass or by dividing the slip mass into many vertical slices and to consider
the equilibrium of each slice, Methods that consider the slope en-mass include Culmann's
method and Taylor's friction circle method. There are several versions of the method of slices
available; the best known are Swedish Circle and Bishop's method. Each of these methods
involves certain approximations. For most highway embankment problems it is sufficient to
use approximate methods even though these may not fully satisfy the requirements of static
equilibrium. 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.

3.5.1 Taylors’ Method

If the embankment and foundation are homogeneous and the slope is simple, Taylor's charts
can be used directly for design of embankment. Even in other cases these charts can be
made use of with advantage at the planning stage, especially when a number of alternatives
are to be evaluated.
Taylor, after investigating a large number of trial circles in homogeneous soil by friction circle
method, produced tables for locating critical circle and evolved design charts for determining
safe slopes. Taylor's design curves are reproduced wide Figs. 3.2 & 3.3. Fig. 3.2 shows, for
various values of ø up to 250, the safe slope corresponding to stability number Ns which is
equal to c/γH. For a particular value of stability number and ø, safe angle of slope can be
determined by reading the chart. Alternatively for a particular value of angle of slope and
ø, stability factor can be read from the chart and factor of safety computed as F=cNs/ γH.
Fig. 3.3 is applicable when, ø =0 and failure is over a shallow base.

3.5.2 Swedish Slip Circle Method

In this method (also referred to as the Fellenius method, the conventional method of slices or
the USBR method) the soil mass is divided into a number of slices as shown in Fig. 3.4. The
slices need not be of the same width. It is convenient to make the boundaries between slices
to coincide with breaks in the surface or sudden transitions from one material to another, If
the slope is stable, then each slice must be stable under its own weight and the forces on its
boundaries. For each slice if the inter-slice forces are ignored .the reaction from below must
be equal to and opposite in direction to its weight, as these are the only two forces. Resolving
the reaction into normal force and shear force and taking into consideration the forces on a
slice will be as shown in Fig. 3.4. Factor of safety is then obtained by summing over for all the
slices. The expression for the factor of safety with reference to Fig. 3.4 is given by:

34
IRC:75-2015

Fig. 3.2 Chart of Stability Numbers

35
IRC:75-2015

Fig. 3.3 Chart of Stability Numbers for the Case of Zero Friction Angle and Limited Depth

F= ∑[c'l+(Wcosα – ul) tanø'] …Eqn. 3.11

It is convenient in many cases to express the pore water pressure ‘u’ as function of the total
weight of the column of soil above the point considered by using a ratio ‘ru’ which is defined
by the relation:
36
IRC:75-2015

ru** =u/γh ... Eqn. 3.12

Where h is the depth of the point in the soil mass below the soil surface, and γ is the bulk
density of soil. The expression then becomes:
F= ∑[c'l+(Wcosα(1-rusec2α)tanø'] ... Eqn. 3.13
The recommended method of recording the calculations is given in Table 3.4. A graphical
approach to these calculations is also available (Murthy 1974).
The Swedish method permits a quick and direct computation of the factor, of safety and is therefore
advantageous where calculations are done by hand. A large number of slip circles is normally
required to be analyzed in each case and this is facilitated in this method due to its simplicity.

3.5.3 Bishop’s Method

It has been shown that the conventional method of slices (i.e, the Swedish slip circle) could
be in error where the central angle α, and the pore water pressure factor ru are large. The
error increases with increasing values of α, 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 embankments, the conventional procedure results in overdesign and
uneconomical sections. In such situations, Bishop's solution is preferable. This method also
follows the method of slices but in addition recognizes the existence of side forces on each
slice. There are two versions of the Bishop's method, one rigorous and the other simplified.
Both-are reviewed below:

a) Bishop’s Rigorous method

The-rigorous method yields the following expression for factor of safety, Fig. 3.5.

1 ����
�� ���� ′ � � ���1 � � � � �� � � �����∅′ � �
∑ �����
1�
���� ���∅′ ... Eqn. 3.14
�
For discussion of conditions to be satisfied to determine the internal forces X and E, the
reader is referred to the earlier work by Bishop (1955). The determination of the interslice
forces is necessary for a rigorous solution of the equation given above.
Sharma (1972) has suggested a simple graphical approach for circular arc analysis yielding
values of factor of safety very close to those computed by most sophisticated methods
requiring high speed digital computers.
**a) The ru factor is linearly related to factor of safety F for range of ru values
from 0.0 to 0.7 usually encountered in engineering practices (Bishop 1952.
1955, Bishop and Morgenstern, 1960). The extra- ordinary advantage of this
relationship is that it gives an immediate picture of the influence of pare
pressure on the factor of safety.
b) Generally speaking, ru is not constant all along the slip surface, but in most
stability problems an average value can readily be calculated and used with
little loss of accuracy.

37
IRC:75-2015

Fig. 3.4 Swedish Slip Circle Method

Table 3.4 Format of Table for Manual Calculations for Swedish Slip Circle Method

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 13 15

S Weight of the Slice Pore Water Pressure

L
(W Cos Factor of safety
C W Cos (W sin (W Cos
a Cos a Sin a l b ul C'l a-ul) Col. 10+Col. 14
E a a a-ul)
Pore tan φ Col. 12
Average Welght Pore Water
Pressure
No. Ht. W Ht.
U

b) Bishop's routine method

It is usually adequate for practical purposes, to neglect the term (Xn - Xn+1) in the equation
above without any significant loss of accuracy.
The equation for the factor of safety, F, then becomes:
1
�� ���  � � ������ � ������∅ �
∑ ����� ... Eqn. 3.15
38
IRC:75-2015

tan tan’ )
Where m = cos (1 +
F
... Eqn. 3.16
The use of the above equation represents 'Bishop's Routine Method’; the recommended
method of recording the calculations is given in Table 3.5, Fig. 3.5. In practical application of
this method, as F appears on both sides of the equation, F has to be assumed in advance
and mα is to be calculated for this F. For this purpose, a chart is given in Fig. 3.5 which
provides mα for known values of α and ø' and assumed F. The factor of safety is worked out
as. Col. (14)/Col (7) of Table 3.5. This is compared with the assumed value of F. If they do not
Table
agree, 3.5 Format
a new valueof manual
of F iscalculations
assumedforand
'Bishop's
the Routine
processMethod’
repeated. The new trial requires only
additional sub-columns under columns 13 and 14. Thus, after two or three trials, the correct
factor of safety is evaluated for this assumed failure surface. To obtain the factor of safety for
the slope, several failure surfaces have to be tried.
Table 3.5 Format of Manual Calculations for ‘Bishop’s Routine Method’
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

S
Weight of the Slice
L
Sec a
C
a h a sin a (W sin a C'd (W (1-ra) tan φ S+9 Sin a tan a 10 × 13
E
Mean Weight
No. Pr. W

� ����
��∑ ∑��� ′ � � ���1 � �� ����∅′ �� ���� ���∅′ �
����� ��
�

39
 IRC:75-2015

Fig.3.5 Stability Analysis by Bishop’s Routine Method (Chart for mα)

Fig.3.5 Fig.
Fig.3.5 3.5
Stability Stability
Analysis
Stability Analysis byby
by Bishop’s
Analysis Bishop’s
Routine
Bishop’s Routine
Method
Routine Method
(Chart
Method for (Chart
mα) for for
(Chart mα)mα)
The use of Bishop's Routine Method can be extended to cover the cases for
Fig.3.5 Stability Analysis by Bishop’s Routine Method (Chart of mpartially
α) submerged
The Theuse use
of Bishop's Routine Method can be extended to cover the cases of partially submerged
The useof of Bishop's
embankment
The Bishop's
useare
Routine
slopes Method
Routine
of common
Bishop's
whichMethod
Routine
cancommon
are becan
Method
extended
in be to cover
engineering
extended
can Fig.
be extended
the
practice.
to cases
Fig. 3.6of
cover
to cover
(a)partially
the
the
shows
cases
cases
a submerged
partially
of partially
sub- merged
of partially
submerged
embankment
embankment slopes which in engineering practice. 3.6 (a) shows a partially sub- merged
submergedslopes which with
embankment
embankment
embankment
are common
slopes
circular
slopes
which
inwhich
arc
are
engineering
failure
common
surface
are in
practice.
common
engineering
Fig.
and its centre 3.6of (a)
inpractice.
engineeringshowsThe
rotation.
Fig. 3.6
apractice.
(a)
partially
various sub-
shows a
forces
Fig.merged
acting
3.6
partially
on one of
(a)
sub- merged
embankment
embankment with circular
the
with arc
slices
circular failure
arc surface
constituting
failurethe and
sliding
surface its centre
mass
and itsareof rotation.
shown
centre of in The
Fig. various
3.6
rotation. (b)
The forces
and an
various acting on
equilibrium
forces one of
vector
acting on diagram
one of is drawn
shows a partiallyembankment sub-withmerged
circular embankment
arc failure surface with
and circular
its centre arc
of failureThe
rotation. surface
various and
forces itsacting
centreon one of
the slices
the constituting
slices the 3.6
in Fig.
constituting sliding
the(c). mass mass
sliding are shown
are in Fig. in
shown 3.6Fig.
(b) 3.6
and(b)
an and
equilibrium
an vector diagram
equilibrium vector is drawn is drawn
diagram
of rotation.the The various
slices forces
constituting the acting
sliding masson one of thein slices
are shown Fig. 3.6constituting the sliding
(b) and an equilibrium vectormassdiagramareis drawn
in Fig. 3.6
Fig.(c).
inshown 3.6in(c). in Fig.
Fig. 3.6 (c).and an equilibrium vector diagram is drawn in Fig. 3.6 (c).
3.6(b)
The expression for factor
The expression foroffactor
safety can can
of safety be be written
writtenas as
The expression for factor of safety can be written as
The expression Thefor factor �of safety can be written can�as
� �expression for factor
∑��� �of� safety be written as … Eqn 3.17
�
� ���∅ �� �� � �� � �� ��� �� �
� � ∑�� … Eqn…Eqn
3.17 3.17
� ∑��
�  ��  ������
� ∑��� � � �����∅ ��� � � � � ��� �
… Eqn 3.17
�
� � � �� �
… Eqn 3.17
�
� �∑���� �����
� � ∑��� � � ���∅ ∑���� �� � �� ���∅ � ���
� �� �� ��� � ��� ��� �
����� ���∅�
����

 �� �����∑�� �� �����
Where���� ���∅�
m� = �����1 � � ��
… Eqn 3.18
Where m� = �����1 � … Eqn 3.18
�
�
Where m� = Where m���= �����1 …Eqn… Eqn3.18
3.18… Eqn 3.18
���� ���∅� ���� ���∅�
the other notations are explained in�Fig. 3.6. �
�����1 �� �
the other notations
the other are explained
notations are in Fig. 3.6. in Fig. 3.6.
explained
the other
the other notations
The are notations
explainedmethod
recommended are explained
in Fig. 3.6.
of in Fig. the
recording 3.6.calculations is given in Table 3.3.
The recommended
The recommended method of method
recording of therecording
calculationsthe calculations
is given in Table 3.3.is given in Table 3.3.
The recommended The recommended
method
For total method
stressofanalysis,
recording oftaken
ø isthe recording
calculations
as zerothe incalculations
isthe
given is given
in Table
above 3.3.in Table
mentioned 3.3. and c' is replaced by cu.
equations
For total stress analysis, ø is taken as zero in the above mentioned equations and c' is replacedequations
For total stress analysis, ø is taken as zero in the above mentioned by cu. and c' is
replaced
For total stressbyFor
cutotal
. F=stress
analysis, ø �isanalysis,
�taken asøzero is taken
in theasabove
zero inmentioned
the above equations
mentionedand equations and c' isby
c' is replaced replaced by cu.
cu. … Eqn
Thus, 3.19
∑

Thus, F= ∑ … Eqn 3.19

∑ � � ∑ �����
∑ �Thus, F= ∑  … Eqn 3.19
����� ∑� �
Thus,
F= ∑
�
����� … Eqn 3.19
…Eqn 3.19
�����

44
44
44
40
44
IRC:75-2015

(a)

(b) (c)

Fig. 3.6 Stability Analysis of Partially Submerged Slope by Bishop’s Routine Method
Fig. 3.6 Stability Analysis of Partially submerged slope by Bishop’s Routine Method

Where Where
En, En+1
En, En+1denote
denote thethe resultants
resultants of the totalofhorizontal
the totalforceshorizontal
on the forces on the sections n and
sections n and n+ 1 respectively,
n+ 1 respectively,
Xn , Xn+1 the vertical shear forces,
W X , X denotes
n n+1
the thevertical
total weightshear forces,
of the slice of soil.
P the total normal force acting on its base,
S W the shear denotes theontotal
force acting weight of the slice of soil.
its base,
H P the height theoftotal normal force acting on its base,
the slice,
b the breadth of the slice,
l S the length the BC,
shear force acting on its base,
α H the angle the between
heightBC ofand
thetheslice,
horizontal,
x the horizontal distance of the slice from the centre of rotation,
W1 b full weight the breadth
of the soil in of
the the slice,MN,
slice above
W2 submerged weight of soil in the part of the slice below MN,
l the length BC,
γw the density of water,
Z α the depth the ofangle between
slice below MN BC and the horizontal,
x the horizontal distance of the slice from the centre of rotation,
W1 full weight of the soil in the slice above MN,
W2 submerged weight of soil in the part of the slice below MN,
45

γw the density of water,

Z the depth of slice below MN

41
IRC:75-2015

3.5.4 Chart Solutions for Analysis

A number of chart solutions for embankment stability problems have been developed to
reduce the time involved in calculations. Main among these is the charts developed by Taylor,
Bishop and Morgenstern (Geotechnique 10, 1960), Morgenstern, Spencer, Hunter, Hunter
and Schuster and Huang. Of the chart solutions available, those of Taylor, Hunter and Hunter
and Schuster are based on total stress analysis and are best suited for analyzing end-of-
construction stability. These are ideal for use as regards road embankment design. Other
charts are based on effective stress analysis and can be applied in all cases. Morgenstern's
solution is particularly good for small dams and consequently might be applicable where
highway embankment is used as an earth dam or where flooding might occur behind a
highway fill. All these methods make similar assumptions regarding geometry etc., but differ
in assumptions about variation of cohesion with depth, position of water table, base condition,
drawdown condition and slope of failure surface. Review of the chart solutions is available
in Highway Research Record No. 345 and Transport Research Record 548 (published by
the Transportation Research Board, U.S.A.) In general, simpler solutions using total stress
analysis are adequate for highway embankment design.

Table 3.6 Format of Manual Calculations for Bishop's Routine Method

(for partially Submerged Slopes)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Table 3.6 Format of manual calculations for Bishop's Routine Method (For partially submerged slopes)
h1 (Excess Standpipc) Height

(W1+W2-b.Us) tan φ
(W1+W2)Sin a

(W1+W2-b.Us)

(13) + (14)

(15) + (18)
(W1+W2)b
Slice No.

us/ϒω h1

Sec a
Sin a

tan a
b. us

c' b
w1

w2

a
b

Sec α

∑�19�
��
∑�8�

42
3.5.5. Miscellaneous hints about slip circle analysis: A few useful hints about design when conducting a
IRC:75-2015

3.5.5 Miscellaneous Hints about Slip Circle Analysis

A few useful hints about design when conducting a slip circle analysis are brought out in the
succeeding paragraphs for guidance.

3.5.5.1 Locating the centre of critical circle

In slip circle analysis, a trial and error approach for locating the circle having the smallest
factor of safety is necessary. For this purpose, the normal procedure is to establish a grid of
centers and calculate the factor of safety for each. The factor of safety is then entered on the
grid and contours of equal safety factor drawn. The parameters which influence the position
of the critical circle in a given case are: the slope of the embankment, depth of hard strata,
the soil properties ø, c/ γh, and the pore-pressure. Fellenius charts or Taylor's Tables may
be used for locating the approximate critical circle. However, it should be noted that for base
failures, provision of a balancing berm shifts the critical centre towards the berm. Also there
are usually two critical centers’, one slightly above the embankment level and the other at a
greater height. The latter is usually more critical.
For slope failures, contours showing the variation in factor of safely are roughly elliptical, with
the major axis approximately at right angles to the surface of the slope and several times the
minor axis. The centre of critical slip circle is usually located close to and slightly above the
perpendicular bisector of the slope.

3.5.5.2 Tension cracks

3.5.5.2. Tension cracks: One of the features of rotational slips in cohesive soils is the appearance of a
One of the features of rotational
vertical slipsparallel
crack running in cohesive
to the soils is the
top of the appearance
slope and at ofsomea vertical crack
distance from it usually
running parallel to the1.5
about top of the
meter fromslope andThe
the edge. at maximum
some distance from itcrack
depth of tension usually about
is given 1.5
by the meter
equation
from the edge. The maximum depth of tension crack is given by the equation
Z= tan ( � �. ... Eqn.3.20
� ∅ ��

� � � ... Eqn.3.20
To account for the effect of tension cracks in stability analysis, the effective length of the slip circle for the
To account for the effect of tension cracks in stability analysis, the effective length of the slip
purpose of resisting moment is taken only up to the end of the tension crack. For calculation, the position of
circle for the purpose of resisting moment is taken only up to the end of the tension crack.
tension crack is so assumed that its lowest point touches the circle under consideration. The most
For calculation, the position of tension crack is so assumed that its lowest point touches the
dangerous condition in the case of tension cracks would occur during rainy season when these fill up with
circle under consideration. The most dangerous condition in the case of tension cracks would
water and exert a hydrostatic pressure horizontally of the magnitude of
occur during rainy season when these fill up with water and exert a hydrostatic pressure
horizontally of the magnitude of
PH= 0.5 � Z2 ... Eqn. 3.21
PH= 0.5 γ Z2 ... Eqn. 3.21
In making
In making the stability the stability computations,
computations, this pressure
this pressure is added
is added to total
to the the total drivingforce.
driving force.

3.6. Stability
3.6 Stability Analysis Analysis for other
for other Modes
Modes ofofFailure
Failure
Planar and composite failure: Methods of analyzing stability for non-circular slip surfaces are
Planar and
numerous. For example seecomposite
Kenneyfailure:
(1956),Methods
Janbuof (1956),
analyzingNonveiller
stability for non-circular slip surfaces are numerous
(1965), Morgenstern
For example
and Price (1965 and 1967). Of seethese,
Kenneythe(1956), Janbusuggested
method (1956), Nonveiller (1965),
by Janbu Morgenstern
(1956) and Price (1965 and 1967).
is recommended;
Of these,
since it permits easy handthe method suggested
calculations by Janbu
(refer Fig. (1956) is recommended;
3.7). The expressionsince for itfactor
permitsofeasy hand calculations
safety,
with reference (refer Fig. 3.8). The expression for factor of safety, with reference
to Fig. 3.7 is given by:
43
� � ��� ��������∅� �
� ... Eqn.3.22
 3.6. Stability
Planar Analysis forfailure:
and composite other Methods
Modes ofofFailure
analyzing stability for non-circular slip surfaces are numerous.
Planar and composite failure: Methods of analyzing stability for non-circular slip surfaces are numerous.
For example see Kenney (1956), Janbu (1956), Nonveiller (1965), Morgenstern and Price (1965 and 1967).
For examplePlanarsee Kenneycomposite
(1956), Janbu (1956), Nonveiller (1965), stability
Morgenstern and Price (1965 and 1967).
Of these,and the method suggested failure: Methods
by Janbu of analyzing
(1956) is recommended; for non-circular slip surfaces
since it permits easy hand arecalculations
numerous.
Of these,
IRC:75-2015 the
For method
example suggested by Janbu (1956) is recommended; since it permits easy hand calculations
(refer Fig.see Kenney
3.8). (1956), The Janbu (1956), Nonveiller
expression for (1965),
factor Morgenstern
of and Pricewith
safety, (1965 and 1967).
reference
(refer Fig.
Of these,3.8). The expression for factor of safety, with reference
to Fig. 3.7the method
is given by:suggested by Janbu (1956) is recommended; since it permits easy hand calculations
to Fig. 3.7 is(refer
given by:Fig.
to Fig. 3.7 is given by: 3.8). The expression for factor of safety, with reference
to Fig.� 3.7 is given by:
� � ��� ��������∅� �
� ��� ��������∅� � ... Eqn.3.22
� ... Eqn.3.22
� � ��� ��������∅� � ... Eqn.3.22
� ∑ ����� ��
∑ ����� ��
� ... Eqn.3.22
∑ ����� ���� ���∅� ��
where n =cos 2 ... Eqn.3.23
where
where ... Eqn.3.23
���� ���∅�
nα =cos2 α � � � ... Eqn.3.23
�
and fo=Correction factor (see Fig. 3.8b) depending on the shear parameters and form of the slip surface. It
���� ���∅�
andandfo=Correction
fo=Correction
where factor nα (see
=cos 2Fig. 3.8b) depending on the shear parameters
shearand form of the and
slip surface. ofIt the
... Eqn.3.23
takes account of the influence of �the depending
factor (see Fig. 3.7b) vertical shear on thebetween
forces parameters
the slices on factor ofform
safety.
�
takes account offo=Correction
the influencefactorof the vertical shear
3.8b)forces between theshear
slicesparameters
on factor of and
safety.
slip surface.and TheIt takes expressionofis(see
above account for Fig.
the influence
analysis depending
of the to
according oneffective
the
vertical shear
stressforces Inform
method.between the of the of
the
case slip
slicessurface.
total stressIt
The abovetakes expression
account is for analysis
of the influence according to effective stress method. In the case of total stress
on factor ofanalysis,
safety. the equation for factorofofthe vertical
safety couldshear forces between
be written as: the slices on factor of safety.
analysis, the equation for factor of safety could be written as:
The above expression is for analysis according to effective stress method. In the case of total stress
The above expression is for analysis according to effective stress method. In the case of total
analysis, the∑equation
�� �� for factor of safety could be written as:
stress analysis, the equation
∑ �� ��
for factor of safety could be written as:
��� �
... Eqn.3.24
�
��� � �
∑ � ����
∑ � ��
... Eqn.3.24
∑ � ���� �
��� �
... Eqn.3.24
The suggested ... AEqn.3.24
� ∑ � ����
The suggested method of recording the calculations is given in Table 3.7. chart enabling quick calculation
method of recording the calculations is given in Table 3.7. A chart enabling quick calculation
of n is given in Table 3.7, Fig. 3.7(c).
The
of nsuggested
is givenThe method
in Table of 3.7(c).
3.7, Fig. recording thethe calculations isisgiven
given in Table
3.7. A3.7. A chart enabling
For suggested method
more accurate of recording
treatment calculations
of stability on non-circular in Table
slip surfaces, chart
theenabling
methodquick calculation
developed by
For calculation
quick more ofaccurate
n is of n
giventreatment
isTable
in given ofinstability
3.7, Table
Fig. on non-circular
3.7,
3.7(c). Fig. 3.7(c).slip surfaces, the method developed by
Morgenstern and Price (1967) can be used. However, it requires the use of a computer.
Morgenstern Forandmore
Priceaccurate
(1967) can be used. of However, it requires the use ofslip a computer.
For more accurate treatmenttreatment
of stability on stability on non-circular
non-circular slip surfaces, surfaces, the method
the method developed by
developed
by Morgenstern Morgenstern and Price
and Price (1967)
(1967) canbe
can be used.
used. However,
However, it requires the usethe
it requires
48 of ause
computer.
of a computer.
48
∑∑�������������ø�
���������ø�
�
���
 ��48∑∑ � ���ø�
� ���ø�

(a)

(a)

(b) CORRECTIO N FACTOR

44
 IRC:75-2015
nα

(c)
Fig. 3.7 Stability Analysis by Janbu’s Method
Fig. 3.7 Stability analysis by Janbu’s method
Table 3.7 Format of manual calculations for Janbu’s method
Table 3.7 Format of manual calculations for Janbu’s method
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Slice
SliceNo.
No. ΑΑ tanα α
tan pp uu c c tanø’tanø’ p tan αp tan
C+(p-u) C+(p-u)
α tanø’ F=? tanø’ F=? C’ + (p-u)ta
nα

3.6.2 Sliding Block Method

The method is frequently applied in two circumstances:

3.6.2 Sliding(a)
blockWhen a thin layer of soft soil (which may not necessarily be horizontal) is
method: The method is frequently applied in two circumstances:
encountered at shallow depth in the foundation.
(a) When a thin
(b) layer of soft
When thesoil (which may rests
embankment not necessarily
on a hardbe horizontal)
rock stratumiswhich
encountered at shallow
is unlikely to be depth
in the foundation. involved in the failure.
(b) When the embankment rests on a hard rock stratum which is unlikely to be involved in the failure.
The analysis is possible in terms of both total stress and effective stress depending upon the
conditions
The analysis of the project
is possible and availability
in terms of both totalofstress
data onandhand.
effective stress depending upon the conditions of
the
Inproject and availability
this method, of data
it is usual to on hand.the sliding mass into two or three large sections or
divide
wedges. The upper and the lower wedges are respectively called the active and the passive
Inwedges.
this method,
In aitthree
is usual to divide
wedge the sliding
system, mass wedge
the middle into twoisorgenerally
three large sections
referred to or
aswedges. The upper
the sliding
and the lower wedges are respectively called the active and the passive wedges. In a three wedge system,
block, Fig 3.8
the middle wedge is generally referred to as the sliding block, Fig 3.8

45
IRC:75-2015

Fig: 3.8-
Fig. 3.8 Sliding BlockSliding
Analysis Block Analysis
Fig: 3.8- Sliding Block Analysis
Assuming that that
Assuming sufficient
sufficientdeformations
deformations have have
occurred to generate
occurred to generateactive active
and passive failure failure we
and passive
wedges, Assuming that
and considering sufficient deformations
the stability have occurred
of the slidingto generate active and passive
block for equilibrium failure wedges,
in terms and of (fig
total3.9), factor
considering thethestability
considering stability ofof
thethe
slidingsliding
block forblock forinequilibrium
equilibrium in terms
terms of total stress of total
(fig 3.9), factor stress
of safety is
stress (Figby
given byfactor
expression
3.8),
given of:: safety is given by expression:
expression

F=
... Eqn.3.25
... Eqn.3.25
Similarly for equilibrium in terms of effective stress, factor of safety is given by the
expression:Similarly for equilibrium in terms of effective stress, factor of safety is given by the expression: ... Eq

Similarly for equilibrium in terms of effective stress, factor of safety is... Eqn.3.26
given by the expression:
...Eqn.3.26
����
Where Where ... Eqn.3.27
����� ���
P = �� �
A ��∅
�
√�∅
�
�∅
... Eqn.3.27
���� �∅
� 2� � �∅ . �� � ��∅ �� ... Eqn.3.28 ... Eq
... Eqn.3.28
�� �
�

Nø=tan (45+ø’/2)
2 ... Eqn.3.28
� � (45+ø’/2)
WhereNø=tan ... Eqn.3.28
2 �
�
... Eq
�� ����� ��
� � � �
W= the total��weight of√�
the ∅sliding block.
�∅
W= the total weight of the sliding block.
∅
U=u.L
U=u.L u= �the
�∅pore water �pressure acting on the sliding block
... Eq
��
�� � q=�surcharge,
� 2� if any.
�∅These
. ��formulae
� ��for∅working
�� out active and passive pressure assume planar failure,
�
u= the pore water pressure acting on the sliding block
but other sophisticated, methods are also available.

2 (45+ø’/2)
Nø=tanq= surcharge,
Limit if any.
equilibrium methods These
divide formulae
the slide mass in to afor working
number out
of slices for active andofpassive
the purposes pressure
analysis and ... Eq
this process introduces more number of unknowns than knowns, making the problem statically
assume planar failure, but other sophisticated, methods are also available.
indeterminate.
W= the total weight of the sliding block.
Limit equilibrium methods divide the slide mass in to a number of slices for the purposes of
U=u.L
analysis and this process introduces more number of unknowns than knowns, making the
u= the pore water pressure acting on the sliding block
problem statically indeterminate.
q= surcharge, if any. These formulae for working out active and passive pressure assume pla
51

46available.
but other sophisticated, methods are also
IRC:75-2015

Assumptions are made in different equilibrium methods to make the problem statically
determinate. The same are summarized in Table 3.8 below. This table lists the common
methods of stability analysis and condition of static equilibrium that are satisfied in determining
the factor of safety.
For further details of distribution of inter slice forces and related aspects please refer to Lee.
W. Abramson et. al. chapter-6, Slope Stability concepts

Table 3.8 Static Equilibrium Conditions Satisfied by Limit Equilibrium Methods

moment
Force Equilibrium
Method Equilibrium

x y

Ordinary method of slices (OMS) No No Yes

Bishop's simplified Yes No Yes

Janbu's simplified Yes Yes No

Lowe and Karafiath's Yes Yes No

Corps of Engineers Yes Yes No

Spencer's Yes Yes Yes

Bishop's rigorous Yes Yes Yes

Janbu's generalized Yes Yes No

Sarma's Yes Yes Yes

Morgenstern-Price Yes Yes Yes

3.7 Stability Analysis Using Software

Slip circle analysis is a method of checking the stability of any slope against its probability to
fail in rotational mode; sometimes failure surface may not be circular. The factor of safety for a
particular circle passing through the slope is calculated by taking into account force equilibrium
and/or moment equilibrium. While some methods of analysis consider force equilibrium and
moment equilibrium, some methods consider only force equilibrium (Abramson Lee. W. et.
al.) “Slope stability and stabilization methods” (John Wiley”) the location (center and radius)
of the most critical circle depends on all the factors described above. The critical circle is the
one with lowest FOS which has the highest probability to fail in case the disturbing force is
greater than or equal to the resisting force. Hence, the objective of the analysis is to find the
most critical circle by an iterative method.
There are many types of software available for use. The modes in which the input parameters
are provided in these softwares differ from each other. Similarly the output format also differs
from one program to another. The user should be familiar with both these aspects.
47
IRC:75-2015

In software, by defining the phreatic line, the unit weight above and below the phreatic lines
are automatically considered by the software. The same condition can be modeled by defining
two separate densities for soils above and below the phreatic line.
There are various ways and means by which the critical circle can be found and different
software has different options and tools to find the circle which has the lowest FOS. The most
common iterative method is to define a grid of centers and a defined point for the circle to
pass. The user must check all possible circles by changing the location of grid and point of
passing to find the critical circle.
The software automatically calculates the FOS for all possible circles passing through this
point and varying the location of the centers within the defined boundary of the grid. There
are few advanced softwares available which also automatically search the critical circle by
increasing and decreasing the radius of the circle However, these features are provided just
to help for a quick search. It is up to the user to ensure that all possibilities are checked by an
iterative method before concluding for the most critical circle.
The critical circle may or may not pass through the toe of embankment; it depends on the
properties of the foundation soil parameters. The weaker the foundation soil, higher is the
probability of deep seated failure
The basic method to ensure that the critical circle has been derived is by drawing a contour
map of all FOS The center of the critical circle shall lie within the defined grid of centers and
not on the edge of the grid. It is strongly advised that at least in case of one circle preferably
critical circle, the force evaluation and calculation of factor of safety may be carried out by
hand calculations or have the data from the software imported into the format given in Tables
3.4 to 3.7 as relevant to the method of analysis adopted.

3.8 Seismic Slope Stability

The basic terminology used in this section is as follows
amax/g= Peak Horizontal Ground Acceleration (PHGA)
KH= Horizontal seismic coefficient expressed as amax/g
Kh= Design horizontal seismic coefficient expressed as 0.5 amax/g
(As per 1893 section 6.4.2)
Z= zone factor expressed as amax/g
The ground accelerations associated with seismic events can induce significant inertia forces
that may lead to instability of natural and man-made slopes and embankments.
In a pseudo-static limit equilibrium analysis, the earthquake inertia forces are represented by
static loads applied at the centre of gravity of each “slice” through the potential failure mass.
Numerous limit equilibrium methods and procedures are currently available to evaluate
48
IRC:75-2015

static slope stability. The search for the critical surface i.e. the surface with the lowest
factor of safety or yield acceleration may have to be repeated because the critical surface
from the static analysis is not necessarily the same as the critical surface for the dynamic
analysis.
A wide variety of commercially available computer programs exist that can perform both
static and pseudo-static limit equilibrium analyses. Most of these programs provide general
solutions to slope stability problems with provisions for using the simplified Bishop, simplified
Janbu, Bishop’s Rigorous and Janbu’s generalized method and/or Spencer’s method of
slices.
In principle, pseudo-static limit equilibrium analysis can be performed using either a total or
an effective stress analysis. Problems of estimating pore water pressures induced by cyclic
shearing are avoided by using a total stress analysis.
In the pseudo-static limit equilibrium analysis, a seismic coefficient is used to represent the
effect of the inertia forces imposed by the earthquake upon the potential failure mass. The
traditional pseudo-static limit equilibrium method of seismic stability analysis is illustrated in
Fig. 3.9. Simplifications made in using the pseudo-static approach to evaluate seismic slope
stability include replacing the cyclic earthquake motion with a constant horizontal acceleration
equal to kH x g, where kH is the seismic coefficient, and g is acceleration of gravity, and
assuming that this steady acceleration induces an inertia force kHW through the center of
gravity of the potential failure mass, where W is the weight of the potential failure mass.

49
IRC:75-2015

Fig. 3.9: Analyses of Earthquake Induced Forces (Circular Arc Method – Method of Slices)
Fig. 3.9 Analyses of Earthquake Induced Forces (Circular Arc Method – Method of Slices)

Fig. 3.9: Analyses∑� ���

of Earthquake Induced Forces
Ф �� (Circular Arc Method – Method of Slices)
(Total stresses are considered)… Eqn.3.30
3.30
��� Ф �� ∑� � ��� � ��� �
�� � ∑ � ��� �� ∑ � ��� � ��
(Total stresses are considered) …Eqn.
Where
�� � FS∑ = factor of safety; (Total stresses are considered)… Eqn. 3.30
∑� ��� ��� Ф �� ∑� � ��� � ��� Ф �� �

� ��� �� ∑ � ��� � ��
C = cohesive resistance of the slice; 55

C=c X
N = force normal to the arc of slice;55
Ф = angle of internal friction;
W = weight of slice considered for driving force;
α = angle between the centre of the slice and radius of failure surface;
c = unit cohesion;
h = length of arc;
kH = horizontal seismic coefficient
Te = Wsin α . kH and Ne = Wcos α . kH
Design horizontal acceleration shall be 0.5 amax as per the FHWA-SA-97-076 guidelines

3.9 Liquefaction
During an earthquake seismic waves travel vertically and rapid loading of soil occurs under
undrained conditions since pore water has no time to move out. In saturated soils the seismic
energy causes an increase in pore water pressure and subsequently the effective stress
decrease. This results in loss of shear strength of soil and soil starts to behave as a fluid. This
fluid is no longer able to sustain the load of structure and structure fails. This phenomenon is
known as liquefaction. In other words the saturated soil which loses its strength and stiffness
due to earthquake shaking is known as liquefiable soil.
50
IRC:75-2015

The phenomenon of liquefaction can also be explained by considering the shear strength of
soils. Soils fail under externally applied shear forces. The shear strength of soil is governed
by effective or inter-granular stresses. Effective stress is equal to deference between total
stress and porewater pressure i.e. σ’ = σ – u
Shear strength τ of soil is given as: τ = c’ + σ’ tan φ ... Eqn.3.31
It can be seen that cohesionless soil (where c = 0), such as sand, will not possess any shear
strength when the effective stresses approaches zero and it will transform into liquid state.
During liquefaction, soil strength and its ability to support foundation get reduced. Soils in
liquefied state exert higher pressure on retaining walls, which can cause them to tilt or slide.
This movement can cause settlement of the retained soil and distress of structures on the
ground surface. Increased pore water pressure can also trigger slope failures in the form of
slides and flows.
Unsaturated soils are not subject to liquefaction because vibratory forces from earthquakes
do not cause any increase in pore water pressure in such soils.
Liquefaction generally takes place in loose fine grained sands (fines*<5%, 0.20 mm <D60
<1.0 mm and Cu between 2 to 5) with N value less than 15. Seed (1971) concludes that in case
of soil strata indicating corrected N>15, the liquefaction of soil will not possibly take place.
Liquefaction potential needs to be assessed layer wise quantitatively by the procedure given
below.
*In this context fines are defined as silt+clay content, particle size < 75µ as per IS 1498

3.10 Assessment of the Liquefaction Potential of Subsoil

The assessment of liquefaction potential is carried out mostly based on “Simplified Procedure”
methodology developed by professors H. B. Seed & I. M. Idriss. FHWA-SA-97-077 chapter-5
adopts the same procedure. This procedure has become a Standard of Practice (SOP) all
over the world. For details refer Youd. T. L. and others (2001).This is an exhaustive report
and discusses the development of the various parameters involved in the calculations of
liquefaction and Factor of safety.
Estimation of following two variables is required for knowing the susceptibility of soil for
liquefaction. If induced Cyclic Shear Stress (CSR) is more than mobilized shear resistance
(CRR) liquefaction will occur.
• Liquefaction potential or seismic resistance of the soil layers expressed in
terms of CSR (Cyclic Stress Ratio) and
• Liquefaction capacity or the capacity of the soil to resist liquefaction expressed
in terms of CRR (Cyclic Resistance Ratio).
• If the factor of safety as defined by CRR/CSR >1, the soil is considered as
non liquefiable.
Following are the steps involved in the calculation:
51
IRC:75-2015

Step 1: Calculate Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR).

CSR = τav/σ’V0 = 0.65 (amax /g) (σV0/σ’V0 ) rd ... Eqn.3.32
Ref. Youd. T. L. and others (2001)
Where,
amax = peak horizontal acceleration at ground surface generated by earthquake;
g = acceleration due to gravity;
σV0 & σ’V0 = total and effective vertical overburden stress respectively;
rd = stress reduction coefficient (accounts for flexibility of soil)
rd = 1.0 – 0.00765z for z < 9.15 m
rd = 1.174 – 0.0267z for 9.15 m < z < 23 m
rd = 0.744 – 0.008z for 23 m < z < 30 m
rd = 0.50 for z > 30 m
z is the depth below ground surface

Step 2: Calculate Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR).

The liquefaction resistance of soil (CRR) can be determined based on Field test results.
Laboratory tests are difficult since in-situ state of stress generally cannot be re-established
in the laboratory easily (except in case specialized sampling techniques such as ground
freezing). Tests which are commonly used for assessment of liquefaction resistance of soil
are: Standard Penetration Test (SPT); Cone Penetration Test (CPT); Shear Wave Velocity
(SWVs); & Becker Penetration Test (BPT). Procedure for calculating CRR based on SPT is
only discussed here, as it is the most common practice in vogue now a days:

Step 2A: Calculation of (N1)60 SPT blow count normalized to an overburden Pressure of
approximately 100 kPa
(N1)60 = NmCNCECBCRCS ... Eqn.3.33
Where, Nm is measured penetration resistance (five different corrections are applied for Nm
and are listed below);
a) CN is factor to normalize Nm to reference effective overburden pressure σ’V0
of approximately 100 kPa, CN = (Pa/σ’V0)0.5 & CN ≤ 1.7;
b) CE is correction factor for hammer energy: CE = (ER/60)
c) CB correction factor for borehole diameter (1 for 65-115 mm, 1.05 for 150 mm
& 1.15 for 200 mm dia.)
d) CR correction factor for rod length =0.75 for 3.0 m to 4.0 m
=0.85 for 4.0 m to 6.0 m
=0.95 for 6.0 m to 10.0 m
=1.0 for 10.0m to 30.0 m
52
IRC:75-2015

e) CS is correction for sampler with or without liners (= 1 for sampler with liner &
1.1 to 1.3 for sampler without liner)

Step 2B: Calculation of (N1)60cs - SPT blow count normalized to an equivalent clean sand
value.
(N1)60cs = α + β (N1)60 ... Eqn.3.34
Where,
α = 0 & β = 1.0 for Fine Content (FC) ≤ 5%
α = exp [1.76 – (190/FC2)] & β = [0.99 + FC1.5/1000] for 5% ≤ FC < 35%
α = 5.0 & β = 1.2 for FC ≥ 35%

Step 2C: Calculation of cyclic resistance ratio CRR7.5 (for earthquake magnitude 7.5)
CRR7.5 = 1/(34-(N1)60+((N1)60/135)+50/(10(N1)60+ 45)2-(1/200) ... Eqn.3.35
Ref. Youd. T. L. and others (2001)
The above equation is valid for (N1)60 < 30. For (N1)60 ≥ 30, clean sand granular soils are
too dense to liquefy and are classed as non-liquefiable.

Step 2D: Deciding the magnitude scaling factor (MSF)

The CRR evaluated in STEP 2C apply only to magnitude 7.5 earthquakes. For magnitudes
of earthquake other than M = 7.5 EQ. “Magnitude Scaling Factor” have been introduced. The
value MSF given by Idriss in 1995 for N= 5.5, 6, 6.5, 7, 7.5, 8, 8.5 are 2.2, 1.76, 1.44, 1.19,
1.00, 0.84 & 0.72 respectively. These MSF values are listed in Table 3.3 of Youd. T. L. and
others (2001) which are reproduced in the table 3.9 below.

Step 2E: Evaluation of CRR

CRR = MSF x CRR7.5 ... Eqn.3.36
FOS against liquefaction = CRR/CSR. If FOS > 1; soil is non liquefiable.
Table 3.9 Magnitude Scaling Factor Values Defined by Various Investigators
Magnitude M Seed and Idriss Idriss
(1982)
5.5 1.43 2.20
6.0 1.32 1.76
6.5 1.19 1.44
7.0 1.08 1.19
7.5 1.00 1.00
8.0 0.94 0.84
8.5 0.89 0.72

53
IRC:75-2015

Table 3.10 Typical Computation of Liquefaction Potential by simplified Method

Depth below E.G.L., m 1.50 3.00 4.50 6.00 7.50 9.00 10.50 13.50 16.50 19.50

Type of strata SM SP-SM SP-SM SP SP SM SP-SM SP-SM SP SP-SM

Observed SPT value 12 8 6 4 7 4 22 100 32 31

Saturated density(t/m )3
1.90 1.80 1.80 1.70 1.80 1.70 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00

Submerged density(t/m ) 3
0.90 0.80 0.80 0.70 0.80 0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Fine Content (%) 27.00 7.00 7.00 2.00 2.00 13.00 5.00 5.00 3.00 7.00

Stress reduction coefficient(rd) 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.89 0.81 0.73 0.65

Total overburden pressure(σV0)t/m 2

2.85 5.55 8.25 10.80 13.50 16.05 19.05 25.05 31.05 37.05

Effective overburden pressure(σ’V0) 1.35 2.55 3.75 4.80 6.00 7.05 8.55 11.55 14.55 17.55

Cyclic stress ratio(CSR) 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.31 0.28 0.24 0.22

CN 1.70 1.70 1.63 1.44 1.29 1.19 1.08 0.93 0.83 0.75

CE 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.17

CB 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05

CR 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.95 1 1 1 1

CS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

SPT Corrected( N1)60 18.74 13.33 10.20 6.72 10.52 5.54 29.15 113.98 32.50 28.67

α 4.48 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.00 1.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12

β 1.13 1.01 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01

( N1)60cs 25.66 13.56 10.41 6.72 10.52 7.64 29.15 113.98 32.50 29.03

CRRM=7.5 0.31 0.15 0.12 0.09 0.12 0.09 0.42 NA NA 0.41

CRR 0.36 0.17 0.14 0.10 0.14 0.11 0.50 NA NA 0.49

FOS 1.12 0.52 0.42 0.30 0.42 0.33 1.60 >1 >1 2.28

Conclusion NL L L L L L NL NL NL NL

Note:
a) NL means NON-LIQUEFIABLE SOIL; L means LIQUEFIABLE SOIL
b) The project site falls in Zone-IV. A maximum earthquake intensity of 7.0 has been
considered in the analysis.
c) The peak ground acceleration PGA considered as amax /g=0.24( for Zone IV)
d) CE= Correction for hammer energy ratio=ER/60. ER for Rope and pulley system=70%,
Hence CE=70/60=1.167
e) Borehole diameter=150mm, Hence CB=1.05
f) Cs= Correction for standard sampler=1.0
g) Magnitude Scaling Factor(MSF)=1.19 has been taken in the analysis ( Recommended
revised MSF)

3.11 Distress Caused by Liquefaction and its Mitigation

In case of embankments, the ground beyond the toe may lose shear strength and suffer
lateral flow. This may cause part of the embankment to settle. In case of large settlements,
54
IRC:75-2015

cracks may appear on the top crest of the embankment. To a certain extent these damage
may be controlled by
i) Providing berms at the toe of the embankment or increasing the berm width
wherever feasible.
ii) The subsoil may be densified by various methods of compaction including
dynamic compaction, so that N value is higher than the liquefiable limits
iii) Adopting ground improvement methods such as stone columns or compacted
granular columns basal reinforcement, pile supported basal reinforcement in
the ground.
In general these methods may be costly and may only be adopted after detailed study.
Experience concerning liquefaction and its control in case of embankments is scant. Since
liquefaction of embankments is site-specific problem, generalized solution may not be
feasible. Embankments are structures of low risk, and hence in certain cases, it may be
economical to allow some distress/failures due to liquefaction and earthquakes and same
can be repaired subsequently.
In case of structures, deep foundations resting on layers not susceptible to liquefaction
are adopted to ensure their stability. This solution may not be economical for highway
embankments.
Factor of safety value of 1.0 can be adopted when liquefaction analysis is carried out for
design of embankments.

55
IRC:75-2015

Annexure 3.1

Table 3.11 Zone Factor

Seismic Zone II III IV V

Seismic Low Moderate Severe Very Severe

z 0.10 0.16 0.24 0.36

Table 3.12 Zone Factors for Some Important Towns

Town Zone Zone Factor, z Town Zone Zone Factor, z

Agra III 0.16 Chitradurga II 0.10
Ahmedabad III 0.16 Coimbatore III 0.16
Ajmer II 0.10 Cuddalore III 0.16
Allahabad II 0.10 Cuttack III 0.16
Almora IV 0.24 Dehra Dun IV 0.24
Ambala IV 0.24 Dharampuri III 0.16
Amritsar IV 0.24 Delhi IV 0.24
Asansol III 0.16 Durgapur III 0.16
Aurangabad II 0.10 Darbhanga V 0.36
Bahraich IV 0.24 Darjeeling IV 0.24
Bangalore II 0.10 Dharwad III 0.16
Barauni IV 0.24 Gangtok IV 0.24
Bareilly III 0.16 Guwahati V 0.36
Belgaum III 0.16 Goa III 0.16
Bhatinda III 0.16 Gulbarga II 0.10
Bhilai II 0.10 Gaya III 0.16
Bhopal II 0.10 Gorakhpur IV 0.24
Bhubaneswar III 0.16 Hyderabad II 0.10
Bhuj V 0.36 Imphal V 0.36
Bijapur III 0.16 Jabalpur III 0.16
Bikaner III 0.16 Jaipur II 0.10
Bokaro III 0.16 Jamshedpur II 0.10
Bulandshahr IV 0.24 Jhansi II 0.10
Burdwan III 0.16 Jodhpur II 0.10
Cailcut III 0.16 Jorhat V 0.36
Chandigarh IV 0.24 Kakrapara III 0.16
Chennai III 0.16 Kalapakkam III 0.16

56
IRC:75-2015

Town Zone Zone Factor, z Town Zone Zone Factor, z

Kanchipuram III 0.16 Pune III 0.16

Kanpur III 0.16 Raipur II 0.10

Karwar III 0.16 Rajkot III 0.16

Kohima V 0.36 Ranchi II 0.10

Kolkata III 0.16 Roorkee IV 0.24

Kota II 0.10 Rourkela II 0.10

Kurnool II 0.10 Sadiya V 0.36

Lucknow III 0.16 Salem III 0.16

Ludhiana IV 0.24 Simla IV 0.24

Mumbai III 0.16 Sironj II 0.10

Mysore II 0.10 Solapur III 0.16

Madurai II 0.10 Srinagar V 0.36

Mandi V 0.36 Surat III 0.16

Mangalore III 0.16 Tarapur III 0.16

Monghyr IV 0.24 Tazpur V 0.36

Moradabad IV 0.24 Thane III 0.16

Nagpur II 0.10 Thanjavur II 0.10

Nagarjunasagar II 0.10 Thiruvananthapuram III 0.16

Nainital IV 0.24 Tiruchirappali II 0.10

Nasik III 0.16 Tiruvennamalai III 0.16

Nellore III 0.16 Udaipur II 0.10

Osmanabad III 0.16 Vadodara III 0.16

Panjim III 0.16 Varanasi III 0.16

Patiala III 0.16 Vellore III 0.16

Patan IV 0.24 Vijayawada III 0.16

Pilibhit IV 0.24 Vishakhapatnam II 0.10

Pondicherry II 0.10

Zone Factor is a factor to obtain the design spectrum depending on the perceived maximum
seismic risk characterized by Maximum Considered Earthquake in the zone in which the
structure is located. Reference can be made to IS 1893(part 1): Criteria for Earthquake
Resistant Design of Structures.

57
IRC:75-2015

Note: Towns falling at the boundary of zones demarcation line between two zones shall be considered in High Zone.
Fig. 3.10 Seismic Zoning Map of India

58
IRC:75-2015

Chapter 4

SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS

4.1 General
4.1.1 Highway embankments constructed over soft and compressible soils undergo
settlements. Such settlements cause unevenness of riding surface and eventually cracking of
pavements. This leads to increase in maintenance cost of pavements. High quality asphaltic
pavements currently in use are susceptible to failures even due to small settlements. Sudden
depression at bridge approach also forms a major maintenance problem. It is therefore
essential to pay attention to this aspect on high embankments so that the post construction
settlement is contained within reasonable limits.
4.1.2 Settlement refers to the decrease in void ratio of the fill material constituting the
body of the embankment and/or the subsoil constituting the foundation of the embankment.
The process of reduction in the voids, accompanied by the expulsion of water under load, is
familiarly known as “the process of consolidation”. The settlements are calculated based on
Terzaghi’s theory of consolidation.

4.2 Consolidation of Sub-Soil

4.2.1. Most of the settlements of highway embankment are due to deformation of sub-
soil under the embankment loads. This consolidation is traditionally considered to have
three components: initial settlement; consolidation settlement; and secondary settlement.
Immediately upon loading, a saturated cohesive soil deforms without movement of pore
water; this is called initial settlement or settlement due to shear at constant volume since the
volumetric compressibility of saturated clay is essentially zero. Subsequently, time dependent
settlement occurs as pore water flows out of the soil and load is transferred to the soil skeleton.
The part of the time dependant settlement, where rate is controlled by the rate of dissipation
of the excess pore water pressure, is called consolidation settlement and it continues until
the pore water pressure generated by the loading is in equilibrium with hydraulic boundary
conditions. Finally, a time dependent settlement occurs that is not controlled by the rate
of dissipation of excess pore water pressure. This component is referred to as secondary
settlement or compression. The principal settlement relevant for highway embankments is
consolidation settlement.
4.2.2 Initial settlement does not have much of a practical significance in case of highway
embankments. However, if a designer is interested, this settlement can be calculated by use
of charts prepared besides others by Giroud (1968).
4.2.3 Consolidation Settlement: Where undisturbed samples are obtainable, settlements
can be predicted by conducting laboratory consolidation tests applying the appropriate loads.
In the interpretation of laboratory consolidation tests it is common practice to include the
immediate and secondary compressions of all previous increments in the calculations of
the consolidated void ratio under the subsequent increment. This practice compensates (in
59
IRC:75-2015

a general way) for the immediate settlements that occur in the field although the time rate
relationships are different.
4.2.4 For the many cases that arise in practice in which secondary compressions
and creep at constant volume are not of great importance in which the compressible stratum
is either deeply buried between layers of stiffer soil, or in thin layers compared to the size
of the loaded area, the ultimate settlements can be calculated by one-dimensional theory.
The error on this account in the prediction of consolidation settlements will seldom
exceed ± 25 percent in the case of normally consolidated deposits. For over consolidated
deposits, the percentage error may be much higher but the total settlements will always be
much less.
4.2.5 in as much as volume changes are considered to be one dimensional, the apparent
consolidation settlement Si of each segment of clay stratum can be computed using the
equation.
Cc P + ∆P
Si = D log10 o
1 + e0 Po ...Eqn 4.1
The apparent total consolidation S is
S= ...Eqn 4.2
ΔP =Load increments
PO= initial effective stress at mid depth of compressible clay
D= full depth of clay stratum
Cc=compression index evaluated over the range PO + ΔP
eO= initial void ratio
The magnitude of total settlement of foundation strata is determined by summation of
consolidation in the various strata forming the foundation. To allow for the variation of pressure
with different depths, the substrata is generally divided into thin layers and settlements
calculated for each layer separately before totaling. The first task is therefore to identify the
number and the thickness of the layers to be considered. This can be done with the help of
a borehole log.

4.2.6 Prediction of Consolidation Settlements

The purpose of performing consolidation tests is to determine the stress strain properties of
the soil and thus they allow predicting consolidation settlements in the field. The computations
are performed by projecting the laboratory test results (as contained in the parameters Cc, Cr
,eo, σc’) back to the field conditions .For simplicity, the discussions of consolidation settlement
predictions in this chapter consider only the case of one dimensional consolidation and only
the ultimate consolidation settlement will be computed. One dimension consolidation means
60
IRC:75-2015

only vertical strains occur in the soil. In this context, a compressible stratum refers to the
strata that have a Cc or Cr large enough to contribute significantly to the settlement. The most
common one dimensional consolidation problems are those that evaluate settlement due to
the placement of a long and wide fill and due to the wide spread lowering of the ground water
table.
The ultimate The consolidation
ultimate consolidationsettlement
consolidation is the value
settlement the after
valueall of the excess pore water pressures
The ultimate settlement isis the value after
after all of
all of the excess
the excess pore water
pore water pressures have
pressures have
have dissipated,
dissipated, which
dissipated, which may
which may require
may require many
require many years
many years
years or or even
or even decades.
even decades.
decades. The The ultimate
The ultimate consolidation
ultimate consolidation
consolidation settlement
settlement for
for
settlement normally
for normally
normally consolidated consolidated
consolidated and and over-consolidated
and over-consolidated
over-consolidated soil soil can
can be soil
be determined can
determined by be
by the determined
the following by
following formulas.
formulas. the
following formulas.
Case II normally
Case normally consolidated
consolidated soil:
soil:
Case I normally consolidated soil
IfIf σσz0z0’=’= σσcc’’ the
the soil
soil by
by definition
definition isis normally
normally consolidated.
consolidated. TheThe initial
initial and
and final
final conditions
conditions are
are shown
shown in
in fig.
fig.
If σz0’= σc’ the
4.8.and
4.8.and soilthe bycompressibility
the definition isisisnormally
compressibility defined by
defined byconsolidated.
CCcc,, the
the slope
slope of The
of the initial
the virgin
virgin and final conditions are
curve.
curve.
shown in Fig. 4.8 and the compressibility is defined by Cc, the slope of the virgin curve.
For normally
For normally consolidated
consolidated soil
soil the
the ultimate
ultimate consolidation
consolidation isis calculated
calculated as as per
per the
the following
following equation
equation
For normally consolidated soil the ultimate consolidation is calculated as per the following
equation
…… Eqn
Eqn 4.3
4.3
…Eqn 4.3
Where H=
Where H= thickness
thickness of of the
the soil
soil layer
layer
Where H= thickness of the soil layer
When using
When using thethe above
above equation, compute σσz0z0’’ and
equation, compute and σσzfzf’’ at
at the
the midpoint
midpoint of
of each
each layer.
layer.
When using the above equation, compute σz0’ and σzf’ at the midpoint of each layer.
Case IIA
Case IIA Over-consolidated
Over-consolidated Soils Soils (σ ’< σσzfzf’’ ≤≤ σ’
(σz0z0’< σ’cc ))
Case IIA Over-consolidated Soils (σz0’< σzf’≤ σ’c)
If neither σz0IfIf’ neither
neither
nor z0’’ nor
σzf’σσexceed
z0 nor σσzfzfσ’c,
’’ exceed
exceed σ’cc,, the
the entire
σ’ theconsolidation
entire consolidation
entire consolidationprocess process
process occurs
occurs
occurs on
on on the
thethe recompression curve
recompression
recompression curve as
as
shown in
shown in Fig 4.1.4.1. The
The analysis
analysis isis thus
thus identical
identical to to that
that for for normally
normally consolidated soils
soils except
except we
we use
use the
the
curve as shown in Fig
Fig 4.1. The analysis is thus identical to that forconsolidated
normally consolidated
recompression index,
recompression index, CCrr,, instead
instead of of the
the compression
compression index, index, CCcc..
soils except we use the recompression index, Cr, instead of the compression index, Cc.

��
…… Eqn
Eqn 4.4
4.4
�
δδ�,��� �∑
�,��� � ∑ � ����
���� ��  �
 �
���
��� 
�� …Eqn 4.4
Case IIB
Case IIB Over-consolidated
Over-consolidated Soils
Soils (σ ’< σ’
(σz0z0’< σ’cc << σσzfzf’)’)
Case IIB Over-consolidated Soils (σz0’< σ’c < σzf’)
IfIf the
the consolidation
If the consolidation consolidation process
processprocess begins
beginsbegins onrecompression
on theon the recompression
the recompression curveand
curve
curve andends
and ends on
ends on the
onthe virgin
thevirgin curve,
curve,
virgin as shown
as
curve, shown in
in
Fig 4.1,
Fig 4.1, then
then the
the analysis must
must consider
consider both
both CCccand
and CCrr::
as shown in Fig 4.1, thenanalysis
the analysis must consider both Cc and Cr:

� ��
…… Eqn4.5
Eqn4.5
� �
δδ�,��� �∑
�,��� � ∑ �� � �
� �� � �� �
� � ����
���� ��  ��
��
���
��� � �
 ��� �
��� � …Eqn 4.5
This condition
This condition
This condition
is quiteisiscommon,
quite common,
quite common, becausebecausemany
because many soils
many soils that
soilsthat
that might appear
might
might appear to be
appear
to be normally
normally consolidated
to be consolidated
normally fromfrom aa
consolidatedgeologic
geologic analysis
from analysis actually
actually
a geologic have aa small
have
analysis small amount
amount
actually of over
of
have over consolidation
consolidation
a small amount (Mesri
(Mesri et al.,
of et al., 1994).
over 1994).
consolidation
(Mesri et al., 1994).
When using equation,
equation, σσz0z0’,’, σ’
σ’cc,, σσzfzf’’ must
must be
be computed
computed atat the
the midpoint
midpoint of
of each
each layer.
layer.
When using
When using equation, σz0’, σ’c, σzf’ must be computed at the midpoint of each layer.
61
 IRC:75-2015

Fig. 4.1Consolidation of over-consolidated soil

Fig. 4.1Consolidation
Fig. 4.1 of over-consolidated
Consolidation soil
of Over-consolidated Soil
2.7. Coefficient of compressibility av, coefficient Fig.of4.1Consolidation
volume compressibility mv, coefficientsoil
of over-consolidated of consolidation
, andCoefficient
v2.7. coefficientofofcompressibility
permeability
Fig.K,4.1Consolidation
aare related to of
v, coefficient
oneof another
volume by the relationship:
over-consolidated
compressibilitysoilmv, coefficient of consolidation
4.2.7 Coefficient
4.2.7. Coefficient of compressibility
of compressibility av, coefficient
av, coefficient of volume compressibility
of volume compressibility mv, coefficient ofmconsolidation
v,
coefficient
v, and coefficient of permeability K, are related to one another by the relationship:
of Cconsolidation
.2.7. Coefficient of compressibility
v, and coefficient C
 
, and coefficient
coefficient
ofav,vpermeability of volume
K, of compressibility
permeability
are related to one anothermK, are related
coefficient
v,by the..Eqn of to one another by the
4.6consolidation
relationship:

relationship:
Cv, and coefficient of permeability K,are  related to one another by the relationship:
ΔP
..Eqn 4.6
..Eqn 4.6
  
ΔP 
..Eqn 4.6
  ΔP
…Eqn 4.6
 ΔP
..Eqn 4.7
�0
 
� e0
0
..Eqn 4.7
..Eqn 4.7 4.7
 �
e0 …Eqn
0

..Eqn 4.7
�0 e0
 e0
..Eqn 4.8


�v Υw
…Eqn 4.8
..Eqn 4.8

..Eqn 4.8
 
�v Υw
∆S = m
.D.∆P …Eqn 4.9

..Eqn 4.8
�v Υw
 v
� Υ v w
Υw is the unit weight of water and e is the final void ratio.
68
62
68
68
  ..Eqn 4.9

IRC:75-2015
the unit weight of water and e is the final void ratio.
4.2.8 For clays which are normally loaded and which are of ordinary sensitivity,
For clays which
experience hasloaded
are normally shown and which
that theare of ordinary sensitivity,
Compression Index Cexperience
is related hastoshown
liquid limit of the soil by
c
he Compression Index Ccrelationship
statistical is related to liquid limit of the
Cc=0.009( soil by statistical
L.L-10). relationshipbe
It may therefore, Cc=0.009(
prudentL.L- to take advantage of
may therefore,
thisberelationship
prudent to take advantage C
to evaluate ofc this relationship
in case to evaluate
of normally loaded Cc inclays
case without
of normally resorting to extensive
consolidation
d clays without tests. However,
resorting to extensive consolidation
consolidation tests. However,testsconsolidation
would be necessarytests wouldwhere be the embankment
sary where theis built on deepis deposit
embankment on soft
built on deep clayonand
deposit softwhere
clay andboth wheremagnitude
both magnitudeand rate and of settlement have
of settlement to be todetermined
have be determined to toformulate
formulate the methodof of
the method foundation
foundation treatment
treatment and or and the or the method of
od of construction. Consolidation tests would also be necessary in the case of clays which are known of clays which are
construction. Consolidation tests would also be necessary in the case
known
over consolidated to be over
or preloaded andconsolidated
sometimes even ortopreloaded and sometimes
determine whether evenloaded
clay is normally to determine
or whether clay
aded. For overisconsolidated
normally loadedclays, theorCcpreloaded.
value obtained Forfrom
over consolidated
laboratory consolidation clays,teststhe Cc tovalue obtained from
is apt
laboratory
her than for normally consolidation
consolidated clay. Thetests is apt
prediction to be higher
of settlements usingthan
the Cfor normally
c value ignoringconsolidated
the clay. The
hat the clay prediction
had been pre- of settlements
consolidated using
clay and thetreating
Cc value it asignoring
though it the hadfactbeenthat the clay had been pre-
normally
lidated wouldconsolidated
result in an errorclay andconservative
on the treating it sideas though it had
and the error maybeen
happennormally consolidated would result in
to be appreciable
an error on the conservative
degree of over-consolidation is particularly high. side and the error may happen to be appreciable if the degree
of over-consolidation is particularly high.
Rate of consolidation settlement: The time‘t’ required to reach a certain percentage of consolidation in
4.2.9 Rate of consolidation settlement: The time‘t’ required to reach a certain percentage
um is given byofthe equation.
consolidation in a stratum is given by the equation.
 
..Eqn 4.10

...Eqn 4.10
Where T= Time factor corresponding to the degree of consolidation

T= Time factor c corresponding

v
= to
Coefficient
the degree ofofconsolidation
consolidation for range of stress applicable
H = the length of effective drainage path. For one-way drainage H=D and for two
oefficient of consolidation for
wayrange of stressH=D/2
drainage applicable

length of effective D path.
drainage = Depth of compressible
For one-way strata
drainage H=D and for two-way drainage H=D/2
4.2.10 strata The value of time factor T for various degrees of consolidation and different drainage
pth of compressible
conditions is taken either from tables 4.1 and 4.2 or Fig 4.2 which gives the relationship
The value ofbetween
time factorthe dimensionless
T for various degrees time factor T and
of consolidation average
and different percentage
drainage of isconsolidation ‘U’ for
conditions
various
either from tables typical
4.1 and 4.2 orboundary conditions.
Fig 4.2 which The choice
gives the relationship of curve
between in Fig. 4.2 or
the dimensionless column in Tables 4.1
time
T and averageand 4.2 depends
percentage on the ‘U’
of consolidation type of drainage
for various conditions
typical boundary and porewater
conditions. The choice of pressure distribution
diagram. For typical embankment for clay layer in the subsoil is
n Fig. 4.2 or column in tables 4.1 and 4.2 depends on the type of drainage conditions and porewater situated below a sand blanket
re distributionon the topFor
diagram. and gravely
typical strata below,
embankment for claythe
layerdrainage is two-way
in the subsoil is situatedand curve
below 1 in Fig. 4.2 or column
a sand
4 ofgravely
t on the top and table strata
4.1 should be drainage
below, the used to isevaluate
two-way andT. Incurve
case1 inthere is or
Fig 4.2 nocolumn
gravelly4 oflayer underlying the
.1 should beclay
usedstratum, drainage
to evaluate will there
T. In case occurisinnoonly one direction
gravelly towards
layer underlying the the
claysand blanket and curve 2 in
stratum,
Fig 4.2 or column 3 of Table 4.2 would be appropriate.

4.3 Consolidation Settlements Vis-a-Vis Loading

4.3.1 The loading period is generally proceeded by excavation and then the load is
69
applied at a varying rate. Frequently, the loading is approximated by a uniform rate and the
settlement at the end of the loading period is assumed to be the same as that which would
have resulted in half the loading period had all the load been applied at once. In principle,
63
 4.3 Consolidation settlements vis-à-vis loading

4.3.1 The loading period is generally proceeded by excavation and then the load is applied at a varying
IRC:75-2015
rate. Frequently, the loading is approximated by a uniform rate and the settlement at the end of the loading
period is assumed to be the same as that which would have resulted in half the loading period had all the
the rate
loadofbeen
primary
appliedconsolidation can be
at once. In principle, thecalculated
rate of primaryforconsolidation
any variation can of
be loading
calculatedtoforany
any degree
variation
of precision desired by splitting up the increase in load into small increments,
of loading to any degree of precision desired by splitting up the increase in load into small increments, calculating the
rate ofcalculating
settlement for of
the rate each increment
settlement for each independently, and adding
increment independently, the resulting
and adding the resultingvalues.
values.This
This
approach is too cumbersome for practical
approach is too cumbersome for practical purposes. purposes.
4.3.2 The settlement analysis can give reasonably close forecast of the amount and
4.3.2 The
rate of settlement settlement
providedanalysis
carecanand give reasonably
judgment areclose forecast in
exercised of the
the amount
selection andofrate of settlement
samples and
provided care
interpretation and results.
of test judgment Bore-hole
are exercisedrecordsin the selection
covering of samples
the whole and site
interpretation
should be of test results.
carefully
Bore-hole
studied. If the records covering
soil strata overthe whole
the sitesite
areshould be carefully
similar, studied. If the
a representative soilsoilprofile
strata can
over be
the drawn
site are
for thesimilar,
site aand
representative
the averagesoil profile
values can be
of drawn for the site
Cc marked and the
there on average
for each values of Cc marked
stratum. there on
The choice
for each stratum. The
of a representative soil choice
profileof involves
a representative soil judgment.
careful profile involvesIn careful judgment.
the case In theclay
of thick case strata,
of thick
clay strata, compressibility must not be assumed as constant throughout.
compressibility must not be assumed as constant throughout. Normally loaded clays usually Normally loaded clays usually
show show progressively
progressively decreasing compressibility
decreasing compressibility with with
increasing depth. depth.
increasing

Curve 1

Curve 2

Time Factor T

Fig. 4.2Fig.
Time4.2 Factors for Consolidation
Time factors for consolidationAnalysis
analysis
4.3.3 4.3.3 Rate
Rateofofsettlement
settlement will
will be be maximum
maximum when thewhen the embankment
embankment is the
is saturated and saturated
subsoil isand the
buoyant.
subsoil is buoyant.
These parametersThese parameters
are liable to change are
with liable
season.toThe
change with season.
embankment load will The embankment
increase during rainy
load will
season when density may be close to saturated density and will reduce dry seasons. Thus settlementand
increase during rainy season when density may be close to saturated density will
will reduce dry seasons. Thus settlement will be occurring at different rates during different
seasons and the calculations of total time required for settlement will have to be modified to
account for these variations. 70
In order to calculate the settlement, it is necessary to find out stress distribution with soil due
to the embankment loading.

4.4 Settlement Analysis: Determination of Stresses within the Foundation

4.4.1 In equation 4.1 the value of ΔP depends on the contact pressure and the least
dimension of the loaded area. Because of the considerable base width of most embankments,
64
IRC:75-2015

the stress beneath the centre of embankment usually decreases slowly with depth. The
general approach for determining the stresses below the embankment is to integrate the
Boussinesq solution for stresses due to single vertical load on a semi infinite homogenous
isotropic mass. For common embankment problems, influence charts developed by
Osterberg (1957) are useful and provide ready solution. These are reproduced here for ease
of reference. The stress given by the chart is the vertical stress directly under the vertical
face of an embankment of infinite extent. Vertical stresses for any point in the foundation
can be found by super-imposition. For stresses under a corner, such as the vertical face of
an embankment ending abruptly against the wall, stresses are one half of those given in the
chart.
4.4.2 Several other solutions for determining the vertical stresses under an embankment
are also available. For instance Middlebrooks (1936) Newmark (1941, 1942), Perloff et al
(1967), W. Steinbrenner (1934) and R.E. Fadum etc have developed solutions for such
cases.
4.4.3 The design load used to evaluate the settlement and stability is the weight of
overlying embankment and pavement materials. Except for the upper one meter or so,
embankments are not seriously affected by traffic loads and as such traffic loads are
generally neglected. When designing approaches, if the abutment for floating span rests on
the embankment, load due to this however has to be considered. Another requirement in the
case of floating abutment is to determine the bearing capacity near the slope according to
procedure recommended by Meyerhof (1957)
Table 4.1 Time Factor- Degree of Consolidation Values for Two-way Drainge

Degree of Consolidation, µ

Sinusoid Sinusoid
Time Factor 2H 2H 2 2H 3

1 2 3 4
0.000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.004 0.0795 0.0649 0.0098
0.008 0.1038 0.0862 0.0195
0.012 0.1248 0.1049 0.0292
0.020 0.1598 0.1367 0.0481
0.028 0.1889 0.1638 0.0667
0.036 0.2141 0.1876 0.0850
0.048 0.2464 0.2196 0.1117
0.060 0.2764 0.2481 0.1376
0.072 0.3028 0.2743 0.1628
0.083 0.3233 0.2967 0.1852
0.100 0.3562 0.3288 0.2187
0.125 0.3989 0.3719 o.2654

65
IRC:75-2015

0.150 0.4370 0.4112 0.3093

0.167 0.4610 0.4361 0.3377
0.175 0.4718 0.4473 0.3507
0.200 0.5041 0.4809 0.3895
0.250 0.5622 0.5417 0.4603
0.300 0.6132 0.5950 0.5230
0.350 0.6582 0.6421 0.5783
0.40 0.6973 0.6836 0.6273
0.50 0.7640 0.7528 0.7088
0.60 0.8156 0.8069 0.7725
0.70 0.8559 0.8491 0.8222
0.80 0.8874 0.8821 0.8611
0.90 0.9119 0.9079 0.8915
1.00 0.9313 0.9280 0.9152
2.00 0.9942 - -

∞ 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

Table 4.2 Time Factor- Degree of Consolidation Values for Two-way Drainge
Degree of Consolidation, µ

3 us
Time Factor H 4 H
2 ub

1 2 3 4 5

0.000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.004 0.0795 0.0085 0.1505

0.008 0.1038 0.162 0.1914

0.012 0.1248 0.0241 0.2255

0.020 0.1598 0.0400 0.2796

0.028 0.1889 0.0560 0.3218

0.036 0.2141 0.0720 0.3562

0.048 0.2464 0.0950 0.3978

0.060 0.2764 0.1198 0.4330

0.072 0.3028 0.1436 0.4620

0.083 0.3233 0.1646 0.4820

0.100 0.3562 0.1976 0.5148

0.125 0.3989 0.2442 0.5536

0.150 0.4370 0.2886 0.5854

 
0.167 0.4610 0.3174 0.6046

0.175 0.4718 0.3306 0.6130

0.200 0.5041 0.3704 0.6378

66
IRC:75-2015

0.250 0.5622 0.4432 0.6812

0.300 0.6132 0.5078 0.7186

0.350 0.6582 0.5649 0.7515

0.40 0.6973 0.6154 0.7792

0.50 0.7640 0.6994 0.8286

0.60 0.8156 0.7652 0.8660

0.70 0.8559 0.8165 0.8953

0.80 0.8874 0.8566 0.9182

0.90 0.9119 0.8880 0.9358

1.00 0.9313 0.9125 0.9501

2.00 0.9942 0.9930 0.9960

∞ 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

a//z
Fig 4.3 Inffluence
Fig. 4.3 Influence Chartchart
for for vertical Stress
Vertical strress embankm
Embankment infinite extent
ment loadingLoading t Boussinesq
Infinite Extentcase
Boussinesq Case
Source: Proceedings
P of
o Fourth Inteernational Connference on Soil
S mechaniccs and Founddation Engineeering
67
Vol.1

Extracts from
f Influencee values for vertical
v stressses in a sem
mi-infinite masss due to embankment loaading.
IRC:75-2015

Source: Proceedings of Fourth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation

Engineering Vol.1
Extracts from Influence values for vertical stresses in a semi-infinite mass due to embankment
loading. (Page 393) by Br. J.O Osterberg (Illinois, U.S.A)
Illustrations to use Osterberg’s chart for calculation of stresses.
1) Find the vertical stress beneath an embankment at the location shown in figure ‘a’
For the left side, = 0.5,
And from chart I = 0.397,
Similarly for Right Side, I = 0.478
And the total I = 0.397+0.478 =0.875
The vertical stress is then σz = 0.875q.
2) Find the vertical stress beneath an embankment at the location shown in figure ‘b’
For dashed and solid portion,
= 4, and I = 0.499,
Subtract the influence value for dashed portion,
= 1, and I = 0.455,
The stress then is σz = 0.044q
3) Find the vertical stress beneath the embankment at the location shown in figure ‘c’
Stress due to abc, is the same as due to cde, since one is plus and the other is
minus, the stress is same as the embankment was vertical at b
= 2.5, and from chart I = 0.492
The stress then is σz = 0.4q
Notes:
1) The stress given by the chart is the vertical stress directly under the vertical face
of an embankment of infinite extent
2) For stress under a corner such as under the vertical face of embankment ending
abruptly against a wall, the stresses are 0.5 of those given in the chart.

68
IRC:75-2015

FIG (a)

FIG (a)
Fig (a)
FIG (a)

FIG (b)
Fig (b)
FIG (b)
FIG (b)

FIG (c)
Fig (c)

FIG (c)
76
FIG (c)
76
76 69
IRC:75-2015

4.5 Tolerable Settlements

Settlements of embankments have the following components:
I. Settlement due to self-weight of fill.
II. Settlement of the subsoil.
Settlement of embankments and more importantly, rate of settlement consideration are
of relevance due to the effect such settlements will have on the pavement performance,
especially in terms of developing uneven and rough riding surface.

4.5.1 Settlement due to Self-Weight of Fill

Settlement within the fill due to self-weight depends on the type of fill material, degree of
compaction and fills height. Materials which shall not be used for embankment fill are listed in
Clause.305.2.1.1 of the MORTH “Specifications for Road and Bridge works. When acceptable
fill materials, are used and the fill is well compacted to the minimum requirements specified
in Cl.305.2.1.5 of the publication referred to above, settlements of the embankments due to
self-weight are generally not of serious concern.
Settlements progress as the embankment is built and post construction or residual settlements
are not likely to occur.
If the fill material is not well compacted during the course of construction, it has been the
common experience that such fills will continue to settle for a long time and there is no easy
and economical solution to control such settlements of the fill, in the post construction phase.
Hence the compaction of the fill ab-initio is very important and shall be adhered to in practice
and all quality control steps shall be taken as per Clause. 903.2, of MORTH “Specifications
for Road and Bridge Works”.
Reference may also be made to Table 7, I.S.- 1498- “Classification and Identification of soil
for general Engineering Purposes” where in Col.4 the compressibility of different soil types
when compacted and saturated is given. The Table is useful to understand the behavior of fill
material proposed to be used, as well as in the selection of fill materials.

4.5.2 Settlement of Subsoil

Subsoil layers also experience settlement due to embankment loads the magnitude and time
rate at which these settlements progress depends on the nature of the subsoil.
i) Where subsoil layers are essentially low plastic or non-plastic soils, with
adequate bearing capacity, settlements in the subsoil progress as the
embankment is built up. Thus there would be none or very small residual
settlements at the end of construction. Hence, such settlements are not of
concern.
70
IRC:75-2015

ii) Where the subsoil consists of soft compressible clay layers in saturated
condition, large settlements world occur. These settlements follow the
“Terzaghi’s theory of consolidation” and require long time period for
completion. It is essential that such subsoil conditions are identified at or
prior to design stage and suitable ground improvement technique is adopted
if required (Suitable ground improvement techniques have been discussed
in chapter 5). Such techniques accelerate the settlement rate based on the
design adopted. However even at the end of the design waiting period after
ground improvement method adopted, some settlements may continue to
occur. These may be termed “residual settlements”.
The allowable limit for such residual settlements may be considered as 300mm. In general,
these settlements progress at very slow rate. Hence it would be economical to allow such
settlements to run their course than aim a design which has “negligible” residual settlements.
This observation is particularly relevant where PVDs or stone columns are adopted for ground
improvement.
The designer may indicate the amount of residual settlement expected and time period for
the same while designing embankments over soft subsoil deposits.
In case of embankments on soft clays, where residual settlements as mentioned above are
difficult to avoid, rigid pavements may not be suitable. Appropriate type of flexible pavement
may be provided avoiding costly BC layer, till the rate of progress of residual settlement
reduces to less than 25-30 mm/year.

71
IRC:75-2015

Chapter-5

GROUND IMPROVEMENT

5.1 Introduction
Ground improvement technologies are geotechnical construction methods used to alter or
improve poor ground conditions in order that construction of embankment can meet project
performance requirements in terms of (a) Improved stability of slopes, (b) reduced settlements,
and (c) Improved bearing capacity of the subsoil. Where the soil is susceptible to liquefaction,
its resistance to liquefaction can also be improved by some of the ground improvement
methods listed below. Ground improvement is called for where construction on untreated
ground may lead to either excessive settlement or failure in rotational mode/bearing capacity.
Ground improvement has one or more of the following main functions:
• To increase bearing capacity, shear or frictional strength,
• To increase density,
• To control deformations,
• To accelerate consolidation,
• To decrease imposed loads,
• To provide lateral stability,
• To form seepage cut-offs or fill voids,
• To increase resistance to liquefaction and,
• To transfer embankment loads to more competent layers.

5.2 Ground Improvement Techniques

Adopting suitable ground improvement technique depends on the type of soil, construction
feasibility, cost benefits and performance requirements in relation to slope stability, bearing
capacity, settlement and liquefaction.
State of art reports IRC-HRB: SR-13, SR-14 and IRC:113 deal with ground improvement in
the context of embankment design and construction in an extensive manner. Contents of
these publications are briefly mentioned below,
• SR-13- describes the fundamental concepts, properties of soft clays, building
of embankments using stage construction.
• SR-14- deals with various ground improvement methods including vertical
drains (PVDs), lime columns, stone columns, geosynthetics and dynamic
consolidation.
72
IRC:75-2015

• IRC:113 presents design and construction guidelines for construction of high

embankments on soft soils and concerns mainly with geosynthetic basal
reinforcement.
Reference shall be made to the publications listed above for design and construction purposes.
In this chapter the above techniques are mentioned briefly. Further, ground improvement
techniques not mentioned in the above publications are also presented briefly.
Ground Improvement methods are presented in subsequent sessions as listed below.
• Partial or total removal of undesirable material (section 5.2.1)
• Use of light weight material as embankment fills with poor base soil
replacement (section 5.2.2.)
• Stage wise construction for embankment with poor base soil replacement
(section 5.2.3.)
• Soil Stabilisation by lime, lime Pozzolana, cement and other chemicals
(section 5.2.4.)
• Preloading (section 5.2.5.)
• Methods based on consolidation of subsoil like use of PVDs (section 5.2.6.)
• Stone Columns, reinforced, grouted and encased stone columns with specific
reference to vibro replacement and vibro displacement (section 5.2.7.)
• Densification methods referring dynamic compaction and vibro compaction
(section 5.2.8.)
• Compaction grouting. (Section 5.2.9.)
• Dynamic deep replacement (section 5.2.10.)
• Basal reinforced embankments on soft ground (section 5.2.11.)
• Pile supported basal reinforced embankments (section 5.2.12.)
Choice of a particular ground improvement method depends on
i) Nature and extent of the problem in terms of initial strength, depth of soft
clay, and height of embankment to be built.
ii) Time available for ground improvement and the cost involved also play an
important role.
Most of the ground improvement methods suggested above involve detailed construction
and design methodologies. Hence a careful technical study shall be made for the selection
of suitable ground improvement method.

5.2.1 Partial or Total Removal of Undesirable Material

When unsatisfactory material not confirming to MORTH section 300 is encountered at or
near the surface, it may be economical and prudent to remove part or all of it and replace
it with acceptable materials than to deal with problem of countering subsidence over years.
73
IRC:75-2015

This treatment is often used in swampy areas of peat and muck deposits. Generally on high
embankment projects, removal of 1.5 – 3m of unsuitable material from original ground level
may be possible over the full width of the fill. However, on the whole, this will be governed
by the costs involved relative to other methods. Excavation of soft foundation soils and their
replacement are often considered relatively simple operations. Practically, however, this
is not the case and stringent inspection and control may usually be necessary to assure
satisfactory and economical results. At times, more sophisticated techniques like controlled
blasting may have to be adopted to achieve displacement of the soft material, followed by
controlled placement of the foundation and embankment fill.

5.2.2 Use of Light Weight Fill Materials as Embankment Fills with or Without Replacement
of Poor Base Soil
Settlement and stability problems can be decreased if the weight of the embankment is
reduced. Light weight materials such as flyash, expanded shale, cinder, slag, saw dust etc;
have been used with good degree of success in several cases for embankment construction
to lessen the load on the foundation materials. However, availability of these materials and
the relative costs are factors that may affect their use. IRC:SP-58 provide guidelines for use
of flyash in road embankments

5.2.3 Stage Wise Construction of Embankment with or Without Replacement of Poor

Base Soil-
For detailed description, please refer Special Report 14, “State of Art, High Embankments on
Soft Ground Part A – Stage Construction”.

5.2.4 Soil Stabilization using Lime, Cement or other Chemicals

5.2.4.1 Lime and lime- pozzolana stabilization

Lime is an excellent choice for short-term modification of soil properties, especially where
the subsoil is of expansive nature, for example black cotton soil. Lime can modify almost all
fine-grained soils, but the most dramatic improvement occurs in clayey soils of moderate to
high plasticity. Modification occurs because calcium cations supplied by the hydrated lime
replace the cations normally present on the surface of the clay mineral, promoted by the
high pH environment of the lime-water system. Thus, the clay surface mineralogy is altered,
producing benefits of
• Plasticity reduction
• Reduction in moisture-holding capacity (drying)
• Swell reduction
• Improved stability
• The ability to construct a solid working platform
74
IRC:75-2015

Stabilisation by lime slurry injection as well as by adopting lime column technique is discussed
in SR-14, IRC-HRB. For details regarding chemical reactions involved (Pozzolanic reactions)
IRC SP 89 can be referred.

5.2.4.2 Cement stabilization

Where subsoil is of expansive nature then mitigation measure for the unsuitable stratum
normally involves removal of poor strata and replacement with suitable soil. However,
when depth and extent of poor soil is large, it is not feasible for this technique and cement
stabilization could be another possible mitigation technique. Details of cement stabilization
are covered in IRC:SP 89 “Guidelines for Soil and Granular Material Using Cement, Lime
and Fly Ash and are not repeated here.

5.2.5 Preloading
This section refers to use of preload without resorting to any process to accelerate the
consolidation of soft subsoil. Reference can be made to SR-13 IRC HRB Chapter-5. The
term “preloading” implies that a greater height of fill that is placed initially than required for
the final level of the embankment. Alternatively the same can be accomplished by stage
construction of embankment.
Preloading is a simple and an economical method for accelerating consolidation as compared
with other methods of improving ground support. However, adequate instrumentations for
monitoring the settlements and the development and dissipation of pore water pressures are
essential for the success of this technique. Preloading is especially attractive when fill material
is subsequently used on the same project for site preparation. By measuring the ground
settlements and porewater pressure, it is possible to assess quantitatively the extent of ground
improvement in terms of increase in the shear strength and predict its future behavior. The
duration of preloading from the beginning of embankment placement to the end of removal of
load depends on the ground response. The pre-loading techniques is likely to be inefficient
when used alone because of very long periods of time required for obtaining significant
consolidation settlements and subsequent appreciable strength gain of the soft clay to support
the embankment loads. The preload time can be drastically reduced by the installation of
vertical drains as they shorten the drainage path under which the clay will consolidate.

5.2.6 Ground Improvement Based on Consolidation of Subsoil

5.2.6.1 Prefabricated Vertical Drains (PVDs)

Prefabricated vertical drains are used in construction of embankments on soft clays to
accelerate consolidation process. The construction of a new embankment or structure on
soft ground causes the following
a) Increase in the pore water pressure in the subsoil , these pore water pressures
are termed as excess hydrostatic pressures
75
IRC:75-2015

b) With lapse of time pore water pressure decreases which in turn results in an
increase in the effective stress in the soil. This increase in effective stresses
lead to the increase in shear strength of the subsoil.
c) At the same time the entire process is accompanied by decrease in the
volume of the soil leading to settlements.
PVDs are band shaped (rectangular cross-section) products consisting of a geotextile filter
layer surrounding a plastic core. PVDs are also referred to as band drains. The width of
band drains is normally 100 mm. For detailed specifications of PVDs MORTH Specifications
for Roads and Bridge works clause 704.2.2 can be referred. Porewater flows through the
permeable outer geotextile filter layer and is transmitted along the annular space between
the core and the geotextile. Installation of prefabricated vertical drains accelerates the rate
of dissipation of pore water pressure and leads to a corresponding increase in effective
granular stress in the subsoil. This in turn leads to increase in shear strength of subsoil.
Similarly time rate of settlement is accelerated. Detailed design of ground improvement using
PVDs is discussed in IRC-HRB: SR-14 and various factors involved such as relationship
between increase in shear strength and inter-granular stress, time vs. consolidation are
presented. The embankment is constructed in stages, with successive stages being built
taking advantage of strength gained from the previous stage of loading. PVDs are installed
in equilateral triangular pattern and the effective spacing between the band drains shall
preferably be not more than 1200 mm. Reference shall also be made to IS 15284-Part-2:
Design and Construction guidelines for pre-consolidation using vertical drains. Soft clays
are prevalent in the coastal areas. Highway embankments constructed in these areas
have used PVDS to enable rapid completion of the highway projects. Reference may be
made to papers published viz., Mandal. A. K. et al. (IGC-2006, Guntur), Rao P.J. et al.
(IGC-2011, Kochi), wherein two case histories dealing with use of PVDs including design,
construction and monitoring are discussed. A typical cross-section of a PVD installation for
embankments is shown in Fig. 5.1 (Typical example for design of PVD is included in the
Annexure 5.1)

Fig. 5.1 Typical Cross Section of PVD Installation for Embankments

76
IRC:75-2015

Fig. 5.2 Installation of Prefabricated Vertical Drains (PVDs)

5.2.7 Stone Columns

Use of stone columns is a highly effective technique to improve the strength and compressibility
characteristics of soft clays. Stone columns are formed by making a borehole and backfilling
with compacted stone. In the earlier phase of utilisation of this technique stone backfill was
placed in layers and compacted by dropping a rammer. Stone columns so formed are termed
as “rammed columns”. Rao P. J. et al. (1991) presents the case history of ground improvement
using “Rammed column technique” in 12 m deep clay at Visakhapatnam on the east coast
of India.
Rammed column technique is a slow process and hence it is normally used where length
of the stretch to be improved is not long. In large projects or where deep layer of soft clay is
present stone columns formed by vibratory methods are adopted. Vibratory stone columns
are formed by vibro-replacement (wet, top feed) and vibro-displacement (dry, top or bottom
feed).
Embankments on soft ground have also been built using, reinforced stone columns and
grouted stone columns. Experimental work on reinforced stone columns is reported in IRC:
HRB- SR-14, Rao. P. Jagannatha and Kumar, Satish (IGC 1989) and the reinforced stone
columns were found to develop much higher bearing capacity than unreinforced ground.
Recently Niroumand and others (2011), Tandel and others (2012) Heitz and others (2005)
have published papers regarding reinforced stone columns. Encased stone columns shall be
used when the soil around need to be separated from the stones. A geosynthetic filter shall
be selected as per the gradation and properties of stones of stone column and soil around.
Typical example for design of stone columns (rammed/vibratory) is included in Annexure 5.1.
If necessary, rotational stability of the embankment may be checked after determining the
in-situ shear strength of the subsoil by suitable method.

77
IRC:75-2015

5.2.7.1 Vibro-replacement- wet method:

It refers to the wet, top feed process in which jetting water is used to aid the penetration of
the ground by the vibrator. Due to the jetting action, part of the in-situ soil is washed to the
surface. The oscillating vibrator sinks under its own weight. When the designed depth is
reached, the borehole is cleaned of any loose muck and aggregates are poured down the
borehole. The vibrator is slowly withdrawn in steps of 0.7 to 1.0 m and stone falls to the tip
of vibrator. The vibrator is then lowered back into the borehole between 0.70 to 0.80 m with
constant water jet at the tip of vibrator thereby creating a 0.2 to 0.3 m length of stone column.
The action of vibrator presses the stone radially into the surrounding soil and compacts the
stone in the vertical direction as well. This procedure is repeated till the desired length of
stone column is formed.
5.2.7.2 Vibro displacement: Refers to the dry, top or bottom feed process; almost no in-
situ soil appears at the surface, but is displaced by the backfill material. However, the wet
replacement method is more commonly used.
Formation of stone columns by above method is monitored by measuring consumption of
power by the vibrator during the penetration for drilling hole and also during the compaction
of backfill stone. The quantity of stone consumed per meter of the column is also continuously
monitored. Reference may be made to Rao. P. J., Biswas. P. et. al. (2011).

5.2.8 Densification
Densification process is applicable for non-cohesive soils. There are numerous natural and
man-made deposits where densification, can be adopted including granular hydraulic fills,
coastal plain sediments, alluvial soils, and miscellaneous granular fills and/or deposits.
Densification causes (a) increase in shear strength (b) reduction in settlements thereby
enabling the construction of shallow foundations. Also, liquefaction potential can be
reduced by densification of loose granular soil to a density beyond the threshold density
triggering liquefaction. In earth retaining problems, the process can be performed prior to
wall construction to decrease active earth pressure and increase passive resistance as the
density is improved.
Some of the densification methods adopted are:
i) Dynamic compaction
ii) Vibro-compaction,
iii) Compaction grouting.

5.2.8.1 Dynamic Compaction

Dynamic compaction is a method of ground improvement that results from the application of
high levels of energy at the ground surface. The energy is applied by repeatedly raising and
dropping a tamper with a mass ranging from 15 to 35 tonnes at heights ranging from 9 to
30 m. The tamper is lifted and dropped by a conventional crane with a single cable plus a
winch that has a free spool attachment that allows the single cable to unwind with minimum
78
IRC:75-2015

friction. The tamper’s energy of impact at the ground surface results in densification of the
deposit to depths that are proportional to the energy applied. The depth of improvement
generally ranges from about 10 to15 m for light to heavy energy applications, respectively.
If ground improvement is needed to provide a suitable bearing stratum for an embankment or
structure, dynamic compaction may be a viable solution. Schematic arrangement of dynamic
compaction is illustrated in Fig. 5.3.

Fig. 5.3 Systematic Arrangement of Dynamic Compaction

Dynamic compaction can be used at sites with a very heterogeneous mixture of deposits and
at sites with gradation ranges from large boulders and broken concrete to silty soil particles.
Densification can be achieved below the water table in pervious and semi-pervious deposits,
which eliminates costly dewatering and/or lateral bracing systems required for conventional
excavation and replacement techniques. Dynamic compaction produces ground vibrations
that can travel significant distances from the point of impact. In urban areas, this may require
the use of light weight tamper sand low drop heights, as well as limiting dynamic compaction
to areas well within the property lines. At some sites, shallow isolation trenches have been
cut through the upper portion of the soil mass to reduce the transmission of energy off site.
Dynamic compaction densifies the soil mass and this in turn, improves its shear strength
and reduces compressibility. An estimate of improvement in the soil properties shall be made
before the compaction work is taken up. Soil parameters may be evaluated before and after
treatment by carrying out Standard Penetration Test (SPT) or Cone Penetration Test (CPT)
or Pressure Meter Test (PMT) at the requisite number of locations. On this basis it can be
determined whether dynamic compaction is capable of producing the desired effect.SPT or
CPT values are used to define the susceptibility of deposit to liquefaction. If the dynamic
compaction increases the SPT or CPT values of a loose deposit to the required value, then
the method is deemed to be successful making the soil resistant to liquefaction

5.2.8.2 Vibro compaction

Vibro compaction technique enables the improvement of loose granular deposits up to depths
of 20m. In this process a metal tube or probe to which an electric motor is attached at the
79
IRC:75-2015

end is inserted into the ground. The electric motor drives an eccentric weight generating
vibrations which causes the ground to densify. To assist the penetration of vibrator water is
jetted through the tip of the probe.

Fig. 5.4 Vibro Compaction Process

Vibro-compaction is effective only in granular, cohesion-less soils. The realignment of the

sand grains and, therefore, proper densification generally cannot be achieved when the
granular soil contains more than 10% silt or more than 2% clay.
A more detailed soil analysis may be required for vibro-compaction than for a deep foundation
project. This is because the vibro-compaction process utilizes the native soil to the full depth
of treatment to achieve the end result. A comprehensive understanding of the total soil profile
is therefore necessary. A vibro-compaction investigation will require continuous standard
penetration tests (SPT), and/or cone penetrometer (CPT), Pressure Meter (PMT) tests, as
well as gradation tests to verify that the soils are suitable for vibro-compaction.

5.2.9 Compaction Grouting

The process of grouting consists of filling pores or cavities in soil or rock with a liquid form
material to decrease the permeability and improve shear strength by increasing the cohesion
when it is set. The injected grout pushes the soils to the side as it forms a grout column
or bulb. The soil becomes increasingly dense as water and/or air are forced out and soil
particles are rearranged by the incoming grout. Grout injections can be continued until
grout forces overcome overburden or containment pressures and lift occurs. Compaction
grouting requires close coordination between the soil properties, grout injection rates, grout
mix designs, in-situ soil conditions, and equipment capabilities. When compaction grout is
injected into loose soils, homogenous grout bulbs are formed that displace, densify and thus
strengthen the surrounding soil. Cement base grout mixes are commonly used for gravely
soils or fissure rocks.

5.2.10 Dynamic Deep Replacement

Dynamic Replacement is an extension of Dynamic Compaction to highly compressible and
weak soils. In this application, the tamping energy drives granular material down into the
compressible soils to form large diameter soil reinforcement columns (with diameter around
2 to 3.5 m). Additional improvement can be obtained in the underlying layers through the
80
IRC:75-2015

transmission of the energy of the weight at depth. This method thus combines advantages
from both Dynamic Consolidation and Stone Columns by creating large-sized Dynamic
Replacement Inclusions with high internal shear resistance. Dynamic Replacement is well
adapted to substantial loading conditions (up to 150 tons per column) as well as under
embankments to improve the factor of safety against slope failure. With this technique,
replacement ratios of up to 20-25% can be achieved. While Vibro Stone Columns have a
limited range of application is organic soft soils (peat and organic clays), Dynamic Replacement
Columns can be used in peat or in soils with high organic content without the risk of bulging
due to their relatively low slenderness (ratio of height over diameter). Construction sequence
of dynamic replacement is illustrated in Fig. 5.5.

Fig 5.5 Construction Sequence Dynamic Replacement

Dynamic Replacement Columns can increase the time rate of consolidation due to their
draining potential.

5.2.11 Embankments on Soft Ground Using Basal Reinforcement

Embankments on soft ground may be built using stiff layers of geosynthetic reinforcement
of high strength placed on the ground. To ensure the safety of the embankment in various
modes of failure, the geosynthetic reinforcement shall have enough tensile strength. This
technique is more adopted in situations where the clay layer is relatively of shallow depth
as compared to the base width. The ratio B/D (where B= width of the embankments and
D= depth of soft clay layer) shall be greater than 4 for any increase in bearing capacity to be
available. Reference may be made to IRC:113-Guidelines for the Design and Construction of
geosynthetic reinforced embankments on soft subsoils. The publication also includes number
of case histories. A representative sketch of Basal reinforced embankment is shown in
Fig. 5.6. Anchorage Blocks may be provided as shown in Fig 5.6. Alternatively the reinforcing
layer may be provided with extra length which can be wrapped around the next layer during
the process of laying and compaction. Reinforced earth walls upto 15 m height were built on
NH-5 (Now NH-16) in the Godavari Delta stretch, using basal reinforcement, which consisted
of high strength geo-grid of 200 KN/m with gravel fill between the layers. The project was
81
IRC:75-2015

completed in 2002 and the performance of the embankment is excellent. For details Ref. P.
Jagannatha Rao (2004)

Fig. 5.6 Basal Reinforced Embankments (for more details, refer IRC:113)

5.2.12 Pile Supported Basal Reinforced Embankments on Soft Ground

Embankments on very soft ground may be built ensuring stability as well as minimising
settlements to very low values by using the system of pile supported embankments.
Piles are built in the soft clay and geogrid layer is placed on the pile caps. Piles along
with geo grid layer serve as a support system for the embankment fill. For design details
refer to BS: 8006. Fig 5.7 illustrates the scheme of pile supported basal reinforced
embankments.

Fig. 5.7 Pile supported Basal Reinforced Embankment

82
IRC:75-2015

5.3 Widening of Embankments

5.3.1 Widening of Embankment by Cutting Benches and Filling

The need for widening existing highway embankments by a lane or more is being increasingly
felt. Figs. 8 (a) & 8 (b) provides a brief description of methodology that may be adopted for
this purpose. Referring to Fig 8(a) benches may be cut in the slope face. The depth to
which these benches may be cut may range from 0.75 m to 1 m and width of the bench as
per existing slope in relation to the depth of the bench. Benches are cut starting from top to
bottom. The new fill is gradually filled up in layers in the standard manner. Where stability
of the fill is in doubt, the same may be ensured by providing a soil reinforcement system
as shown in Fig 8 (a). Geosynthetic having adequate frictional properties as per MORTH
section 3100 may be used for this purpose. The number of benches to be reinforced may be
worked out using standard procedures of slope stability. In particular, planar sliding between
the earlier slope face and the added fill may be checked.

Fig. 8 (a) Widening of Embankment by cutting Benches and Filling

5.3.2 Widening of Embankment by using Soil Nailing

In situations where the embankment to be widened exceeds 10 m in height for considerable
length, the increased width along with the original embankment may be kept in a stable
condition by adopting soil nailing technique. Details of the technique are given in MORTH
section 3200. Schematic sketch of the same is given below.

83
IRC:75-2015

Fig. 8 (b) Widening of Embankment using Soil Nailing

Surface of the existing embankment may be cut by a few centimeters or scarified so as to

make it rough. Lying of the fill may start from ground. The thickness of the first layer as well
as other layers would depend on the design of soil nail system. At the calculated height first
nail is driven. Then next layer of fill is placed again at the calculated height and so on. This
technique may be adopted after taking into consideration of economies.

5.3.3 Restoration of Failed Embankments

Failure of embankments occur due to number of reasons and require correct diagnosis for
choice of remedial/restoration methods. Necessary subsoil investigation and testing needs
to be carried out and design on the basis of which embankments has been made needs to
be checked.
Embankment safety can be achieved by:
i) Removing some of the weight tending to cause failure or adding fresh material
to flatten the slope
ii) By increasing the strength of the soil in the portions where the slip failure
occurred; and
iii) By proper drainage and prevention of water percolation in the embankment.
iv) By providing external support. This can be done by means of retaining wall of
required height at the toe or providing balancing berms of necessary width.
The two methods described in section 5.3.1 and 5.3.2. may be used to restore failed slopes
as well.
In all cases of restoration of failed embankments, slope stability of restored embankment
shall be checked for the revised configuration.
84
IRC:75-2015

Annexure 5.1

1. Additional Ground Improvement Methods

Ground improvement methods discussed in the previous sections improves the bearing
capacity to a limited extent. Where much higher degree of ground improvement is needed,
techniques which reinforce the ground have come into practice over the last few decades.
Ground improvement methods based on reinforcing technique is suited for improving clays,
silts, and loose silty sands. Rigid inclusion using controlled modular methods is a proven
technology since last 30 years as a cost effective alternative to pile foundation system. It is
used to improve the soil characteristics of a compressible soil layer on a global scale and to
reduce its compressibility by use of rigid soil reinforcement columns. Unlike a piling solution
which is designed to support the entire load of the structures on the piles, the objective of
a rigid inclusion solution is to increase the stiffness of the soil mass to globally reduce both
total and differential settlements by sharing the load of the structure between the soils and
the inclusions. Rigid inclusion columns range between 250 to 450 mm dia.
Irrespective of stone columns, rigid inclusions can be used for any types of compressible
soils, including soils with significant organic contents (Peat, organic clays etc.).The technique
is more advisable for the projects where construction time plays an important role and can be
used to the close vicinity of the adjoining structures.
Preliminary design guidelines of CMCs can be done by using BS 8006 -1& ASIRI (French
Code). Detail design using FEM Modeling as per the applications need to be done by
specialized contractors who are having prior experience in taking the project on design and
build basis. Post construction load test can be performed ASTM D 1143 – Standard Test
Method for Deep Foundations under Static Axial Compressive Load.

2. Vacuum Consolidation
Consolidation of compressible soils by vacuum was conceptually introduced in the 1950s
and has recently evolved as a reasonably reliable technology. The basic premise for vacuum
consolidation consists of removing atmospheric pressure from a confined sealed soil to be
consolidated and maintaining the vacuum during a predetermined period of time. The soil is,
therefore, loaded uniformly throughout its depth by the equivalent 70% of 1 atmosphere as
shown in Fig.5.9
Vacuum Consolidation method is an atmospheric consolidation system used for preloading
soft saturated fine-grained soils (clay, silt, peat). The procedure consists of installing a vertical
and horizontal drain system and vacuum pumping system under an airtight impervious
membrane. The area is sealed by embedding the membrane into peripheral trenches. These
trenches are continuously recharged and filled with water to maintain full saturation of the soils
and to avoid a general lowering of the ground water table within the treatment area. Vacuum
Consolidation method has been successfully applied since the late 80’s in various types of
structures and applications (power plants, Sewage treatment plants, highway embankments,
airport runways). The procedure requires installation of air and water pumping system to
85
IRC:75-2015

create vacuum in the soils below the impervious membrane. Vacuum produced is equivalent
to a depression of between 60 and 80 kPa, depending on the global efficiency of the system –
(this pressure is similar to the stress observed under a 3 to 4 m high embankment).

Fig. 5.9 Vacuum Consolidation

Main advantage of Vacuum Consolidation is time savings over other classical consolidation
methods with surcharge and band drains. Under vacuum consolidation, consolidation period
usually ranges between 4 and 6 months
In practice, PVDs/Vacuum Consolidation are most commonly used where the soil to be treated
is moderately to highly compressible with low permeability and fully saturated in its natural
state and in situations where embankments are routed over long distances on marine clays,
tidal swamps, peats, creeks etc., where drainage conditions is critical in causing instability,
and post-construction settlements assume serious proportions. Such soils are typically
described as silts, clays, organic silts, organic clays, muck, peat, swamps and sludge.
In general, PVDs/Vacuum Consolidation techniques are best suited for soft saturated and
normally to slightly over-consolidated soils, prior to loading. The loading should exceed the
maximum past consolidation pressure to be totally effective.
Field instrumentation, such as piezometers, settlement platforms and inclinometers, are used
to monitor performance and possibly control the rate of construction of embankment and/or
surcharge. Settlements measuring devices, deep settlement points are used to measure only
the rate and total amount of consolidation. For details refer Chapter-6
86
IRC:75-2015

Chapter 6

INSTRUMENTATION AND MONITORING OF EMBANKMENT ON SOFT SOILS

6.1 Field Observations/Monitoring

Experience has shown that safety during construction of embankments over soft sub-soils
cannot be ensured by only geotechnical investigations and design, since many unforeseen
factors may arise while the work is in progress which could have profound influence on
stability. Further, during design of embankments on soft sub-soils, low initial factor of safety is
adopted for reasons of economy, as the long term factor of safety is anticipated to be higher
than the initial factor of safety. The increase in the factor of safety over time, takes place
due to strength gain in the soft clay on the account of consolidation due to loading. Hence
progress of consolidation of the soil layer beneath the embankment must be monitored. For
this purpose the following parameters are subjected to close watch:
i) Build up and dissipation of pore water pressure
ii) Rate and magnitude of the vertical settlement of the sub-soil under the applied
embankment loads
iii) Horizontal spreading of the sub-soil under the applied loads
iv) In-situ shear strength
All the parameters need to be measured periodically at different sections of the embankment.
The periodicity of measurements and location of the instruments has to be specified in the
project report. Each of the above parameters when monitored and evaluated gives the
engineer a clear indication of the state of stability of the embankment and of any variations
that may be taking place in the same. These parameters also allow an evaluation of the
effectiveness of ground improvement techniques adopted.
Impending instability can be detected well in advance and the engineer will have forewarning
to take steps to arrest the damage. The data can be used to verify whether the embankment
is in stable state or any impending failure exists. This exercise is based on experience and
available theoretical considerations. For example, if there is a sudden increase in pore
water pressure, it is easy to calculate the decrease in the factor of safety and whether such
decrease likely causes a failure. On the other hand the increase in the magnitude and rate of
settlements and/or in the rate of lateral movements is indicative of the distress experienced
in the embankment, it is not possible at present to specify the limits on either the magnitude
or the rate of change of movement so as to form a generalized method of control.
Additionally during construction, periodical visual observations should be carried out to
detect surface tension cracks in the embankment. Usually such cracks which are precursor
to failure (Fig. 6.1) appear as longitudinal cracks running parallel to lengthwise direction of
embankment.
87
IRC:75-2015

In all road projects wherein embankments of height more than one meter are constructed over
soft clayey unconsolidated soils, having water table at shallow depths, provision should be
made for installing instrumentation right at the inception of the project i.e. during preparation
of the Feasibility Report or Detailed Project Report. Adequate resources in the form of money
and manpower shall be provided to meet the objectives of instrumentation program. It would
also be advisable to appoint qualified geotechnical engineer assigned by the contractor as
well as by the supervising agency to ensure that instrumentation program is implemented
correctly and monitoring/ interpretation of data is done properly.

Fig. 6.1 Typical Failure of Embankment on Soft Sub-soil

The extent of instrumentation for field observations will depend on prevailing site conditions
and height of embankment proposed in a road project. If a project is large and the construction
time required is expected to be long, it may be worthwhile going in for as much instrumentation
as possible in the early phase of construction because, that may permit reduction in size of the
berms or other features which may reduce the construction costs. Table 6.1 provides details
about different instruments used during construction of embankment over soft sub soil.
Table 6.1 Different Instruments for Construction Monitoring and Control

Parameter Types and Location of instrument/point of measurement

Porewater Piezometers of suitable type may be installed at different depths and
Pressures locations in the subsoil beneath the embankment.

In-situ shear In-situ shear strength may be measured by vane shear test in the bore hole.
strength Alternatively, undisturbed samples may be recovered from boreholes made
at a given stage of construction and shear strength of sample determined
in the laboratory
Vertical Settlement gauges on original ground surface or base of excavation.
Settlement Settlement markers on surface of fill or ground outside the embankment.
Full-profile settlement gauges under the embankment.
Horizontal Inclinometers in the subsoil at toe of embankment.
Movement Displacement markers at the top and toe of embankment.
Heave Heave stakes may be installed near the toe of the embankment

88
IRC:75-2015

6.2 Piezometer
A piezometer is an instrument for measuring pore water pressure. Piezometers are installed
in the ground to measure the pressure head at different locations in the sub-soil. An ideal
piezometer is one, which is reliable, sensitive, robust and easy to operate. Many types of
piezometers are commercially available.
6.2.1 Casagrande piezometer (Open tip type - Fig 6.2) is easy to install, simple to operate
and rugged but has a long response time. Casagrande open standpipe piezometer consist
of a ceramic porous tip connected to an open standpipe. The ceramic tip is generally of low
air entry valve, which exhibits very high water permeability. Depending upon the pore water
pressure existing at the porous tip, water would rise in the standpipe until the hydrostatic
head of the column of water in the standpipe is equal to the pore water pressure.
The ceramic tip of Casagrande piezometer is attached to the bottom of un-perforated plastic
tube and placed at a pre-determined depth. Ceramic tip can be wrapped in geotextile to
prevent clogging. Monitoring the pore water pressure at designated depth is achieved by
providing a short response zone of sand backfill around the piezometer tip with a bentonite
or bentonite-cement mixture seal above. The seal may be in the form of granules, or pellets,
balls or pumpable grout. It is preferable to backfill the whole of the borehole above and
below the sand response zone with grout. Installation of Casagrande piezometer is shown in
Fig. 6.3.

Fig. 6.2 Casagrande Piezometer

89
IRC:75-2015

Ceramic Tip Covering Tip Bentonite Pellets Monitoring Pore water

Fig. 6.3 Casagrande Piezometer Installation and Monitoring

6.2.2 The vibrating wire piezometer (Fig. 6.4) contains a tensioned stainless steel wire
attached to a diaphragm. One side of the diaphragm is in contact with the groundwater
pressure inside through a porous ceramic tip. The other side of the diaphragm is connected to
atmospheric pressure by an air line. The pore water pressure causes the diaphragm to deflect
which in turn changes the tension in the steel tension wire, hence its frequency of vibration
changes. This frequency is calibrated to provide pressure readings. These piezometers have
a shorter response time as compared to Casagrande piezometer and do not interfere with
the compaction process.

Fig. 6.4 Vibrating Wire Piezometer

90
IRC:75-2015

6.3 In-situ Shear Strength

In all constructions on soft ground, shear strength is the parameter that directly controls
the stability. Hence it is important that shear strength is measured at different stages of
construction of embankment. As the embankment height increases, increase in shear
strength of the subsoil occurs as the pore water pressure decreases and effective stress
increases as per theory of consolidation. At the end of each stage of construction, stability
can be evaluated using new shear strength values. Formulae giving the relationship between
increase in shear strength of the subsoil and the increase in the effective stress are given in
IRC-HRB SR:13, Clause 4.2.1.
In practise, the simplest way is to measure in-situ shear strength in the boreholes made for
this purpose using field vane shear test apparatus.
Combined with the measurement of pore water pressures, in-situ shear strength values
provide the designers a powerful and reliable tool to monitor the stability of the embankment.

6.4 Surface Settlement Markers/Settlement Platforms

In the simplest form, the surface settlement markers (settlement platforms) may consist of
a square steel plate or concrete pad supporting a flange to which a section of pipe, usually
about 1.5 meter long, is attached (Fig. 6.5). As the fill is built up, additional sections are
coupled to the pipe. The size of the plate will depend on the material underlying the fill and
may be from 0.6 to 1.2 m square. The pipes are protected from the surrounding soil by an
outer PVC or metal pipe casing of appropriate diameter.
Settlement platforms are generally installed on the original ground in accordance with the
designer’s stipulations. To protect the settlement platform during compaction, temporary
barrier may be built around it and soil near the platform should be compacted using plate
compactors to prevent rollers from disturbing the installed position of settlement platform.

Fig. 6.5 Installation of Surface Settlement Marker (Settlement Platform)

91
IRC:75-2015

6.5 Magnetic Settlement Gauge

While surface settlement markers measure total settlement of original ground below the
embankment, magnetic settlement gauges provide data on total surface settlement below the
embankment and also settlement at various depths of sub-soil layers below the embankment.
Hence magnetic settlement gauges are referred to as full profile settlement gauges also.
Magnetic settlement gauge works on the principle that a sensor gets activated when it enters
a magnetic field axially and can be made to emit a signal (buzzing sound) at the ground level.
The magnetic ring consists of four arc shaped magnets fixed to four sides of a Perspex ring.
Each magnetic ring (also called ‘spider’) has four upward leaf springs mounted at intervals
of 900 around the ring (Figs. 6.6 & 6.7). These magnetic spiders are inserted at pre-decided
depths around a PVC pipe which also acts as access tube for the probe. The probe is a brass
rod with a reed switch inside it. The leads of the reed switch are connected with the help of a
graduated wire to a control box housing an electronic circuit. When the circuit is completed a
sound signal is generated. The measurements are to be made by inserting the probe, which
detects the magnet. The exact depth of each magnetic ring can thus be ascertained. The net
settlement of each magnetic ring can be determined by comparing with the initial levels of
those magnets similarly recorded earlier.
For installing these gauges, bore holes are made up to hard stratums below the soft soil. One
end of the PVC access tube is sealed and it is then rested on the hard stratum. Magnetic
rings (spiders) are installed around the access tube and anchored in the soil around it, to
enable its displacement along with the surrounding soil. As the sub-soil consolidates and
settles downwards, spiders also move down. For measuring settlement of original ground,
magnetic Perspex ring installed in a plastic plate is placed at original ground level below
the embankment. Downward movement of these spiders and the magnetic plate (placed at
original ground level) are monitored regularly to obtain settlement data.

Fig. 6.6 Magnetic Spider, PVC Access Tubes and Installation of Magnetic Settlement Gauge

92
IRC:75-2015

Fig. 6.7 Parts of Magnetic Settlement Gauge

6.6 Inclinometers
Inclinometers are the devices for monitoring deformation (deflection) normal to the axis of a
pipe by means of a probe passing along the pipe. Inclinometer system is installed to measure
extent of horizontal movements/plastic flow inside the sub-soil at various depths. The probe
contains a gravity sensing transducer (two servo accelerometer) to measure inclination with
respect to vertical (Fig 6.8). The inclinometer system has four components:
1. A permanently installed guide casing (inclinometer pipe) with grooves in two
perpendicular directions, made of plastic or aluminum alloy. The guide casing
usually has tracking grooves for controlling orientation of the probe.
2. A portable probe with retractable wheels, containing a gravity sensing transducer
(Two servo accelerometers fitted inside hollow steel pipe at a distance of 0.5 m
and then sealed)
3. A portable readout unit with power supply for indication of probe inclination
4. A graduated electrical cable linking the probe to a read out unit
The guide casing is installed in the borehole in a near vertical alignment so that the inclinometer
provides data for measuring lateral deformations of sub-soil. After installation of casing, the
borehole is backfilled. The grooves of the tube also serve to indicate the direction of the
readings in relation to the embankment construction. For embankments on soft soils, the
guide casing should be installed in such a way that one set of grooves are perpendicular to
93
IRC:75-2015

the foot of the embankment (lengthwise direction of the embankment). Horizontal movement
of sub-soil is always measured along this set of the grooves. The probe is lowered to the
bottom of the borehole and a reading of the tilt is made. Additional readings are made as
the probe is raised incrementally to the top of the casing, providing data for determination of
the initial alignment. The difference between initial alignment of the casing and subsequent
alignment indicates the amount of lateral movement (deflection) of the sub-soil. Since
horizontal displacement can be sometimes high, it is recommended that the integrity of the
guide casing be first verified before each monitoring. This is done by lowering a dummy
probe (without gravity sensing transducers) and pulling it back to avoid losing the actual
probe. Readings are taken at constant intervals in the ascending direction. Fig. 6.9 shows
installation of inclinometer. Output of typical inclinometer at the toe of embankment is shown
in Fig 6.10.

Fig. 6.8 Inclinometer

Inclinometer Guide Casing Coupling for Required Installing Inclinometer in Bore Hole
Length
Fig. 6.9 Inclinometer Installation

94
IRC:75-2015

Fig. 6.10 Typical Inclinometer Output

6.7 Heave Stake/Pegs

One of the common methods of detecting lateral movement of embankment side slopes is
provision of heave stakes or pegs (also called displacement markers). These are generally
installed in a straight line near or beyond toe and top/ side slopes of the embankment in order
to detect any heave in natural ground or lateral movement of embankment side slope which
usually precede a shear failure. The most suitable position for these, with reference to the
slope, would depend upon the type of failure which is anticipated.
Heave stakes may consist of vertical wooden pegs 50 mm x 100 mm in cross section or a
pipe section of appropriate length driven into ground with a horizontal cross piece on top.
Reference marks are put on the vertical and horizontal surface of the stake to aid observation
about the vertical and horizontal movement. It can have many different designs. Alternatively,
50 mm x 50 mm x 75 mm timber pegs driven into ground and concrete base if required may
be provided.
The stakes are normally installed with spacing of 15 to 20 meters on straight reaches. On
curved section, the spacing may be reduced to 10 meters or less. In straight sections of
embankment, it is useful to align the stakes in a straight line so that if there is a movement,
it can be detected even without a surveying instrument by sighting along the line of stakes.
Normally the movement of stakes is monitored from a survey bench mark located outside
the zone of disturbance. In most cases, the zone of disturbance will not extend beyond 30m
from the embankment. Observations are to be made regularly as the construction of the
embankment progresses.

6.8 Construction Monitoring and Control

Embankments on soft grounds are monitored for assessment of the design assumptions;
planning of the field work, especially in terms of loading and unloading stages; and to
ensure the structural integrity of the embankment for preventing failures. As already stated,
embankments on soft ground are usually designed by considering a lower factor of safety,
95
IRC:75-2015

since incorporating changes in designed cross section is comparatively easy in earth work.
Hence safety of the embankment should be controlled by using information obtained from
installed instruments. In order to achieve the above objectives, some of the important following
criteria must be met:
• The magnitude of each type of measurement as well as the range of expected
variations must be known in advance;
• The analyses should be performed immediately after taking the readings, to
provide adequate time for incorporating changes if any in the field works;
• The plan of instrumentation should inform how and where the instruments
are to be installed and the recommended frequencies for monitoring.

6.8.1 Typical Instrumentation Scheme

In a road project, embankment constructed on soft sub-soil may extend over many kilometers.
Hence it would be prudent to select 'Typical sections' of about 50 to 70 m length for installation
of instruments. This would help for easy monitoring and also minimize inconvenience to
construction activities. The selection of locations for instrumentation shall be governed by
factors such as height of the embankment, sub-soil properties over the stretch, etc. Usually,
piezometers and settlement gauges/markers are installed at centre line of the embankment
while inclinometers are installed near toe of the embankment. Plan view and cross section
of typical layout for instruments is given in Figs. 6.11 & 6.12. Details about instrumentation
scheme (locations and number of instruments), monitoring frequency, etc shall be indicated
in the design report or detailed project report.
It is important that the entire system of recording and monitoring of data from the instruments
shall be maintained in a computerized form. The system shall provide connection of all the
instruments through independent cables to a microprocessor based ‘Data Logger’ having
flexibility of automatic recording of data from individual connection at fixed interval of time.

Fig. 6.11 Typical Cross Section of Earth Embankment with Instrumentation

Notes:
1. Piezometer and vertical settlement gauge should be staggered longitudinally to avoid
interference with each other.
2. All instruments to be protected by chamber of approximate size 30 cm x 30 cm x 45 cm depth
where necessary

96
IRC:75-2015

Initial readings of all the instruments shall be recorded as reference values. Subsequently
periodic data shall be collected and analyzed.
Such data recording and analysis shall be taken up by the geotechnical engineer assigned
to the project and if necessary he should be in close contact to the designer. This will help in
early identification if any signs of impending failure.

Fig. 6.12 Typical Plan for Instrument Installation in Embankment over Soft Soil

Spacing of Monitoring Instruments

Spacing of various monitoring instruments will depend on factors such as height of
embankment, depth of soft clay layer, total length of the stretch etc. Hence to a certain
extent, the designer has to use his engineering judgment. However, as a general guideline
the following may be kept in mind.
a) In-situ shear strength and its change with time (due to progress of
consolidation) shall be monitored every 100 m either by in-situ vane shear or
taking undisturbed samples and testing them in lab for shear strength, water
content and void ratio. In either case accuracy and care is essential and all
precautions regarding recovery of samples from soft clay shall be ensured.
Samples collected shall be tested without any delay.
Emphasis is placed on changes in shear strength since this parameter is
most vital in controlling the rate of construction.
b) Likewise, it is desirable to measure pore water pressure changes at every
100 m intervals.
c) Settlements, heave, lateral movements may be measured at every 200 m.
97
IRC:75-2015

If the designer has any reason to believe that there may be problems of settlement/ heave/
lateral displacements spacing may be decreased to 100 m. These guidelines may be followed
for embankments of length upto 1km, where the construction on weak ground extends for
many kilometres, spacing needs to be adopted keeping in view the changes in height and
changes in the sub soil profile

6.8.2 Observational Procedure for Settlement Prediction and Degree of Consolidation

An important aspect of instrumented monitoring of embankments over soft clay pertains to,
estimation of percentage of consolidation achieved in the sub-soil. The degree of consolidation
is directly proportional to settlement of sub-soil. Theoretically the settlement of the sub-soil
can be computed using Terzaghi’s one dimensional consolidation theory. However natural
clay deposits consist of multilayered soils having different properties. Limited number of
laboratory tests on sub-soil with respect to consolidation behavior can provide us with only
local and microscopic information about the ground and the results may be unreliable due
to sample disturbances. Hence, such variations in the sub-soil properties affect theoretical
prediction of total settlement.
To overcome this problem observational procedure of settlement prediction as proposed by
'Akira Asaoka' (1978) can be adopted. Broadly, this procedure consists of extrapolating the
settlement values observed in the field to estimate the final (ultimate) total settlement. For
calculating ultimate total settlement, time vs. settlement curve for the settlement data available
as on date is first drawn. The total time period in this time-settlement curve is divided into
convenient number blocks of equal time interval and settlement value at each time interval is
noted (Fig 6.13). To predict the ultimate total settlement, settlement at particular time interval
is (St) is plotted along Y axis, while the corresponding settlement for the previous time interval
(St-1) is taken as X coordinate of such points. These points are joined together to intersect a
450 line drawn from the origin. The point where this line intersects the 450 line indicates final
settlement (Fig 6.14). To determine the degree of consolidation achieved, total settlement of
the ground below the embankment (recorded through surface settlement marker or magnetic
settlement gauge) as on date is compared with predicted final settlement (as per Asaoka's
method) and percentage of consolidation is calculated.

Fig. 6.13 Graphical Method of Asaoka

98
IRC:75-2015

Fig. 3.14 Predicting Final Settlement Using Asaoka Method

6.8.3 Control of Embankment Stability

When soft sub-soil is subjected to loading, not only consolidation but also plastic horizontal
flow (shear deformation) occurs. This makes it difficult to distinguish between the settlement
occurring due to consolidation and settlement/ displacement due to plastic flow of sub-soil.
Qualitatively, failure will occur when the progress of the shear deformation (plastic flow of
sub-soil) is faster than that of consolidation settlement. Hence, if embankment construction
is carried out at a rapid pace, plastic flow may exceed the rate of consolidation settlement,
thereby endangering the stability of the embankment. This makes it especially important to
monitor plastic flow of sub-soil and correlate it with the consolidation settlement.
While settlement (ρt) at the centre of the embankment can be monitored using settlement
marker or magnetic settlement gauge, lateral displacement (plastic flow of subsoil) δ of the
sub-soil can be obtained using inclinometer data. The progress of δ in relation to ρt can
be used as an indicator of embankment stability and also for any impending failure. Using
these two parameters, Minoru Matsuo et al (1977) developed an observational method for
prediction of failure of embankment constructed on soft subsoil. They developed a failure
prediction diagram based on the settlement data (ρt) and plastic flow of sub-soil (δ) obtained
from monitoring data for many embankments constructed on soft grounds (Fig 6.15). For
99
IRC:75-2015

using this diagram to verify the stability of embankment being constructed on soft sub-soils,
the settlement data (ρt) and plastic sub-soil movement (δ) are to be plotted in the diagram
(Fig 6.15) for different time intervals. The position where these points lie shows approximate
Factor of Safety (FOS) of the embankment as on date. In case the points lie very near to
the FOS line of 1.0 and show a tendency to move further up (where in FOS would be less
than 1), adequate precautions in the form of stopping further loading/ construction of
embankment (may be even removing a part of loading) and increasing the frequency of
recording field monitoring data should be resorted to till the points move further down from
FOS equal to 1.0 line.

Fig. 6.15 Minoru Matsuo Embankment Stability Diagram

100
IRC:75-2015

Appendix-A

Solved Examples
1. A simple embankment in approach to a bridge is of 12 meter height and has side
slopes at 45 degrees. The soil is saturated and highly impervious. At present the embankment
is completely submerged due to backwater flow from a river. Back waters generally recede in
a short time and eventually the water table recedes to an average level somewhat below the
toe of the slope.
Laboratory tests on specimen of soil used in embankment gave the following soil
characteristics:
Bulk density=19.62KN/m3
c'=29.43KN /m3
Ø’=20°
Determine the Factor of Safety under different conditions using Taylor's Charts:

Solution:
a) Submerged Case
From Fig. 3.3 for i=45 degrees and ø=20 degrees
Stability Number=0.062
C 29.43
0.062 = F X  buoyant X H = F (19.62 – 9.81) X 12
29.43
F= 0.062 X 9.81 X 12 = 4.03 (safe)

b) Sudden Drawdown Case

øw = x 20°= 10°

For ø= 100 and i=45° from Fig. 3.3

Stability Number=0.11
3
0.11= FX 19.62 X 12

F= =1.137( Just Safe)

c) Normal Case with Embankment Saturated

For ø=20° and i=45°,
Stability number=0.062
29.43
0.062= FX 19.62 X 12

F=2.01 (Safe)
101
IRC:75-2015

2. An embankment having uniform side slopes of 1.5 horizontal to 1 vertical was built
at a very slow rate to a height of 6 m on rocky foundation with the provision of a toe filter as
shown in Fig. 3.10. The average effective stress parameters of the embankment material
(r=2T/m3), were found to be c'=440 kg/m2 and ø'=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.
Solution: 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. 1, are considered adequate.
Stability analysis' in terms of effective stress, in general, requires two basic calculations
viz., the calculation of the weights of the slices and porewater pressure acting on them.
The weight vectors could be calculated by multiplying the average height of any slice with
its average width and unit weight. The pore water pressure values are either available from
piezometric observations or from steady state seepage flow net. In this case, seepage flow
net takes the shape shown in Fig.1.
Based on equations presented in Chapter-3, the calculations using Swedish Slip Circle
Method and Bishop Routine Method are presented in Table 1 and Table 2 respectively. The
presentation is self-explanatory.
3. A compacted clay fill c' = 0; ø = 28° and γ = 1700 kg/m3) is required to be placed
above an old embankment, at a uniform slope of 30° with the horizontal in order to meet the
renewed requirements of grade and top width. Examine the stability of the newly placed fill, in
terms of effective stress, along the interface c' = 0; ø= 19°) using Janbu's Method. Compare
the results with those obtained if, interfacial sliding is inhibited and, failure is considered
possible only by sliding within the compacted Clay fill. Assume the piezometric head on
the surface of sliding as shown in Fig. 2. What would be the corresponding results if the
piezometric head is to drop down to zero all along the slip surface?

Solution
The problem involves effective stress analysis on a non-circular slip surface using the method
suggested by Janbu. Porewater pressure conditions have been defined in Fig. 2.
The calculations corresponding to two cases, viz., (a) porewater pressures as defined by
the piezometric head (b) zero pore water pressure, are furnished in two separate Tables in
Fig. 32. These calculations are self explanatory.
It must be noted that, if interfacial sliding is prevented, the factor of safety improves. Towards
this effect, it helps to provide suitably cut benches (discontinuous boundary between the
old and the new fill) which improve the shearing resistance of the sliding mass along the
interface.
102
103
Fig .1 Stability Analysis in Static Conditions
IRC:75-2015
 Table 1 Swedish Slip Circle Method
IRC:75-2015

104
 tan tan 
Where m = cos (1+ )
F Table 2 Bishop Simplified Method

105
IRC:75-2015
 IRC:75-2015

106
Fig. 2: Stability Analysis by Janbu’s method
IRC:75-2015

b) Janbu’s Method

D=2.2 m L=20.6
d/L=0.07 fO=1.03

c) Zero Pore Pressure Case

Stability analysis for seismic case

Typical calculations for working out the factor of safety of high embankment for a
condition of seismic case in Zone IV as given by arithmetical method are given in Table 3 and
Fig. 3.

107
 IRC:75-2015

108
CIRCULAR ARC METHOD
All dimensions in metres,
Fig. 3: Typical Calculations for Seismic Slope Stability Analysis by Method of Slices

Table 3 Computation of Pseudo-Static Factor of Safety by Method of Slice
Total
Effective
Weight Weight Weight Angle by the radius Driving
in detail.
Weight of the Slice Area Area Normal Resisting
of the Height of Slice (m) of the of with center of slice Force N. tanø
(m) m2 m2 Force Forces
Slice Slice Slice (degree) (Tonne)

Slice No.
Width (m)
(N)

Horizontal
(W)

Embankment ton Foundation ton ton a cosa sina Wcosa Wsina tanø = Emban Found
0.5 kment ation

Left Right Average y= Left Right Average ysub = ton c = 0, c=

2.05 t/ 0.744 t/ L=29 m 1.9 t
m3 m3 /m3,
L=71 m

1 1.55 0 4 2 3.10 6.36 6.36 66 0.407 0.913 2.588 5.804 1.294 0 134.9

2 3.75 4 8.75 6.375 23.91 49.01 49.01 60 0.500 0.866 24.526 42.429 12.263 0

3 3.75 8.75 14 11.375 42.66 87.45 87.45 53.3 0.598 0.801 52.293 70.087 26.146 0

4 4.50 14 16.25 15.125 68.06 139.53 139.53 47 0.682 0.731 95.200 102.005 47.600 0

5 4.25 16.25 18.5 17.375 73.84 151.38 151.38 40 0.766 0.643 115.998 97.264 57.999 0

6 3.25 18.5 16.5 17.5 56.88 116.59 0.00 2.00 1.00 3.25 2.418 119.01 35 0.819 0.573 97.510 68.232 48.755 0

109
7 6.75 16.5 13.5 15 101.25 207.56 2.00 6.00 4.00 27.00 20.088 227.65 29 0.875 0.485 199.136 110.316 99.568 0

8 6.00 13.5 13.5 13.5 81.00 166.05 6.00 8.00 7.00 42.00 31.248 197.30 22.3 0.925 0.379 182.557 74.830 91.278 0

9 9.00 13.5 10.5 12 108.00 221.40 8.00 10.25 9.13 82.13 61.101 282.50 13 0.974 0.225 275.268 63.517 137.634 0

10 8.00 10.5 8 9.25 74.00 151.70 10.25 11.00 10.63 85.00 63.24 214.94 4.3 0.997 0.075 214.336 16.108 107.168 0

11 7.75 8 5.5 6.75 52.31 107.24 11.00 10.50 10.75 83.31 61.9845 169.23 4.3 0.997 0.075 168.749 -12.682 84.375 0

12 7.00 5.5 3 4.25 29.75 60.99 10.50 9.00 9.75 68.25 50.778 111.77 12.3 0.977 0.213 109.203 -23.798 54.601 0

13 7.00 3 0 1.5 10.50 21.53 9.00 6.50 7.75 54.25 40.362 61.89 20 0.940 0.342 58.159 -21.156 29.079 0

14 11.00 - - - 6.50 0.00 3.25 35.75 26.598 26.60 31 0.857 0.515 22.803 -13.693 11.401 0

kH = 0.5 x 0.24 = 0.12g 1618.325  579.263   809.1620.000  134.900

Total Resisting Force = 809.162 + 134.9 - 579.263 x 0.5 x 0.12 = 909.307 t

IRC:75-2015
 Total Driving Force = 579.263 + 1618.325 x 0.12 = 773.462 t
Factor of Safety = 909.307 / 773.462 = 1.176
Hence OK
Typical Calculations for a condition of seismic case in zone IV for the example 3.3 is given in the following table
IRC:75-2015

Table 4 Computation of Pseudo-Static Factor of Safety by Method of Slices

Angle by the radius
Slice Weight of the Effective Normal Driving Force Resisting
Slice Details (m) with center of slice N. tanø
No. Slice (W) Force (N) (T) Forces
(degree)

Horizontal
Length Height ton a cosa sina Wcosa Wsina tanf = 0.625 Embankment
Width
g = 2 t/m3 ton c = 440 kg/m2
1 2.16 2.16 0.85 3.67 0 1.000 0.000 3.672 0.000 2.295 950.4
2 1.80 1.84 1.92 6.91 12 0.978 0.208 6.761 1.436 4.226 809.6
3 1.20 1.29 2.52 6.05 22 0.927 0.374 5.608 2.265 3.505 567.6

110
4 1.20 1.4 2.76 6.62 31 0.857 0.515 5.679 3.410 3.549 616
5 1.20 1.56 2.70 6.48 40 0.766 0.643 4.965 4.164 3.103 686.4
6 1.20 1.91 2.40 5.76 51 0.630 0.777 3.627 4.475 2.267 840.4
7 0.90 2 1.08 1.94 63.5 0.447 0.895 0.868 1.739 0.543 880
31.181 17.488 19.488 5350.400
5.3504

Total Resisting Force = 5.35+19.488-17.488*0.625*0.12 = 36.575t

Total Driving Force = 33.279 t
Factor of Safety = 36.575 / 33.279 = 1.1
Hence o.k
IRC:75-2015

Examples on Settlement Analysis

1. An embankment 8 m height is built over a clay layer of 4.27 m thickness which is
underlain by impervious rock. The soils involved have the following characteristics:
Sub Strata
Cc= 0.2634 from consolidation test result
Cv= 0.947 X 10-4 cm2/sec
Sp. gr. G= 2.67
d= 14.22 kN/m3
n= 0.486
Embankment soil
Υsat = 22.54 kN/m3
Υd= 20.4 kN/m3 gm/cc
Determine (i) the total settlement
(ii) Time for total settlement
(iii) Settlement at the end of 1 yrs., 2 yrs., 3 yrs., 4 yrs., and 5 yrs.
Solution
Assuming the worst case i.e. embankment to be saturated and substrata as submerged.
For subsoil = (1-n)G γw +n Υw
=18.23 kN/m3
Initial void ratio eo =
=
=0.841
Pa = Υb X depth
=8.420X =17.98kN/m2
∆P = Υsat X h = 22.56 X 4 =90.25kN/m2

Total settlement =
0.2634 17.98 + 90.25
= 4.27X 1+0.841
H log10
19417.98

= 0.476 mm = 47.6cm
Cv = 0.947 X 10-4 cm2/sec
= 0.947 X 10-4 X 365 X 24 X 60 X 60 cm2/yr
= 2985 cm2/yr
111
IRC:75-2015

Time factor T =
2985 × 1
For t = 1 yr, Ti = 427
2 = 0.001636
From U-T Table for one way drainage and pressure distribution in columns 2 of Table 4.2
For T =0.01636, U=0.1432
Settlements in 1 yr; S1 =47.6 X 0.143= 6.81 cm
Similarily,
t=2 yrs, T2=0.03272, U2=0.2040, S2=9.71cm
t=3 yrs, T2=0.04908, U2=0.2489, S2=11.85cm
t=4 yrs, T2=0.06544, U2=0.2785, S2=13.26cm
t=5 yrs, T2=0.08180, U2=0.3204, S2= 15.25cm
Settlement per year is only 3 to 4 cm
For U= 0.9942 T=2
2 × 4272
Period for total settlement = t = 2985 =122 yrs
2. A clay layer, 9m thick, is underlain by impervious rock and is covered with free
drainage sand. Laboratory consolidation test on a 2.5 cm thick sample, obtained from the
clay layer, requires 500 seconds for 50 percent consolidation. The laboratory sample was
drained both at top and at bottom. Calculate the time required for 50 percent consolidation in
the field.
Solution: The value of dimensionless time factor, T, for 50 percent consolidation both in the
field and the laboratory is the same.

t=

Assuming that coefficient of consolidation Cv remains constant for all ranges of pressure, with
subscripts f and l referring to field and laboratory samples respectively,
2 2
C Hl Hf
= t = t
T l f

Since the laboratory sample has two-way drainage.

H l= =1.25 cm

500
i.e. tf= (900)2X 1.25 × 1.25 seconds

= 3000 days.
112
IRC:75-2015

Example of Ground Improvement using PVD and Stone Column

Table 5 Description of Subsoil Properties

Depth Below GL ( m) Description of Strata Sand% Silt% Clay% N-avg Layer φ0 C

thickness (kN/sq.m)
(m)
From To Silty Clay 4.00 53 43 4 7.00 0 14
0.00 7.00 Completely weathered rock
8.00 12.00 Highly to moderately
weathered rock

Atterberg properties of clay strata, LL= 70%, PL=39%, PI=31%. Natural Moisture Content =
68%, Bulk density = 15.12 kN/m3, dry density=9kN/m3, Void ratio= 2.226, compression index
Cc=0.484

Fig. 4: Use of PVDs for Ground Improvement

The design of embankments on soft ground using PVDs, stage construction accompanying
strength improvement are discussed in this section
PVDs installed in triangular pattern at a spacing of 1m are adopted in this example and
typical parameters of PVDs are as follows
Width of band drain b = 100 mm
Thickness of band drain t = 4 mm
Spacing of band drain s = 1 m
Pattern of installation = Triangular
113
IRC:75-2015

Coefficient of vertical consolidation C v = 3.00E-04 cm2/sec

0.94608 m2/year
Ch/Cv ratio of the soil = 1.5
Coefficient of horizontal consolidation Ch = 4.50E-04 cm2/sec
= 1.41912 m2/year
Drainage ( 1 = single, 2 = double ) = 1
Drainage path = 7 m
Area treated by single band drain A = 0.866 m2
For Rectangular Grid - S2
For Triangular Grid - 0.866 x S2
Equivalent diameter of cylindrical
column D = 2 * sqrt (A/p)
= 1.0500597 m
Equivalent diameter of band drain d = 2 * (b + t)/p
= 66.208456 mm
= 0.0662085 m
Time required for Degree of radial consolidation = 90%
Hansbo's Equation, (Hansbo, S. (1981), Consolidation of fine-grained soils by prefabricated
drains, Proc. 10th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Stockholm, Vol. 3, pp. 12-22.)

…Eqn 1

As per Hansbo's Equation (based on the above parameters), following table has been
prepared for various percentage of consolidation, for the design parameters adopted.
Since, the permeability of clayey soil are very low, it requires much more time for the
consolidation process.

Time required, ( from eqn 4.7)

where,

t is time required for specified degree of consolidation

114
IRC:75-2015

Table 6 Time vs. Consolidation, with PVDs for the Spacing Adopted
Ur % t (days)
0 0.00
5 3.68
10 7.57
15 11.67
20 16.02
25 20.66
30 25.61
35 30.94
40 36.68
45 42.93
50 49.78
55 57.34
60 65.80
65 75.39
70 86.46
75 99.56
80 115.58
85 136.24
90 165.36

Time required for 90% consolidation (without PVDs)

Time factor for the drainage system (Single face Drainage, 90% verticalconsolidation)
TV = 0.848
Length of drainage path, d = 7 m (Single face Drainage)
Coefficient of vertical consolidation, Cv = 0.94608 m2/year
Hence, time required for consolidation = 43.9 Yrs
= 16031 days
Since the time required is so large that PVDs need to be used to reduce the time for
consolidation.
Time required for 90% consolidation using PVDs
Time required for consolidation using PVDs using Hansbo’s equation (see equation 1 and
Table 6)
Hence, time period for consolidation, t = 0.45 Yrs
= 5.44 Yrs
= 165.36 Days
115
IRC:75-2015

Hence, from the above calculation it is seen that the process of consolidation is accelerated
using PVDs, which saves time and is a practically feasible solution.
Bearing Capacity Considerations
If the bearing capacity is not adequate to carry the required height of embankment, stage
construction in conjunction with PVDs may be adopted.
The design will be based on gain in shear strength in each stage being used to build the next
stage. Execution time for construction of embankment has to be worked out taking in to the
consideration time taken to achieve required shear strength which is a function of degree of
consolidation.
Following equation given by Skempton’s formula, which is based on plasticity index of soil,
may be adopted to find the enhanced cohesion value.
Gain in strength, cohesion component, Δc = k x U x Δσ … Eqn 2
Enhanced cohesion cf = ci+Δc … Eqn 3
ci = Initial cohesion value
Where, k = 0.11 + 0.0037 x PI … Eqn 4
U= Degree of consolidation
Δσ = increased overburden pressure (Due to embankment construction)
In the example given below an embankment of 8m height is designed to be built on a soft clay
layer of 7 m thick using PVD’s with stage construction.
Input Parameters for Embankment
Top width of embankment=24 m
Height of embankment = 8 m
Side slopes= 1V:2H
Unit weight of fill material= 18kN/m3
Thickness of soft clay layer= 7 m, this layer is followed by hard stratum
Properties of soft clay
c=14kN/m2
Liquid limit=70%
Plastic limit= 39%
Calculation of Bearing Capacity
Base width of embankment (B) = 56 m
Depth of soft clay (D) = 7 m
B/D=8
Nc= 4.14 +0.5 x B/D = 8.14 (As per IRC-75) ….Eqn 5.
116
IRC:75-2015

Bearing Capacity of clay layer= 114 kN/m2

Load due to embankment= 8 x 18= 144 kN/m2
Hence soil will not be able to take the entire load of 8m embankment in single stage; hence
two stage construction will be adopted with use of PVD’s to reduce the waiting period.
First Stage Construction (Assume 4m will be built)
For 4 m height of embankment FOS in bearing capacity = (8.14 x 14)/ (4 x18) = 1.58
Hence 4 m high embankment can be built in the first stage.
Assume PVD’s have been installed before the initial stage of construction.
Required bearing capacity for 8m high embankment= 144 x 1.25= 180 kN/m2
Provide 6 months waiting period after the first stage of embankment is built which is time
required for achieving 90% consolidation, as per Table 5.1 given by Hansbo
Bearing Capacity for Second Stage
In order to check the bearing capacity for second stage of embankment gain in strength due
to first stage surcharge load is calculated using Skempton’s formula ref IRC: HRB -13
Gain in strength due to consolidation, cohesion component, Δc = k x U x Δσ
Enhanced cohesion cf = cI+ Δc
cI = Initial cohesion value
Where, k = 0.11 + 0.0037 x PI
U = Degree of consolidation (90% in this case)
Δσ = increased overburden pressure (Due to embankment construction)
In this case K= 0.11 + 0.0037 x 39= 0.254
Hence Δc= 0.254 x 0.9 x 72 = 16.45 kN/m2
Hence total cohesion available at the end of first stage waiting period = 14+ 16.45 =30.45
kN/m2
Bearing capacity = 8.14 x 30.45= 247. 90kN/m2 (As per eqn 5.)
Load acting on subsoil for 8m high embankment is 144 kN/m2
Hence FOS=247. 90/144 = 1.7 is more than minimum required. Hence the design is
satisfactory.
Increase in strength due to 8m embankment will be (after 2nd stage waiting period) due to
additional 4 m embankment
Δc= 16.45 kN/m2
Hence, Total cohesion available = 14 + 16.45 + 16.45 = 46.9 kN/m2
117
IRC:75-2015

Settlement Calculations (with no ground improvement adopted)

Top Formation Width= 24 m
Width of Embankment=56 m
Height of Embankment (H) = 8 m
Slope = 2H: 1V
Density of Embankment fill= 18 kN/m3
Total Compressible Layer = 7 m
Foundation Soil
Dry density of soil= 9
Specific gravity of soil = 2.74
Initial void ratio = 2.226
Compression index Cc = 0.656
Submerged density=(G-1) x d/G
5.7 kN/m3
Effective Overburden Pressure at Mid depth of soft clay layer Po = 5.7 x 3.5
= 20.00 kN/m3
Stress due to 8m high embankment ∆P = 18 x 8 = 144 kN/m3
Stress due to 4m high embankment ∆P = 18 x 4 = 72 kN/m3
Settlement due to 8m high embankment =S = (from eqn 4.1)

= 1300 mm

Settlement due to 4m high embankment= S =

= 943 mm
Settlements with Ground Improvement
Combined degree of consolidation (after 2nd stage waiting period)
U = 1- ((1-Uz) x (1-Ur))
= 1-((1-0.15) x (1-0.9))
= 0.915
118
IRC:75-2015

Hence combined degree of consolidation is 91.5%

Settlement remaining at the end of the second stage waiting period= (100-91.5) x total
settlements
= (8.5 %) x total settlements
= 943 x 0.085
= 80.15 mm
Residual settlement of 80mm will decrease very slowly, since time Vs consolidation
relationship becomes asymptotic at this point. This settlement is within the tolerable limits of
300 mm and hence allowable.
Factor of safety in Rotational Stability
Design cohesion values at the end of each stage waiting period are given below. These
values are given in the calculation of rotational stability at the appropriate stage.
Without ground improvement: c= 14 kN/m2
At the end of first stage waiting period with surcharge of 4 m: c= 30.45 kN/ m2
At the end of second stage waiting period with additional surcharge of 4 m: c= 46.9 kN/ m2
Table 7 Summary of Factor of Safety in Rotational Stability for
Various Times and Loading Conditions
Height of Embankment F.O.S

Without considering ground improvement

4m 1.129
Note: The F.O.S increases steadily due to ground improvement

4m 2.302 With ground improvement and end of 1st Stage waiting period.
Without ground improvement
8m 0.545 This is unsafe and hence ground improvements and stage construction
is needed.
F.O.S with cohesion value corresponding to end of 1st stage waiting
8m 1.225
period.
F.O.S with cohesion value corresponding to end of 2nd stage waiting
8m 1.50
period and live load surcharge of 24 kN/m

Design Cohesion values

Untreated soil C = 14 kN/m2
End of 1st stage waiting period (with 4 m embankment load) → C = 30.45 kN/m2
End of 2nd stage waiting period (with 8 m embankment load) → C = 46.9 kN/m2
Note:
1. In all the calculations the waiting period has been rounded off to 6 months, instead
of the calculated value of 5.45 months (see Table 6)
119
IRC:75-2015

2. It is assumed that the fill in each stage is placed in a relatively short time. Hence
waiting period starts after the design fill height has been placed. i.e. some strength
increase that will occur during the period required to place the fill is not taken into
consideration. This is on the conservative side. However, it must be ensured at no
stage, the F.O.S is below safe value.
3. It is essential that increase in shear strength and progress of settlement are
monitored (see chapter. 6).
Good Construction Practices that may be Adopted
1. Granular blanket of 500 mm thickness may be placed on the soft ground. The
granular blanket shall extend 500 mm beyond full width of embankment on either
side including the additional PVDs provided at toe.
2. A layer of separator geotextile shall be placed above the soft clay, before the
gravel layer is placed. Likewise a layer of separator geotextile may be placed
between the bottom of the embankment fill and the gravel layer. The steps will
ensure free drainage of gravel blanket and keep it free from contamination.
3. One layer of biaxial geogrid of 100kN x 100kN (minimum) ultimate tensile strength
may be placed at the middle of the gravel layer. This will provide some rigidity to
the gravel layer and uniformity of contact.
4. Minimum 3 rows of PVDs shall be provided beyond either toe. This will help provide
lateral support at the toe.
Use of Stone Column as Ground Improvement
Design of stone column using soil parameters as shown below for 6 m high
Embankment Soil parameters
C= 25
φ= 0
φ column = 40
γ= 15.6
γ'= 5.79

1st Approximation of Design:

Let’s consider triangular design pattern with following governing design parameters.
Diameter of stone column, D = 1 Assume
Spacing, = 2.5 Assume
Column Pattern = Triangular
Area of stone column, As = 0.785 m2
Equivalent diameter of unit cell, De = 1.05 x Spacing
2.625 m
120
IRC:75-2015

Area of unit cell, A = 5.412 m2

Calculation is performed on 3 basis (IS 15284 Part 1, Clause 9.3.2)
A. Capacity based on bulging of column
B. Capacity based on surcharge effect
C. Capacity based on bearing support by intervening soil
Calculation:
A. Capacity based on bulging of column
Limiting axial stress in column σv = σrL* kpcol
σrL= (σro +4cu)*kpcol
Where, σro= koσvo (Initial effective stress)
For, this problem,
kpcol = tan2(45o + φcolumn/2)
kpcol = 4.60
ko = 0.6 (For clay as per IS 15284 part 1)
σvo =2γD =11.58
Now,
Limiting radial stress, σrL = (σro +4cu)*kpcol
513.15 kN/m2
Safe load on column alone, Q1 = (σv*Αs)/FOS FOS = 2
= 201.5 kN
B. Capacity based on surcharge effect
qsafe= C*Nc/2.5 Where, Nc = 5.14
= 51.40 kN/m2
Increase in radial stress ro = qsafe*(1 + 2*ko)/3
= 37.69 kN/m2
Increase in ultimate cavity expansion stress radial stress = ro* Fq'*kpcol
= 173.35 kN/m2
Where, Fq' = 1, for φ = 0

Safe load on column alone, Q2 = ro* Fq*kpcol*As/2 FOS = 2
= 68.07 kN
121
IRC:75-2015

C. Capacity based on bearing support by intervening soil

Area of intervening soil for each column, Ag = A - As
= 4.626 m2
Safe load taken by intervening soil, Q3 = qsafe*Ag
= 237.80 kN
Hence total safe load = A + B + C Q = 507.39 kN
Now, Meyerhoff's stress for 6 m high Embankment = 108 kN/m2
(6m height, 18 kN/m3 as unit weight, no
Area of ground improvement AGI = L x B ecc.)
= 10000 m2 Say 100 m x 100 m
Total load on the ground, Load T = σ x AGI
= 1080000 kN
Hence, for this load on ground and available Q safe of ground let’s do back calculation to
check if spacing is sufficient
Number of stone columns N= Load T/Q
2128.552 No.
Therefore area per column Asc= AGI/N
= 4.698 m2
Now, using the (De =1.05 x S) for this area
S=sqrt(4x Ac/(3.14 x 1.05 2)) = 2.329 m c/c
Since, the assumed spacing is greater than final spacing, Hence, we need to decrease the
spacing of stone column and redo the calculation.
2nd Approximation of Design:
Let’s consider triangular design pattern with following governing design parameters.
Diameter of stone column, D = 1 Assume
Spacing, S = 2.15 Assume
Column Pattern = Triangular
Area of stone column, As = 0.785 m2

122
IRC:75-2015

Equivalent diameter of unit cell, De= 1.05 x Spacing

2.258 m
Area of unit cell, A= 4.003 m2
Calculation is performed on 3 basis (IS 15284 Part 1, Clause 9.3.2)
A. Capacity based on bulging of column
B. Capacity based on surcharge effect
C. Capacity based on bearing support by intervening soil
Calculation:
A. Capacity based on bulging of column
Limiting axial stress in column σv = σrL* kpcol
Where, σrL = Limiting radial stress
σrL = (σro +4cu)*kpcol
Where, σro = koσvo (Initial effective stress)
For, this problem,
kpcol = tan2(45o + φcolumn/2)
kpcol = 4.60
ko = 0.60 (For clay as per IS 15284 part 1)
σvo = 2γD = 11.58
Now,
Limiting radial stress, σrL = (σro +4cu)*kpcol
513.15 kN/m2
Safe load on column alone, Q1 = (σv*Αs)/FOS FOS = 2
= 201.51 kN
B. Capacity based on surcharge effect
q safe = C*Nc/2.5 Where, Nc = 5.14
= 51.40 kN/m2

123
IRC:75-2015

Increase in radial stress ro = qsafe*(1 + 2*ko)/3

= 37.69 kN/m2
Increase in ultimate cavity expansion stress radial stress = ro* Fq'*kpcol
= 173.35 kN/m2
Where, Fq' = 1, for φ = 0
Safe load on column alone, Q2 = ro* Fq*kpcol*As/2 FOS = 2
= 68.07 kN
C. Capacity based on bearing support by intervening soil
Area of intervening soil for each column, Ag = A - As
= 3.217 m2
Safe load taken by intervening soil, Q3 = qsafe*Ag
= 165.37 kN
Hence total safe load = A + B + C
Q = 434.95 kN
Now, Meyerhoff's stress for 6 m high Embankment = 108 kN/m2 (6m height, 18
kN/m3 as unit weight
Area of ground improvement AGI = L x B)
= 10000 m2 Say 100 m x 100 m
Total load on the ground, Load T = σ x AGI 1080000 kN
Hence, for this load on ground and available Q safe of ground let’s do back calculation to
check if spacing is sufficient
Number of stone columns N= Load T/Q
2483.035 No.
Therefore area per column Asc = AGI/N
= 4.027 m2
Now, using the (De =1.05 x S)for this area
S=sqrt(4x Ac/(3.14 x 1.05^2)) = 2.157 m c/c
Since, the assumed spacing is matching with the final calculation. Hence, this design
represents the optimum design of stone column.
Design summary
Diameter of stone column, D = 1.00
Spacing, S = 2.15
124
IRC:75-2015

Column Pattern = Triangular

Area replacement ratio = 0.907*(D/S)^2 As per IS 15284:2003 Part 1, Clause
7.5.2
= 0.196
Settlement (without ground improvement) due to 4m high embankment= S =

= 1147mm
Settlement reduction factor β = Assume n=5 I.S. 15284 part 2 clause 9.3.2
= 0.24
Net settlements after ground improvement = 0.24 x 1147
= 275 mm < 300 mm
Since stone columns also acts as drains these settlements will decrease further rapidly as
they are closely spaced. Stone columns must be tested for load bearing capacity as stated
in I.S 15284 clause 9.3.2
All the good construction practices mentioned under PVDs shall be adopted for stone
columns.

125
IRC:75-2015

References

National Codes and Guidelines

1. IRC:36 Recommended Practices for Construction of Earth Embankments and
Subgrades for Roadworks.
2. IRC:56 Recommended Practice for treatment of Embankment and Roadside
Slopes for Erosion Control.
3. IRC-113- Guidelines for the Design and Construction of Geosynthetic Reinforced
Embankments on Soft Subsoils
4. IRC:SP:58 Guidelines for Use of Flyash in Road Embankments
5. IRC:SP:11–Handbook of Quality Control for Construction of Roads and Runways.
6. IRC:78 Standard specifications and code of practice for road bridges-Section VII-
Foundations and substructure.
7. HRB SR No 15 (1995), ‘State of the Art:Landslide Correction Techniques’,
Published by Indian Roads Congress, New Delhi
8. HRB SR No 13 (1994), ‘State of the Art:High Embankments on Soft Ground, Part
A–Stage Construction’, Published by Indian Roads Congress, New Delhi
9. HRB SR No 14 (1994), ‘State of the Art:High Embankments on Soft Ground, Part
B–Ground Improvement’, Published by Indian Roads Congress, New Delhi
10. IS: 15284- part-2:Design and Construction for Ground Improvement—Guidelines
for Pre-consolidation Using Vertical Drains.
11. IS: 15284-part-1 Design and Construction for Ground Improvement-Guidelines:
Stone columns
12. IS: 7894: “Code of Practice for Stability Analysis of Earth Dams”
13. IS: 1498:“Classification and Identification of soil for general Engineering Purposes”
14. IS: 2720:Methods of tests for soils
15. IS: 11594:Mild steel thin walled sampling tubes and sampler heads
16. IS: 2132:Code of practice for thin walled tube
17. IS: 2131:Method for Standard penetration test for soils
18. IS: 4968:Method for subsurface sounding for soils
19. IS: 4434:Code of practice for In-situ vane shear test for soils
20. IS: 6403:Code of practice for determination of breaking capacity of shallow
foundations
21. IS: 1892:Code of practice for subsurface investigations for foundations
22. IS: 1893: Criteria for Earthquake resistant: Design for structures.

126
IRC:75-2015

23. IS: 789: Code of Practice for Stability Analysis of Earth Dams
24. IITK GSDMA-Guidelines for Seismic Design of Earth Dams and Embankments
25. MORTH-Specifications for Road and Bridge Works-fifth revision
International Codes and Guidelines
1. BS:8006 “Code of Practice for strengthened/Reinforcesd Soils and other Fills”.
2. ASTM D4719:Pressure meter test analysis report
3. ASTM D6635:Standard Test Method for Performing the Flat Plate Dilatometer
4. ASTM D 1143-Standard Test Method for Piles Under Static Axial Compressive
Load.
5. FHWA-SA-97-077: Geotechnical Engineering Circular No.3: Design Guidance –
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering for Highways.
6. FHWA NHI-95-038 (1998), Geosynthetic Design and Construction Guidelines.
Participant Notebook for NHI Course No.1 3 213
Other References
1. http:/commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vibrating_wire_piezometer_from_
USBR_6515-09_Fig._1.png.
2. Abramson Lee. W., et. al (2002) “Slope Stability and Stabilization Methods”.
Second Edition, Published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
3. Akca, N. 2003. Correlation of SPT-CPT data from the United Arab Emirates.
Engineering Geology, V.67, 219-231.
4. Arora K. R.(2005) Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Standard
Publishers, Delhi
5. Asaoka Akira (1978), ‘Observational Procedure of Settlement Prediction’, Journal
of Soils and Foundations, Published by Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Vol 18, No 4, pp 87-101.
6. Bhowmick Alok and Harpreet Singh, “Assessment of liquefaction potential for
bridge design”.
Indian Highways, September 2012.
7. Bishop, A.W. (1955)- The use of Slip circle in the stability of earth slopes-
geotechnique Vol.5 (pp. 7-17)
8. Bishop, A.W. & Morgenstern, N.R. (1960) –stability coefficients for earth slopes.
Geotechnique 10 (p. 129-150)
9. Bonaparte, R. and Christopher, B.R., Design and Construction of Reinforced
Embankments Over Weak Foundations, Proceedings of the symposium
on Reinforced Layered Systems, Transportation Research Record 1153,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1987, pp.26-39
127
IRC:75-2015

10. Fadum, R.E. (1948)-Influence values for Estimating Stresses in Elastic

Foundations- Proc. 2nd International Congress SMFGV Vol.3.
11. Felliinius, W. (1927) Erdstatische Berechnungen, Berlin (Revised Edn. 1939).
12. Giroud, J.P., (1968)- Settlement of an embankment resting on Semi-infinite Elastic
Soil, Highway research Record No. 223, highway Research Board.
13. Guru Vittal U.K. and Sudhir Mathur (2006), ‘Case Studies on Prefabricated
Geodrains at Visakhapatnam’, Published in the National Seminar on Developments
in Geosynthetics and Reinforced Earth in Civil Engineering Practice’, organised
by Indian Geotechnical Society, Baroda Chapter and Institution of Engineers
(Vadodara Local Centre) at Vadodara
14. Guru Vittal U.K., P.S.Prasad, and Sudhir Mathur (2006), ‘Geotechnical Properties
of Visakhapatnam Marine Clay‘, published in the Indian Geotechnical Conference
– IGC 2006 at Chennai
15. Janbu, N, Bjerrum, L. & Kjaernsli, B. (1956)–Veiledning Ved Losning av
Fundameteringsoppgaver-Publ. Norwegian Geotech. Inst. No. 16
16. Kenney, T.C. (1956) - An examination of the Methods of calculating the stability of
slopes. M.Sc. Thesis, University of London
17. Mandal. A. K. et al. “Design, Construction and Performance of High Embankment
on Soft Clay Deposits” Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical Conference: IGC-
2006, Guntur
18. Matsuo Minoru and Kunio Kawamura (1977), 'Diagram for Construction Control
of Embankment on Soft Ground', Journal of Soils and Foundations, Published by
Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol 17, No 3,
pp 37-52.
19. Meyerhof G.G (1957)-Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Foundation on Slopes. Proc.
4th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering.
20. Middlebrooks, T. A. (1936) Foundation Investigation of Fort Peck Dam Closure
Section, Proc. 1st Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering
21. Morgenstern, N.R. & Price, V.E. (1967) - A numerical method for solving the
equations of stability of general slip surfaces- Computer Jour. 2 (p. 388-93).
22. Morgenstern, N.R. & Price, V.E. (1965) - The Analysis of the Stability of General
Slip Surfaces, Geotechnique 15 (p. 79-93).
23. Newmark, N. M. (1941, 1942) - Influence charts for computation of elastic stresses
in Foundations- University of Illinois Eng. Exp. Sta. Bull. No. 338-1942.
24. Niroumand. H. Et al. “Soil Improvement by Reinforced Stone Columns Based on
Experimental Work” European journal of Geotechinical Engineering Vol. 16 [2011].

128
IRC:75-2015

25. Nonveiler, E. (1965) - The stability analysis of slopes with a slip surface of general
shape. Proc. 6th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. (Montreal) 2 (p. 522-25).
26. Osterberg, J.O. (1957)- Influence Value for Vertical stresses in a Semi-Infinite
Mass due to an Embankment Loading, Proc. 4th Int. Conf. on SMFE, Vol.1
27. Perloff, W.H., Baladi, G.Y. and Harr, M. E. ( 1967)- Stress Distribution within and
under Long Elastic Embankments, Highway Research Record No. 181, Highway
Research Board.
28. Rao. P. Jagannatha and Kumar, Satish(1989), “Experimental Studies on Load
Bearing Capacity of Different Types of Stone Columns”, Proc. Indian Geotechnical
Conference, Vishakhapatnam, 1989.
29. Rao. P. J. et al. (1991) “Improvement of Bearing Capacity of Soft Marine Clay
Using Stone Columns” Geo-Coast, September 1991, Yokohama Japan.
30. P.Jagannatha Rao & Rao, K. Srinivasa (2004)" Design and Construction of
Reinforced Soil Walls on Clay Subsoils "I GC- 2004 Warangal, p. 406.
31. Rao. P.J. et al. Ground Improvement for Embankments on Deep Soft Clay
Deposits Along Highway to ICTT, Vallarpadam Port in Cochin, Proceedings of
Indian geotechnical conference: December 15-17, 2011, Kochi (Paper No. G 110).
32. Skempton, A. W. (1954) The pore water pressure coefficients A & B. Geotechnique
4 (p. 143-47).
33. Steinbrenner, W. (1934)- Tafeln zu Setzungs- berechung- Die Stresse- Vol. 1.
34. Tandel Y.K. et al.“Reinforced granular column for deep soil stabilization”
International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering Volume 2, No 3, 2012.
35. Transport Research Board (1975) : NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice No.
29- Treatment of Soft Foundations for Highway Embankments.
36. Youd. T. L. and others (2001) “Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report
From the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of
Liquefaction Resistance of Soils”. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering( ASCE, 2001).
Bibliography
1. Arora K.R. Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Seventh Edition, Standard
Publishers, New Delhi.
2. Bowles Joseph. E. (1997) Foundation Analysis and Design. Tata McGraw-Hill
Publishing Company Limited, New Delhi.
3. Gulhati, S.K. and Datta Manoj (2005). Geotechnical Engineering. Tata McGraw-
Hill Publishing Company Limited, New Delhi.
4. Hausmann M.R. (1990). Engineering Principles of Ground Modification.
International Edition. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Singapore.

129
IRC:75-2015

5. Leonards, G. (1962)- Foundation Engineering .McGraw Hill Book Company, Inc.

6. Murthy, V.N.S. Principles and Practices of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering
7. Nayak N. V. Foundation Design Manual.
8. Ranjan, G. and Rao, A.S.R. (2004). Basic and Applied Soil Mechanics. Second
Edition, New Age International (P) Ltd., New Delhi.
9. Taylor D. W. (1948), Fundamentals of Soil mechanics.
10. Venkatramaiah C. (2006) Geotechnical Engineering

(The amendments to this document will be published in its periodical,

‘Indian Highways’ which shall be considered as effective and as part of
the code/guidelines/manual, etc. from the date specified therein)

130