Embankments: 9-1 Overview and Data Needed

Chapter 9
Embankments
9-1 Overview and Data Needed

This chapter addresses the design and construction of rock embankments, bridge
approach embankments, earth embankments, and light weight fills. Static loading as well
as seismic loading conditions are covered, though for a more detailed assessment of
seismic loading on embankment performance, see Chapter 6. The primary geotechnical
issues that impact embankment performance are overall stability, internal stability,
settlement, materials, and construction.
For the purposes of this chapter embankments include the following:

• Rock embankments, defined as fills in which the material in all or any part of an
embankment contains 25 percent or more, by volume, gravel or stone 4 inches or
more in diameter.
• Bridge approach embankments, defined as fill beneath a bridge structure and
extending 100 feet beyond a structure’s end at subgrade elevation for the full
embankment width, plus an access ramp on a 10H:1V slope from subgrade down
to the original ground elevation. The bridge approach embankment also includes
any embankment that replaces unsuitable foundation soil beneath the bridge
approach embankment.
• Earth embankments are fills that are not classified as rock or bridge approach
embankments, but that are constructed out of soil.
• Lightweight fills contain lightweight fill or recycled materials as a significant portion
of the embankment volume, and the embankment construction is usually by special
provision. Lightweight fills are most often used as a portion of the bridge approach
embankment to mitigate settlement or in landslide repairs to reestablish roadways.
9-1.1 Site Reconnaissance

General requirements for site reconnaissance are given in Chapter 2.
The key geotechnical issues for design and construction of embankments include stability
and settlement of the underlying soils, the impact of the stability and settlement on
the construction staging and time requirements, and the impact to adjacent and nearby
structures, such as buildings, bridge foundations, and utilities. Therefore, the geotechnical
designer should perform a detailed site reconnaissance of the proposed construction.
This should include a detailed site review outside the proposed embankment footprint
in addition to within the embankment footprint. This reconnaissance should extend at
least two to three times the width of the embankment on either side of the embankment
and to the top or bottom of slopes adjacent to the embankment. Furthermore, areas
below proposed embankments should be fully explored if any existing landslide activity
is suspected.
Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.16 Page 9-1

February 2022
Chapter 9 Embankments
9-1.2 Field Exploration and Laboratory Testing Requirements

General requirements for the development of the field exploration and laboratory testing
plans are provided in Chapter 2. The expected project requirements and subsurface
conditions should be analyzed to determine the type and quantity of information to be
obtained during the geotechnical investigation. During this phase it is necessary to:
• Identify performance criteria (e.g. allowable settlement, time available for
construction, seismic design requirements, etc.).
• Identify potential geologic hazards, areas of concern (e.g. soft soils), and potential
variability of local geology.
• Identify engineering analyses to be performed (e.g. limit equilibrium slope stability
analyses, liquefaction susceptibility, lateral spreading/slope stability deformations,
settlement evaluations).
• Identify engineering properties required for these analyses.
• Determine methods to obtain parameters and assess the validity of such methods for
the material type.
• Determine the number of tests/samples needed and appropriate locations for them.
The goal of the site characterization for embankment design and construction is to
develop the subsurface profile and soil property information needed for stability and
settlement analyses. Soil parameters generally required for embankment design include:
• Total stress and effective stress strength parameters;
• Unit weight;
• Compression indexes (primary, secondary and recompression); and
• Coefficient of consolidation).
Table 9-1 provides a summary of site characterization needs and field and laboratory
testing considerations for embankment design.
Page 9-2 Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.16

February 2022
Embankments Chapter 9
Table 9-1 Summary of Information Needs and Testing Considerations for Embankments
(Adapted From Sabatini, Et Al ., 2002)
Geotechnical Required Information
Issues Engineering Evaluations for Analyses Field Testing Laboratory Testing
Embankments • settlement • subsurface profile • nuclear density • 1-D Oedometer
and (magnitude & rate) • (soil, ground water, • plate load test • triaxial tests
Embankment • bearing capacity rock) • test fill • unconfined
Foundations
• slope stability • compressibility • CPT (w/ pore compression
• lateral pressure parameters pressure • direct shear tests
• internal stability • shear strength measurement) • grain size distribution
• borrow source • parameters unit • SPT • Atterberg Limits
evaluation (available weights • PMT • specific gravity
quantity and quality • time-rate • dilatometer • organic content
of borrow soil) • consolidation • vane shear • moisture-density
• required parameters
• rock coring (RQD) relationship
reinforcement • horizontal
• geophysical testing • hydraulic conductivity
• liquefaction • earth pressure
• piezometers • geosynthetic/soil
• delineation of soft • coefficients
• settlement plates testing
soil deposits
• interface friction • shrink/swell
• potential for • slope inclinometers
parameters
subsidence (karst, • slake durability
• pullout resistance
mining, etc.) • unit weight
geologic mapping
• constructability • relative density
• including
• orientation and
• characteristics of rock
discontinuities
• shrink/swell/
• degradation of soil
• and rock fill
9-1.3 Soil Sampling and Stratigraphy

The size, complexity and extent of the soil sampling program will depend primarily on the
type, height and size of embankment project as well as the expected soil conditions.
Generally, embankments 10 feet or less in height, constructed over average to good soil
conditions (e.g., non-liquefiable, medium dense to very dense sand, silt or gravel, with no
signs of previous instability) will require only a basic level of site investigation. A geologic
site reconnaissance (see Chapter 2), combined with widely spaced test pits, hand holes,
or a few shallow borings to verify field observations and the anticipated site geology may
be sufficient, especially if the geology of the area is well known, or if there is some prior
experience in the area.
For larger embankments, or for any embankment to be placed over soft or potentially
unstable ground, geotechnical explorations should in general be spaced no more than
500 feet apart for uniform conditions. In non-uniform soil conditions, spacing should be
decreased to 100 to 300 foot intervals with at least one boring in each major landform or
geologic unit. A key to the establishment of exploration frequency for embankments is the
potential for the subsurface conditions to impact the construction of the embankment,

February 2022
the construction contract in general, and the long-term performance of the finished
project. The exploration program should be developed and conducted in a manner that
these potential problems, in terms of cost, time, and performance, are reduced to an
acceptable level. The boring frequency described above may need to be adjusted by the
geotechnical designer to address the risk of such problems for the specific project.
All embankments over 10 feet in height, embankments over soft soils, or those that
could impact adjacent structures (bridge abutments, buildings etc.), will generally require
geotechnical borings for the design. The more critical areas for stability of a large
embankment are between the top and bottom of the slopes. This is where base stability
is of most concern and where a majority of the borings should be located, particularly
if the near-surface soils are expected to consist of soft fine-grained deposits. At critical
locations, (e.g., maximum embankment heights, maximum depths of soft strata), a
minimum of two exploration points in the transverse direction to define the existing
subsurface conditions for stability analyses should be obtained. More exploration points
to define the subsurface stratigraphy, including the conditions within and below existing
fill, may be necessary for very large fills or very erratic soil conditions.
Embankment widening projects will require careful consideration of exploration locations.

Borings near the toe of the existing fill are needed to evaluate the present condition of
the underlying soils, particularly if the soils are fine-grained.
In addition, borings through the existing fill into the underlying consolidated soft soil, or,
if overexcavation of the soft soil had been done during the initial fill construction, borings
to define the extent of removal, should be obtained to define conditions below the
existing fill.
In some cases, the stability and/or durability of the existing embankment fill may be
questionable because the fill materials are suspect or because slope instability in the
form of raveling, downslope lobes, or slope failures have been observed during the site
reconnaissance phase. Some embankments constructed of material that is susceptible
to accelerated weathering may require additional borings through the core of the
embankment to sample and test the present condition of the existing fill.
Borings are also needed near existing or planned structures that could be impacted by
new fill placement. Soil sampling and testing will be useful for evaluating the potential
settlement of the existing structure foundations as the new fill is placed.
The depth of borings, test pits, and hand holes will generally be determined by the
expected soil conditions and the depth of influence of the new embankment. Explorations
will need to be sufficiently deep to penetrate through surficial problem soils such as loose
sand, soft silt and clay and organic materials, and at least 10 feet into competent soil
conditions. In general, all geotechnical borings should be drilled to a minimum depth of
twice the planned embankment height.
Understanding of the underlying soil conditions requires appropriate sampling intervals

and methods. As for most engineering problems, testing for strength and compression
in fine-grained soils requires the need for undisturbed samples. The SPT is useful in
cohesionless soil where it is not practical or possible to obtain undisturbed samples for
laboratory engineering tests. SPT sampling is recommended at wet sand sites where
liquefaction is a key engineering concern.

February 2022
On larger projects, cone penetration test (CPT) probes can be used to supplement
conventional borings. Besides being significantly less expensive, CPT probes allow the
nearly continuous evaluation of soil properties with depth. They can detect thin layers
of soil, such as a sand lens in clay that would greatly reduce consolidation time that may
be missed in a conventional boring. In addition, CPT probes can measure pore pressure
dissipation responses, which can be used to evaluate relative soil permeability and
consolidation rates. Because there are no samples obtained, CPT probes shall be used
in conjunction with a standard boring program. Smaller projects that require only a few
borings generally do not warrant an integrated CPT/boring field program.
9-1.4 Groundwater
At least one piezometer should be installed in borings drilled in each major fill zone where
stability analysis will be required and groundwater is anticipated. Water levels measured
during drilling are often not adequate for performing stability analysis.
This is particularly true where drilling is in fine-grained soils that can take many days or
more for the water level to equalize after drilling (see Chapter 2). Even in more permeable
coarse grained soils, the drilling mud used to drill the boring can obscure detection of
the groundwater level. Notwithstanding, water levels should be recorded during drilling
in all borings or test pits. Information regarding the time and date of the reading and any
fluctuations that might be seen during drilling should be included on the field logs.
For embankment widening projects, piezometers are generally more useful in borings
located at or near the toe of an existing embankment, rather than in the fill itself.
Exceptions are when the existing fill is along a hillside or if seepage is present on the face
of the embankment slope.
The groundwater levels should be monitored periodically to provide useful information

regarding variation in levels over time. This can be important when evaluating base
stability, consolidation settlement or liquefaction. As a minimum, the monitoring should
be accomplished several times during the wet season (October through April) to assess
the likely highest groundwater levels that could affect engineering analyses.
If practical, a series of year-round readings taken at 1 to 2 month intervals should be

accomplished in all piezometers.
The location of the groundwater table is particularly important during stability and
settlement analyses. High groundwater tables result in lower effective stress in the soil
affecting both the shear strength characteristics or the soil and its consolidation behavior
under loading. The geotechnical designer should identify the location of the groundwater
table and determine the range in seasonal fluctuation.
If there is a potential for a significant groundwater gradient beneath an embankment

or surface water levels are significantly higher on one side of the embankment than the
other, the effect of reduced soil strength caused by water seepage should be evaluated.
In this case, more than one piezometer should be installed to estimate the gradient. Also,
seepage effects must be considered when an embankment is placed on or near the top of
a slope that has known or potential seepage through it. A flow net or a computer model
(such as MODFLOW) may be used to estimate seepage velocity and forces in the soil.
This information may then be used into the stability analysis to model pore pressures.

February 2022
9-2 Design Considerations

9-2.1 Typical Embankment Materials and Compaction
General instructions for embankment construction are discussed in the WSDOT
Construction Manual Section 2.3.3, and specific construction specifications for
embankment construction are provided in WSDOT Construction Specifications Section
2-03. The geotechnical designer should determine during the exploration program if any
of the material from planned earthwork will be suitable for embankment construction (see
Chapter 10). Consideration should be given to whether the material is moisture sensitive
and difficult to compact during wet weather.
9-2.1.1 Rock Embankments

The WSDOT Standard Specifications define rock embankment as “all or any part of an
embankment in which the material contains 25 percent or more by volume of gravel
or stone 4 inches or greater in diameter.” Compaction tests cannot be applied to
coarse material with any degree of accuracy; therefore, a given amount of compactive
effort is specified for rock embankments, as described in Standard Specifications
Section 2-03.3(14)A.
Special consideration should be given to the type of material that will be used in rock
embankments. In some areas of the state, moderately weathered or very soft rock may be
encountered in cuts and used as embankment fill. On projects located in southwestern
Washington, degradable fine grained sandstone and siltstone are often encountered
in the cuts. The use of this material in embankments can result in significant long term
settlement and stability problems as the rock degrades, unless properly compacted with
heavy tamping foot rollers (Machan, et al., 1989).
The rock should be tested by the Washington Degradation Test (WSDOT Test Method
113) and the slake durability test (see Chapter 5) if there is suspicion that the geologic
nature of the rock source proposed indicates that poor durability rock is likely to be
encountered. When the rock is found to be non-durable, it should be physically broken
down and compacted as earth embankment provided the material meets or exceeds
common borrow requirements. Special compaction requirements may be needed for
these materials. In general, tamping foot rollers work best for breaking down the rock
fragments. The minimum size roller should be about 30 tons. Specifications should include
the maximum size of the rock fragments and maximum lift thickness. These requirements
will depend on the hardness of the rock, and a test section should be incorporated
into the contract to verify that the Contractor’s methods will achieve compaction and
successfully break down the material. In general, both the particle size and lift thickness
should be limited to 12 inches.
9-2.1.2 Earth Embankments and Bridge Approach Embankments

Three types of materials are commonly used in WSDOT earth embankments, including
common, select, and gravel borrow. Bridge approach embankments should be constructed
from select or gravel borrow, although common borrow may be used in the drier parts of
the State, provided it is not placed below a structure foundation or immediately behind an
abutment wall. Common borrow is not intended for use as foundation material beneath
structures or as wall backfill due to its tendency to be more compressible and due to its
poor drainage characteristics.
February 2022
Requirements for common, select and gravel borrow are in Section 9-03.14 of the
WSDOT Standard Specifications. The suggested range of soil properties for each material
type to be used in design is discussed in Chapter 5. The common and select borrow
specifications are intended for use where it is not necessary to strictly control the
strength properties of the embankment material and where all weather construction is
not required.
Procedures for constructing earth embankments are described in Section

2-03.3(14)B of the Standard Specifications. Compaction is specified in accordance
with Method A, Method B, or Method C. Method A consists of routing hauling equipment
over the embankment and is not normally used on WSDOT projects. Method B limits the
thickness of the lifts to 8 inches and requires that 90 percent of maximum dry density
be achieved in all but the upper 2 feet of the embankment. In the upper two feet of
the embankment the lift thickness is limited to 4 inches and the required compaction is
95 percent of maximum dry density. Method B is used on all embankments on WSDOT
projects unless another method is specified.
Method C differs from Method B in that the entire embankment must be compacted to
95 percent of maximum dry density. Method C is required when the structural quality of
the embankment is essential. Method C is required in bridge approach embankments as
defined in Section 1-01.3 of the WSDOT Standard Specifications. Method C shall also be
required on any foundation material beneath structures.
Because foundation stresses are transferred outward as well as downward into the
bearing soils, the limits of the foundation material should extend horizontally outward
from each edge of the footing a distance equal to the thickness of the fill below
the foundation.
The maximum density and optimum moisture content for soil placed in earth
embankments are determined by testing in accordance with WSDOT Test Method
No. 606 (Method of Test for Compaction Control of Granular Materials) or AASHTO
T 99 Method A (standard Proctor) as prescribed in Section 2-03.3(14)D of the Standard
Specifications. Test method 606 is used if 30 percent or more of the material consists
of gravel size particles (retained on the No. 4 sieve).
9-2.1.3 Fill Placement Below Water

If material will be placed below the water table, material that does not require compaction
such as Quarry Spalls, Foundation Material Class B, Shoulder Ballast, or light loose rip rap
should specified. Once above the water table, other borrow materials should be used.
Quarry spalls and rip rap should be choked with Shoulder Ballast or Foundation Material
Class A or B before placement of borrow. Alternately, construction geosynthetic for soil
stabilization may be used to prevent migration of the finer borrow into the voids spaces of
the coarser underlying material.

February 2022
9-2.2 Embankments for Detention/Retention Facilities

Embankments for detention/retention facilities impounding over 10 acre-feet of
water come under the jurisdiction of the Dam Safety Office (DSO) of the Washington
State Department of Ecology and shall be designed as a small dam in accordance with
DSO requirements.
Embankments for detention/retention facilities impounding 10 acre feet of water or less

are not regulated by the DSO, but they should be designed using the DSO guidelines as
the basis for design. Unlined drainage facilities shall be analyzed for seepage and piping
through the embankment fill and underlying soils. Stability of the fill and underlying soils
subjected to seepage forces shall have a minimum safety factor of 1.5. Furthermore, the
minimum safety factor for piping stability analysis shall be 1.5.
9-2.3 Stability Assessment

In general, embankments 10 feet or less in height with 2H:1V or flatter side slopes, may
be designed based on past precedence and engineering judgment provided there are no
known problem soil conditions such as liquefiable sands, organic soils, soft/ loose soils, or
potentially unstable soils such as Seattle clay, estuarine deposits, or peat. Embankments
over 10 feet in height or any embankment on soft soils, in unstable areas/soils, or
those comprised of light weight fill require more in depth stability analyses, as do any
embankments with side slope inclinations steeper than 2H:1V.
Moreover, any fill placed near or against a bridge abutment or foundation, or that can
impact a nearby buried or above-ground structure, will likewise require stability analyses
by the geotechnical designer. Slope stability analysis shall be conducted in accordance
with Chapter 7.
Prior to the start of the stability analysis, the geotechnical designer should determine
key issues that need to be addressed. These include:
• Is the site underlain by soft silt, clay or peat? If so, a staged stability analysis may
be required.
• Are site constraints such that slopes steeper than 2H:1V are required? If so, a detailed
slope stability assessment is needed to evaluate the various alternatives.
• Is the embankment temporary or permanent? Factors of safety for temporary
embankments may be lower than for permanent ones, depending on the site
conditions and the potential for variability.
• Will the new embankment impact nearby structures or bridge abutments? If so, more
elaborate sampling, testing and analysis are required.
• Are there potentially liquefiable soils at the site? If soil, seismic analysis to evaluate
this may be warranted (see Chapter 6) and ground improvement may be needed.
Several methodologies for analyzing the stability of slopes are detailed or identified by
reference in Chapter 7 and are directly applicable to earth embankments.

February 2022
9-2.3.1 Safety Factors

Embankments that support structure foundations or walls or that could potentially impact
such structures should be designed in accordance with the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications and Chapters 8 and 15. If an LRFD design is required, a resistance factor is
used in lieu of a safety factor. However, since slope stability in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge
Design Specifications is assessed only for the service and extreme event (seismic) limit
states, the load factors are equal to 1.0, and the resistance factor is simply the inverse of
the factor of safety (i.e., 1/FS) that is calculated in most slope stability analysis procedures
and computer programs. The resistance factors and safety factors for overall stability
under static conditions are as follows:
• All embankments not supporting or potentially impacting structures shall have a
minimum safety factor of 1.25.
• Embankments supporting or potentially impacting non-critical structures shall have a
resistance factor for overall stability of 0.75 (i.e., a safety factor of 1.3).
• All Bridge Approach Embankments and embankments supporting critical structures
shall have a resistance factor of 0.65 (i.e., a safety factor of 1.5). Critical structures are
those for which failure would result in a life threatening safety hazard for the public,
or for which failure and subsequent replacement or repair would be an intolerable
financial burden to the citizens of Washington State.
Under seismic conditions, only those portions of the new embankment that could impact
an adjacent structure such as bridge abutments and foundations or nearby buildings
require seismic analyses and an adequate overall stability resistance factor (i.e., a
maximum resistance factor of 0.9 or a minimum factor of safety of 1.1). See Chapter 6 for
specific requirements regarding seismic design of embankments.
9-2.3.2 Strength Parameters

Strength parameters are required for any stability analysis. Strength parameters
appropriate for the different types of stability analyses shall be determined based on
Chapter 5 and by reference to FHWA Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 5 (Sabatini,
et al., 2002).
If the critical stability is under drained conditions, such as in sand or gravel, then effective
stress analysis using a peak friction angle is appropriate and should be used for stability
assessment. In the case of over-consolidated fine grained soils, a friction angle based on
residual strength may be appropriate. This is especially true for soils that exhibit strain
softening or are particularly sensitive to shear strain such as Seattle Clay.
If the critical stability is under undrained conditions, such as in most clays and silts, a total
stress analysis using the undrained cohesion value with no friction is appropriate and
should be used for stability assessment.
For staged construction, both short (undrained) and long term (drained) stability need
to be assessed. At the start of a stage the input strength parameter is the undrained
cohesion. The total shear strength of the fine-grained soil increases with time as the
excessive pore water dissipates, and friction starts to contribute to the strength. A more
detailed discussion regarding strength gain is presented in Section 9.3.1.

February 2022
9-2.4 Embankment Settlement Assessment

New embankments, as is true of almost any new construction, will add load to the
underlying soils and cause those soils to settle. As discussed in Section 8.11.3.2, the
total settlement has up to three potential components: 1) immediate settlement, 2)
consolidation settlement, and 3) secondary compression.
Settlement shall be assessed for all embankments. Even if the embankment has an
adequate overall stability factor of safety, the performance of a highway embankment can
be adversely affected by excessive differential settlement at the road surface.
Settlement analyses for embankments over soft soils require the compression index
parameters for input. These parameters are typically obtained from standard one-
dimensional oedometer tests of the fine-grained soils (see Chapter 5 for additional
information). For granular soils, these parameters can be estimated empirically
(see Section 8.11.3.2). Oedometer tests should be completed to at least twice the
preconsolidation pressure with at least three, and preferably four, points on the virgin
consolidation curve (i.e., at stresses higher than the preconsolidation pressure). The
coefficient of consolidation value for the virgin curve can be ten times higher than that for
the test results below the preconsolidation pressure.
9-2.4.1 Settlement Impacts

Because primary consolidation and secondary compression can continue to occur long
after the embankment is constructed (post construction settlement), they represent the
major settlement concerns for embankment design and construction. Post construction
settlement can damage structures and utilities located within the embankment, especially
if those facilities are also supported by adjacent soils or foundations that do not settle
appreciably, leading to differential settlements. Embankment settlement near an
abutment could create an unwanted dip in the roadway surface, or downdrag and lateral
squeeze forces on the foundations. See Chapter 8 for more information regarding the
use of bridge approach slabs to minimize the effects of differential settlement at the
abutment, and the methodology to estimate downdrag loads on foundations.
If the primary consolidation is allowed to occur prior to placing utilities or building

structures that would otherwise be impacted by the settlement, the impact is essentially
mitigated. However, it can take weeks to years for primary settlement to be essentially
complete, and significant secondary compression of organic soils can continue for
decades. Many construction projects cannot absorb the scheduling impacts associated
with waiting for primary consolidation and/or secondary compression to occur.
Therefore, estimating the time rate of settlement is often as important as estimating the
magnitude of settlement.
To establish the target settlement criteria, the tolerance of structures or utilities to

differential settlement that will be impacted by the embankment settlement shall
be determined. Lateral movement (i.e., lateral squeeze) caused by the embankment
settlement and its effect on adjacent structures, including light, overhead sign, and
signal foundations, shall also be considered. If structures or utilities are not impacted by
the embankment settlement, settlement criteria are likely governed by the long-term
maintenance needs of the roadway surfacing. In that case, the target settlement criteria
shall be established with consideration of the effect differential settlement will have on
the pavement life and surface smoothness.
February 2022
9-2.4.2 Settlement Analysis

9-2.4.2.1 Primary Consolidation
The key parameters for evaluating the amount of settlement below an embankment
include knowledge of:
• The subsurface profile including soil types, layering, groundwater level and
unit weights;
• The compression indexes for primary, rebound and secondary compression from
laboratory test data, correlations from index properties, and results from settlement
monitoring programs completed for the site or nearby sites with similar soil
conditions. See Chapters 5 and 8 for additional information regarding selection of
design parameters for settlement analysis.
• The geometry of the proposed fill embankment, including the unit weight of fill
materials and any long term surcharge loads.
The detailed methodology to estimate primary consolidation settlement is provided in

Section 8.11.3.2, except that the stress distribution below the embankment should be
calculated as described in Section 9.2.4.3. The soil profile is typically divided into layers
for analysis, with each layer reflecting changes in soils properties. In addition, thick layers
with similar properties are often subdivided for refinement of the analysis since the
settlement calculations are based on the stress conditions at the midpoint of the layer
(i.e. it is typically preferable to evaluate a near-surface, 20-foot thick layer as two 10-foot
thick layers as opposed to one 20-foot thick layer). The total settlement is the sum of the
settlement from each of the compressible layers.
If the pre-consolidation pressure of any of the soil layers being evaluated is greater
than its current initial effective vertical stress, the settlement will follow its rebound
compression curve rather than its virgin compression curve (represented by Cc). In this
case Crε, the recompression index, should be used instead of Ccε in Equation 8-8 up to
the point where the initial effective stress plus the change in effective stress imposed
by the embankment surpasses the pre-consolidation pressure. Pre-consolidation
pressures in excess of the current vertical effective stress occur in soils that have been
overconsolidated, such as from glacial loading, preloading, or desiccation.
9-2.4.2.2 Secondary Compression

For organic soils and highly plastic soils determined to have an appreciable secondary
settlement component, the secondary compression should be determined as described
in Section 8.11.3.2.2, Equation 8-13. Note the secondary compression is in general
independent of the stress state and theoretically is a function only of the secondary
compression index and time.
Similar to estimating the total primary consolidation, the contribution from the individual
layers are summed to estimate the total secondary compression. Since secondary
compression is not a function of the stress state in the soil but rather how the soil breaks
down over time, techniques such as surcharging to pre-induce the secondary settlement
are sometimes only partially effective at mitigating the secondary compression. Often
the owner must accept the risks and maintenance costs associated with secondary
compression if a cost/benefit analysis indicates that mitigation techniques such as
using lightweight fills or overexcavating and replacing the highly compressible soils are
too costly.
February 2022
9-2.4.3 Stress Distribution

One of the primary input parameters for settlement analysis is the increase in vertical
stress at the midpoint of the layer being evaluated caused by the embankment or other
imposed loads. It is generally quite conservative to assume the increase in vertical stress
at depth is equal to the bearing pressure exerted by the embankment at the ground
surface. In addition to the bearing pressure exerted at the ground surface, other factors
influencing the stress distribution at depth include the geometry (length and width) of the
embankment, inclination of the embankment side slopes, depth below the ground surface
to the layer being evaluated, and horizontal distance from the center of the load to the
point in question. Several methods are available to estimate the stress distribution.
9-2.4.3.1 Simple 2V:1H Method

Perhaps the simplest approach to estimate stress distribution at depth is using the 2V:1H
(vertical to horizontal) method. This empirical approach is based on the assumption that
the area the load acts over increases geometrically with depth as depicted in Figure
9-1. Since the same vertical load is spread over a much larger area at depth, the unit
stress decreases.
Figure 9-1 2V:1H Method to Estimate Vertical Stress Increase as a Function of Depth
Below Ground (After Holtz and Kovacs, 1981)

February 2022
9-2.4.3.2 Theory of Elasticity

Boussinesq (1885) developed equations for evaluating the stress state in a homogenous,
isotropic, linearly elastic half-space for a point load acting perpendicular to the surface.
Elasticity based methods should be used to estimate the vertical stress increase in
subsurface strata due to an embankment loading, or embankment load in combination
with other surcharge loads. While most soils are not elastic materials, the theory of
elasticity is the most widely used methodology to estimate the stress distribution in a
soil deposit from a surface load. Most simplifying charts and the subroutines in programs
such as SAF-1 and EMBANK are based on the theory of elasticity. Some are based on
Boussinesq theory and some on Westergaard’s equations (Westegaard, 1938), which also
include Poisson’s ratio (relates the ratio of strain applied in one direction to strain induced
in an orthogonal direction).
9-2.4.3.3 Empirical Charts

The equations for the theory of elasticity have been incorporated into design charts and
tables for typical loading scenarios, such as below a foundation or an embankment.
Almost all foundation engineering textbooks include these charts. For convenience, charts
to evaluate embankment loading are included as Figures 9-2 and 9-3.
Figure 9-2 Influence Factors for Vertical Stress Under a Very Long Embankment
(After NAVFAC, 1971 as Reported in Holtz and Kovacs, 1981)

February 2022
Figure 9-3 Influence Values for Vertical Stress Under the Corners of a Triangular
Load of Limited Length (after NAVFAC, 1971 as reported in Holtz and
Kovacs, 1981)
9-2.4.3.4 Rate of Settlement

The time rate of primary consolidation is typically estimated using equations based on
Terzaghi’s one-dimensional consolidation theory. The time rate of primary consolidation
shall be estimated as described in Section 8.11.3.2.
The value of Cv should be determined from the laboratory test results, piezocone testing,
and/or back-calculation from settlement monitoring data obtained at the site or from a
nearby site with similar geologic and soil conditions.
The length of the drainage path is perhaps the most critical parameter because the
time to achieve a certain percentage of consolidation is a function of the square of the
drainage path length. This is where incorporating CPTs into the exploration program can
be beneficial, as they provide a nearly continuous evaluation of the soil profile, including
thin sand layers that can easily be missed in a typical boring exploration program. The thin
sand lenses can significantly reduce the drainage path length.

February 2022
It is important to note some of the assumptions used by Terzaghi’s theory to understand

some of its limitations. The theory assumes small strains such that the coefficient of
compressibility of the soil and the coefficient of permeability remain essentially constant.
The theory also assumes there is no secondary compression. Both of these assumptions
are not completely valid for extremely compressible soils such as organic deposits and
some clays. Therefore, considerable judgment is required to when using Terzaghi’s theory
to evaluate the time rate of settlement for these types of soil. In these instances, or
when the consolidation process is very long, it may be beneficial to complete a preload
test at the site with sufficient monitoring to assess both the magnitude and time rate of
settlement for the site.
9-2.4.4 Analytical Tools

The primary consolidation and secondary settlement can be calculated by hand or by
using computer programs such as SAF-1 (Prototype Engineering Inc., 1993) or EMBANK
(FHWA, 1993). Alternatively, spreadsheet solutions can be easily developed. The
advantage of computer programs such as SAF-1 and EMBANK are that multiple runs can
be made quickly, and they include subroutines to estimate the increased vertical effective
stress caused by the embankment or other loading conditions.
9-3 Stability Mitigation

A variety of techniques are available to mitigate inadequate slope stability for new
embankments or embankment widenings. These techniques include staged construction
to allow for the underlying soils to gain strength, base reinforcement, ground
improvement, use of lightweight fill, and construction of toe berms and shear keys. A
summary of these instability mitigation techniques is presented below along with the key
design considerations.
9-3.1 Staged Construction

Where soft compressible soils are present below a new embankment location and it is not
economical to remove and replace these soils with compacted fill, the embankment can
be constructed in stages to allow the strength of the compressible soils to increase under
the weight of new fill. Construction of the second and subsequent stages commences
when the strength of the compressible soils is sufficient to maintain stability. In order
to define the allowable height of fill for each stage and maximum rate of construction,
detailed geotechnical analysis is required. This analysis typically requires consolidated
undrained (CU), consolidated drained (CD) or consolidated undrained with pore pressure
measurements (CUp), and initial undrained (UU) shear strength parameters for the
foundation soils along with the at-rest earth pressure coefficient (Ko), soil unit weights,
and the coefficient of consolidation (Cv).
The analysis to define the height of fill placed during each stage and the rate at which
the fill is placed is typically completed using a limit equilibrium slope stability program
along with time rate of settlement analysis to estimate the percent consolidation required
for stability. Alternatively, numerical modeling programs, such as FLAC and PLAXIS, can
be used to assess staged construction, subject to the approval of the WSDOT State
Geotechnical Engineer. Numerical modeling has some advantages over limit equilibrium
approaches in that both the consolidation and stability can be evaluated concurrently.
The disadvantages of numerical modeling include the lack of available field verification of

February 2022
modeling results, and most geotechnical engineers are more familiar with limit equilibrium
approaches than numerical modeling. The accuracy of the input parameters can be critical
to the accuracy of numerical approaches. Steps for using a limit equilibrium approach to
evaluate staged construction are presented below.
For staged construction, two general approaches to assessing the criteria used during
construction to control the rate of embankment fill placement to allow the necessary
strength gain to occur in the soft subsoils are available. The two approaches are total
stress analysis and effective stress analysis:
• For the total stress approach, the rate of embankment construction is controlled
through development of a schedule of maximum fill lift heights and intermediate fill
construction delay periods. During these delay periods the fill lift that was placed is
allowed to settle until an adequate amount of consolidation of the soft subsoil can
occur. Once the desired amount of consolidation has occurs, placement of the next
lift of fill can begin. These maximum fill lift thicknesses and intermediate delay periods
are estimated during design. For this approach, field measurements such as the rate
of settlement or the rate of pore pressure decrease should be obtained to verify that
the design assumptions regarding rate of consolidation are correct. However, if only
a small amount of consolidation is required (e.g., 20 to 40% consolidation), it may not
be feasible to determine of the desired amount of consolidation has occurred, since
the rate of consolidation may still be on the linear portion of the curve at this point.
Another approach may be to determine if the magnitude of settlement expected at
that stage, considering the degree of consolidation desired, has been achieved. In
either case, some judgment will need to be applied when interpreting such data and
deciding whether or not to reduce or extend the estimated delay period during fill
construction.
• For the effective stress approach, the pore pressure increase beneath the
embankment in the soft subsoil is monitored and used to control the rate of
embankment construction. During construction, the pore pressure increase is not
allowed to exceed a critical amount to insure embankment stability. The critical
amount is generally controlled in the contract by use of the pore pressure ratio (ru),
which is the ratio of pore pressure to total overburden stress. To accomplish this
pore pressure measurement, pore pressure transducers are typically located at key
locations beneath the embankment to capture the pore pressure increase caused by
consolidation stress. As is true of the total stress approach, some judgment will need
to be applied when interpreting such data and deciding whether or not to reduce or
extend the estimated delay period during fill construction, as the estimate of the key
parameters may vary from the actual values of the key parameters in the field. Also,
this approach may not be feasible if the soil contains a high percentage of organic
material and trapped gases, causing the pore pressure readings to be too high and not
drop off as consolidation occurs.
Since both approaches have limitations and uncertainties, it is generally desirable to

analyze the embankment using both approaches, to have available a backup plan to
control the rate of fill placement, if the field data proves difficult to interpret.
Furthermore, if the effective stress method is used, a total stress analysis should in
general always be conducted to obtain an estimate of the time required to build the fill for
contract bidding purposes.

February 2022
Detailed procedures for both approaches are provided in the sections that follow. These
procedures have been developed based on information provided in Ladd (1991), Symons
(1976), Skempton and Bishop (1955), R. D. Holtz (personal communication, 1993), S.
Sharma (personal communication, 1993), and R. Cheney (personal communication, 1993).
Examples of the application of these procedures are provided in Appendix 9-A.
9-3.1.1 Design Parameters

First, define the problem in terms of embankment geometry, soil stratigraphy, and water
table information.
The geotechnical designer must make some basic assumptions regarding the fill
properties. Typically, the designer assumes presumptive values for the embankment fill,
since the specific source of the fill material is usually not known at the time of design.
However, specialized soils laboratory tests should be performed for the soft underlying
soils. From undisturbed samples, the geotechnical designer should obtain Unconsolidated
Undrained (UU) triaxial tests and Consolidated Undrained (CU) triaxial tests with pore
pressure measurements. These tests should be used to determine the initial undrained
shear strength available. The CU test with pore pressure measurements should also
be used to determine the shear strength envelope needed for total or effective stress
analyses. In addition, the geotechnical designer should obtain consolidation test data to
determine compressibility of the soft underlying soils as well as the rate of consolidation
for the compressible strata (Cv). Cv will be an important parameter for determining the
amount of time required during consolidation to gain the soil shear strength needed.
In general triaxial tests should be performed at the initial confining stress (Po’) for the
sample as determined from the unit weight and the depth that the sample was obtained.
Po’ = Dγ’ (9-1)
Where:
D = Sample Depth in feet
γ’ = Effective Unit Weight (pcf)
The third point in the triaxial test is usually performed at 4Po’. During the triaxial testing it
is important to monitor pore pressure to determine the pore pressure parameters A and
B. Note that A and B are not constant but change with the stress path of the soil. These
parameters are defined as follows:
A = ΔU /Δσ1 (9-2)
B = ΔU /Δσ3 (9-3)
9-3.1.2 In-Situ Shear Strength and Determination of Stability Assuming

Undrained Loading
The first step in any embankment design over soft cohesive soils is to assess its stability
assuming undrained conditions throughout the entire fill construction period. If the
stability of the embankment is adequate assuming undrained conditions, there is no need
to perform a staged construction design. The UU shear strength data, as well as the initial
shear strength from CU tests, can be used for this assessment.
The geotechnical designer should be aware that sample disturbance can result in incorrect
values of strength for normally consolidated fine grained soils. Figure 9-4 shows how to
correctly obtain the cohesive strength for short term, undrained loading.

February 2022
Figure 9-4 Determination of Short Term Cohesive Shear Strength From the CU
Envelope
When a normally consolidated sample is obtained, the initial effective stress (PO’) and
void ratio correspond to position 1 on the e - Log P curve shown in Figure 9-4. As the
stress changes, the sample will undergo some rebound effects and will move towards
point 2 on the e – Log P curve. Generally, when a UU test is performed, the sample state
corresponds to position 2 on the e – Log P curve. Samples that are reconsolidated to
the initial effective stress (PO’) during CU testing undergo a void ratio change and will
generally be at point 3 on the e – Log P curve after reconsolidation to the initial effective
stress. It is generally assumed that consolidating the sample to 4 times the initial effective
stress prior to testing will result in the sample closely approximating the field “virgin”
curve behavior.
To determine the correct shear strength for analysis, perform a CU triaxial test at the
initial effective stress (PO’) and as close as practical to 4PO’. On the Mohr diagram draw
a line from the ordinate to point 4, and draw a second line from PO’ to point 3. Where
the two lines intersect, draw a line to the shear stress axis to estimate the correct shear
strength for analysis. In Figure 9-4, the cohesion intercept for the CU strength envelope
(solid line) is 150 psf. The corrected strength based on the construction procedure in
Figure 9-4 would be 160 psf. While the difference is slight in this example, it may be
significant for other projects.
Once the correct shear strength data has been obtained, the embankment stability can be
assessed. If the embankment stability is inadequate, proceed to performing a total stress
or effective stress analysis, or both.

February 2022
9-3.1.3 Total Stress Analysis

The CU triaxial test is ideally suited to staged fill construction analysis when considering
undrained strengths. A CU test is simply a series of UU tests performed at different
confining pressures. In the staged construction technique, each embankment stage
is placed under undrained conditions (i.e., “U” conditions). Then the soil beneath the
embankment stage is allowed to consolidate under drained conditions, which allows the
pore pressure to dissipate and the soil strength to increase (i.e., “C” conditions).
In most cases, the CU envelope cannot be used directly to determine the strength
increase due to the consolidation stress placed on the weak subsoil. The stress increase
from the embankment fill is a consolidation stress, not necessarily the normal stress
on potential failure planes in the soft soil, and with staged construction excess pore
pressures due to overburden increases are allowed to partially dissipate. Figure 9-5
illustrates how to determine the correct strength due to consolidation and partial pore
pressure dissipation.
Figure 9-5 Consolidated Strength Construction From Triaxial Data
To correct φcu for the effects of consolidation use the following (see Ladd, 1991):
af/σ’c = tan φconsol (9-4)
tan φconsol = sin φcu/(1-sin φcu) (9-5)
Determine the strength gain (ΔCuu) by multiplying the consolidation stress increase (Δσv)
by the tangent of φconsol. The consolidation stress increase is the increased effective stress
in the soft subsoil caused by the embankment fill.
ΔCuu = Δσvtanφconsol (9-6)

February 2022
This is an undrained strength and it is based on 100% consolidation. When constructing

embankments over soft ground using staged construction practices, it is often not
practical to allow each stage to consolidate to 100%. Therefore, the strengths used in the
stability analysis need to be adjusted for the consolidation stress applied and the degree
of consolidation achieved in the soft soils within the delay period between fill stages. The
strength at any degree of consolidation can be estimated using:
Cuuu% = Cuui + U(Cuu) = Cuui + UΔσvtanφconsol (9-7)
The consolidation is dependent upon the time (t), drainage path length (H), coefficient of
consolidation (Cv), and the Time Factor (T). From Holtz and Kovacs (1981), the following
approximation equations are presented for consolidation theory:
T = tCv/H2 (9-8)
Where:
T = 0.25πU2; for U < 60% (9-9)
and,
T = 1.781 – 0.933log(100 –U%); for U > 60% (9-10)
The geotechnical designer should use these equations along with specific construction
delay periods (t) to determine how much consolidation occurs by inputting a time (t),
calculating a Time Factor (T), and then using the Time Factor (T) to estimate the degree of
consolidation (U).
Once all of the design parameters are available, the first step in a total stress staged fill
construction analysis is to use the initial undrained shear strength of the soft subsoil
to determine the maximum height to which the fill can be built without causing the
slope stability safety factor to drop below the critical value. See Section 9.3.1.1.2 for
determination of the undrained shear strength needed for this initial analysis.
In no case shall the interim factor of safety at any stage in the fill construction be allowed
to drop below 1.15. A higher critical value should be used (i.e., 1.2 or 1.25) if uncertainty
in the parameters is high, or if the soft subsoil is highly organic. At the end of the final
stage, determine the time required to achieve enough consolidation to obtain the
minimum long-term safety factor (or resistance factor if structures are involved) required,
as specified in Section 9.2.3.1. This final consolidation time will determine at what point
the embankment is considered to have adequate long-term stability such that final paving
(assuming that long-term settlement has been reduced during that time period to an
acceptable level) and other final construction activities can be completed. In general, this
final consolidation/strength gain period should be on the order of a few months or less.
Once the maximum safe initial fill stage height is determined, calculate the stress increase
resulting from the placement of the first embankment stage using the Boussinesq
equation (e.g., see Figures 9-2 and 9-3). Note that because the stress increase due to the
embankment load decreases with depth, the strength gain also decreases with depth. To
properly account for this, the soft subsoil should be broken up into layers for analysis just
as is done for calculating settlement. Furthermore, the stress increase decreases as one
moves toward the toe of the embankment. Therefore, the soft subsoil may need to be
broken up into vertical sections as well.

February 2022
Determine the strength gain in each layer/section of soft subsoil by multiplying the
consolidation stress increase by the tangent of φconsol (see Equation 9-6), where φconsol is
determined as shown in Figure 9-5 and Equation 9-5. This will be an undrained strength.
Multiply this UU strength by the percent consolidation that has occurred beneath the
embankment up to the point in time selected for the fill stage analysis using Equations
9-7, 9-8, and 9-9 or 9-10. This will be the strength increase that has occurred up to
that point in time. Add to this the UU soil strength existing before placement of the
first embankment stage to obtain the total UU strength existing after the selected
consolidation period is complete. Then perform a slope stability analysis to determine
how much additional fill can be added with consideration to the new consolidated shear
strength to obtain the minimum acceptable interim factor of safety.
Once the second embankment stage is placed, calculation of the percent consolidation
and the strength gain gets more complicated, as the stress increase due to the new fill
placed is just starting the consolidation process, while the soft subsoil has already had
time to react to the stress increase due to the previous fill stage. Furthermore, the soft
subsoil will still be consolidating under the weight of the earlier fill stage.
This is illustrated in Figure 9-6. For simplicity, a weighted average of the percent
consolidation that has occurred for each stage up to the point in time in question should
be used to determine the average percent consolidation of the subsoil due to the total
weight of the fill.
Continue this calculation process until the fill is full height. It is generally best to choose
as small a fill height and delay period increment as practical, as the conservatism in
the consolidation time estimate increases as the fill height and delay time increment
increases. Typical fill height increments range from 2 to 4 feet, and delay period
increments range from 10 to 30 days.

February 2022
Figure 9-6 Concepts Regarding the Percent Consolidation Resulting From Placement
of Multiple Fill Stages
Consolidation of soil due to first stage load P1

0 during first stage consolidation period.
Consolidation of soil due to
second stage load P2 during
% Consolidation second stage consolidation period.
Consolidation of soil due to P2
first stage load P1 during second P1
stage consolidation period.
100
Time
e0 Begin consolidation at P1
Load P2 added
Void Ratio, e
Consolidation at P2
Increasing
% consolidation
Last stage
fill placed U1
(decreasing)
FS = 1.25 obtained
U2
U3
U4
Log σv (increasing)

February 2022
9-3.1.4 Effective Stress Analysis

In this approach, the drained soil strength, or φCD, is used to characterize the
strength of the subsoil. Of course, the use of this soil strength will likely indicate that
the embankment is stable, whereas the UU strength data would indicate that the
embankment is unstable (in this example). It is the buildup of pore pressure during
embankment placement that causes the embankment to become unstable. The amount of
pore pressure buildup is dependent on how rapidly the embankment load is placed. Given
enough time, the pore pressure buildup will dissipate and the soil will regain its effective
strength, depending on the permeability and compressibility of the soil.
The key to this approach is to determine the amount of pore pressure buildup that can
be tolerated before the embankment safety factor drops to a critical level, using φCD
for the soil strength and conducting a slope stability analysis (see Chapter 7). A slope
stability computer program such as XSTABL can be used to determine the critical pore
pressure increase directly. This pore pressure increase can then be used to determine
the pore pressure ratio, ru, which is often used to compare with in-situ pore pressure
measurements. The pore pressure ratio, ru, is defined as shown in Figure 9-7.
Figure 9-7 Pore Pressure Ratio Concepts
For XSTABL, the critical pore pressure increase is input into the program as a “pore
pressure constant” for each defined soil unit in the soil property input menu of the
program. This pore pressure is in addition to the pore pressure created by the static
water table. Therefore, a water table should also be included in the analysis. Other slope
stability programs have similar pore pressure features that can be utilized.
To determine the pore pressure increase in the soft subsoil to be input into the stability
analysis, calculate the vertical stress increase created by the embankment at the original
ground surface, for the embankment height at the construction stage being considered.

February 2022
Based on this, determine the vertical stress increase, Δσv, using the Boussinesq stress
distribution (e.g., Figures 9-2 and 9-3), at various depths below the ground surface, and
distances horizontally from the embankment centerline, in each soil unit which pore
pressure buildup is expected (i.e., the soft silt or clay strata which are causing the stability
problem). Based on this, and using Ko, the at rest earth pressure coefficient, to estimate
the horizontal stress caused by the vertical stress increase, determine the pore pressure
increase, Δup, based on the calculated vertical stress increase, Δσv, as follows:
Δup = B(Δσoct + aΔτoct)(1-U) (9-11)
The octahedral consolidation stress increase at the point in question, Δσoct. is determined
as follows:
Δσoct. = (Δσ1 + Δσ2 + Δσ3)/3 = (Δσv + K0Δσv + K0Δσv)/3 = (1 + 2K0)Δσv/3 (9-12)
Where:
B = pore pressure parameter which is dependent on the degree of saturation and the
compressibility of the soil skeleton. B is approximately equal to 1.0 for saturated
normally consolidated silts and clays.
Δσoct = the change in octahedral consolidation stress at the point in the soil stratum in
question due to the embankment loading,
a = Henkel pore pressure parameter that reflects the pore pressure increase during
shearing. “a” is typically small and can be neglected unless right at failure. If necessary,
“a” can be determined from triaxial tests and plotted as a function of strain or deviator
stress to check if neglecting “a” is an acceptable assumption.
Δτoct = the change in octahedral shear stress at the point in the soil stratum in question due to
the embankment loading,
U = the percent consolidation, expressed as a decimal, under the embankment load in
question.
Δτoct = [(Δσ1 - Δσ2)2 + (Δσ2 - Δσ3)2 + (Δσ3 - Δσ1)2]½ (9-13)
In terms of vertical stress, before failure, this equation simplifies to:

Δτoct = 1.414Δσv(1 – K0) (9-14)
In this analysis, since only consolidation stresses are assumed to govern pore pressure
increase, and strength gain as pore pressure dissipates (i.e., the calculation method is set
up to not allow failure to occur), it can be assumed that “a” is equal to zero.
Therefore, Equation 9-11 simplifies to:

Δup = B[(1 + 2K0)/3]Δσv(1-U) (9-15)
where, K0 = 1 - sin φCD for normally consolidated silts and clays.
Estimate the slope stability factor of safety, determining Δup at various percent
consolidations (i.e., iterate) to determine the maximum value of Δup that does not
cause the slope stability interim safety factor to drop below the critical value (see
Section 9.3.1.3).
Now determine ru as follows:

ru = Δup/Δσv. = B[(1 + 2K0)/3]Δσv(1-U)/Δσv = B[(1 + 2K4)/3](1-U) (9-16)
The pore pressures measured by the piezometers in the field during embankment
construction are the result of vertical consolidation stresses only (Boussinesq distribution).
Most experts on this subject feel that pore pressure increase due to undrained shearing

February 2022
along the potential failure surface does not occur until failure is actually in progress and
may be highly localized at the failure surface. Because of this, it is highly unlikely that one
will be able to measure pore pressure increase due to shearing along the failure surface
using piezometers installed below the embankment unless one is lucky enough to have
installed a piezometer in the right location and happens to be taking a reading as the
embankment is failing.
Therefore, the pore pressure increase measured by the piezometers will be strictly due to
consolidation stresses.
Note that ru will vary depending on the embankment height analyzed. ru will be lowest
at the maximum embankment height, and will be highest at the initial stages of fill
construction. Therefore, ru should be determined at several embankment heights.
9-3.2 Base reinforcement

Base reinforcement may be used to increase the factor of safety against slope failure.
Base reinforcement typically consists of placing a geotextile or geogrid at the base of an
embankment prior to constructing the embankment. Base reinforcement is particularly
effective where soft/weak soils are present below a planned embankment location. The
base reinforcement can be designed for either temporary or permanent applications.
Most base reinforcement applications are temporary, in that the reinforcement is needed
only until the underlying soil’s shear strength has increased sufficiently as a result of
consolidation under the weight of the embankment (see Section 9.3.1). Therefore, the
base reinforcement does not need to meet the same design requirements as permanent
base reinforcement regarding creep and durability.
For example, if it is anticipated that the soil will gain adequate strength to meet stability
requirements without the base reinforcement within 6 months, then the creep reduction
factor determined per WSDOT Standard Practice T925 could be based on, say, a
minimum 1 year life, assuming deformation design requirements are met. Other than this,
only installation damage would need to be addressed, unless unusual chemical conditions
exist that could cause rapid strength degradation. Alternatively, the values of Tal provided
in the WSDOT Qualified Products List (QPL) could be used, but will be conservative
for this application. However, if it is anticipated that the soil will never gain enough
strength to cause the embankment to have the desired level of stability without the
base reinforcement, the long-term design strengths provided in the QPL or as otherwise
determined using T925 for a minimum 75 year life shall be used.
The design of base reinforcement is similar to the design of a reinforced slope in that limit
equilibrium slope stability methods are used to determine the strength required to obtain
the desired safety factor (see Chapter 15). The detailed design procedures provided by
Holtz, et al. (1995) should be used for embankments utilizing base reinforcement.
Base reinforcement materials should be placed in continuous longitudinal strips in

the direction of main reinforcement. Joints between pieces of geotextile or geogrid in
the strength direction (perpendicular to the slope) should be avoided. All seams in the
geotextiles should be sewn and not lapped. Likewise, geogrids should be linked with
mechanical fasteners or pins and not simply overlapped. Where base reinforcement
is used, the use of gravel borrow, instead of common or select borrow, may also be
appropriate in order to increase the embankment shear strength.

February 2022
9-3.3 Ground Improvement

Ground improvement can be used to mitigate inadequate slope stability for both new and
existing embankments, as well as reduce settlement. The primary ground improvement
techniques to mitigate slope stability fall into two general categories, namely densification
and altering the soil composition. Chapter 11 Ground Improvement, should be reviewed
for a more detailed discussion and key references regarding the advantages and
disadvantages of these techniques, applicability for the prevailing subsurface conditions,
construction considerations, and costs. In addition to the two general categories of
ground improvement identified above, wick drains (discussed in Chapter 11 and Section
9.4.1) may be used in combination with staged embankment construction to accelerate
strength gain and improve stability, in addition to accelerating long-term settlement. The
wick drains in effect drastically reduce the drainage path length, thereby accelerating the
rate of strength gain. Other ground improvement techniques such as stone columns can
function to accelerate strength gain in the same way as wick drains, though the stone
columns also reduce the stress applied to the soil, thereby reducing the total strength gain
obtained. See Chapter 11 for additional guidance and references to use if this technique is
to be implemented.
9-3.4 Light Weight Fills

Lightweight embankment fill is another means of improving embankment stability.
Lightweight fills are generally used for two conditions: the reduction of the driving
forces contributing to instability, and reduction of potential settlement resulting from
consolidation of compressible foundation soils. Situations where lightweight fill may be
appropriate include conditions where the construction schedule does not allow the use of
staged construction, where existing utilities or adjacent structures are present that cannot
tolerate the magnitude of settlement induced by placement of typical fill, and at locations
where post-construction settlements may be excessive under conventional fills.
Lightweight fill can consist of a variety of materials including polystyrene blocks

(geofoam), light weight aggregates (rhyolite, expanded shale, blast furnace slag, fly ash),
wood fiber, shredded rubber tires, and other materials. Lightweight fills are infrequently
used due to either high costs or other disadvantages with using these materials.
9-3.4.1 Geofoam
Geofoam is approximately 1/100th the weight of conventional soil fill (typically with a
unit weight of 1 to 3 pcf) and, as a result, is particularly effective at reducing driving
forces or settlement potential. Typical geofoam embankments consist of the foundation
soils, the geofoam fill, and a pavement system designed to transfer loads to the geofoam.
Geofoam dissolves readily in gasoline and other organic fluids/vapors and therefore
must be encapsulated where such fluids can potentially reach the geofoam. Other design
considerations for geofoam include creep, flammability, buoyancy, moisture absorption,
photo-degradation, and differential icing of pavement constructed over geofoam.
Furthermore, geofoam should not be used where the water table could rise and cause
buoyancy problems, as geofaom will float. Design guidelines for geofoam embankments
are provided in the NCHRP document titled Geofoam Applications in the Design and
Construction of Highway Embankments (Stark et al., 2004). Additional information on the
design properties and testing requirements are provided in Chapter 5.

February 2022
9-3.4.2 Light Weight Aggregates

Mineral aggregates, such as expanded shales, rhyolite, fly ash, or blast furnace slags, can
also be used as lightweight fill materials. Expanded shales and rhyolite materials consist
of inert mineral aggregates that have similar shear strengths to many conventional fill
materials, but weigh roughly 50 to 70 pcf. The primary disadvantage with expanded
shales and rhyolite is that these materials are expensive. Fly ash can also be used for
lightweight fill; however, fly ash is difficult to place and properly control the moisture
condition. Blast furnace slag is another waste material sometimes used for lightweight
fill. Due to the weight of blast furnace slag, it is not as effective as other lightweight fill
materials. Also, slag materials have been documented to swell when hydrated, potentially
damaging improvements founded above the slag. The chemical composition of fly ash
and blast furnace slag should be investigated to confirm that high levels of contaminants
are not present. Due to the potential durability and chemical issues associated with some
light weight aggregates, approval from the State Geotechnical Engineer is required before
such materials may be considered for use in embankments.
9-3.4.3 Wood Fiber

Wood fibers may also be used for lightweight fill. For permanent applications, only fresh
wood fiber should be used to prolong the life of the fill. Wood fiber fills typically have
unit weights between about 35 to 55 pcf. To mitigate the effects of leachate, the amount
of water entering the wood should be minimized. Wood fiber fill will experience creep
settlement for several years and some pavement distress should be expected during that
period. See Chapter 5 for more information regarding wood fiber fills.
9-3.4.4 Scrap (Rubber) Tires

In 1996, a moratorium on the use of scrap tires as embankment fill was put into effect
due to several instances where the tire fills caught fire due to some type of exothermic
reaction which has yet to be fully defined. A report to the Washington State legislature
was published in 2003 to address whether or not, and under what circumstances, the
moratorium on the use of scrap tires as fill should be lifted (Baker, et al., 2003). Based
on that report, scrap tire fills up to 10 feet in thickness may be considered, provided that
they are designed and specified as described in Baker, et al. (2003).
9-3.4.5 Light Weight Cellular Concrete

Large quantities of air can be entrained into concrete to produce a very light weight
porous concrete, commonly referred to as cellular concrete, that can be poured in place
of soil to reduce the driving force to improve stability or reduce settlement. Typical range
of unit weights is from 25 to 65 pcf, and relative to soil, its shear strength is fairly high.
Actual compressive strengths averaging 100 psi are expected for the 27-30 pcf density,
the most commonly used density of cellular concrete. However, if significant differential
settlement is still anticipated in spite of the use of the light weight concrete, due to its
relatively brittle nature, the concrete could crack, losing much of its shear strength at the
crack. This should be considered if using light weight cellular concrete.
If a unit weight of under 30 pcf is specified, placement technique can cause the bubbles
in the concrete, which gives the cellular concrete its reduced unit weight, to collapse
under its self-weight, resulting in concrete shrinkage and higher unit weight. To prevent

February 2022
this, the concrete should be placed in lifts that are 2 ft or less if the unit weight is greater
than 30 pcf, and pours limited to about one hour at a time. If the specified unit weight is
under 25 pcf, it is difficult to maintain consistency and quality, to prevent the concrete
from collapsing on itself during construction, or collapsing in the long-term if exposed to
water passing through the porous concrete. To ensure consistency and quality of the final,
as cured, product, a Class III light weight cellular concrete with a minimum unit weight of
30 pcf and a minimum compressive strength of 80 psi shall be used. For smaller, lower
height, light weight cellular concrete fills, Class II light weight cellular concrete with a
minimum unit weight of 25 pcf and minimum compressive strength of 40 psi, installed
using a maximum lift thickness of 2 ft pours limited to about 1 hour at a time, may be
considered, subject to approval by the State Geotechnical Engineer.
9-3.4.6 Toe Berms and Shear keys

Toe berms and shear keys are each methods to improve the stability of an embankment
by increasing the resistance along potential failure surfaces. Toe berms are typically
constructed of granular materials that can be placed quickly, do not require much
compaction, but have relatively high shear strength. As implied by the name, toe berms
are constructed near the toe of the embankment slopes where stability is a concern. The
toe berms are often inclined flatter than the fill embankment side slopes, but the berm
itself should be checked for stability. The use of berms may increase the magnitude of
settlements as a consequence of the increased size of the loaded area. Toe berms increase
the shearing resistance by:
• Adding weight, and thus increasing the shear resistance of granular soils below the toe
area of the embankment;
• Adding high strength materials for additional resistance along potential failure
surfaces that pass through the toe berm; and
• Creating a longer failure surface, thus more shear resistance, as the failure surface
now must pass below the toe berm if it does not pass through the berm.
Shear keys function in a manner similar to toe berms, except instead of being adjacent
to and incorporating the toe of the fill embankment, the shear key is placed under the fill
embankment—frequently below the toe of the embankment. Shear keys are best suited
to conditions where they key can be embedded into a stronger underlying formation.
Shear keys typically range from 5 to 15 feet in width and extend 4 to 10 feet below the
ground surface. They are typically backfilled with quarry spalls or similar materials that are
relatively easy to place below the groundwater level, require minimal compaction, but still
have high internal shear strength. Like toe berms, shear keys improve the stability of the
embankment by forcing the potential failure surface through the strong shear key material
or along a much longer path below the shear key.
9-4 Settlement Mitigation

9-4.1 Acceleration Using Wick Drains
Wick drains, or prefabricated drains, are in essence vertical drainage paths that can be
installed into compressible soils to decrease the overall time required for completion of
primary consolidation. Wick drains typically consist of a long plastic core surrounded
by a geotextile. The geotextile functions as a separator and a filter to keep holes in the
plastic core from being plugged by the adjacent soil, and the plastic core provides a means

February 2022
for the excess pore water pressures to dissipate. A drainage blanket is typically placed
across the ground surface prior to installing the wick drains and provides a drainage path
beneath the embankment for water flowing from the wick drains.
The drains are typically band-shaped (rectangular) measuring a few inches wide in plan
dimension. They are attached to a mandrel and are usually driven/pushed into place using
either static or vibratory force. After the wick drains are installed, the fill embankment and
possibly surcharge fill are placed above the drainage blanket.
A key consideration for the use of wick drains is the site conditions. If obstructions
or a very dense or stiff soil layer is located above the compressible layer, pre-drilling
may be necessary. The use of wick drains to depths over about 60 feet require
specialized equipment.
The primary function of a wick drain is to reduce the drainage path in a thick
compressible soil deposit. As noted in Section 9.3.3, a significant factor controlling the
time rate of settlement is the length of the drainage path. Since the time required for
a given percentage consolidation completion is related to the square of the drainage
path, cutting the drainage path in half would reduce the consolidation time to one-
fourth the initial time, all other parameters held constant. However, the process of
installing the wick drains creates a smear zone that can impede the drainage. The
key design issue is maximizing the efficiency of the spacing of the drains, and one
of the primary construction issues is minimizing the smear zone around the drains.
A full description of wick drains, design considerations, example designs, guideline
specifications, and installation considerations are provided by reference in Chapter 11.
Section 2-03.3(14)H of the WSDOT Standard Specifications addresses installation of
prefabricated vertical drains.
9-4.2 Acceleration Using Surcharges

Surcharge loads are additional loads placed on the fill embankment above and beyond
the design height. The primary purpose of a surcharge is to speed up the consolidation
process. The surcharges speed up the consolidation process because the percentage of
consolidation required under a surcharge will be less than the complete consolidation
under the design load. As noted previously, it is customary to assume consolidation
is essentially complete at the theoretical 90% completion stage, where T = 0.848. In
comparison, T = 0.197 for 50% consolidation. Therefore it takes less than one-fourth
the time to achieve an average of 50% consolidation in a soil layer than it does to
achieve 90%. In this example, the objective would be to place a surcharge sufficiently
large such that 50% of the total settlement estimated from the fill embankment and the
surcharge is equal to or greater than 100 percent of the settlement estimated under the
fill embankment alone at its design height. Based on previous experience, the surcharge
fill needs to be at least one-third the design height of the embankment to provide any
significant time savings.
In addition to decreasing the time to reach the target settlement, surcharges can also be
used to reduce the impact of secondary settlement. Similar to the example presented
above, the intent is to use the surcharge to pre-induce the settlement estimated to occur
from primary consolidation and secondary compression due to the embankment load. For
example, if the estimated primary consolidation under an embankment is 18 inches and
secondary compression is estimated at an additional 6 inches over the next 25 years, then

February 2022
the surcharge would be designed to achieve 24 inches of settlement or greater under

primary consolidation only. The principles of the design of surcharges to mitigate long-
term settlement provided by Cotton, et al. (1987) should be followed.
Using a surcharge typically will not completely eliminate secondary compression, but it
has been successfully used to reduce the magnitude of secondary settlement. However,
for highly organic soils or peats where secondary compression is expected to be high,
the success of a surcharge to reduce secondary compression may be quite limited. Other
more positive means may be needed to address the secondary compression in this case,
such as removal.
Two significant design and construction considerations for using surcharges include
embankment stability and re-use of the additional fill materials. New fill embankments
over soft soils can result in stability problems as discussed in Section 9.3. Adding
additional surcharge fill would only exacerbate the stability problem. Furthermore, after
the settlement objectives have been met, the surcharge will need to be removed. If the
surcharge material cannot be moved to another part of the project site for use as site fill
or as another surcharge, it often not economical to bring the extra surcharge fill to the site
only to haul it away again. Also, when fill soils must be handled multiple times (such as
with a “rolling” surcharge), it is advantageous to use gravel borrow to reduce workability
issues during wet weather conditions.
9-4.3 Lightweight Fills

Lightweight fills can also be used to mitigate settlement issues as indicated in Section
9.3.4. Lightweight fills reduce the new loads imposed on the underlying compressible
soils, thereby reducing the magnitude of the settlement. See Chapter 5 and Section 9.3.4
for additional information on light weight fill.
9-4.4 Over-excavation
Over-excavation simply refers to excavating the soft compressible soils from below
the embankment footprint and replacing these materials with higher quality, less
compressible soil. Because of the high costs associated with excavating and disposing
of unsuitable soils as well as the difficulties associated with excavating below the water
table, over-excavation and replacement typically only makes economic sense under
certain conditions. Some of these conditions include, but are not limited to:
• The area requiring overexcavation is limited;
• The unsuitable soils are near the ground surface and do not extend very deep
(typically, even in the most favorable of construction conditions, over-excavation
depths greater than about 10 feet are in general not economical);
• Temporary shoring and dewatering are not required to support or facilitate the
excavation;
• The unsuitable soils can be wasted on site; and
• Suitable excess fill materials are readily available to replace the over-excavated
unsuitable soils.

February 2022
9-5 Construction Considerations and PS&E Development

Consideration should be given to the time of year that construction will likely occur.
If unsuitable soil was encountered during the field investigation, the depth and station
limits for removal should be provided on the plans. Chapter 530 of the WSDOT Design
Manual provides guidance for the use of geotextile for separation or soil stabilization (see
also Chapter 16). Note that for extremely soft and wet soil, a site specific design should
be performed for the geotextile.
Hillside Terracing is specified in Section 2-03.3(14) of the WSDOT Standard Specifications.

Where embankments are built on existing hillsides or existing embankment slopes, the
existing surface soil may form a plane of weakness unless the slope is terraced or stepped.
Terracing breaks up the plane, increasing the strength of the entire system. Generally
slopes that are 3H:1V or steeper should be terraced to improve stability. However there
may be specific cases where terracing may be waived during design, such as when the
existing slope is steeper than 1H:1V and benching would destabilize the existing slope.
The compaction requirements in the WSDOT Standard Specifications apply to the entire
embankment, including near the sloping face of the embankment.
For embankment slopes of 2H:1V or steeper, depending on the embankment soil

properties, getting good compaction out to the embankment face can be difficult to
achieve, and possibly even unsafe for those operating the compaction equipment.
The consequences of poor compaction at the sloping face of the embankment include
increased risk of erosion and even surficial slope instability. This issue becomes especially
problematic as the embankment slope steepness approaches 1.5H:1V. Surficial stability of
embankments (See Chapter 7) should be evaluated during design for embankment slopes
of 2H:1V or steeper. The embankment design shall include the use of techniques that will
improve embankment face slope stability for embankment slopes steeper than 1.7H:1V,
and should consider the use of such techniques for slopes of 2H:1V or steeper.
Approaches typically used to address compaction and surficial stability of embankment

slopes include:
• Over-build the embankment laterally at the slope face approximately 2 feet, compact
the soil, and then trim off the outer 2 feet of the embankment to produce a well
compacted slope face.
• Use strips of geosynthetic placed in horizontal layers at the slope face as a
compaction and surficial stability aid (see Elias, et al., 2001). The strips should
generally be a minimum of 4 feet wide (horizontally into the slope) and spaced
vertically at 1 to 1.5 feet (1.5 feet maximum). The specific reinforcement width
and vertical spacing will depend on the soil type. The reinforcement strength
required depends on the coarseness and angularity of the backfill material and the
susceptibility of the geosynthetic to damage during placement and compaction. See
Elias, et al. (2001) for specific guidance on the design of geosynthetic layers as a
compaction and surficial stability aid.
Even if good compaction can be obtained using one of these techniques, the potential
for erosion and surficial instability should be addressed through appropriate use of slope
vegetation techniques such as seeding and mulching, temporary or permanent turf
reinforcement mats, or for deeper surficial stability problems, bioengineering. Note that

February 2022
if geosynthetic layers are placed in the soil as a compaction aid or to improve overall
embankment slope stability, the typical practice of cultivating the upper 1 feet of the soil
per the WSDOT Standard Specifications, Section 8-02, should not be conducted. Instead,
the landscape architect who is developing the slope vegetation plan should consult with
the HQ Geotechnical Division to insure that the slope vegetation plan (either per the
WSDOT Standard Specifications or any special provisions developed) does not conflict
with the slope geosynthetic reinforcement and the need for good compaction out to the
slope face.
9-5.1 Settlement and Pore Pressure Monitoring

If settlement is expected to continue after embankment construction, some type of
monitoring program should be provided. Settlement should be monitored, if post
construction settlement will affect pavement performance or a settlement sensitive
structure will be constructed on the embankment. The type of monitoring will depend on
the magnitude and time frame of the settlement. For many monitoring programs, use of
survey hubs or monuments and routine surveying methods are adequate. These methods
are commonly used if paving should be delayed until embankment settlement is nearly
complete. The geotechnical report should include the time period that the settlement
should be monitored and the frequency of observations.
Settlement estimates provided in the contract should be conservative. Therefore, if

another construction operation must be delayed until the settlement of the embankment
is nearly complete, the time estimate should be the longest length of time that is likely to
be necessary; then the contractor will not be delayed longer than anticipated.
As discussed in Section 9.3.1, embankments constructed over soft ground may require
the use of staged construction to ensure the stability of the embankment. Geotechnical
instrumentation is a vital part of construction to monitor field performance and provide
information relevant to decisions regarding the rate of construction. The principal
parameters monitored during embankment construction are pore water pressure and
displacement, both vertical and lateral.
As discussed previously, in relatively impermeable, soft, saturated soil, the applied load
from embankment construction increases the pore water pressure. With time, the excess
pore water pressure will dissipate and the shear strength will increase.
It is important to measure the pore water pressure to determine when it is safe to

proceed with additional embankment construction. In such cases it is also useful to
measure vertical deformation to assist in the interpretation of the data to assess the rate
at which embankment construction should proceed.
9-5.2 Instrumentation
The following discussion of monitoring equipment typically used for embankment
construction monitoring provides an overview of the typical equipment available.
A more comprehensive discussion of monitoring techniques is available in Geotechnical
Instrumentation for Monitoring Field Performance (Dunnicliff, 1993) and Geotechnical
Instrumentation Reference Manual, NHI Course No. 13241 FHWA-HI-98-034 (Dunnicliff,
1998). Additional information on WSDOT policies regarding instrumentation installation
and standards is provided in Chapter 3.

February 2022
9-5.2.1 Piezometers
Three types of piezometers are commonly used to monitor embankment construction:
open standpipe, pneumatic and vibrating wire. Each type of piezometer has advantages
and disadvantages. The sections below describe the various piezometer types.
Open Standpipe Piezometers – These piezometers are installed in a drilled borehole.

A porous zone or screen is installed in the soil layer of interest. For embankment
settlement purposes it is necessary to completely seal the porous zone against the inflow
of water from shallower zones. Open standpipe piezometers are relatively simple to install
and the water level readings are easy to obtain. However, standpipes may interfere with
or be damaged by construction activities and the response time for changes in water
pore pressure in low permeability soils is slow. This type of piezometer is generally not
very useful for monitoring the pore pressure increase and subsequent decrease due to
consolidation in staged construction applications.
Pneumatic Piezometers – Pneumatic piezometers are usually installed in drilled boreholes

in a manner similar to standpipe piezometers, but they can be sealed so that increases
in pore water pressure result in a smaller volume change and a more rapid response
in instrument measurement. Pneumatic piezometers do not need open standpipes.
However, crimping or rupture of the tubes due to settlement of the embankment can
cause failure.
Vibrating Wire Piezometers – Vibrating wire piezometers are usually installed in drilled
boreholes; although, models are available for pushing into place in soft soils. The
cables can be routed long distances and they are easily connected to automatic data
acquisition systems.
9-5.2.2 Instrumentation for Settlement

9-5.2.2.1 Settlement Plates
Settlement plates are used to monitor settlement at the interface between native ground
and the overlying fill. They consist of a steel plate welded to a steel pipe. An outer pipe
consisting of steel or PVC pipe is placed around the pipe and the embankment is built
up around it. Both pipes are extended to the completed surface. The outer pipe isolates
the inner pipe from contact with the fill. As the embankment and soil surface settle,
the top of the inner pipe can be monitored with standard survey equipment. These
devices are simple to use, but provide data at only one point and are subject to damage
during construction.
9-5.2.2.2 Pneumatic Settlement Cells

These cells are generally placed at the interface between the embankment fill and native
ground. A flexible tube is routed to a reservoir, which must be located away from the
settlement area. The reservoir must be kept at a constant elevation. The precision of the
cells is about 0.75 inches.

February 2022
9-5.2.2.3 Sondex System

The Sondex System can be used for monitoring settlement at several points at depth. The
system is installed in a borehole and consists of a series of stainless steel wire loops on a
plastic corrugated pipe. The plastic pipe is placed over an access casing and grouted in the
borehole. The locations of the stainless steel loops are determined by electrical induction
measurements from a readout unit. The loops can be located to about 0.05 inches and
displacements of up to 2 inches can be measured. Accurate measurement of settlement
depends on the compatibility of the soil and grout.
Therefore, if the grout mix has a higher strength than the surrounding soil, not all the
settlement will be measured.
9-5.2.2.4 Horizontal Inclinometer

Horizontal inclinometers are used to measure vertical deflections in a grooved guide
casing, placed horizontally beneath the embankment. The probe is pulled through the
casing and readings of inclination relative to horizontal are obtained. The inclinometer
is a highly accurate system for obtaining settlement data. Because the length of the
inclinometer probe is typically about 2 feet, large displacements of the casing caused by
settlement may stop passage of the probe.
9-5.3 PS&E Considerations

Specifications for monitoring equipment that will be supplied by the contractor should
ensure that the equipment is compatible with the read out equipment that will be used
during construction. The specifications should also make clear who will provide the
monitoring and analyze the data. If the contractor’s survey crew will collect the settlement
data, it should be indicated in the special provisions. It is also important to stipulate who
will analyze the data and provide the final determination on when settlement is complete
or when additional fill can be placed. In general, the geotechnical designer should analyze
and interpret the data.
9-5.4 PS&E Checklist

The following issues should be addressed in the PS&E regarding embankments:
• Slope inclination required for stability
• Embankment foundation preparation requirements, overexcavation limits shown on
plans
• Plan details for special drainage requirements such as lined ditches, interceptor
trenches, drainage blankets, etc.
• Hillside terracing requirements
• Evaluation of on-site materials
• Special embankment material requirements
• Special treatment required for fill placement such as non-durable rock, plastic soil, or
lightweight fill
• Magnitude and time for settlement
• Settlement waiting period estimated in the Special Provisions (SP)
• Size and limits of surcharge
• Special monitoring needs
February 2022
• If instrumentation is required to control the rate of fill placement, do the SP’s clearly
spell out how this will be done and how the readings will be used to control the
contractor’s operation
• SP’s clearly state that any instrumentation damaged by contractor personnel will be
repaired or replaced at no cost to the state
• Settlement issues with adjacent structures, should construction of structures be
delayed during embankment settlement period
• Monitoring of adjacent structures
9-5.5 Requirements for Temporary Fills for Construction Facilitation

Temporary fills for haul roads, construction equipment access, and other temporary
construction activities shall be designed in accordance with this GDM, in particular this
chapter (Chapter 9), except as noted in the following subsections.
9-5.5.1 Design Requirements

The design of the temporary fill/fill slope shall address the stability and settlement of
the temporary fill itself as well as the impact of the temporary fill on the global stability
and deformation of the of the overall slope on which the fill is located. The stability
and movement of any temporary structures and construction equipment (e.g., cranes,
compaction equipment, etc.) placed on the temporary fill shall also be addressed in the
design. Temporary fills and fill slopes shall be designed such that the risk to health and
safety of workers and the public is kept to an acceptable level and that adjacent facilities
are not damaged. Seismic design of temporary fills and fill slopes is not required.
If temporary fills are placed on or adjacent to permanent or temporary structures, the

impact of the temporary fill on those structures, both with regard to stability and lateral
and vertical movements, shall be assessed. The functioning and design life of those
structures shall not be compromised by the placement of the temporary fill.
If temporary walls are used to support the temporary fill, the impact of the temporary fill
on the wall stability and deformations shall be addressed, and the design of the temporary
wall shall meet the requirements in Chapter 15 and the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications.
As a minimum, the design of temporary fill slopes for stability by or under the supervision
of a registered professional engineer shall include geotechnical calculations to address
slope stability (i.e., Chapter 7). If the fill is placed over relatively soft to very soft ground,
the deformation of the fill shall also be determined through engineering calculations
(i.e., Chapter 9) that are based on a knowledge of the subsurface conditions present and
engineering data that can be used to estimate soil and rock properties. Such calculations
shall also address the effect of ground water conditions and the loading conditions on
or above the slope that could affect its stability and deformation. The design shall be
conducted in accordance with the requirements in this GDM and referenced documents.
Engineering recommendations based upon field observations alone shall not be
considered to be an engineering design, unless the fill is a low height (less than 10 feet
high) granular, cohesionless well-compacted fill without concentrated loads from large
equipment or structure supports, and the fill is placed over dense to very dense soil or
rock, in which the supporting soil or rock is not affected by fissures, slickensides, or other
localized weaknesses.

February 2022
9-5.5.2 Safety Factors and Design Life Considerations

For temporary fill slopes, the safety factors specified in Section 9.2.3.1 are applicable. If
the soil properties are well defined and shown to have low variability, a lower factor of
safety may be justified through the use of the Monte Carlo simulation feature available in
slope stability analysis computer programs. In this case, a probability of failure of 0.01 or
smaller shall be targeted (Santamarina, et al., 1992). However, even with this additional
analysis, in no case shall a slope stability safety factor less than 1.2 be used for design of
the temporary fill slope.
9-5.5.3 Design Loads

The design of temporary fills and fill slopes shall address the actual construction- related
loads that could be imposed on the temporary fill. As a minimum, the temporary fill
shall be designed for a live load surcharge of 250 psf to address routine construction
equipment traffic on the fill. For unusual temporary loadings resulting from large cranes
or other large equipment placed on the fill, the loading imposed by the equipment shall be
specifically assessed and taken into account in the design of the fill. For the case where
large or unusual construction equipment loads will be applied to the fill, the construction
equipment loads shall still be considered to be a live load, unless the dynamic and
transient forces caused by use of the construction equipment can be separated from
the construction equipment weight as a dead load, in which case, only the dynamic or
transient loads carried or created by the use of the construction equipment need to be
considered live load.
If temporary structures (e.g., false work and formwork support) are placed on or adjacent
to the temporary fill, the temporary fill shall be designed to carry the loads resulting from
the temporary structures and to meet the stability and deformation requirements of those
structures.
9-5.5.4 Design Property Selection

In addition to the requirements in Chapter 9 for determination of design properties, the
requirements for design property selection for temporary cuts and shoring in Chapters 5
and 15 shall also be considered applicable to temporary fills and fill slopes.
9-5.5.5 Performance Requirements for Temporary Fills and Fill Slopes

Temporary fills and slopes shall be designed to prevent excessive deformation that could
result in damage to adjacent facilities, both during fill construction and during the life of
the temporary fill. An estimate of expected displacements or vibrations, threshold limits
that would trigger remedial actions, and a list of potential remedial actions if thresholds
are exceeded should be developed. Thresholds shall be established to prevent damage to
adjacent facilities, as well as degradation of the soil properties due to deformation.
The removal of the temporary fill shall not adversely impact adjacent structures and
facilities.

February 2022
9-5.5.6 Temporary Fill Submittal and Submittal Review Requirements

Temporary Fill submittals shall generally meet the requirements in Section 2-09.3(3)B of
the Standard Specifications M 41-10.
When performing a geotechnical review of a contractor temporary fill submittal, the

following items should be specifically evaluated:
1. Performance objectives for the temporary fill
a. Is the anticipated length of time the temporary fill will be in place provided?
b. Are objectives regarding anticipated and allowed deformations of the fill and
adjacent and supported structures provided?
c. Are the performance objectives compatible and consistent with contract and
GDM/BDM requirements?
2. Subsurface conditions
a. Is the soil/rock stratigraphy consistent with the subsurface geotechnical data

provided in the contract boring logs?
b. Did the contractor/fill designer obtain the additional subsurface data needed to
meet the geotechnical exploration requirements fills and temporary fill walls as
identified in Chapters 9 and 15, respectively?
c. Was justification for the soil, rock, and other material properties used for the
design of the temporary fill provided, and is that justification, and the final
values selected, consistent with Chapter 5 and the subsurface field and lab data
obtained at the fill site?
d. Were ground water conditions adequately assessed through field

measurements combined with the site stratigraphy to identify zones of ground
water, aquitards and aquicludes, artesian conditions, and perched zones of
ground water that could impact the stability and deformation of the fill and
adjacent facilities that may be impacted by the presence of the temporary fill?
3. Temporary fill loading
a. Have the anticipated loads on or caused by the temporary fill been correctly
identified, considering all applicable limit states?
b. If construction or public traffic near or on the temporary fill, has a minimum

traffic live load surcharge of 250 psf been applied?
c. If larger construction equipment such as cranes will be placed on the temporary

fill, have the loads from that equipment been correctly determined and included
in the temporary fill design?

February 2022
4. Temporary fill design
a. Have the correct design procedures been used (i.e., the GDM and referenced
design specifications and manuals)?
b. Have all appropriate limit states been considered (e.g., global stability of slopes
above and below wall, global stability of wall/slope combination, internal wall
stability, external wall stability, bearing capacity, settlement, lateral deformation,
piping or heaving due to differential water head, etc.)?
5. Are all safety factors, or load and resistance factors for LRFD temporary wall or
structure design, identified, properly justified in a manner that is consistent with the
GDM, and meet or exceed the minimum requirements of the GDM?
6. Have the effects of any construction activities adjacent to the temporary fill on
the stability/performance of the fill been addressed in the shoring design (e.g.,
excavation or soil disturbance below the fill, excavation dewatering, vibrations and
soil loosening due to soil modification/improvement activities, etc.)?
7. Temporary fill monitoring/testing
a. Is a monitoring/testing plan provided to verify that the performance of the fill

and the structures it supports or impacts is acceptable throughout the design
life of the system?
b. Have appropriate displacement or other performance triggers been provided

that are consistent with the performance objectives of the fill and adjacent
facilities?
8. Temporary fill removal
a. Have any portions of the temporary fill (including temporary fill walls used to
support the fill) to be left in place after construction of the permanent structure
is complete been identified?
b. Has a plan been provided regarding how to prevent the remaining portions
of the temporary fill or walls from interfering with future construction and
performance of the finished work (e.g., will the remaining portions impede flow
of ground water, create a hard spot, create a surface of weakness regarding
slope stability, etc.)?

February 2022
9-6 References
Baker, T. E., Allen, T. M., Pierce, L. M., Jenkins, D. V., Mooney, D. T., Christie, R. A.,
and Weston, J. T., 2003, Evaluation of the Use of Scrap Tires in Transportation Related
Applications in the State of Washington, Report to the Legislature as Required by SHB
2308, WSDOT, 268 pp.
Boussinesq, J., 1885, “Application des Potentiels a L’Etude de L’Equilibre et due

Mouvement des Solides Elastiques,” Gauthier-Villars, Paris.
Cheney, R. and Chassie, R. 2000. Soils and Foundations Workshop Reference Manual.
Washington, DC, National Highway Institute Publication NHI-00-045, Federal Highway
Administration.
Cotton, D. M., Kilian, A. P., and Allen T 1987, “Westbound Embankment Preload on Rainier
Avenue, Seattle, Washington,” Transportation Research Record 1119, Washington, DC,
pp. 61-75.
Dunnicliff, J., 1993, Geotechnical Instrumentation for Monitoring Field Performance, NCHRP
Synthesis 89, Transportation Research Board.
Elias, V., and Christopher, B.R., and Berg, R. R., 2001, Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls
and Reinforced Soil Slopes - Design and Construction Guidelines, No. FHWA- NHI-00-043,
Federal Highway Administration, 394 pp.
Federal Highway Administration, 1992, “EMBANK,” Computer Program, Users Manual

Publication No. FHWA-SA-92-045.
Dunnicliff, J., 1998, Geotechnical Instrumentation Reference Manual, NHI Course

No. 13241, Module 11. FHWA-HI-98-034, Federal Highway Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation.
Holtz, R. D., and Kovacs, W. D., 1981, An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering,

Prentice-Hall, Inc, Eaglewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Holtz, R. D., Christopher, B. R., and Berg, R. R., 1995, Geosynthetic Design and Construction
Guidelines, Federal Highway Administration, FHWA HI-95-038.
Ladd, C. C., 1991, “Stability Evaluation During Staged Construction (the 22nd Karl Terzaghi
Lecture),” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 117, No. 4, pp. 540-615.
Machan, G., Szymoniak, T. and Siel, B., 1989, “Evaluation of Shale Embankment
Construction Criteria, Experimental Feature Final Report OR 83-02,” Oregon State
Highway Division, Geotechnical Engineering Group.
NAVFAC, 1971, Design Manual: Soil Mechanics, Foundations, and Earth Structures, DM-7.
(note: included as Appendix A in US Department of Defense, 2005,
Soil Mechanics, Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC), UFC 3-220-10N).
Prototype Engineering, Inc., 1993, “SAF-1” Soil Settlement Analyses Software Suite,
Winchester, Massachusetts.

February 2022
Sabatini, P.J, Bachus, R.C, Mayne, P.W., Schneider, J.A., Zettler, T.E 2002, Geotechnical
Engineering Circular 5 (GEC5) - Evaluation of Soil and Rock Properties. Report No FHWA-
IF-02-034. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.
Santamarina, J. C., Altschaeffl, A. G., and Chameau, J. L., 1992, “Reliability of Slopes:
Incorporating Qualitative Information,” Transportation Research Board, TRR 1343,
Washington, D.C., pp. 1-5.
Skempton, A. W., and Bishop, A. W., 1955, “The Gain in Stability Due to Pore Pressure
Dissipation in a Soft Clay Foundation,” Fifth International Conference on Large Dams, Paris,
pp. 613-638.
Stark, T., Arellano, D., Horvath, J. and Leshchinsky, D., 2004, Geofoam Applications in the
Design and Construction of Highway Embankments, NCHRP Report 529, Transportation
Research Board, 58 pp.
Symons, I. F., 1976, Assessment and Control of Stability for Road Embankments Constructed
on Soft Subsoils, Transport and Road Research laboratory, Crowthorne, Berkshire, TRRL
Laboratory Report 711, 32 pp.
Tonkins, T. and Terranova, T., 1995, “Instrumentation of Transportation Embankments

Constructed on Soft Ground,” Transportation Research Circular No. 438.
Westergaard, H., 1938, “A Problem of Elasticity Suggested by a Problem in Soil Mechanics:

A Soft Material Reinforced by Numerous Strong Horizontal Sheets,” in Contribution to the
Mechanics of Solids, Stephen Timoshenko 60th Anniversary Volume, Macmillan, New York,
New York, pp. 268-277.

February 2022

Embankments: 9-1 Overview and Data Needed

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Embankments: 9-1 Overview and Data Needed

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Embankments: 9-1 Overview and Data Needed

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 9

9-1 Overview and Data Needed

For the purposes of this chapter embankments include the following:

9-1.1 Site Reconnaissance

Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.16 Page 9-1

9-1.2 Field Exploration and Laboratory Testing Requirements

Page 9-2 Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.16

9-1.3 Soil Sampling and Stratigraphy

Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.16 Page 9-3

Embankment widening projects will require careful consideration of exploration locations.

Understanding of the underlying soil conditions requires appropriate sampling intervals

Page 9-4 Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.16

The groundwater levels should be monitored periodically to provide useful information

If practical, a series of year-round readings taken at 1 to 2 month intervals should be

If there is a potential for a significant groundwater gradient beneath an embankment

Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.16 Page 9-5

9-2 Design Considerations

9-2.1.1 Rock Embankments

9-2.1.2 Earth Embankments and Bridge Approach Embankments

Procedures for constructing earth embankments are described in Section

9-2.1.3 Fill Placement Below Water

Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.16 Page 9-7

9-2.2 Embankments for Detention/Retention Facilities

Embankments for detention/retention facilities impounding 10 acre feet of water or less

9-2.3 Stability Assessment

Page 9-8 Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.16

9-2.3.1 Safety Factors

9-2.3.2 Strength Parameters

Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.16 Page 9-9

9-2.4 Embankment Settlement Assessment

9-2.4.1 Settlement Impacts

If the primary consolidation is allowed to occur prior to placing utilities or building

To establish the target settlement criteria, the tolerance of structures or utilities to

9-2.4.2 Settlement Analysis

The detailed methodology to estimate primary consolidation settlement is provided in

9-2.4.2.2 Secondary Compression

9-2.4.3 Stress Distribution

9-2.4.3.1 Simple 2V:1H Method

Page 9-12 Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.16

9-2.4.3.2 Theory of Elasticity

9-2.4.3.3 Empirical Charts

Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.16 Page 9-13

9-2.4.3.4 Rate of Settlement

Page 9-14 Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.16

It is important to note some of the assumptions used by Terzaghi’s theory to understand

9-2.4.4 Analytical Tools

9-3 Stability Mitigation

9-3.1 Staged Construction

Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.16 Page 9-15

Since both approaches have limitations and uncertainties, it is generally desirable to

Page 9-16 Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.16

9-3.1.1 Design Parameters

9-3.1.2 In-Situ Shear Strength and Determination of Stability Assuming

Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.16 Page 9-17

Page 9-18 Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.16

9-3.1.3 Total Stress Analysis

Figure 9-5 Consolidated Strength Construction From Triaxial Data

Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-03.16 Page 9-19

This is an undrained strength and it is based on 100% consolidation. When constructing