CIRIA C591 London, 2003

Infrastructure cuttings
condition appraisal and
remedial treatment

J Perry Mott MacDonald

M Pedley Cementation Foundations Skanska

K Brady TRL Ltd

Classic House, 174–180 Old Street, London EC1V 9BP

TELEPHONE 020 7222 8891 FAX 020 7222 1708
EMAIL enquiries@ciria.org
WEBSITE www.ciria.org
 Infrastructure Cuttings – condition appraisal and remedial treatment
Perry, J; Pedley, M; Brady, K
Construction Industry Research and Information Association
CIRIA Publication C591 © CIRIA 2003 RP657 ISBN 0 86017 591 X

Keywords
Ground engineering, ground improvement, ground investigation and characterisation,
transport infrastructure
Reader interest Classification
Owners; asset and maintenance AVAILABILITY Unrestricted
managers; geotechnical engineers;
environmental engineers involved in CONTENT Enabling document
infrastructure cutting management STATUS Committee guided

USER Maintenance, geotechnical,

environmental and civil
engineers

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record is available for this book from the British Library.

Published by CIRIA, Classic House, 174–180 Old Street, London EC1V 9BP.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any
form or by any means, including photocopying and recording, without the written
permission of the copyright-holder, application for which should be addressed to the
publisher. Such written permission must also be obtained before any part of this
publication is stored in a retrieval system of any nature.

This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard

to the subject matter covered. It is sold and/or distributed with the understanding that
neither the author(s) nor the publisher is thereby engaged in rendering a specific legal
or any other professional service. While every effort has been made to ensure the
accuracy and completeness of the publication, no warranty or fitness is provided or
implied, and the author(s) and publisher shall have neither liability nor responsibility to
any person or entity with respect to any loss or damage arising from its use.

Note
Recent UK Government reorganisation has meant that DETR responsibilities have
been moved variously to the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), the Office of
the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), the Department for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and the Department for Transport (DfT). References made to
government agencies in this publication should be read in this context.

For clarification, readers should contact the Department of Trade and Industry.

2 CIRIA C591
 Summary

This book provides the infrastructure owner, the designer, the contractor and the
maintenance manager with guidance on the management, condition appraisal and repair
of infrastructure cuttings. It is based on a detailed review of published literature and
infrastructure owner’s procedures, consultation with experts and practitioners within the
field, and case studies demonstrating good practice. It has been prepared as a
companion to CIRIA publication C592 Infrastructure embankments: condition appraisal
and remedial treatment (2003) and makes extensive cross-reference to that book.

Cuttings perform an important function in the efficient operation of an infrastructure

network, whether it is rail, highway or waterway, and it is essential that they be
recognised accordingly within the asset management policy. Typically cuttings form 30
per cent of all transport infrastructure.

This book aims to:

! present good practice
! provide a guide for routine use
! recommend maintenance strategies for best value for money
! facilitate knowledge sharing.

The report addresses technical issues in design, repair and maintenance and is published
as an enabling document to promote the managerial and engineering requirements of
infrastructure cuttings.

Health and safety

Construction activities, particularly those on construction sites, have significant
health and safety implications. These can be the result of the activities themselves or
can arise from the nature of the materials and the chemicals used in construction.
This report gives some coverage to relevant health and safety issues. However, other
published guidance on specific health and safety issues in construction should be
consulted as necessary to ensure up-to-date legislation is applied and appreciated,
especially the requirements of national legislation and those of infrastructure owners.

CIRIA C591 3
 Acknowledgements

Research contractor This Report, part of CIRIA’s ground engineering programme, was produced as a result
of Research Project 657 “Infrastructure cuttings: condition appraisal and remedial
treatment”, which was carried out under contract to CIRIA by Mott MacDonald in
partnership with Cementation Foundations Skanska and the TRL Ltd.

Authors Dr John Perry BSc (Hons) MSc PhD CEng CGeol FICE FIMM FGS
Dr Perry is a geotechnical director with Mott MacDonald. He is a geotechnical advisor
with over 20 years’ experience of geotechnical design, construction and maintenance.
He is a recognised national and international expert in earthworks and a leading figure
in research and development in the geotechnics field.
Dr Martin J Pedley BSc (Hons) DPhil CEng MICE
Dr Pedley is design manager of Cementation Foundations Skanska and is actively
involved in all aspects of foundation design and construction, from earthwork
stabilsation schemes to piled foundations and basements.
Dr Ken Brady, BSc (Hons) PhD
Dr Brady has worked at TRL Limited for more than 20 years, where he is now a senior
research fellow in the Infrastructure Division. He has been involved in a wide range of
research projects, including design, construction and performance of earthworks, earth-
retaining and buried structures.

Following CIRIA’s usual practice, the research project was guided by a Steering Group
which comprised:
Steering group chair Mr B McGinnity London Underground Limited (Infraco SSL Ltd)

Steering group Mr M E Andrews British Waterways Technical Services

Dr M Batten London Underground Limited (Infraco BCV Ltd)
Mr C T F Capps Carillion plc
Dr D Egan Keller Ground Engineering
Mr E S R Evans Network Rail
Mr S J Everton Jacobs GIBB Ltd
Mr A Gaba Ove Arup and Partners
Mr G Kerr HMRI
Mr W H Lewis Owen Williams Railways
Mr D Patterson Highways Agency
Dr M Raybould Scott Wilson
Mr A Wingfield CAN Ltd
Mr M Whitbread Atkins

CIRIA managers CIRIA’s Research Manager was Dr A J Pitchford.

Project funders This project was funded by:

British Waterways, London Underground Limited,
Highways Agency, Network Rail,
Her Majesty’s Railway Inspectorate, CIRIA’s Core Programme Sponsors.

Photographs Unattributed photographs have kindly been provided by the author’s organisations.

4 CIRIA C591
 Contents

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1.2 Purpose and scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1.3 Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1.4 History and construction of infrastructure cuttings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1.5 Performance issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

2 ASSET MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.1 Statutory and regulatory health and safety and environmental
obligations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.2 Consequences of loss of performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.2.1 Historical situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.2.2 Safety in operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.2.3 Synergy with other assets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.2.4 Disruption and customer dissatisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.2.5 Costs of failure and repair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.3 Whole-life asset costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.3.1 Whole-life costing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.3.2 Design life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.3.3 Performance requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.4 Risk assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.4.1 The need for risk assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.4.2 Risk assessment procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.4.3 Strategic-level risk assessment (SLRA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.4.4 Tactical-level risk assessment (TLRA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.5 Environmental asset management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.6 Business case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

3 LOSS OF CUTTING PERFORMANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

3.1 Performance requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.1.1 Ultimate limit state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.1.2 Serviceability limit state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.1.3 Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.2 Soil slopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.2.1 Soil properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.2.2 Pore water pressures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.2.3 Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.2.4 Changes in performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

CIRIA C591 5
 3.2.5 Failures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.2.6 Particular stability aspects relating to canals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
3.3 Rock slopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.3.1 Rock properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
3.3.2 Ultimate limit state failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
3.3.3 Serviceability limit state failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.3.4 Factors affecting performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.3.5 Rock type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.3.6 Presence of discontinuities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.3.7 Original slope design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.3.8 Construction technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.3.9 Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.3.10 Climatic conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.3.11 Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.4 Scale of the problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.4.1 Cost of remedial measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.4.2 Frequency of failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.4.3 Future performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

4 CUTTING CONDITION APPRAISAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

4.1 Inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
4.1.1 Health and safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
4.1.2 Information required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
4.2 Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
4.3 Site investigation for soil slopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
4.4 Site investigation for rock slopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
4.4.1 Information required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
4.4.2 Preliminary study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
4.4.3 Design of ground investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
4.4.4 Design of instrumentation and monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
4.4.5 Exploration and sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
4.4.6 Laboratory testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
4.5 Stability study and business case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
4.5.1 Rock strength parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
4.5.2 Water pressure in rock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
4.6 Loadings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
4.7 Reporting and prioritisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

5 REMEDIAL TREATMENT AND PREVENTATIVE TECHNIQUES . . . 77

5.1 Construction safety issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
5.2 Reconstruction methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
5.2.1 Regrading and toe berms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
5.2.2 Strengthened and stabilised fills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
5.2.3 Granular replacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
5.3 Retaining structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
5.3.1 Gravity retaining walls and gabions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

6 CIRIA C591
 5.3.2 Piles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
5.3.3 Ground anchors and raking mini piles used to support retaining
walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
5.4 Failure prevention methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
5.4.1 Soil nailing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
5.4.2 Ground anchors, bolts and dowels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
5.4.3 Dentition and buttressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
5.4.4 Dowel piles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
5.4.5 Mass concrete retaining walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
5.5 Failure containment and protection methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
5.5.1 Scaling and removal of loose blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
5.5.2 Netting and meshing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
5.5.3 Catch fences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
5.5.4 Benching, ditches and rock traps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
5.5.5 Rock fall shelters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
5.5.6 Alarm and warning systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
5.6 Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
5.6.1 Slope drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
5.6.2 Surface drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
5.7 Surface protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
5.7.1 Membranes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
5.7.2 Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
5.8 Routine maintenance methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

6 DESIGN AND APPLICATION OF REMEDIAL TREATMENT AND

PREVENTATIVE MEASURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
6.1 Design methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
6.2 Collection of available information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
6.3 Understanding the mechanisms involved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
6.4 Design requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
6.4.1 Health and safety in design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
6.4.2 Design life, factor of safety and geotechnical parameters . . . . . 106
6.4.3 Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
6.5 Design approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
6.5.1 Limit equilibrium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
6.5.2 Numerical analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
6.6 Construction considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
6.6.1 Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
6.6.2 Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
6.6.3 Excavation and filling processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
6.6.4 Drilling and grouting processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
6.6.5 Services and utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
6.6.6 Ground movements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
6.6.7 Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
6.6.8 Size and weight of equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
6.6.9 Cost and maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

CIRIA C591 7
 6.7 Implementation of design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
6.8 Post-construction assessment and design verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
6.8.1 Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
6.8.2 Back analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
6.8.3 Feedback and continuous improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
6.9 Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

7 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

7.1 Sustainable development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
7.2 Environmental policies of infrastructure owners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
7.3 Protection of controlled waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
7.4 Maximising the reuse of materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
7.5 Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
7.6 Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
7.7 SSSI and RIGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
7.8 Heritage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

8 AREAS REQUIRING FURTHER RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

8.1 Asset Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
8.2 Loss of cutting performance and cutting condition appraisal . . . . . . . . 141
8.3 Remedial treatment and preventative techniques and their design . . . . 141
8.4 Environmental considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

9 RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
9.1 Asset management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
9.2 Loss of performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
9.3 Condition appraisal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
9.4 Remedial and preventative techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
9.5 Design and application of remedial and preventative measures . . . . . . 144
9.6 Environmental considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
9.7 Further research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

10 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

8 CIRIA C591
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Vertical alignment of a transport infrastructure requires construction of

embankments and cuttings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Figure 1.2 Side-long ground requires filling and cutting on hill sides to provide a
platform for traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Figure 1.3 Steep sided railway cutting at Hooley with a shallow failure of gravels
washing out over chalk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Figure 1.4 Highway cutting in clay showing flatter modern slope . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Figure 1.5 Canal cutting with towpath and extensive vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Figure 1.6 Railway embankment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Figure 1.7 Cutting at Edgware on the London Underground Northern Line being
constructed by steam shovel in March 1924 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Figure 1.8 Scrapers were used frequently in the past on most of the motorway
system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Figure 1.9 Backactors are used with dump trucks on most modern earthmoving
schemes due to their ability to traverse a wide range of soil conditions 23
Figure 1.10 Articulated dumptrucks have the ability to maintain maximum traction
with the ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Figure 1.11 Ripper on a dozer being used for breaking up weaker or highly fractured
rocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Figure 2.1 The asset management cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Figure 2.2 Strategic and tactical risk assessment procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Figure 2.3 Comparison of consequences and risk of failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Figure 2.4 The aftermath of a train striking a rock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Figure 2.5 The continuous improvement cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Figure 3.1 Examples of rupture surfaces for shallow and deep cutting failures . . . 44
Figure 3.2 Deep failure of a Gault cutting on the M25 motorway . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Figure 3.3 Deep failure of canal cutting causing blocked waterway and loss of
draft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Figure 3.4 Highway cutting in clay showing flatter modern slope but still subject to
shallow failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Figure 3.5 Shallow failure of a canal cutting caused by weathering, damaging
off-side of canal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Figure 3.6 Comparison of Plasticity Index and Angle of Friction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Figure 3.7 Rock fall leading to traffic disruption for over 24 hours . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Figure 3.8 Samphire Hoe natural chalk sea-cliff. Signal wire cautions train drivers
of chalk fall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Figure 3.9 Planar failure on a dominant discontinuity set in rock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Figure 3.10 Wedge failure on a combination of discontinuities in rock . . . . . . . . . . 54
Figure 3.11 Toppling failure on an alternative combination of discontinuities in
rock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Figure 3.12 Influence of discontinuity orientation on stability of opposite slopes of a
cutting in rock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Figure 4.1 Geomorphological map for use in condition assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Figure 4.2 Hemispherical projection of a discontinuity in a rock slope . . . . . . . . . 76
Figure 4.3 The 1915 slip at Folkestone Warren . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

CIRIA C591 9
 Figure 5.1 Reconstruction techniques used to repair failed cuttings . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Figure 5.2 Use of granular backfill in combination with a toe retaining wall to
reinstate a slope failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Figure 5.3 Temporary excavation for toe retaining wall using long arm backhoe . 84
Figure 5.4 Retaining systems for cutting stabilisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Figure 5.5 Gabion wall at toe of cutting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Figure 5.6 Example of precast modular gravity wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Figure 5.7 Minipiling rig installing 300 mm diameter wall piles in a cutting . . . . . 87
Figure 5.8 Failure prevention methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Figure 5.9 Soil nailed slope in marl using steel nails grouted in situ with a facing
system of rockfall netting and oversize plate washers to protect and
stabilise face . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Figure 5.10 Drilling of holes for permanent anchors using a down-hole hammer
and drilling with roped access equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Figure 5.11 Drilling of holes for rock bolts using a drifter rig in conjunction with
roped access equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Figure 5.12 Rockfall failure containment and protection methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Figure 5.13 Rock fall netting of railway cutting slopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Figure 5.14 Rock fall netting of railway cutting slopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Figure 5.15 High energy catch fence at high level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Figure 5.16 Installation of a high level catch fence using an ‘A’ frame mounted
auger in chalk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Figure 5.17 Schematic of surface and internal drainage of a cutting slope . . . . . . . . 98
Figure 5.18 Application of sprayed concrete with access using a telehandler . . . . 100
Figure 5.19 Scaling of rock faces for preventative and maintenance purposes . . . . 102
Figure 6.1 Access to rock face by telehandler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Figure 6.2 Typical section through causeway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Figure 6.3 Completed remedial treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Figure 6.4 Distortion of fenceline at toe of cutting due to movement. Material on
hardshoulder has been removed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Figure 6.5 Schematic diagram of main failure area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Figure 6.6 Piling works in progress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Figure 6.7 Cutting slope before and after remedial treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Figure 6.8 Schematic diagram of remedial treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Figure 6.9 Regraded slope prior to soil nail installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Figure 6.10 Rotovation of soil with lime and installation of drainage media . . . . . 122
Figure 6.11 Construction of slope drains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Figure 6.12 Filling of honeycomb cellular geosynthetic with topsoil and laying of
geosynthetic mat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Figure 6.13 Blockage of canal by flow slide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Figure 6.14 Emergency stabilisation by rock toe berm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Figure 6.15 Typical cross section of remedial measures on offside . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Figure 6.16 Typical cross section of remedial measures on towpath side . . . . . . . . 128
Figure 6.17 Cutting slope failure partially blocking canal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Figure 7.1 LUL vegetation envelope for cuttings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

10 CIRIA C591
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 Report structure and the principal intended readership . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Table 2.1 Example of a simple strategic level risk matrix to categorise level of
risk and to identify actions to be taken . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Table 5.1 Summary of remedial treatment and preventative techniques for
cuttings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Table 5.2 Principal advantages and limitations of remedial treatment and
preventative techniques for cuttings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Table 6.1 Typical applications of remedial techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

LIST OF BOXES

Box 3.1 Soil shear strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Box 3.2 Rock mechanics principles for slope stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Box 4.1 Management of a major area of coastal land instability at Folkestone
Warren . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Box 6.1 There is a lack of detailed understanding of soil cutting deformation
mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Box 6.2 Rock slope stabilisation works on a highway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Box 6.3 Use of rock fill to stabilise Loch shore and the need to realign
railway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Box 6.4 Use of dowel piles in a cutting destabilised by a pre-existing shear
plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Box 6.5 Stabilisation works at Stanmore Cutting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Box 6.6 Stabilisation works at Olive Mount Cutting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Box 6.7 Stabilisation works for West Brompton to Fulham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Box 6.8 Stabilisation works for Kenyon Cutting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Box 6.9 Slope stabilisation / Repair Works – A1 Morpeth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Box 6.10 Emergency works on a canal at Little Leigh, Trent and Mersey
Canal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Box 6.11 Stabilisation of a canal cutting at Holly Hill, Oxford Canal . . . . . . . . 127
Box 6.12 Stabilisation of a canal cutting at Newbold, Oxford Canal . . . . . . . . . 129
Box 6.13 Stabilisation of a canal cutting at Cheddleton, Caldon Canal . . . . . . . 131

CIRIA C591 11
 Glossary

asset management A systematic process of maintaining, upgrading and

operating physical assets for the benefit of customers,
combining engineering principles with sound business
practices and economic theory, and providing tools to facilitate
a more organised and logical approach to decision making.

asset register A detailed account of the physical extent and properties of

an infrastructure cutting system established from inspections
and used at a strategic level for risk analysis.

assessment A tactical level detailed investigation of cutting condition,

stability analysis and business decision directed toward
specific cuttings.

business case A submission made based on business risk assessment used

to justify the allocation of funds for a capital or maintenance
project.

cess The space adjacent to a railway line but not the space
between railway lines.

cess heave Instability of a clay layer underlying the cess, due to loading
and softening of clay by percolating water.

condition appraisal The process of inspection and assessment for understanding

cutting condition (extent and causes), prioritisation and
business decision.

consequence The impact of a hazard occurring, categorised in terms of

loss of life, personal injury, property damage or financial loss.

controlled waters These include groundwater, inland freshwaters (including

rivers and watercourses), coastal waters and territorial waters.

crest The break in slope at the top of a cutting.

earth structures, linear An existing embankment or cutting, which forms part of the
assets or earthworks geotechnical asset. LUL refer to ‘earth structures’, BW refer
to linear assets while Network Rail and HA refer to
‘earthworks’.

engineering geologist A chartered geologist with at least one year of postgraduate

experience in geotechnics and a postgraduate qualification
in geotechnical engineering or engineering geology,
equivalent at least to an MSc; or a chartered geologist with
at least three years of postgraduate experience in
geotechnics (Site Investigation Steering Group, 1993).

feature A characteristic of a slope.

freeboard The distance between water level and the top of the canal
bank, or the bank protection, whichever is the lesser.

geotechnical adviser A chartered engineer or a chartered geologist with five years

of practice as a geotechnical specialist (Site Investigation
Steering Group, 1993).

12 CIRIA C591
 geotechnical engineer A chartered engineer with at least one year of postgraduate
experience in geotechnics and a postgraduate qualification
in geotechnical engineering or engineering geology,
equivalent at least to an MSc; or a chartered engineer with
at least three years of postgraduate experience in
geotechnics (Site Investigation Steering Group, 1993).

geotechnical specialist A chartered engineer or a chartered geologist with a

postgraduate qualification in geotechnical engineering or
engineering geology, equivalent at least to an MSc and with
three years of post-charter practice in geotechnics; or a
chartered engineer or chartered geologist with five years of
post-charter practice in geotechnics (Site Investigation
Steering Group, 1993).

ground investigation The sub-surface field investigation, with the associated

sample testing and factual reporting. (See site investigation.)

hazard An event, process or mechanism that may affect the

performance of a cutting and prevent performance
objectives from being met.

inspection The strategic level consideration of whole routes or a

network to provide an asset register of condition and hence
an estimate of costs for future years. It allows the condition
of cuttings to be compared with the condition of other
assets, and priorities to be set. Areas of the route or network
are identified that require more detailed assessment for both
operational and safety reasons.

moderately conservative A cautious estimate of the value of soil parameters, loads

and geometry of a cutting, worse than the probabilistic mean
but not so severe as a worst credible parameter value.
Sometimes termed a conservative best estimate.

offside The bank of a canal opposite the towpath bank (where only
one towpath exists).

remedial treatment Repair of a cutting to improve the current level of

serviceability where there has been a loss of performance.

risk The combination of the probability and consequences of a

hazard occurring.

risk assessment A structured process of identifying hazards, their probability

and the consequence of them occurring, and their likely
impact on the performance of the cutting.

risk mitigation Measures taken to either remove a hazard or to minimise the

likelihood or consequences of it occurring to an acceptable
level including; monitoring, increased maintenance and
remedial action.

risk register A list of the risks arising from relevant hazards and the costs
and benefits of mitigating them.

route kilometre The length of transport infrastructure along a route.

rupture surface The detachment surface on which differential movement occurs.

sectional appendices Network Rail regional handbooks on safety and description

of railway lines, eg line speed.

CIRIA C591 13
 serviceability limit state State of deformation of a cutting such that its use is affected,
its durability is impaired or its maintenance requirements are
substantially increased. (See ultimate limit state.)

sidelong ground Where a railway, road or canal has been constructed along
the side of a hill, so that the natural ground slopes down
steeply across the infrastructure. Often the infrastructure will
have been constructed by excavating material from the uphill
side and placing it on the downhill side to form a level surface.

site investigation The assessment of the site, including preliminary study,

planning and directing the ground investigation, and
interpretation of the factual report.

slope length The horizontal distance of a slope along the infrastructure

route. The length of slope of a cutting is the sum of both
sides and hence is roughly twice the route kilometre length
of the cutting.

soil moisture deficit The cumulative reduction in the quantity of soil water below
the field capacity. Calculated over the whole profile, the soil
moisture deficit is dependent on rainfall, evaporation, wind
speed, soil type and the type of vegetation. It is also dependent
on the amount of water that runs down and off a slope.

suction A measure of the stress required to move moisture in a soil

that lies above the natural water table. Measured as negative
pore water pressure.

toe The break in slope at the bottom of a cutting.

towpath The access route that normally exists along one or both
banks of a canal, used by pedestrians and sometimes vehicles.

trackbed Materials that form the foundation for railway sleepers.

transect A line normal to the cutting that is geotechnically and

topographically surveyed.

ultimate limit state State of collapse, instability or forms of failure that may
endanger property or people, or cause major economic loss.
Such movement would affect any adjacent infrastructure, eg
track, road or canal (See serviceability limit state.)

worst credible The worst value of soil parameters, loads and geometry that
the designer could realistically believe might occur.

zone Network Rail split the railway network into zones on a

geographical and route basis. Each zone has a managerial,
contractual and technical structure.

4 foot The space between the rails of a railway line.

6 foot The space between one railway line and another (where the
lines are the normal distance apart).

10 foot The space between one railway line and another (where
there is a wide space between a pair of lines and where there
are three lines or more in total).

For further definitions and information, the reader is referred to technical dictionaries
including; Penguin Dictionary of Civil Engineering (Scott, 1991) and Dictionary of
Geotechnical Engineering (Somerville and Paul, 1983).

14 CIRIA C591
 Abbreviations

ALARP as low as reasonably practicable

BW British Waterways
CDM Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994
COSS controller of site safety (Network Rail)
DEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
DETR Department of Environment, Transport and Regions
DMRB Design Manual for Roads and Bridges
EA Environment Agency
H and S health and safety
HA Highways Agency
ISRM International Society of Rock Mechanics
LUL London Underground Limited
MCHW Manual of Contract Documents for Highway Works
PPE personal protective equipment
PTS personal track safety (Network Rail)
QRA quantitative risk assessment
QUENSH quality, environment, safety and health
RIGS regionally important geological and geomorphological sites
SAC special area of conservation
SEPA Scottish Environmental Protection Agency
SLRA strategic-level risk assessment
SPA special protection area for birds
SPIC site person in charge
SSSI site of special scientific interest
ST safety on the track (LUL)
TLRA tactical-level risk assessment

CIRIA C591 15
1 Introduction

1.1 BACKGROUND

Embankments and cuttings form civil engineering structures known as earth structures,
linear assets or earthworks. They are an important means of physically forming the
trafficked surface of transport infrastructure. Cuttings require maintenance, and the need
to undertake it has become increasingly apparent as the materials within these structures
age. This can lead to instability, with both economic and safety implications. Cutting
instability affects the trafficked surface with immediate safety implications for users
and costs for owners. Cutting instability can also damage other assets located on, above
and adjacent to the cutting. This guide is a companion for CIRIA publication C592
Infrastructure embankments: condition appraisal and remedial treatment (2nd edn),
Perry et al (2003). These guides aim to increase awareness of cuttings and embankments
as civil engineering structures and inform the industry of their maintenance requirements.

Infrastructure cuttings are excavations in existing ground, with side slopes and a
trafficked surface. Infrastructure cuttings provide passage for rail (Figure 1.3), road
(Figure 1.4) and canal (Figure 1.5) traffic across natural ground to maintain the required
vertical alignment (Figure 1.1). Embankments (Figure 1.6) are constructed across low-
lying natural ground to maintain vertical alignment. Where the transport infrastructure
follows the contours of the land, sidelong ground, it is supported by a combination of
cutting and embankment (Figure 1.2). Minimum amounts of excavation, haulage and
filling are required as the material on the upper slope is excavated, and placed on the
lower slope to bring the ground to the required level for traffic.

Traffic

At grade

Cutting
Embankment

Figure 1.1 Vertical alignment of a transport infrastructure requires construction of embankments

and cuttings

Cutting
Traffic

Embankment

Natural ground

Figure 1.2 Sidelong ground requires filling and cutting on hill sides to provide a platform for traffic

CIRIA C591 17
 Figure 1.3 Steep sided railway cutting at Hooley with a shallow failure of gravels washing out
over chalk (courtesy Network Rail)

Figure 1.4 Highway cutting in clay showing flatter modern slope

Figure 1.5 Canal cutting with towpath and extensive vegetation

18 CIRIA C591
 Figure 1.6 Railway embankment

The change in condition of materials with time and the ensuing rate of deformation of
cuttings, are critical influences on the safe and efficient use of the transport corridor.
Large soil slope movements and rock falls lead to traffic speed restrictions or route
closure, and can directly affect the safety of users. Smaller movements of the cutting
subgrade are directly associated with poor railway track or road quality. Railway,
highway or canal operations depend on the integrity of the cutting for safe and efficient
operation, and hence the understanding, management and longevity of cuttings are of
concern to the owners and operators of transport links.

The cost-benefit of new infrastructure development has always included a financial

assessment. However, the present day demand for timeliness and reliability from
existing transport networks has led to the introduction of financial penalties (railways)
and increased public pressure on infrastructure owners. It is important for owners and
their agents to be aware of, maintain and improve the condition of their network and its
performance. Specifically, this has resulted in a growing awareness of the need to
maintain cuttings. As a result, the amounts spent on appraisal and repair are increasing
nationally each year. In 1998/1999, at least £50 000 000 was spent on earth structure
maintenance. However, the actual sum is likely to be greater, as records are incomplete.

1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

This report provides guidelines on good practice for the appraisal of infrastructure
cutting condition and describes many of the remedial treatments available. Frequent
cross-reference is made to CIRIA publication C592. This is to reduce duplication, to
provide a pair of companion documents for earthwork asset management and to ensure
compatibility of information.

This report aims to:

! present best practice
! provide a guide for routine use
! recommend maintenance strategies for best value for money
! facilitate knowledge sharing between infrastructure types.

The report is not intended to be a detailed design guide, although from necessity a
relatively broad approach is given.

CIRIA C591 19
 Chapter 1 begins with an introduction to the appraisal and assessment of infrastructure
cuttings. Chapter 2 describes asset management: this is the framework within which
cutting maintenance is conducted. Cutting performance (Chapter 3) is one of the criteria
against which the operation of a cutting is judged and provides the goals for
maintenance. Condition appraisal is described in Chapter 4. This includes inspection
and assessment of the deterioration or improvement in asset condition to allow the
importance of repairs to be prioritised before their design and construction. Design and
construction (Chapters 5 and 6) rely on an understanding of cutting condition and
deformation mechanisms, without this understanding you cannot confidently expect a
safe and appropriate repair. Environmental considerations, and their efficient
management, are of increasing importance and are discussed in Chapter 7. Finally the
report includes points for discussion on future research to provide a way forward for
development and draws together recommendations for future good practice.

This publication does not cover maintenance or assessment of the trafficked surface of
the cutting and its composite layers: ie sand blankets, ballast, sleepers and rails for
railways; capping, sub-base, pavement layers for roads; or linings and bank protection
for canals. Nor does the report cover structural assessment, and their design and
construction.

It does cover the impact of cutting loss of performance on the trafficked surface,
retained slopes (where the slope is the major component) and natural ground instability
adjacent to and above the transport infrastructure. As well as operational cuttings, this
report may also be used for when disused railway lines, roads and canal tracks are
being reinstated.

1.3 APPLICATION

The publication is intended for:

! clients who are transport infrastructure owners
! geotechnical and environmental engineers (such as environmental scientists or
ecologists with engineering experience)
! asset and maintenance managers, who may not necessarily be engineers.

To help the reader, Table 1.1 lists the chapters and the principal intended readership.
Although some chapters are more relevant than others, all will gain an insight into the
factors that govern asset management by reading the whole report.

20 CIRIA C591
 Table 1.1 Report structure and the principal intended readership

Chapter Principal reader

Client Geotech. Environ. Asset and
Eng. Eng. Main. Mgr.

1 Introduction " " " "

2 Asset management " "
3 Loss of cutting performance "
4 Cutting condition appraisal "
5 Remedial treatment and preventative
techniques "
6 Design and application of remedial
treatment and preventative measures "
7 Environmental considerations "
8 Areas requiring further research " " " "
9 Recommendations " " " "
10 References " " " "

The four main UK infrastructure owners are:

! Network Rail – responsible for 16 000 route km of railway throughout England,
Scotland and Wales, of which it is thought that about 5 000 route km are in cutting
! London Underground Limited (LUL) – maintain about 400 route km of lighter
loaded railway within and around London, of which about 60 route km are in cutting
! the Highways Agency (HA) – maintain 10 500 route km of highway in England, of
which about 3500 route km are in cutting
! British Waterways (BW) – responsible for 3200 route km of canal in England,
Wales and Scotland, of which about 1100 route km are in cutting.

Others responsible for infrastructure include:

! private railway line owners, eg Heritage Railways
! the Scottish Executive, the National Assembly for Wales and the Department for
Regional Development, which maintain significant lengths of highway in difficult
terrain
! local authorities who maintain non-trunk roads
! the Environment Agency, the Broads Authority and other authorities that own canals
! privately owned canals.

This report is relevant to any rail, road or canal cutting. References to documents and
procedures have, however, been restricted to those of the major owners.

This report also applies to the following issues that are relevant to cuttings:
! whole-life asset cost and future expectations of infrastructure performance
! the culture of ‘continuous improvement’
! the differences between ultimate limit state and serviceability limit state
! national practice
! geotechnical engineering and asset management
! environmental issues with the emphasis on sustainability and maximising the use of
existing fill materials in remedial treatment, with a sensitivity to the surrounding
environment.

CIRIA C591 21
1.4 HISTORY AND CONSTRUCTION OF INFRASTRUCTURE
CUTTINGS

Section 1.4 of CIRIA C592 presents a concise history of the construction of

infrastructure earth structures. The main differences to highlight here are that the use of
compaction is not an issue but methods of excavation are.

Canal soil cuttings were built principally in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth
centuries by excavation with shovel, pick and horse-drawn cart, and required a
considerable work force (Gregory, 1844). The same methods were employed for
railway cuttings later in the mid-nineteenth century until the beginning of the twentieth
century when steam shovels began to be used (Figure 1.7). Highway cuttings, although
using similar techniques as canals and railways for contemporary roads, were initially
principally constructed using scrapers (Figure 1.8). However in the last twenty years,
almost exclusive use is made of backactors (Figure 1.9) and articulated dumptrucks
(Figure 1.10) with their greater tolerance of varying ground conditions and hence
higher productivity.

Figure 1.7 Cutting at Edgware on the London Underground Northern Line being constructed by
steam shovel in March 1924 (courtesy London’s Transport Museum)

Figure 1.8 Scrapers were used frequently in the past on most of the motorway system (courtesy
Caterpillar Ltd)

22 CIRIA C591
 Figure 1.9 Backactors are used with dump trucks on most modern earthmoving schemes due to
their ability to traverse a wide range of soil conditions (courtesy Caterpillar Ltd)

Figure 1.10 Articulated dump trucks have the ability to maintain maximum traction with the ground
(courtesy Caterpillar Ltd)

The key point is that the final form of the soil cutting is the same in all cases. However,
there is a major difference in the age of the different infrastructure cuttings. Firstly, like
most old embankments, the older cutting slopes are much steeper than younger ones.
They were constructed in this way because the knowledge of slope instability was not
developed and the effort required to remove larger amounts of material was greater.
Secondly as slopes become older and more exposed, their strength reduces and their
moisture content rises leading to increasing slope instability.

The excavation of hard rock cuttings for canals and railways was by gunpowder. Later
cuttings used nitroglycerine as this provided a more controlled environment for bulk
blasting. Modern highway rock cuttings are excavated using presplit and bulk blasting
techniques, hydraulic powered breakers and by rippers mounted on dozers (Figure 1.11).

CIRIA C591 23
 Figure 1.11 Ripper on a dozer being used for breaking up weaker or highly fractured rocks
(courtesy Caterpillar Ltd)

1.5 PERFORMANCE ISSUES

The legacy of these construction methods is reflected in the performance of cuttings

and hence in the degree of current maintenance. Railway and canal embankments often
failed during, or soon after, construction (Gregory, 1844) due to the presence of pre-
existing shear planes or release of groundwater and associated erosion. Repair usually
involved removal of material, realignment, or in some circumstances installation of
timber shear dowels. Movements may still be continuing to the present day. Highways
suffer in the same way, although modern design techniques reduce or better manage the
risk. In recent years, the need to maintain cuttings to avoid disruption to the traffic has
been more widely recognised, and has led to a number of publications. These include:
Perry et al (1999) for railways; McGinnity et al (1998) for LUL; Perry (1989) for
modern highway cuttings; and Holland and Andrews (1998) for canals.

Some cuttings are of historical interest or Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).
Both can have an impact on the investigation and works to be undertaken.

This report considers the performance requirements for infrastructure cuttings, as this
ultimately governs whether a business case for assessment and repair is required. In the
past, the solution for poor cutting performance has been a reactive one, but there is now
a growing awareness of the need to be proactive. These two themes are inherent in this
report and are covered in detail.

24 CIRIA C591