Preamble

The Ministry of Public Works, Housing and Water Resources (MOPHRH) in Mozambique is
responsible for the National Road Administration of Mozambique, Administração Nacional
de Estradas (ANE) and custodian of the standards and specifications for roads in the
Mozambique Road Sector.

This manual provides guidance to all practitioners in all aspects of Geotechnical Design
and is applicable in the whole of the Mozambique Road Sector and particularly high-volume
roads. The content adequately covers all relevant technical areas and managerial aspects.
Where more details are required users may consult other documents as referenced in this
manual.

This manual is tailor-made for Mozambique and ANE will apply it as mandated by the
Ministry.

© Copyright Administração Nacional de Estradas (ANE) 2020

(i)
Preface

This manual covers Geotechnical Design for roads particularly high-volume roads. It is
tailor-made for the road sector in Mozambique though it can be used in other countries in
the region and elsewhere where similar conditions apply. The manual should be read in
conjunction with the Site Investigation Manual and the Pavement and Rehabilitation
Design Manuals and the Hydrology and Drainage Design Manual

The manual is targeted at ANE practitioners, consultants and contractors, Road Fund,
academia, the laboratories and other users involved in the provision of roads in
Mozambique and beyond. It provides details and processes involved in carrying out
specialised Geotechnical Investigations and Designs.

Users are encouraged to contribute to future editions noting any necessary improvements
through feedback from practice.

(ii)
Acknowledgements

This manual was prepared through the concerted effort from many stakeholders within
and outside Mozambique. The immense contributions from ANE, the Technical Working
Group (WG) members, the MOPHRH and other key stakeholders, which included academia,
consultants, municipal engineers, etc., are acknowledged and greatly appreciated.

The production of this manual is financed by the Government of Mozambique through the
Ministry of Finance and the Road Fund with support from the Nordic Development Fund.

ANE

Eng. Cesar Macuacua General Director

Eng. Luis Fernandes Director of Emergency Works and Project
Coordinator
Eng. Nelson Tsanzana Director of Maintenance
Eng. Migel Coanai Director of Planning
Eng. Rubina Normahomed Head of Maintenance
Eng. Calado Ouana Head of Road Network Management Department
Technical Working Group ANE Engineers, MOPHRH Engineers, Municipal
Engineers, Consultants, Academia,

TRL Consortium – Research Consultant

Dr Martin B Mgangira Lead Author

Dr Rodgers Mugume Reviewer
Eng. Kenneth Mukura Team Leader

Financiers

Gov. of Mozambique MOPHRH, Min of Finance, Road Fund

Nordic Development Fund Aage Jorgensen
Representative

(iii)
Acronyms and Units

AASHTO American Association of State Highway Transport Officials

AASHTO American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials
ANE Administracao Nacional de Estradas
ASTM American Society for Testing Materials
B Foundation width
B' Effective width of a foundation

CBR California Bearing Ratio

Cc Compression index

CPT Cone Penetration test

CRR Cyclic resistance ratio
Cs Swelling index
Cv Coefficient of consolidation
D Thickness of a spread foundation

DCP Dynamic Cone Penetrometer

DPSH Dynamic Probe Super Heavy
E Young's modulus

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FWD Falling Weight Deflectometer
GRSS Geosynthetically reinforced soil systems

H Depth of excavation
H Thickness of compressible layer
K Coefficient of earth pressure
Ka Active earth pressure
Kp Coefficient of passive earth pressure

L Length of a spread foundation

LEM Laboratório de Engenharia de Moçambique
MSE Mechanically stabilised earth
MSWS Mechanically stabilized wall systems
N SPT blowcount
PVD Prefabricated vertical drain
RQD Rock Quality Designation

Sc Primary consolidation settlement

SNWS Soil nail wall system
USCS Unified Soil Classification System

cu Undrained shear strength

d Sheet pile penetration depth

mv Coefficient of volume compressibility

qc Unconfined compression strength
γ' Effective unit weight of material
ρ Density

(iv)
σ' Effective pressure or stress
φ Angle of internal friction
φ' Effective angle of internal friction

(v)
Table of Contents
PREAMBLE .................................................................................................................................... I
PREFACE ...................................................................................................................................... II
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................... III
ACRONYMS AND UNITS............................................................................................................... IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................... VI
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... VIII
LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................................... X
1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 PURPOSE ..................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 SCOPE ......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 GEOTECHNICAL OPERATIONS AND ADMINISTRATION........................................................................... 1
1.4 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROCESS .......................................................................................... 2
1.5 OVERVIEW OF MANUAL ................................................................................................................. 3
1.6 RELATED ANE GUIDELINES ............................................................................................................. 5
2 PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL PLANNING ...................................................................................... 6
2.1 OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................... 6
2.2 PRELIMINARY PROJECT PLANNING .................................................................................................... 7
2.3 DEVELOPMENT OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PLAN......................................................................... 13
3 FIELD INVESTIGATION.......................................................................................................... 17
3.1 PLANNING FIELD INVESTIGATION .................................................................................................... 17
3.2 GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION METHODS APPLICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS ............................................ 23
3.3 SOIL AND ROCK CLASSIFICATION ..................................................................................................... 34
3.4 SELECTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING PARAMETERS ...................................................................... 50
3.5 SUBSURFACE SITE CATEGORIES ...................................................................................................... 52
4 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................... 63
4.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 63
4.2 ANALYTICAL APPROACH ................................................................................................................ 63
4.3 ROAD EMBANKMENTS.................................................................................................................. 88
4.4 ABUTMENTS, RETAINING WALLS AND REINFORCED SLOPES ............................................................... 126
4.5 ROAD SLOPES ........................................................................................................................... 143
4.6 LANDSLIDE ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION ......................................................................................... 163
4.7 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN FOR MARINE STRUCTURE FOUNDATIONS ....................................................... 172
4.8 INFILTRATION FACILITY DESIGN AND SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE ............................................................. 177
4.9 FOUNDATION DESIGN FOR SIGNALS, SIGNS, NOISE BARRIERS AND CULVERTS ........................................ 178
4.10 GEOTECHNICAL ASPECTS OF PIPE DESIGN AND INSTALLATION ............................................................ 180
4.11 GEOSYNTHETIC DESIGN .............................................................................................................. 183
5 GROUND IMPROVEMENT .................................................................................................. 186
5.1 PURPOSE ................................................................................................................................. 186
5.2 DESIGN PARAMETERS AND INPUT DATA FOR GROUND IMPROVEMENT ANALYSIS .................................. 186
5.3 GROUND IMPROVEMENT TECHNIQUES .......................................................................................... 186
6 CONSTRUCTION STAGE INVESTIGATION ............................................................................. 194
6.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 194
6.2 IN-SITU INSTRUMENTATION AND MONITORING............................................................................... 194
6.3 EARTH MATERIALS SOURCES ........................................................................................................ 194

(vi)
 6.4 QUALITY ASSURANCE DURING CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................... 195
7 POST CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS AND MONITORING .............................................. 196
7.1 GEOTECHNICAL ASPECTS IN MAINTENANCE MATTERS....................................................................... 196
7.2 INSTRUMENTATION AND MONITORING ......................................................................................... 196
8 USE OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS......................................................................................... 198
9 GEOTECHNICAL REPORTING AND DOCUMENTATION .......................................................... 200
9.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS........................................................................................................... 200
9.2 GEOTECHNICAL REPORT CONTENT REQUIREMENTS......................................................................... 200
9.3 INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED IN A GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN FILE ..................................................... 205
9.4 CONSULTANT GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS AND DOCUMENTATION PRODUCED ON BEHALF OF ANE ............ 206
9.5 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS ................................................................................... 208
10 REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................... 210
APPENDIX A. EXAMPLE OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG ............................................... 212
APPENDIX B. CHECKLISTS FOR REVIEW OF GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS (FHWA, 2003) ................ 213
APPENDIX C. ILLUSTRATIVE WORKED EXAMPLES ON PILES AND STAGED BACKFILL
CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................................... 222

(vii)
List of Tables
Table 2-1: Categories of geologic hazards .............................................................................................. 8
Table 3-1: Sample laboratory test measurements ............................................................................... 31
Table 3-2: Guide to planning a soil investigation in stable soil profile ................................................. 32
Table 3-3: Guide to planning a soil investigation in saturated variable soils........................................ 33
Table 3-4: The AASHTO Soil Classification System (AASHTO M 145 or ASTM D 3282 in Samtani, 2006)
.............................................................................................................................................................. 35
Table 3-5: USCS Definitions................................................................................................................... 36
Table 3-6: Rock classification ................................................................................................................ 38
Table 3-7: Weathering terms for Rock Mass ........................................................................................ 40
Table 3-8: Scale of relative rock hardness ............................................................................................ 41
Table 3-9: Bedding terms ...................................................................................................................... 41
Table 3-10: Definition of Discontinuity Spacing .................................................................................... 42
Table 3-11: Description of Orientation (Dip) ........................................................................................ 43
Table 3-12: Qualitative description of Rocks based on RQD ................................................................ 44
Table 3-13: Fracture density. Modified from US DOI Bureau of Reclamation (1998) .......................... 45
Table 3-14: Rock material strength description in the field versus UCS............................................... 46
Table 3-15: Required Geotechnical Engineering Analysis (FHWA, 2012) ............................................. 47
Table 3-16: Weathered rock classification for application in road bases ............................................. 50
Table 3-17: Subsurface site categories ................................................................................................. 52
Table 3-18: Guide for determining the severity of the collapse problem ............................................ 54
Table 4-1: Bearing Capacity Factors (AASHTO, 1996) ........................................................................... 74
Table 4-2: Shape correction factors (AASHTO 1996) ............................................................................ 74
Table 4-3: Depth correction factor (Brinch Hansen, 1970) ................................................................... 75
Table 4-4: Correction factor for location of ground water table (AASHTO, 1998) ............................... 76
Table 4-5: Inclined Base Correction Factor (Brinch Hansen, 1970) ...................................................... 77
Table 4-6: Selection of Maximum or Minimum Spread Footing Foundation Load Factors for Various
Modes of Failure for the Strength Limit State (WSDOT 2010) ............................................................. 80
Table 4-7: Average values for coefficient of earth pressure ................................................................. 83
Table 4-8: Ks tan δ values after Tomlinson (1977)................................................................................ 83
Table 4-9: Engineering properties and field and laboratory tests for embankment design. From
Washington State DOT (2013) .............................................................................................................. 91
Table 4-10: Consolidation parameters and symbols ............................................................................ 93
Table 4-11: Soil terminology applied to stress history (Loehr et al. 2016) ........................................... 99
Table 4-12: Primary Consolidation Settlement Equations (NYSDOT, 2012) ....................................... 105
Table 4-13: Secondary Consolidation Settlement Equations (NYSDOT, 2012) ................................... 106
Table 4-14: Slope Stability Methods, Details and Assumptions (ODOT, 2018) .................................. 115
Table 4-15: Typical Hexagonal steel wire mesh Gabion size .............................................................. 132
Table 4-16: Wall support systems suitability ...................................................................................... 134
Table 4-17: Details of lateral support systems (Franki) ...................................................................... 141
Table 4-18: Preliminary fill slope angles ............................................................................................. 146
Table 4-19: Soil cut slope ratios (H:V) for preliminary design purposes............................................. 149
Table 4-20: Remediation options (adapted from VDOT, 2012) .......................................................... 160
Table 4-21: Slope stabilisation techniques for embankments on hill slopes. Modified from MPWT
(2008) .................................................................................................................................................. 162
Table 4-22: Common landslide causal factors. Modified from Nettleton et al (2005) in ERA (2013) 164
Table 4-23: Natural and artificial causes of landslides (ERA, 2013) .................................................... 165
Table 4-24: Climatic, Geological, hydrological and topographical causal factors............................... 166

(viii)
Table 4-25: Landslide classification in terms of depth (Wintercorn and Fang, 1975) ........................ 167
Table 4-26: Threshold angles for different geological materials on the slope (from Corominas, 2003),
............................................................................................................................................................ 169
Table 4-27: Common landslide remedial measures. From Sassa and Canuti (2008).......................... 172
Table 4-28: Trenchless Construction Techniques (NYSDOT, 2018) .................................................... 182
Table 4-29: Geosynthetics type and function ..................................................................................... 183
Table 4-30: Summary of material properties for geosynthetics ......................................................... 184
Table 5-1: Summary of ground strengthening techniques (Hunt, 1986) ............................................ 187
Table 5-2: Ground improvement design process (NYSDOT, 2013) ..................................................... 190
Table 5-3: Ground improvement strategy, functions and methods (NYSDOT, 2013) ........................ 190
Table 5-4: Advantages and disadvantages of ground improvement methods ................................... 191
Table 8-1: Examples of software products and areas of application .................................................. 199
Table 9-1: General geotechnical report checklist ............................................................................... 207

(ix)
List of Figures

Figure 2-1: Project geotechnical planning .............................................................................................. 6

Figure 2-2: Epicentres of earthquakes 1905-2008 (left) and seismic activity in Mozambique –
intensity zones (right) (INGC and UNDP, 2011) .................................................................................... 11
Figure 3-1: The Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D 2487) ....................................................... 36
Figure 3-2: Recovered rock core box (Road N221 Chibuto – Guijá, Gaza Province)............................. 44
Figure 3-3: Determination of RQD ........................................................................................................ 45
Figure 3-4: Van der Merwe’s potential swell prediction chart ............................................................. 56
Figure 3-5: Nomogram for estimating the total potential heave likely to be experienced in expansive
soils (After Van der Merwe and Savage, 1979)..................................................................................... 57
Figure 3-6: Percentage swell after Weston (1979) ............................................................................... 58
Figure 3-7: CPT-based charts for estimating cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) for clean sands (after
Ishihara 1993). ...................................................................................................................................... 60
Figure 3-8: a) Cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) for clean sands under level ground conditions based on
CPT limiting shear strain, b) Variation of cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) with fines content based on CPT
field performance data (after Stark and Olson 1995). .......................................................................... 61
Figure 4-1: Strength parameters in stability analysis by limit equilibrium method in rock and soil
slope (adopted from Hunt, 1986) ......................................................................................................... 61
Figure 4-2: Definition of stability analysis by limit equilibrium for embankment on soft clay (adopted
from Hunt, 1986) .................................................................................................................................. 65
Figure 4-3: Strength parameters in stability analysis by limit equilibrium method gravity retaining
wall (from Hunt, 1986) .......................................................................................................................... 65
Figure 4-4: Apparent earth pressure diagram for sands (Sabatini et al., 1999) ................................... 66
Figure 4-5: Apparent earth pressure diagrams for stiff to hard and soft to medium clays (Sabatini et
al., 1999) ............................................................................................................................................... 67
Figure 4-6: Pressure distribution for free-earth and fixed earth support ............................................ 69
Figure 4-7: Modes of failure: (a) general shear, (b) local shear and (c) punching shear (Craig, 2004). 71
Figure 4-8: Footing of breadth Bf at depth Df below the surface ......................................................... 72
Figure 4-9: Bearing Capacity Factors versus Friction Angle (AASHTO, 1996) ....................................... 73
Figure 4-10: Inclination of foundation to horizontal (after Meyerhof 1953) ....................................... 77
Figure 4-11: Pressure distribution at foundation base ......................................................................... 78
Figure 4-12: Definition and location of forces for footings (from WSDOT, 2010) ................................ 79
Figure 4-13: Deep foundation end bearing and shaft resistance definition (Das, 2001)...................... 81
Figure 4-14: Meyerhof’s bearing capacity factor, 𝐍𝐪 ∗ ........................................................................ 84
Figure 4-15: Variation of unit point resistance in a homogenous sand (from Das, 2001) .................... 85
Figure 4-16: Unit frictional for piles in sand (from Das, 2001) ............................................................. 85
Figure 4-17: Principal types of piles (From Hunt, 1986) ....................................................................... 87
Figure 4-18: Typical Cut/Embankment Section (NYSDOT (2012).......................................................... 89
Figure 4-19: Pressure versus void ratio curve (e-log-p curve), Hunt (1986) ......................................... 93
Figure 4-20: Idealised consolidation parameter definition (Loehr et al. 2016) .................................... 95
Figure 4-21: Common alternative presentations for consolidation tests: (a) log of effective vertical
stress vs. vertical strain, and (b) natural log of effective vertical stress vs. specific volume (Loehr et al.
2016) ..................................................................................................................................................... 95
Figure 4-22: Illustration of Casagrande method for interpreting pre-consolidation stress (Loehr et al.
2016) ..................................................................................................................................................... 97
Figure 4-23 Schmertmann (1955) method to obtain field consolidation curve for normally
consolidated soils (in Loehr et al. 2016, from Holtz, et al., 2011). ....................................................... 98
Figure 4-24: Schmertmann (1955) method to obtain field consolidation curve for overconsolidated
soils (in Loehr et al. 2016 from Holtz, et al., 2011) ............................................................................... 99

(x)
Figure 4-25: Compression versus time for one load cycle of consolidation test (Hunt, 1986)........... 100
Figure 4-26: Casagrande’s log time method for determining the coefficient of consolidation (Loehr et
al. 2016) .............................................................................................................................................. 101
Figure 4-27: Taylor’s square root of time method for determining the coefficient of consolidation
(Craig, 2004) ........................................................................................................................................ 102
Figure 4-28: Evaluation of 𝑪𝜶 from time-deformation response for consolidation test increment
(Loehr et al. 2016) ............................................................................................................................... 104
Figure 4-29: Influence factors for vertical stress under a very long embankment (after NAVFAC, 1971
as reported in Holtz and Kovacs, 1981) .............................................................................................. 108
Figure 4-30: 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) ................................................. 109
Figure 4-31: Typical circular arc failure mechanism. Adapted from US DOT FHWA (2006) ............... 113
Figure 4-32: Modes of side slope failures in embankments. From IOWA State (2013) and US DOT
FHWA (2006) ....................................................................................................................................... 114
Figure 4-33: Concept of calculating the percent consolidation in staged construction (NYSDOT, 2012)
............................................................................................................................................................ 118
Figure 4-34: Principles of Stage Construction Method (NYSDOT, 2012) ............................................ 119
Figure 4-35: Counterberm design, from NAVFAC (1982) in Hunt (1984) ........................................... 122
Figure 4-36: Use of shear key (US DOT FHWA (2006B) ...................................................................... 123
Figure 4-37: Use of vertical drains to accelerate settlement (NCHRP, 1989) ..................................... 125
Figure 4-38: Removal and replacement .............................................................................................. 126
Figure 4-39: Elements of a bridge approach embankment. From Briaud et al (1997) ....................... 127
Figure 4-40: Settlement and down-drag in bridge abutments and piles. Modified from US DOT FHWA
2006 .................................................................................................................................................... 128
Figure 4-41: Terminology associated with semi-gravity retaining walls............................................. 129
Figure 4-42: Force diagram of a Gravity retaining wall (Hunt, 1986) ................................................. 130
Figure 4-43: Typical types of gabion walls .......................................................................................... 132
Figure 4-44: A typical anchored retaining wall (NYSDOT, 2013)......................................................... 133
Figure 4-45: MSE Wall with Precast Concrete Face Panels................................................................. 135
Figure 4-46: Application of reinforced slopes in road construction. NYSDOT (2007) ........................ 136
Figure 4-47: Failure modes for reinforced soil embankments. US DOT FHWA, 2001) ....................... 137
Figure 4-48: Soil Nail wall (NYSDOT, 2013) ......................................................................................... 139
Figure 4-49: Commonly used terminology to define a road and associated slopes........................... 143
Figure 4-50: Effect of flooding and rapid-drawdown on embankment stability ................................ 144
Figure 4-51: Typical construction of embankments in hilly areas. From FAO (1998) ......................... 145
Figure 4-52: Typical side-slopes of a rock fill embankment ................................................................ 146
Figure 4-53: Benched fill on a benched hill-side slope. JKR (2010) .................................................... 147
Figure 4-54: Cut slope benching (Hunt, 1986) .................................................................................... 148
Figure 4-55: Resisting and driving forces in a rock slope (Willey, 1991) ............................................ 152
Figure 4-56: Rock slope reinforcement method (Willey, 1991).......................................................... 152
Figure 4-57: Rock removal methods for rock slope stabilisation (Willey, 1991) ................................ 153
Figure 4-58: Wire Rope Catchment Fence (NYSDOT, 2013) ............................................................... 154
Figure 4-59: Rock fall paths and roll out distance (Pierson et al., 2001) ............................................ 155
Figure 4-60: Rock cut slope diagram (MnDOT, 2017) ......................................................................... 156
Figure 4-61: Slope stability analysis process ....................................................................................... 159
Figure 4-62: Landslide types (adapted from Wintercorn and Fang, 1975) ......................................... 167
Figure 4-63: Landslide susceptibility assessment (Chae et al., 2017) ................................................. 168
Figure 4-64: Relationship between landslide mobility (H/L) and volume (from Chae et al., (2017) .. 169
Figure 4-65: Mechanism of data transmission among landslide monitoring and warning devices.
(from Fathani et al., 2016) .................................................................................................................. 171
Figure 4-66: Types of waterfront structures (From Hunt, 1986) ........................................................ 173
Figure 4-67: Waterfront structure along Avenida da Marginal, Maputo. .......................................... 174

(xi)
Figure 4-68: Methods to reduce lateral pressures and backslope subsidence in soft soils (From Hunt,
1986) ................................................................................................................................................... 175
Figure 4-69: Pressure diagram around cantlevel sheet pile wall (From Hunt, 1986) ......................... 176
Figure 4-70: Pressure diagram against anchored bulkhead system (From Hunt, 1986) .................... 176
Figure 4-71: Methods of pavement drainage control (From Hunt, 1986) .......................................... 178
Figure 4-72: Foundation design detail for sloping ground (From WSDOT, 2010) .............................. 180
Figure 5-1: Relationship of Drain Spacing (S) to Drain Influence Zone (D)(Rixner et al., 1986) ......... 189

(xii)
1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose
This manual has been prepared for the use of ANE engineering personnel and to provide
a guide to practitioners who are retained to provide geotechnical services to ANE. It aims
to establish procedures for providing consistency in carrying out geotechnical engineering
analysis and evaluation. This manual provides aspects of the development of design
parameters and identifies input information required for consideration to ensure that
design and construction of geotechnical works are successfully administered, safe and
economical.

1.2 Scope
Typical geotechnical problems related to the design and construction of roads in
Mozambique include swampy areas, flooding, presence of expansive clays and Quicksand
in the Southern Region. The dominant problems in the Central Region include flooding
during high tide due to low laying areas, erosion of sand embankments, very steep hilly
areas with slippery materials. The Northern Region is also venerable to flooding and
additionally, has the presence of expansive soils, very steep hills and Quicksand.
The success of geotechnical works will therefore not only be influenced by good
understanding of the prevailing subsoil conditions, but also the land terrain and awareness
of possible problems that could influence the design and successful execution of projects
in a specific location in the country. This calls for application of experience and sound
geotechnical engineering judgment on the part of the practitioner in order to identify and
resolve geotechnical problems timeously.
The use of this manual must be balanced with the application of experience in the
determination of the appropriate parameters as inputs required for: methods to improve
natural ground conditions, including slope stabilisation techniques; geotechnical aspects
of natural and cut-slope design and slope stability; surface excavation; design
considerations for embankments, foundations, retaining walls and reinforced soil slopes.
This manual presents guideline information for the application of good engineering practice
to achieve this objective in a consistent manner.
It is the responsibility of the consultant to know the influence of the type of structure and
its importance, as well as localised geological conditions, on the extent of the required
subsurface investigation for the road project. This manual should be used in conjunction
with the latest edition of the Site Investigation Manual.
The use of the information contained in this document does not, in any way relieve
practitioners of their obligations and responsibilities relating to professional liability.

1.3 Geotechnical Operations and Administration

Factors that will affect the design and construction of geotechnical works should be
identified as early as possible on a project. Good practice requires enhanced
communication on the project. To obtain the best results, it is necessary to give careful
consideration to a wide range of issues before design activities related to the geotechnical
engineering works are conducted. The planning, investigation, and design for all projects
and project items involving earth or rock engineering are the responsibility of the
Geotechnical Engineer. A rigorous engagement process shall be implemented between the
geotechnical engineer who has been given responsibility to coordinate and complete the
geotechnical design activities for the project and the site-based professionals, to ensure
common understanding of the management of geotechnical project operations and special
requirements by all personnel of the project team.

(1)
Geotechnical planning would include desk study project review, field reconnaissance
investigation, and initial geologic hazard assessment. The investigation shall involve
gathering site specific data including subsurface issues and soil profiles, followed by project
design phase.
The initial planning phase is aimed at defining the project. At this stage, records from
previous explorations by Laboratório de Engenharia de Moçambique (LEM), if available,
published geological and soil survey maps, aerial photos, old construction records are
researched and reviewed. On the basis of this comprehensive review, the geotechnical
designer should become completely familiar with the proposed project elements in order
to scope out the field investigation programme, which should outline the boring number,
location, depth, sampling and field testing requirement as provided in the Site
Investigation Manual.
Potential constructability issues, and geotechnical hazards such as landslides, rockfall,
flooding, erosion and soft ground shall be identified at this stage, followed by conceptual
hazard avoidance or mitigation plans to address all the identified geotechnical issues.
Geotechnical experts should be involved in this conceptualisation and should provide
guidance as to whether special permits to perform the geotechnical investigation shall be
required.
The provision of technical support for geotechnical aspects of planning, design,
construction, and maintenance should be the responsibility of the Geotechnical Engineer
within ANE. The operational and administrative issues shall include determination of a
subsurface investigation appropriate for the stage of project development and site
conditions; identification, avoidance, and remediation of geologic hazards and other
geotechnical issues requiring treatment; earthworks; foundations for roadway earth
retaining structures; foundations for facilities; slope stability; settlements; subgrade
treatments; hydrogeology; constructability; and monitoring and maintenance practice as
outlined in this Manual. In addition, a centralised inventory database of geological hazards
shall be maintained for all the districts in Mozambique, at the ANE Headquarters.

1.4 Geotechnical Investigation Process

The basic purpose of a geotechnical investigation for roadway construction is to provide
the geotechnical engineer with the knowledge of the subsurface conditions along the
roadway project corridor. Accurate definition of the geologic conditions and stratigraphic
relationships along the project corridor is vital in establishing features that may present
design and construction problems on the project. The gathering of the existing information
is the first important step during geotechnical investigations to facilitate safe and
economical design, provide information about the materials and conditions to be
encountered and therefore assist in designing appropriate construction solutions.
The phases of geotechnical investigation process are normally as follows:
1. Reconnaissance investigation
2. Exploration for preliminary design
3. Exploration for detailed design
4. Exploration during construction

The detailed project stages and principal activities are presented in the Site Investigation
Manual 2019. The extent of the investigation in each phase depends on the information
revealed in the previous phase. The scope of work for the investigations will normally
include the following activities:
• Undertaking of geotechnical site investigations including borehole drilling, test pit
excavation, cone penetration tests, dynamic cone penetrometer testing, slope and
embankment assessment, and laboratory testing.

(2)
 • Documenting the geotechnical information on the subsurface conditions along the
proposed roadway corridor.
• Providing a summary of the laboratory test results.
• Providing interpretation of the subsurface conditions and preparing a ground model
for the project alignment.
• Providing the values for soil parameters to be used in analyses and design
recommendations.

The manual is to provide guidance on the application of the principles and procedures for
geotechnical design as applied to roadway development and construction, including post-
construction phase site investigation, involving monitoring of long-term behaviour of the
roadway and structures.

1.5 Overview of Manual

The user of this manual must keep in mind that this document is a guide, primarily to
serve the practitioner and it must be understood that the coverage of topics cannot be
exhaustive, although every effort was made to include as many topics as suggested by
practitioners in the country.
In such cases where there is limited coverage on a topic, the practitioner is obliged to use
alternative approaches or obtain the additional information as contained in the various
references given in this document as well as engineering judgement. It covers aspects of
geotechnical design pertaining to road foundations, roadside slopes, road embankments,
retaining structures, construction stage investigation and post construction monitoring and
the standard of geotechnical reporting.
From a geotechnical engineering application point of view, the following are key related
activities inclusive of aspects of subsurface condition investigation, design, construction
and post-construction stages during implementation of projects within the road
environment:
1. subsurface field investigations,
2. laboratory testing,
3. geologic site characterisation,
4. structure foundation and retaining wall design,
5. soil cut and fill stability design,
6. subsurface ground improvement,
7. rock slope design,
8. unstable slope management,
9. stabilisation of slopes in cuts and embankments,
10. unstable slope mitigation,
11. infiltration, subsurface drainage and related hydrogeologic design,
12. material source evaluation,
13. construction stage investigation
14. long-term site monitoring for geotechnical engineering purposes,
15. maintenance as geotechnical problems arise and
16. geotechnical report preparation.

The above activities are categorised into the following major sections of the manual:
1. Project geotechnical planning
2. Field investigations and laboratory testing
3. Design considerations
4. Construction stage investigation
5. Post construction considerations and monitoring
6. Geotechnical reporting and documentation

(3)
1.5.1 Project Geotechnical Planning

This section will discuss the different aspects of geotechnical project planning. Careful and
detailed planning is required before work commences to ensure that the programme of
works, aimed at providing project practitioners with the knowledge of the materials and
subsurface conditions to be encountered flows smoothly and the information required for
the safe and economical geotechnical design of the project is adequately obtained. This
will involve a preliminary project planning and development of the subsurface exploration
plan.
The planning process will assist in deciding on the appropriate investigation methods
taking into account the type of project, whether it is for the purpose of new construction
or failure investigation. Surface, subsurface, and laboratory investigations are integrated
to obtain the necessary information for the geotechnical designs. The processes to be
followed for the subsurface investigation will involve the application of the procedures
provided in the Site Investigation Manual.

1.5.2 Field investigations

The field reconnaissance survey is the first stage of a geotechnical investigation to be

conducted and must be performed by experienced and suitably qualified personnel. The
fieldwork and reconnaissance survey shall complement the desk study directed at
collecting, collating and reviewing available information.
Following completion of the field reconnaissance survey and the desk study, field
investigations shall be undertaken. Achieving the necessary design objectives requires a
detailed and in-depth knowledge of the rock and soil properties. The knowledge of the
various rock types and their classification is important as the characteristic properties
influence the type of soil formation as the rocks disintegrate and decompose under
weathering processes. The soils are then transported by various agents to form new
deposits, which are classed by origin and sub-classed by mode of deposition. Engineering
properties are derived from the origin and mode of deposition from which preliminary
judgement regarding the geotechnical problems can be anticipated for design and
execution of the project.
The field investigation is carried out in order to characterise the materials and conditions
which will be encountered during the construction and operation of the project. The nature,
variability, extent of the material properties and subsurface conditions are established at
this stage.

1.5.3 Design Considerations

The section on geotechnical design focusing on roadway construction, involves calculation
of the magnitude of settlement for embankments, bearing capacity and stability analyses
of support and protection structures such as retaining walls, ground improvement design
to improve compressible soils in order to accelerate the consolidation process, improving
loosely fill granular soil to increase the resistance to deformation and slope stabilisation
design.

1.5.4 Construction Stage Investigation

Subsurface exploration programmes may not always identify every important subsurface
problem condition, particularly on sites with complex geology. As the site along the project
corridor becomes exposed during construction, geologic conditions may be revealed, which
may not have been encountered during previous investigations and therefore not
addressed in the geotechnical reports. The unforeseen geologic condition may require
additional investigation to provide further information. Measurement of ground behaviour
during construction may be required. This will facilitate early recognition of deviations from
initial values and may lead to the design and construction techniques being altered or
requiring a special programme to observe any existing structures such as retaining walls,
reinforced soil slopes, through instrumentation, as the serviceability of structures must be

(4)
guaranteed. In addition, it will have impact on earthwork material sources and aspects of
quality assurance in order to control the construction process. This has implications on the
project costs.

1.5.5 Post Construction Considerations and Monitoring

Post construction monitoring is carried out to monitor the behaviour of the completed
structure and to validate long-term or post construction design assumptions, particularly
conditions in which settlements are anticipated. This phase assists in early recognition of
potential problems and also provides data for improvement in future design and
construction techniques. This section will cover geotechnical aspects in maintenance
matters and instrumentation and monitoring.

1.5.6 Geotechnical Reporting and Documentation

Reporting is aimed at collating the information on the fundamental principles behind the
investigations, the techniques used to characterise the soil and rock properties, quantifying
the mechanical behaviour of soil and rock, interpreting the obtained geotechnical data and
the recommendations for design application. The reporting and documentation of the data
collected during the site investigation, identification of general site characteristics and
subsurface conditions as well as recommendations for engineering analyses and design,
should be properly prepared and formatted to address the geotechnical aspects for each
specific project objective. The site investigation report may only be a preliminary soil
survey, or a presentation of geotechnical data, compared to the detailed Geotechnical
Engineering Report. The objective of the section is to ensure the reports meet industry
standards in terms of general requirements, and geotechnical report content requirements
for the specific report type.

1.6 Related ANE Guidelines

ANE currently has few internal design manuals. These include:
• Work Standards for Road Works, 2014
• Geometric Design Manual, 2017
• Pavement Design Manual, 2017
• Hydrology and Drainage Manual, 2017
• Environmental Guide, 2012
• Rehabilitation Manual, 2017
• Site Investigation Manual, 2019

(5)
2 Project Geotechnical Planning

2.1 Overview
The construction of roadways and corresponding structures depend on detailed and in-
depth knowledge of geologic conditions, which requires the application of the collected
data for proper design. In order to achieve the necessary design objectives, a detailed
knowledge of the rock and soil properties is required. These data are provided through
geotechnical investigations.
Geotechnical investigations may be required in every stage of the roadway construction
project. Sometimes, the investigations may be carried out during the post-construction
phase to obtain information for long-term performance of the roadway and structures,
particularly where movement is anticipated. The size of the project and location of the site
will play a major role in the way the geotechnical investigation is planned. The construction
of a roadway is an extended project site but with compact projects for the construction of
structures.
In order to achieve the objectives of the geotechnical investigation in a systematic way,
the general stages outlined in Figure 2-1. should provide general guidance during the
project geotechnical planning phase. The first stage involves the appointment of the geo-
technical specialist. Once appointed, the specialist should take responsibility of the sub-
sequent stages until the procurement of the contractor. Aspects of the activities to ad-
dress the different stages are discussed below.

Figure 2-1: Project geotechnical planning

(6)
2.2 Preliminary project planning
The goal in the preliminary planning stage is to develop an investigation plan to identify
existing site geologic conditions and any potential hazards at an early stage of the project
as possible. This should start with studying the preliminary project plans, gathering
existing site data, determining the critical features of the project, and visiting the site. The
existing geotechnical information, from previous explorations by LEM and any other
laboratory, published geological and soil survey and vulnerability maps, aerial photos, old
construction records available in the ANE database, are reviewed.
This section provides general guidance for planning of geotechnical investigations that is
conducted for defining the project and input for the design phases, and preparation of the
subsurface exploration plan. The user referencing this section of the manual should also
refer to Section 3.7 on preliminary site investigation in the Site Investigation Manual 2019
of ANE, which should be consulted in conjunction with this manual.
In response to the identified project requirements, the preliminary planning phase of the
geotechnical investigation should address the following:
• Identification of geologic hazards and climate change impacts.
• Identification of site-specific features
• Identification of landforms and geology
• Identification of sources of information.

2.2.1 Geologic hazards and climate change impact

2.2.1.1 Geologic hazards

The geotechnical assessment for roadway construction requires assessment of the local
roadway route as well as the regional geologic condition that may impact on the subsurface
construction. Risk assessment therefore forms part of the decision-making process of the
development of the geotechnical investigation plan.
Good practice calls for the solutions to geotechnical problems to be based on thorough
assessment of the degree of hazards that can occur along any road alignment due to
natural conditions and also as a result of human activity, such as construction works.
Geohazards should be identified as they will play a major role in the way the subsurface
exploration is planned to ensure adequate information is obtained for an appropriate
design.
The planning for the investigation should be appropriate to address the potential risks and
geologic hazards. It is in identifying the anticipated hazards that uncertainty is reduced.
Locations where regional or local condition is susceptible to disaster for which treatment
may not be economically feasible should be avoided. Table 2-1 gives reference to
categories of geologic hazards, providing a perspective for appropriate site rating and
planning. Gravitational hazards principally include rockfall and debris flows.
An additional hazard to consider is due to the anticipated increase in temperature as a
result of climate change. The prediction is that draughts will become more common in the
future. In the context of pavement behaviour, long drought periods will impact on moisture
movement within pavements. The subgrade near the verge will dry more than the
subgrade close to the centre of the road, causing differential movement, which will induce
distress in the form of longitudinal cracks. The vulnerability assessment report shows that
the drought event risk is the highest in the central area of the Zambezi Valley (semi-arid
tropical climate zone).
The risks associated with the hazards should be assessed and considered during the
detailed design.

(7)
 Table 2-1: Categories of geologic hazards
Geologic Hazard Causes of occurrence Risk Rating
Natural occurrence Human activity
Earthquake and faulting • The incidences of earthquakes • Earthquake is induced by L: No mapped faults within 3km
(Geophysical hazards) are characteristically wastewater injection in deep M: Mapped faults within 3km, but not
geographic. disposal wells, during carbon traversed by the road alignment
• The most common types of capture and storage (carbon H: Roadway alignment traverses
earthquakes are caused by injection at the storage mapped faults.
movements along faults stage) and possibly
• Effect on the land is warping, groundwater extraction, Earthquakes are not very frequent
faulting and ground shaking. loading from reservoirs, and intense in Mozambique but may
• Effect on water bodies is behind dams greater than act as a triggering factor for landslides
tsunamis 100 m in height. in the hilly areas.
• May lead to liquefaction
• Safety is provided by
conservatism in design and the
prudent location of important
structures
Erosion • Incidence of occurrence is • Incidence increased L: No evidence of soil erodibility faults
(Hydrological hazards) related to vegetation, substantially by stripping within 3km
topography, climate and natural vegetation from M: Mapped soil erodibility faults within
geology slopes to create farming or 3km, but not traversed by the
• Incidence of erosion results grazing lands or by alignment
from runoff, stream activity and steepening slopes H: Alignment traverses mapped soil
costal waves • Increased erosion results in erodibility faults
• Severity of occurrence increased siltation
dependent on storm intensity • The lithic soils and yellow sandy
and resulting activity of flowing soils in Mozambique have the
water highest erosion risk in terms of
erodibility.
• Almost all (96%) of the identified
road sections with high
erosion/landslide risk are situated
in the Tete Province

(8)
Geologic Hazard Causes of occurrence Risk Rating
Natural occurrence Human activity
Floods • Incidence of occurrence is • Construction in floodplains L:No mapped or interpreted floodplains
(Hydrological hazards) related to topographic and increases risk to exposure within 3km
climatic conditions • Coastal and interior valleys
M:Mapped or interpreted floodplains
• Due to heavy runoff, flood tides particularly in arid climate
within 3km, but not traversed by
and tsunamis occur along are susceptible to flooding
the roadway alignment
shorelines due to depletion of
• Strong tropical cyclones groundwater which results in H:Mapped or interpreted floodplains
increase the risk of sea level land subsidence traversed by the roadway alignment
rise
• Prediction of flood levels and
Districts of the Zambezia and Sofala
occurrence is based on existing
provinces most susceptible to regular
rainfall and runoff data
flooding. Manica and Tete provinces
• Determination of the geologic
have been affected by several severe
limits of the floodplains is
flood events
considered more reliable in
predicting occurrence
Ground subsidence • Incidence of occurrence • Human activity such as L: No limestone (karst) features
(Gravitational hazard) generally limited to cavernous mining mapped within 3 km
rocks, karst conditions, such as • Saturation of collapsible soil M: Limestone (karst) features mapped
limestone • Tunnelling in soft ground within 3 km, but not along the
• Climate is a major factor roadway alignment
• Collapse may result only in H: Roadway alignment traverses
uneven surface with large mapped limestone (karst) features
surface depressions or
sinkholes
Slope failure • Incidence of occurrence related • Construction activities: cuts Landslides
Landslides and steep to topography, geology and made in slopes Low (L): No landslides mapped in the
slopes climate • Removal of vegetation area
(Gravitational hazard, • More common in areas with • Changing natural drainage Moderate (M): Landslides mapped
including rockfall and rugged terrain, where there is which causes water to within 3 km, but away from alignment
debris flows) higher potential energy for the permeate the slopes High (H): Alignment traverses
landmasses to flow down identified and/or mapped landslide(s)
• Detachment and rapid
downward movement of rock. Steep slopes

(9)
Geologic Hazard Causes of occurrence Risk Rating
Natural occurrence Human activity
• Due to decomposition of L: 0 to 8 degrees
geologic material and M: 8-25 degrees
erodability H: Greater than 25 degrees
• Steeping of slopes by erosion
Expansion and collapse Incidence of occurrence related to • Mostly addition of water, L: No expansive or collapsible soil
the type of deposit, soil type, saturation mapped within 3km
structure, and density. • Poor drainage, moisture M: Expansive and/or collapsible soil
Occurrence of expansive soils accumulation or ponding mapped within 3km, but not along the
generally related to weathered • Removal of surcharge alignment
basic crystalline rocks and some • Excessive loading H: Alignment traverses mapped
shales and transported soils expansive and/or collapsible soils
Occurrence of collapsible soil
generally related to weathered Local expansive soil condition
sandstones and granites and common in flood plains and flood plain
aeolian sands terraces, where clay soils
predominate.

(10)
The Preliminary Vulnerability Report (2016) provides maps that show high risk areas
associated with some of the geo-hazards presented in Table 2-1. Figure 2-2 shows the
epicentre of earthquakes and seismic activities in Mozambique over a period of three
decades. Geo-hazards that maybe triggered by earthquakes include liquefaction and
landslides in the hilly areas.

Figure 2-2: Epicentres of earthquakes 1905-2008 (left) and seismic activity in

Mozambique – intensity zones (right) (INGC and UNDP, 2011)

2.2.1.2 Climate change impacts

Good practice calls for climate change consideration in the design of geotechnical
infrastructure project. Extreme weather events resulting in, for instance increased storms
should be considered in the design and construction of the road and structures to prevent
risks.
In addition, a list of environmental issues and receptors should also be prepared, against
which potential impacts, as discussed in section 3.3.5 of the Site Investigation Manual
2019, should be compared for each route option.
During the evaluation of the environmental impact (EIA) information should be provided,
in terms of climate issues (drought, floods, changes in watercourses, temperature
changes, landslides) and operational and maintenance risks (e.g. restrictions, disruptions
or poor working conditions).
The following steps should be taken during the assessment: identification of the climate
change sensitivities of the project, assessment of the project's exposure to climate change
hazards, vulnerability analysis, risk assessment, identification of adaptation and appraisal
of the adaptation options.

(11)
Hydrology maps and index of water level increase, earthquake movements and other
indicators that could involve instability in the project area should be taken into account.
The level of exposure to climate change in the project area should be determined. The
vulnerability analysis, based on the sensitivity and exposure assessment analysis, should
provide an indication of the climate variables that could generate a high vulnerability of
the road infrastructure under prevailing and future conditions. These include increased
temperature extremes, changes in extreme rainfall, floods and ground instability/
landslides. The level of risks associated with climate change, can be determined based on
the Preliminary Vulnerability Assessment Report (2016), relative to other areas of the
country. Figure 2-3 shows high risk areas associated with flooding.
Adaptation options should be proposed for identified risks, which should be subsequently
assessed in terms of approach within the project. Options to mitigate against risk and
other constructions to prevent rock falling on the roadway and flooding control.

Figure 2-3: Severe flooding events during the past four decades

2.2.2 Project site familiarisation

The geotechnical designer should become completely familiar with the proposed project
site. A site inspection of the road alignment should be undertaken to assess the general
site conditions, the requirements for traffic management during geotechnical
investigations, gain an appreciation of the site geological and topography features and
existing structures before scoping out the field investigation programme. As discussed in
section 1.3, it is important that good communication is established between the project
team at an early stage of the project. The site visit by the geotechnical designer should
preferably be with the project engineer.

2.2.3 Identifying site landforms and geology

The early identification of the major geologic conditions and landforms is key to the
optimisation of the subsurface exploration programme. Section 2.2 and Table 3.6 of the
Site Investigation Manual 2019 should be consulted to obtain information on the
physiographic features and topographic classes in Mozambique in order to identify the
main issues and associated engineering considerations relevant to pavement design and
location of the project.

(12)
2.2.4 Identification of sources of information

Sources of information to assist in the preliminary project planning should be identified

and located. These include soil, geological, vulnerability and topographical maps, aerial
photos and old construction records available in the ANE database as discussed in section
2.8 of the Site Investigation Manual 2019.

2.3 Development of Subsurface Exploration plan

2.3.1 Overview

The purpose of the subsurface exploration programme is to obtain knowledge of the

subsurface conditions along the roadway alignment in order to define input for the design
phase. This section is aimed at providing guidance on the application of the principles and
procedures for geotechnical site investigation in the preparation of the subsurface
exploration plan. The user referencing this section of the manual should also refer to
section 3.8 of the Site Investigation Manual 2019 of ANE, which should be consulted in
conjunction with this manual.
Several factors influence the planning of the subsurface exploration programme. Firstly,
the purpose of the investigations should be taken into account. This is because the
approach of the investigation may vary based on its purpose. Project time constraints will
influence the type and timing of the investigations. The size and complexity of the road
project as well as the location of the site will also play a major role in the way the
exploration is planned. The construction of a roadway is an extended project site, but with
compact projects for the construction of structures.
The lateral and vertical extent to which the proposed project will influence the geologic
environment or be influenced by the environment also impacts the planning of the
geotechnical investigations. The vertical extent of the exploration for a roadway on stable
ground will primarily be guided by the pavement effective depth as a function of wheel
loading whereas the lateral extent is affected by the number of lanes or whether it is an
approach of an interchange. On the other hand, for retaining walls the borings should
extend to a depth relative to wall height.
Thus, the subsurface exploration plan should describe the geotechnical investigation
programme and provide detailed information on the drilling programme, location of
boreholes, equipment to be used, quantities and frequency of sampling, type of tests to
be undertaken, and testing frequency. The programme is formulated based on the material
parameters that need to be determined.

2.3.2 Reconnaissance investigation

Purpose and scope: This phase provide information for prefeasibility studies and for
planning the exploration for preliminary design. To a large extent, this phase focuses on
searching for all possible available information that will assist in revealing the subsurface
geologic conditions along the proposed road alignment. Sources of information include:
• Old and recent topographic maps
• Geologic maps
• Aerial photographs
• Geologic and subsurface exploration reports and records in ANE databases and
from consultants and commercial laboratories
• University publications series
• Articles in geologic, construction and engineering journals
From the above sources, information on the following should be established:
• Availability of any services or supplies of water, electricity, earthworks plant.

(13)
 • Buried or overhead services.
• Legal and physical aspects of access to site, for example, access for drilling rigs.
• Presence of boulders, bedrock exposure, swamps etc. should be noted
• Susceptibility to geologic hazards such as landslides, rock fall, etc.
• On-ground survey details.
• Material sources (for ground improvement)
• Road surface conditions.
• The possible effects of alternative investigation techniques on the environment (for
example, ground disturbance, water discharge, noise etc.).
• Tide, river level or other natural constraints
• Traffic control requirements.
Reference should be made to Chapter 3 of the Site Investigation Manual 2019, ANE.

2.3.3 Exploration for preliminary design

Purpose and scope: This phase is aimed at obtaining subsurface data to assist in selection
of the type, location and principal dimensions of all major structures on the proposed route
and making of sound cost estimates. In addition to obtaining subsurface data, information
on the grades of adjacent rock and soil slopes, estimated water flow velocity along (and
within) the slopes, loose rocks and soils that could easily yield to rock falls and landslides
respectively should be obtained. This is particularly important in high risk zones as the
preliminary assessment could assist the investigation team to make an informed decision
on feasibility of treating the risk zones and its impact on the project cost. The preliminary
design phase will therefore precede the definition of the best possible route location and
dimensions of the proposed works. Information on the soil and rock strata must be
established in reasonable detail as this will affect the construction process. The data will
assist in the development of the criteria for foundation design and other aspects of the
route development.
Provision should be made for advanced material laboratory testing for obtaining the
required geotechnical parameters. The results and information gathered during the
exploration are collated and used to characterise the soil and rock properties and quantify
the mechanical behaviour of soil and rock. They are interpreted to obtain geotechnical
parameters and presented in a report for design application. The results of a preliminary
geotechnical report should also identify expected geological conditions and associated
hazards, and verification should be undertaken during the field investigation.
Therefore, investigations for the feasibility study/route selection are discussed in two
stages, preliminary and detailed in Chapter 3 of the Site Investigation Manual 2019.

2.3.4 Exploration for detailed design

Purpose and scope: This phase is aimed at filling in the gaps to obtain additional data that
might be required for design, address specific geologic conditions that may have been
revealed during exploration in any of the preceding phases, and ensure that subsurface
conditions at locations where structures are to be constructed are well defined. The
additional investigation on the selected route may be required to verify shallow bedrock
and/or areas with known geological hazards in order to verify subsurface conditions for
design purposes.
Completeness of information is required to undertake appropriate geometric design,
pavement design, geotechnical design and hydrology and drainage design. In addition, the
cost associated with the route alternative is influenced by the type and extent of material
to be excavated, which also influences the choice of equipment to be used. At this stage,
the designer should provide information on the dimensions of the structures, if not already

(14)
provided, including final grades in reference to existing grades. The design consideration
will be covered in Section 4 for the specific geotechnical works.

2.3.5 Exploration during construction

Purpose and scope: this phase may not always be required on some projects, but it should
be planned for, with the specific purpose of providing the geotechnical engineer with
information as the site along the project corridor becomes exposed during construction,
revealing geologic conditions, which may not have been encountered during previous
investigations.
Section 8.3 of the Site Investigation Manual 2019 describes the investigation for
construction materials and provides information about various types of rocks and soils
available and the procedures in locating and assessing the quantity and quality of the
required materials in Mozambique. Section 9.8 describes in general terms the investigation
required during the construction stage of a project.
The exploration during this stage, requires establishing in detail the ground conditions
revealed that were not anticipated from the survey and may alter the road alignment to
accommodate the confirmed ground conditions. The variation may include the depth to
rock being significantly deeper or shallower than expected or encountering soil that is not
suitable for use in construction. The investigation will assist in characterising the subgrade,
determine the availability and extent of construction materials, and provide better
estimate of quantities of earthworks.
Specific investigation on the different revealed materials is required. Comparison of actual
conditions with the predicted conditions is made possible at this stage
The monitoring of the existing geotechnical structures such as bridge foundations, lateral
support systems and permanently anchored or bolted cuttings and fills during construction
is important in order to observe their integrity and behaviour. It is also necessary to
implement an effective monitoring program to oversee and predict the occurrence of
ground movement during construction operations. Monitoring methods are further
discussed in Chapter 7.

2.3.6 Exploration post construction phase

Purpose and scope: Aimed at monitoring the behaviour of the completed structure and to
validate long-term or post construction design assumptions, particularly conditions in
which settlements are anticipated. The monitoring of ground movement, slope instability,
including potential landslide should be one of the routine events during and post-
construction operations. Information gathering is achieved through the monitoring and
surveillance using installed instrumentation. It is necessary to implement an effective
monitoring program to oversee and predict the occurrence of any ground movement post
construction operations. Monitoring is performed to detect movement that could lead to
collapse and to allow for sufficient warning to successfully evacuate the area or establish
method of protecting the structure. The early warning system allows for closure of a road
section and prevent fatal events.
Geotechnical instrument requirements should be planned for depending on required
measurements, whether it is for the purpose of measuring vertical or horizontal
movement, pore water pressure or presence and movement of groundwater. The
investigation is also carried out to verify the extent of improvement achieved following
any ground improvement processes such as pre-compression of soft ground. The
monitoring is done at regular intervals during the expected eventual design life of the
particular geotechnical feature.

(15)
2.3.7 Managing the exploration plan

Geotechnical investigation may be undertaken in every stage of the road project

implementation. Thus, it is recommended that consideration be given to whether a
provision should be made for procurement of the investigation for each phase of the
project. Prior to the commencement of the geotechnical investigation, the geotechnical
consultant shall be required to prepare a number of project specific and quality assurance
plans for review and approval by ANE. The management of the investigation shall involve
the application of QA/QC procedures conforming to standards such as the ISO 9000/9001.
The scope of the geotechnical investigation is not meant to address construction issues
but is limited to the purpose and requirements of the project geotechnical planning.

(16)
3 Field Investigation

3.1 Planning field investigation

The planning for the field investigation is aimed at quantifying subsurface conditions and
determining the engineering properties of the soil and bedrock to be used to design new
and assess existing embankments, slopes, foundations to structures using appropriate
geotechnical site investigations methods, equipment and laboratory testing. The revealed
geologic conditions also provide the information required in order to make site
development recommendations. The field investigations will in general consist of drilling
borings from which soil and/or bedrock samples will be taken for laboratory testing and
analysis. The methods to be used to obtain the engineering properties during field
investigation should be described in detail with justification provided.
Specific geotechnical challenges require specific field investigations. Areas with problem
soils have an effect on the design of the road and structures, the method of construction,
future performance in terms of load carrying ability and stability of the constructed fill or
layer works. Specialist geotechnical input and investigation is required for the following:
• Expansive or shrinking sub-soils;
• Soft or wet clays;
• Collapsible or compressible sub-soils;
• Dispersive and erodible soils;
• Made ground and landfills.

However, it is essential to establish between localised problem areas and more general in
terms of in-situ roadbed problem areas.

3.1.1 Scope

The planning for the field investigations considers the following activities:

1. Undertaking of geotechnical investigations involving some or all of the following:

a. Borehole drilling, for the assessment of deeper sub-surface conditions for
proposed structures along the roadway alignment.
b. Test pit excavation: for sampling and assessing of subgrade conditions. The
test pits are logged on-site under full time supervision by an engineering
geologist or geotechnical engineer responsible for locating test pits, sampling
disturbed and undisturbed material and photographing the sub-surface profile.
c. Cone penetration tests: for assessing soil strength/relative density for deep soil
deposits.
d. Dynamic cone penetrometer testing: for assessing subgrade consistency for
design. Preferably undertaken adjacent to each test pit to assess the in-situ
strength/relative density of the sub-surface soils.
2. Documenting the geotechnical information on the subsurface conditions along the
proposed roadway corridor.
3. Providing a summary of the laboratory test result.
4. Providing interpretation of the subsurface conditions and preparing a ground model for
the project alignment
5. Providing design recommendations.

3.1.2 Extent of exploration

The lateral and vertical extent to which the exploration is to be undertaken depends on
the loading under consideration, which influences the road environment and determines
the boundaries and depths of the exploration.

(17)
The characteristics of the subgrade within the road prism must be determined as the
subgrade must carry the load due to the traffic and the road structure on top of it. As a
general guide, once the vertical alignment of the road is fixed, exploration for roads is
taken to a depth of between 2 and 4 m below the finished road level, as the material
depth, the depth below the surface of the finished road that soil characteristics significantly
affect pavement behaviour varies between 1.0 and 1.2 m below the pavement surface for
high volume roads. A cost-effective method for obtaining sub-surface information to a
depth of approximately 800 mm is by means of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP),
usually in conjunction with test pits, as discussed in Section 5.2.1 of the Site Investigation
Manual 2019. Methods that should be considered during the planning for the field
investigation to assess subgrade properties are presented in Table 5.1 and the frequency
of DCP testing in Table 5.3 of the Site Investigation Manual 2019.
During the planning for field investigation, the geotechnical engineer/specialist shall decide
on the number, position and depth of boreholes and test pitting, the sampling routine for
each soil type to be found, and the number and type of in situ and laboratory tests that
are required, to adequately characterise the subsurface conditions along the road
alignment.
The minimum requirements for planning the field exploration for specific geotechnical
features, in terms of frequency, location of testing and depth to be adopted in geotechnical
investigation and design work are discussed below. These are based on the FHWA
Geotechnical Review Checklist (2012). Refer also to suggested investigation requirements
for deep excavations and the techniques used for geotechnical or ground investigations
presented in Table 6.2 and in Table 6.4 of the Site Investigation Manual 2019, respectively,
for guidance.
In planning the extent of exploration, the determination of the minimum parameters to
undertake required geotechnical engineering analysis presented in Table 3-12 should be
taken into account.

3.1.2.1 Pavement subgrade

The location, spacing and depth of pits and borings for characterising the subsurface
conditions depend on the type of road; the soil and rock formations; the known variability
in stratification; and the anticipated loads from traffic which the sub-grade will be
subjected to.
The following requirements shall also apply to cuts and fills less than 8m.
Minimum parameters to be determined for analysis and design
Load-bearing capacity of the subgrade is often affected by degree of compaction,
moisture content, and soil type. The basic characteristics:
• CBR, simple strength test
• Resilient modulus, more advanced test. Mechanistic-Empirical design approach
• Modulus of subgrade reaction. This is a bearing test to rate the support provided by the
subgrade or combination of subgrade and subbase
• Shrinkage and/or swelling properties

Frequency and location of exploration points:

1. For preliminary site investigation, a minimum of one exploration point at each km of the
anticipated alignment.
2. For final site investigation, the spacing could be as low as 500 m when information is
required on specific problems.
3. One exploration every 60 m, alternating along the centreline of the route. For divided
highways, one exploration shall be performed every 30 m, alternating between the
centreline of each lane.

(18)
 4. Representative large amounts of samples for CBR testing should be taken from pits or
borings located not more than 200 m apart.
Minimum depth of investigation
1. Each exploration shall be advanced to at least 1.5 m below the proposed subgrade elevation
(in cut areas). This should cover the material depth, especially for a road carrying category
Traffic Class TC1.
2. For new alignment, the depth from the natural ground surface should not be less than 2 m
unless a rock stratum is encountered.
In fill areas, the:
3. Presence of groundwater less than 3 m beneath the sub-grade, irregular bedrocks, or big
boulders may all need a limited number of shallow borings (up to 15 m).
4. The explorations shall be advanced to a depth equal to the height of fill but not less than
1.5 m below the existing grade

3.1.2.2 Cut slopes greater than 8 m

The purpose is to define the soil profile beneath the entire width of the cut for stability and
settlement analysis. The following requirements shall also apply to cuts where bedrock is
expected to be encountered above planned depth of excavation.
Minimum parameters required for stability analysis
Shear strength properties (cu and φ) of exposed materials, dip of rock strata, as required
to model behaviour and carry out stability analyses
Frequency and location of exploration points:
1. One exploration every 60 m interval along the anticipated limits of cut (top of slope). Should
coincide with pavement subgrade exploration pattern.
2. Otherwise, in non-pavement areas, exploration shall be located every 60 m of the slope
length at the anticipated top and bottom of slope road. Include areas just outside but which
could affect or be affected by the proposed road project.
3. If the length of cuts is more than 60 m, the spacing between borings should be 60 to 120 m
4. Uniform condition sections, one exploration every 120 m with at least one boring in each
separate landform.
5. Minimum of 3 borings along line perpendicular to centreline or planned slope face to
establish geologic cross-section for analysis
6. For an active slide, place at least one boring upslope of the sliding area.
Minimum depth of investigation
1. In stable material, extend borings to a minimum 5 m below depth of cut at the ditch line,
unless rock is encountered at shallow depth.
2. Rock encountered at shallow depth, shall be cored to the full depth of the planned cut
3. In weak soils, extend borings below grade to firm materials or to twice the depth of cut
whichever occurs first
4. In cases of high ground water table, it is recommended to install observation well in at least
one boring in order to obtain stabilised water level readings

3.1.2.3 Embankments greater than 8 m

The purpose is to define the soil profile beneath the entire width of the embankment for
stability and settlement analysis. Investigations of such embankments should comply with
the following minimum requirements, with embankments on swampy ground requiring
special considerations:

(19)
 Minimum parameters required for stability analysis
• Total stress and effective stress shear strength parameters (cu and φ);
• Unit weights;
• Compressibility parameters
• Time-rate consolidation parameters
• Horizontal earth pressure coefficients
• Interface friction parameters
• Shrink/swell/degradation of soil and rock fill
• Orientation and characteristics of rock discontinuities
• Subsurface profile of soil, ground water and rock

Embankment on swampy ground

• Moisture Content
• Unit weight
• Liquid Limit
• Plastic Limit
• Specific Gravity
• Vertical Permeability
• Horizontal Permeability to Vertical Permeability Ratio
• Undrained Shear Strength

Frequency and location of exploration points:

1. One exploration every 60 m interval along the anticipated limits of fill (top of slope). Should
coincide with pavement subgrade exploration pattern.
2. If the length of embankment is more than 60 m, the spacing between borings should be 60
to 120 m
3. Otherwise, in non-pavement areas, exploration shall be located every 60 m along the
centreline of the embankment and along each toe.

Minimum depth of investigation

1. Extend borings to a hard stratum or to a depth of twice the embankment height.
2. Each exploration shall be extended to fully penetrate any unsuitable natural soils or existing
fill and penetrate at least 3 m into the underlying suitable natural soils.

Roads should not be located where there is a need of fills on slopes greater than 60
percent.

3.1.2.4 Retaining structures

Exploration for the design of proposed and investigation of existing retaining walls should
comply with the following minimum requirements:

Minimum parameters required for stability analysis

1. Total stress and effective stress shear strength parameters (cu and φ);
2. Unit weights
3. Earth pressure coefficients: at rest (Ko), active (Ka), passive (Kp)
4. Surcharge loads
Frequency and location of exploration points:

(20)
 1. One exploration spaced no greater than 30 m along the alignment of the proposed or
existing retaining wall.
2. At least one exploration shall be drilled for walls less than 30 m in length.
3. The initial pattern of holes should be front and back staggered along the length of the
proposed structure.
4. The holes shall be placed approximately 15 m apart.
5. For retaining walls more than 30 m in length, the spacing between borings should be no
more than 60 m.
6. For anchored or tieback walls, additional explorations shall be sited in the anchored or
tieback zone.
7. For soil nail walls, additional explorations shall be performed behind the wall at a distance
corresponding to 1.0 to 1.5 times the height of the wall at 30 m maximum spacing.
8. Some borings should be at the front of and some in the back of the wall face.
Minimum depth of investigation
1. Extend each boring below the bottom of the wall to a depth of between 0.75 to 1.5 times
the wall height below the proposed bottom of the footing if in soil
2. When stratum indicates potential deep stability or settlement problem, each exploration
shall extend at least 3 m and shall be extended to fully penetrate any unsuitable soils or
existing fill into competent material of suitable bearing capacity
3. If rock is encountered at grades above the proposed foundation elevation, good practice
calls for coring to a depth of at least 3 m to determine the integrity and load capacity of the
rock, and to verify that the exploration was not terminated on a boulder.

3.1.2.5 Bridge approach embankment

The exploration plan should ensure that the full length and width of the structure including
the approach of embankments is covered. Investigations of bridge approach embankments
should comply with the following minimum requirements.
Minimum parameters required for stability analysis
1. Unit weight
2. Liquid Limit
3. Plastic Limit
4. Specific Gravity
5. Vertical Permeability
6. Horizontal Permeability to Vertical Permeability Ratio
7. Undrained Shear Strength
Frequency and location of exploration points:
1. At least one boring should be made at each embankment to determine the problems
associated with stability and settlement of the embankment
2. For approach embankments, the initial layout of the holes should be a grid pattern with the
holes about 30 m apart measured along the road centre line and at 20 m apart measured
at right angles to the road centre line.
3. Boring located at the proposed abutment
4. For bridges less than or equal to 30 m wide, a minimum of one boring shall be performed
per substructure.
5. For bridges greater than 30 m wide, a minimum of two borings shall be performed per
substructure.
Minimum depth of investigation

(21)
 1. Extend each boring into competent material and to a depth where added stresses due to
embankment load is less than 10% of existing effective overburden stress or 3 m into
bedrock if encountered at a shallower depth
2. Additional shallow explorations (hand auger holes) taken at approach embankment
locations to determine depth and extent of unsuitable surface soils or topsoil.
3. If soft strata are encountered below the depth greater than twice the embankment height,
the exploration depth should be increased to fully penetrate the soft strata into competent
material (e.g., stiff to hard cohesive soil, dense cohesionless soil, or bedrock).
4. The depth of boreholes should be deeper than the river floor

3.1.2.6 Structure foundations

Investigations of foundations to structures should comply with the following minimum
requirements
Minimum parameters required for stability analysis
1. Total stress and effective stress shear strength parameters (cu and φ);
2. Unit weights
3. Compressibility parameters (including consolidation, shrink/swell potential, and elastic
modulus
4. Horizontal earth pressure coefficients (piles)
Frequency and location of exploration points:
1. One per substructure unit under 30 m in width
2. For bridge piers or abutments/substructure units greater than 30 m wide, at least two
borings should be performed.
3. Plan for additional borings in areas of erratic subsurface conditions
Minimum depth of investigation
Spread footings with length (L) and width (B):
1. If L ≤ 2B, minimum 2B below foundation level;
2. For bridge foundation L ≥ 5B, minimum 4B below the foundation level and interpolate for
L between 2B and 5B
Deep foundations:
1. 6 m below tip elevation or two times maximum pile group dimension, whichever is greater
2. For drilled shafts that are supported on, or socketed into the rock, obtain a minimum of 3
m of rock core, or a length of rock core equal to at least 3 times the estimated shaft
diameter (for isolated shafts) or 2 times the minimum shaft group dimensions, whichever
is greater.
3. If bedrock is encountered: for piles, core 3 m below tip elevation; for shafts, core 3D, where
D is the diameter of the pile or 2 times maximum shaft group dimension below tip elevation,
whichever is greater

3.1.2.7 Culverts
Exploration should be sufficiently deep, to ensure that the soil below it can bear the load
without settlement and it should be kept beyond the maximum scouring depth of the water
course. The depth of exploration for pile foundations to culverts should be such that, more
frictional resistance will be developed so that the culvert can be safe against sliding.
Minimum parameters required for stability analysis
1. Total stress and effective stress shear strength parameters (cu and φ);
2. Unit weights
Frequency and location of exploration points
1. At least one boring should be performed at each major culvert.
2. Additional borings may be provided in areas of erratic subsurface conditions
(22)
 Minimum depth of investigation
1. Extend borings to a hard stratum or to a depth of twice the culvert height.
2. Each exploration shall be extended to fully penetrate any unsuitable natural soils or
existing fill and penetrate at least 3 m into the underlying suitable natural soils.

3.1.2.8 Ground improvement

There is wide variety of techniques available for altering and improving poor ground
conditions. Advanced ground improvement techniques are used when traditional over-
excavation and replacement is not feasible for environmental, technical or economic
reasons. Specific soil information will be required, depending on the ground improvement
technique to be used. In most cases, specialist contractors will undertake such work and
should provide a plan of works.

3.2 Geotechnical exploration methods applications and limitations

A number of exploration methods are used to characterise the subgrade and subsurface
conditions in general. The geotechnical exploration for a road project will consist primarily
of the exploration methods summarised below. Reference should be made to Section 6.2.1
of the Site Investigation Manual 2019.

3.2.1 Borings

The purpose of the geotechnical drilling is to evaluate the subsurface conditions for the
proposed road and structure foundations by obtaining samples of the soil or rock material.
Thus, it enables the determination of the stratigraphy and the engineering properties of
the materials. It has the advantage of extending to great depth and therefore used in
areas where trial pits are not possible. Borings are appropriate in landslide zones,
unconsolidated soils and where existing pavement layers are present.
There are several drilling methods that can be used, some are non-destructive. The choice
depends on the type of soil and rock expected within the depth of the borehole.

3.2.1.1 Auger boring

Application:
Appropriate in soft to stiff cohesive soil and soft rock; to identify geologic units and
water content above water table. Typically, a dry hole is drilled with a hand or power
auger. Samples are recovered from auger flights.
Limitations:
It is difficult to locate the exact changes in the strata as the soil and rock stratification
is destroyed and the sample is mixed with water below the water table. It is not suitable
for very hard or cemented soils, very soft soils, and fully saturated cohesionless soil.
The method is for extraction of disturbed samples of soils. Hand augers limited in the
depth to which they can be driven, 2 to 3 m.

3.2.1.2 Hollow stem augers

Application:
Typically used in soils that would require casing to maintain an open hole for sampling.
Hollow stem augers are used for drilling into clay-filled soils. A hole is advanced by the
hollow stem auger and soil sampled from the auger.
Limitations:

(23)
Sampling is limited by larger gravel and difficulties in maintaining hydrostatic balance
in hole below water table.

3.2.1.3 Wash boring

Application:
Appropriate for soft to stiff cohesive materials and fine to coarse granular soils. The
technique involves a combination of chopping and strong jetting to break the soil or rock
into small fragments and the cuttings are removed by circulating fluid and discharged
into settling tub.
Limitations:
The samples recovered from the wash water are not usually appropriate for meaningful
interpretation of the correct geotechnical properties of soil. When boring, the sides of
the borehole are supported with either casing or the use of drilling fluid. The method is
slow in the stiffer and coarse-grained soils and not efficient in materials such as hard or
cemented soils as well as rock and material which contains boulders.

3.2.1.4 Rotary boring

Application:
The method is more rapid, induces less disturbance to the material being sampled. It is
often the most suitable method of investigation below water level for recovery of
undisturbed samples and for coring into hard materials. It can be used for finding out
the rock strata and also to access the quality of rocks from cracks, fissures and joints.
Limitations:
It is more cost effective for large diameter holes (15 – 20 cm for rocks; and >10 cm for
soils). It is uneconomical for holes less than 10 cm in diameter.

3.2.1.5 Percussion boring

Application:
The method may be used in most materials and particularly useful for borings which
must penetrate coarse granular materials, including soils containing boulders and rock
with cavities and weakness as the drill rate changes. Changes in the nature of the
material being penetrated are noted by observations, including rate of progress,
behaviour of the drilling tools, colour of the slurry and character of the cuttings
Limitations:
It is difficult to detect thin layers and slight changes in material. The method is not
economical for holes less than 100 mm in diameter. It disturbs the material at the
bottom of the hole, due to heavy blows of the drill equipment, leading to cohesionless
material becoming denser and cohesive material being remoulded.

3.2.1.6 Hammer boring

Application:
Most effective method of subsurface exploration in sand, gravel and boulders, up to
depths of 80 m. It is a rapid method, inexpensive and most appropriate for penetrating
soil containing boulders, good for rapid mapping of alluvial material over large areas.
Limitations:

(24)
 Direct identification of material is difficult. The pressure at the bottom of the casing is
reduced far below the hydrostatic pressure from groundwater table and therefore
difficult to maintain a pressure balance.

The boreholes should be logged under full time supervision by the Geotechnical Specialist.
Where applicable, water levels in the boreholes should be recorded during the drilling
process and recorded on the borehole logs. If rock cores are recovered where borings are
continued through the rock profile, they should also be logged and photographed. The
depth of the boring shall be according to the minimum requirements for specific
geotechnical features as presented in section 3.1.2 above.

3.2.2 In situ tests

In-situ tests are used to rapidly evaluate the variability of subsurface conditions, develop
a site model, by identifying uniform sections, locate regions that require sampling and
testing, and provide estimates of design values. Any potential layers of compressible soils
and relative density of units underlying the project site can be assessed.
Each of the methods presented below has its own suitability and limitations that should be
considered when planning a subsurface investigation. Additionally, the parameters that
are provided by each test method for design and analysis should be considered.

3.2.2.1 Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP)

Suitability:
Used for assessment of subgrade consistency. Conducted where subgrade conditions
permit. Can be used in gravel, sand, silt and clay with varying gravel content and lightly
stabilised materials. A simple quick test to evaluate the subgrade, cut and fill.
Properties provided for design:
Provides indication of material level of compaction and strength and stiffness. Qualitative
in-situ correlation to CBR. Identify spatial variation in subgrade soil and stratification.
Limitation:
Limited to 1 m depth. Extensions can be used but become difficult to extract. Does not
provide a sample of material for examination
The DCP cannot penetrate coarse-grained material (refer to Figure A.2 in Appendix A of
the Site Investigation Manual, 2019) and soil containing large stones and boulders, thick
bituminous layers and material stabilised with high percentage of cement. In such
circumstances, it is recommended that a hole is drilled through the impenetrable layer
to allow for DCP penetration in the underlying layers where applicable.

(25)
 3.2.2.2 Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT)
Suitability:
Conducted in relatively weak materials, soft to stiff clays and loose to dense sands
Properties provided for design:
Assessment of soil strength/relative density for deep deposits. In situ strength and
compressibility of soils. Provide an indication of the peak in-situ undrained shear
strength. Both point resistance and friction are measured. Indirect method to measure
(qc) and drained shear strength (∅ ̅). Evaluation of subgrade soil type, vertical strata
limits, and groundwater level, drained Young’s Modulus (E) of cohesionless soils.
Where piezocones are used in CPT tests, pore water pressure is measured.
Limitation:
Does not provide a sample of material to be examined.

3.2.2.3 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

Suitability:
Undertaken in sand and silt. Samples are recovered.
Properties provided for design:
Useful to estimate the relative density, effective friction angle (∅), deformation modulus
of cohesionless soils and settlement and assess the liquefaction potential of saturated
sands, allowable bearing value and clay soil consistency, identification and classification
of recovered disturbed samples.
Limitation:
The results will vary due to any mechanical or operator variability or drilling
disturbances. SPT tests have poor reproducibility. The application of SPT in gravels,
cobbles and cohesive soils is limited. Test is costly and time consuming.

3.2.2.4 Vane shear

Suitability:
Useful in soft to firm clays.
Properties provided for design:
Measurement of undrained shear strength useful in stability analyses of cuts and fills.
Limitation:
Results affected by soil anisotropy, since measurement of parameters is obtained by
shearing two circular horizontal surfaces and a cylindrical vertical surface and loading
time-rate. If the failure envelope is not horizontal, the vane shear test does not give
accurate results.
Vane shear test is not suitable for clays which contain sand or silt laminations, as well
as fissured clay.

(26)
 3.2.2.5 Pressuremeters
Suitability:
Useful in materials difficult to sample undisturbed in a test boring, such as sands, silts
and soft rock as test is performed in boreholes.
Properties provided for design:
Measurement of compression modulus estimate of undrained shear strength. The
Pressuremeter is used to assess lateral earth pressure in-situ. The test is frequently
used to measure the in-situ stress/strain behaviour of site soils and rock to gain an
understanding of stiffness and for engineering calculations where soil deformations are
important.
Limitation:
Modulus results are affected by soil anisotropy and values are only valid for linear portion
of soil behaviour and invalid in layered formations. Results also affected by borehole
disturbance.

3.2.2.6 Pits and trenches

Test pit and trench excavations are carried out for sampling of subgrade materials and
determination of excavation conditions and any unsuitable material. They permit detailed
examination of the in-situ subsurface soil and rock material and conditions at shallow
depths and offer alternatives to conventional drilling at relatively low cost. Trenches are
especially useful to investigate cut slopes, valley sides and bridge abutments where lateral
variations in material conditions are expected.
The excavations are used to obtain large-size samples, both disturbed and undisturbed
samples for laboratory testing. They are the most appropriate methods of site investigation
where significant variations in soil conditions occur, soil materials with boulders and debris
exist that cannot be sampled with conventional methods, or buried features must be
identified.
The test pits should be logged under full time supervision by a Geotechnical Specialist
responsible for locating test pits and sampling. The sub-surface profile should be
photographed and profiled in a standard manner, provided in Appendix B of the Site
Investigation Manual 2019. All reasonable safety precautions must be adhered to when
excavating and logging pits and trenches, including backfilling on completion with the
excavated material, usually replaced in the same sequence as it was excavated.
There are several methods for excavating the exploration pits and trenches. The suitability
and limitations for each method are summarised in the sections below. Reference should
be made to section 5.2.1 of the Site Investigation Manual 2019.

3.2.2.7 Hand-excavated test pits

Suitability:
Where bulk sampling is required and minimal disturbance of surrounding ground by
mechanical equipment. Provides data in inaccessible areas as method permits entrance
of one or more persons in the pit or trench of access for in-situ testing and visual
inspection.
Limitation:
Time-consuming, limited to depths above groundwater level

(27)
 3.2.2.8 Backhoe excavated test pits and trenches
Suitability:
Where bulk sampling, in-situ testing, visual inspection, depth of bedrock and
groundwater is required. Method is fast and economical, where equipment is required.
However, not so economical in comparison with the hand excavated test pits.
Limitation:
Generally limited to depths above groundwater level, limited undisturbed sampling and
generally less than 3 m deep, but can be up to 6 m.

3.2.2.9 Drilled shafts

Suitability:
Mostly for pre-excavation for piles and shafts, landslide investigations, and drainage
wells. It is faster and more economical than hand excavated. More appropriate for
diameter ranging from minimum of 750 mm to maximum of 2 m.
Limitation:
Difficult to obtain undisturbed samples, casing may obscure visual inspection, costly
mobilisation, and equipment is not common,

3.2.2.10 Dozer cuts

Suitability:
Where bedrock characteristics, depth of bedrock and groundwater level are required.
Provides level area for other exploration equipment and rippability depth capability of
backhoes is increased. Relatively low cost, exposures for geologic mapping increased.
Limitation:
Exploration limited to depth above groundwater level.

It is good practice to log the time required to complete the excavation of the trenches/test
pits, their dimensions, and descriptions of the in situ and excavated materials and to
provide good quality colour photographs of the finished trench and excavated material.

3.2.3 Geophysical methods

Geophysical methods are used to conduct subsurface investigations for engineering
applications, to obtain information required in design, construction and during
maintenance of roads. Geophysical methods include electrical methods (i.e. resistivity),
seismic methods, electromagnetic methods, and gravity methods. These methods are
valuable in mapping the subsurface, including determining the depth to bedrock, the
bedrock quality, subsurface soil stratigraphy and various soil and rock properties;
investigating roadway subsidence; and imaging buried man-made features.

3.2.3.1 Electrical Resistivity Imaging

Suitability:
Performed in a wide range of soil types and terrain and to detect subsurface cavities
(i.e. sink holes or other subsidence), to map bedrock or groundwater table as well as to
delineate change in subsurface soil stratigraphy.
Limitation:

(28)
 • Slow as it takes time to complete a survey once set up; must install electrodes
directly in the ground and therefore labour intensive
• Resolution decreases significantly with increasing depth
• Successful when a contrast of the specific geophysical property exists between
material types. Resolution is therefore difficult in highly heterogeneous deposits

3.2.3.2 Seismic Methods (Refraction & MASW)

Suitability:
Used in many different soil conditions and different types of terrain. Seismic methods
commonly conducted include: seismic refraction, seismic reflection, and surface wave
methods. These methods measure how seismic waves travel through the subsurface to
determine the physical properties of the soil and rock. Used to measure depth to
bedrock, depth to water table, thickness and relative stiffness of soil or rock layers.
Tests are relatively quick to run.
Limitation:
• Data processing can take time and requires geologic knowledge and expertise
• Does not work if stiffness decreases with depth or if soft layer underlies stiff layer.

3.2.3.3 Ground Penetrating Radar

Suitability:
Useful to image near surface targets such as the location of pipes and tanks, pavement
characteristics, void detection and top of the water table. The surveys are quick and
easy to run, and data can be viewed in real-time.
Limitation:
• The effectiveness of the Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) decreases in conductive
soils, wet clay, saturated sands and soils with high percentage of clays
• Depth of penetration is limited to about 10 m
• GPR does not directly provide the composition of the subsurface soil

3.2.4 Groundwater observation

Roads traversing basin valleys, downstream of earth dams, along seasonal water courses,
rivers, and near swampy/marshy areas and lakes are most likely to experience shallow
groundwater levels. It is worth noting that the Zambezi river basin in Mozambique includes
27 sub-basins, spread across four provinces, namely Manica, Sofala, Tete and Zambezia.
The purpose of investigating groundwater is either to determine the level of the permanent
water table at the time of the investigation and pressure or to determine the permeability
of the subsurface materials along the project site. The determination of groundwater level
information is required to understand seasonal groundwater elevation changes and
influence on behaviour of the road structure and bearing capacity of foundations to
structures and for the design of cut slopes. Groundwater flow leads to internal erosion of
embankments and will give rise to a reduction in the stability of the embankment as well
as silting of road drainage system.
The determination of groundwater level data is therefore conducted for the purposes of
developing design groundwater surfaces which are used to determine the design of the
roadway structures and pavement. In areas with shallow groundwater levels, the site
investigation process should include the use of groundwater level loggers and real-time
groundwater level monitoring instruments at each of the construction areas, which should
remain operational throughout the project, to monitor impacts from construction.

(29)
The influence of water on the behaviour of different materials is critical. Soils that are
susceptible to collapse or expansion following exposure to moisture are not appropriate as
construction material in general and certainly not as material for construction of
earthworks in embankments. That is why the hydraulic characteristics of the material
needs to be established. The understanding of the soil type and the required parameters
to determine the strength of the materials should take into account the moisture condition
likely to occur during the service life of the road.
Related to the observation of the groundwater, reference should be made to section 7.1.1
of the Site Investigation Manual 2019 and the following should be established:
• occurrence of a perched water table condition and its level
• estimated rates of inflow to excavations
• effects of de-watering on water table levels and on adjacent structures
• the presence of sub-artesian conditions, presence of artesian springs
• potential aggressiveness of the soil and groundwater, to buried concrete and steel.
Boreholes can be selected to have monitoring wells installed for sampling, groundwater
measurement and assessment of risks associated with elevated groundwater levels and
groundwater aggressivity. Pore-water pressure is measured using piezocones used in CPT
tests. A sensor is located just behind the cone head to measure the pore water pressure.

3.2.5 Sampling and laboratory test measurements

This stage of the geotechnical investigation involves retrieval of laboratory test data from
the tests conducted on selected soil and rock samples from boreholes and test pits to
assess the engineering characteristics of the material and to generate geotechnical
parameters. The samples include undisturbed, disturbed and bulk soil samples and
recovered rock core. Table 3-1 provides typical laboratory tests that are usually con-
ducted during geotechnical investigations. Details on frequency of sampling, depth of
sampling for different soil conditions and geotechnical structures are discussed in section
3.1.2

(30)
 Table 3-1: Sample laboratory test measurements
Geotechnical test Sample type Utilisation of test results
Acid sulfate soil SPT, Disturbed Acid sulfate soil assessment
Atterberg limits Undisturbed, Disturbed, General classification of soils for
Bulk, SPT material assessment
California Bearing Ratio Bulk Subgrade material assessment
(CBR) for pavement design purposes
Conductivity Disturbed Conductivity assessment of soil
Conductivity Water Groundwater conductivity
assessment
Maximum dry Bulk General classification of soils for
density/optimum earthwork material assessment
moisture content
Moisture content Disturbed, Bulk, SPT General classification of soils for
material assessment
One dimensional Undisturbed Consolidation properties of soil
consolidation
Particle size distribution Bulk, SPT General classification of soils for
material assessment
Particle size distribution Undisturbed, Bulk General classification of soils for
(Hydrometer) material assessment
pH, sulphate (S04), Disturbed Soil aggressivity assessment
chloride (Cl)
pH, sulphate (S04), Water Groundwater aggressivity
chloride (Cl) assessment
Point load index Core Rock mass strength assessment
Resistivity Disturbed Resistivity assessment of soil
Triaxial compression test Undisturbed Shear strength properties of soil
Uniaxial Compressive Core Rock mass strength assessment
Strength (UCS)

3.2.6 Summary to planning of geotechnical investigation

Table 3-2 and Table 3-3 are provided as a summary of the field and laboratory tests that
could be carried, to assist in the planning of the geotechnical investigation. Table 3-2 is
for tests in stable soil profiles above water table, usually in residual soils or cohesive
transported soils and Table 3-3 in saturated variable soils, usually encountered in coastal
areas (Byrne et al., 2019). Guidance for sampling procedures, frequency of sampling,
depth of sampling for different geotechnical structures is provided in Section 3.1.2.

(31)
 Table 3-2: Guide to planning a soil investigation in stable soil profile
Parameter Field test/requirement Laboratory tests
Collapse Recover undisturbed Double oedometer test
samples from auger trial
Collapse potential test
hole, test pit or borehole
Consistency of the soil In-situ tests Density of undisturbed
profile samples
(DPSH/CPT/SPT/CPTU)
In-situ profiling of trial
holes/test pits
Sand replacement tests
Description of the soil Auger trial holes
profile
Test pits
Boreholes with SPT
Seismic survey
Drained shear strength Recover undisturbed Drained triaxial test
samples from auger trial
Effective angle of internal Drained shear box test
holes, test pit or boreholes
friction (φ)
Undrained triaxial test with
Effective cohesion (cu) measurement of pore
water pressure

Heave Recover undisturbed Double oedometer test

samples from auger trial
Swell under load test
hole, test pit or borehole
Index property test
(disturbed sample)
Index property tests Recover undisturbed Grading analysis
samples from auger trial
Atterberg limits
hole, test pit or borehole
Moisture content
Level of water-table Drill a hole or borehole, Degree of saturation
leave for a period of time
for the water-level to
stabilise in the hole and
then measure the level
Modulus of compressibility Cross-hole jacking test Oedometer test
(stiffness at appropriate Plate load test Triaxial test with local
strain level) strain measurement
Pressurementer test
Bender element
Small strain stiffness –
SASW
Dilatometer
Permeability Recover undisturbed Falling or Constant head
samples from auger trial permeability test
hole, test pit or borehole
CPTU, Lugeon test
Soil suction pressure Filter paper test

(32)
Undrained shear strength Recover undisturbed Undisturbed trial test
samples from auger trial
Unconfined compression
holes, test pits, or
test
boleholes. Vane shear test
in borehole or trial hole

Table 3-3: Guide to planning a soil investigation in saturated variable soils

Parameter Field test/requirement Laboratory tests
Collapse Recover undisturbed Double oedometer test
samples from borehole
Collapse potential test
Consistency of the soil Dynamic Cone
profile Penetrometer
(DPSH)
Cone penetrometer test
(CPT/CPTU)
Borehole with SPT and/or
rotary drilled cores
Description of the soil Borehole with SPT and/or --
profile rotary drilled cores
Drained shear strength Recover undisturbed Drained triaxial test
samples from borehole,
Effective angle of internal Drained shear box test
correlate with in-situ
friction (φ)
penetrometer tests (sandy Undrained traixial test with
Effective cohesion (cu) soils only) measurement of pore
water pressure

Heave Recover undisturbed Double oedometer test

and/or disturbed samples
Swell under load test
borehole
Index property test
(disturbed sample)
Index property tests Recover disturbed samples Grading analysis
from boreholee
Atterberg limits
Moisture content
Level of water-table Drill a borehole and install --
piezometer.
Modulus of compressibility Pressuremeter test, Oedometer test
correlate with in-situ
(stiffness at appropriate Triaxial test with local
penetrometer tests, small
strain level) strain measurement
strain stiffness – SASW
Bender element
Permeability Recover undisturbed Falling or Constant head
samples from borehole permeability test
CPTU, Lugeon test
Undrained shear strength Recover undisturbed Undisturbed trial test
samples from borehole

(33)
 Vane shear test in borehole Unconfined compression
test
Correlate with in-situ
penetrometer tests

3.3 Soil and rock classification

3.3.1 Soil classification

The soil classification is important as it provides guidance in the acceptability of soils for
use in construction and selection of engineering property testing. A distinction is made
between soil description and soil classification. They require the services of an experienced
geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist. The classification of soil is used to assess
general variability and consistency among samples collected from a given site. In this
regard, soil classification is the grouping of soils with similar engineering properties. It
relies on the laboratory test results evaluation supported by index tests. On the other
hand, soil description includes details of both material and mass characteristics. It is
therefore unlikely that any two soils will have identical descriptions (Craig 2004).
A classification system should assist in categorising soils by relating their appearance and
behaviour with established engineering performance. Soil types in Mozambique include
aeolian soils that are common in the east and south of the country; fluvial clays, silts,
sands and gravels are common on valley floors and in estuaries and in the graben
structures of inland Inhambane and Gaza Provinces; and diatomaceous muds and other
fine-grained lacustrine deposits occur in parts of the east and south of the country, in
pans, lagoons and inter-dune swales. A general understanding of the common behaviour
of these soils is essential for appropriate geotechnical design. Reference should be made
to sections 2.3 and 5.3 of the Site Investigation Manual 2019.
There are a number of systems and methods used to classify soils. The AASHTO system,
which was developed specifically for highway construction, groups soils into categories
having similar load carrying capacity and service characteristics for pavement sub-grade
design. The soil groups are designated A-1 through A-7, but Group A-8 has been added to
include highly organic soils. The system of classification requires determination of the
following properties to precisely classify the soil:
• Particle distribution (sieve 2mm, 0.425mm and 0.075mm)
• Liquid limit
• Plasticity index
• Shrinkage limit
The AASHTO system of classification is shown in Table 3-4.
The Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) shown in Figure 3-1 is the most detailed
and because it is based on those characteristics that control how the soil behaves as
an engineering material, it is the mostly used system for geotechnical engineering
applications. While the system does have limitations for use as a field classification
method, it is widely used for many geotechnical applications. The following properties
are required to classify the soil:
• Percentages of gravel, sand, and fines (fraction passing the 0.075 mm sieve).
• Shape of the grain-size-distribution curve.
• Plasticity and compressibility characteristics.

From Figure 3-1, it can be noted that the USCS gives the soil a descriptive name and a
two letter symbol indicating its principal characteristics. The first letter represents soil
type that comprises over 50% of the sample while the second letter defines sample
properties.

(34)
Table 3-4: The AASHTO Soil Classification System (AASHTO M 145 or ASTM D 3282 in Samtani, 2006)

(35)
 Figure 3-1: The Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D 2487)

The material designation used in Figure 3-1 is defined in Table 3-5.

Table 3-5: USCS Definitions

Soil Type Sample property
G Gravel P Poorly graded
S Sand W Well graded
M Silt H High plasticity
C Clay L Low plasticity
O Organic

Reference should be made to Section 8.1.4 and Table 8.1 of the Site Investigation Manual
2019 for the identification of principal soil types in terms of particle size classification. The

(36)
standard definitions for soil description are provided in Appendix B of the Site Investigation
Manual 2019.

3.3.2 Soil description

The description of soil in the field should be carried out in a consistent and repeatable
manner. The process widely employed in Southern African Soils is provided in Appendix B
of the Site Investigation Manual 2019.
Soil description in accordance with AASHTO M 145 or ASTM D 2488 as presented in Table
3-4 shall include the following:
• Apparent consistency (e.g. soft, firm, etc. for fine-grained soils) or density
adjectives (e.g. loose, dense, etc. for coarse-grained soils);
• Water content condition adjective (e.g. dry, moist or wet);
• Colour description (e.g. brown, grey etc.);
• Main soil type name (e.g. sand, clay, silt or combinations);
• Descriptive adjective for main soil type (e.g. for coarse-grained soils: fine, medium;
coarse, well-rounded, angular, etc., for fine-grained soils: organic; inorganic,
compressible, laminated, etc.);
• Particle-size distribution adjective for gravel and sand (e.g. uniform or well-
graded);
• Plasticity adjective (e.g. high or low) and soil texture (e.g. rough, smooth,
slickwaxy, etc.) for inorganic and organic silts or clays;
• Descriptive term for minor type(s) of soil (with, some, trace, etc.);
Minor soil type name if the fine-grained minor component is less than 30% but,
greater than 12%; or the coarse-grained minor component is 30% or more (e.g.
silty for fine grained, sandy for coarse-grained minor soil type);
• Descriptive adjective “with” if the fine-grained minor soil type is 5 to 12 % (e.g.
with clay) or if the coarse-grained minor soil type is less than 30 % but 15 % or
more (e.g. with gravel);
• Inclusions (e.g. concretions or cementation).

An example of a subsurface exploration log is provided in Appendix A.

3.3.3 Soil engineering characteristics

On the basis of the classification and description, soils can be grouped as either being
coarse-grained or fine-grained depending on the grain size distribution. The dominating
grouping influences the engineering behaviour of the materials. The engineering
characteristics of materials play a role in the performance of the geotechnical structural
elements as discussed in section 3.4.
Coarse-grained soils have the following engineering characteristics:
• Generally, not expansive
• Generally, very good foundation material for supporting structures and roads;
• Generally, very good embankment material;
• Generally, the best backfill material for retaining walls
• May settle under vibratory loads or blasts;
• Dewatering may be difficult in open-graded gravels due to high permeability;

The inorganic clays (A-6 and A-7) exhibit the following engineering characteristics:
• Generally, possess low shear strength;
• Plastic and compressible;
• Can lose part of shear strength upon wetting;
• Can lose part of shear strength upon disturbance;
• Can shrink upon drying and expand upon wetting;

(37)
 • Generally, very poor material for backfill;
• Generally, poor material for embankments;
• Can be practically impervious;
• Clay slopes are prone to landslides.

The inorganic silts (A4 and A-5) exhibit the following engineering characteristics:
• Relatively low shear strength;
• Relatively low permeability;
• Difficult to compact

3.3.4 Rock classification

Rock characterisation is required to assist in making appropriate design and aggregate
quality recommendations. It is important to be able to identify rock types, discontinuities
and differentiate weak zones within a rock mass. It is often the secondary characteristics
of the rock mass that govern the strength and behaviour of rock. The expectation is that
rock description should, include features which are significant in influencing its engineering
performance.
Rock descriptions differ from soil descriptions as laboratory methods are typically not used
to corroborate the rock type and therefore generally more difficult to identify and classify
than soils. This is best done by a geologist or engineering geologist.

3.3.4.1 Lithology
Rocks are divided into three main categories based on their genesis. Rocks are either:
• Igneous – formed by the cooling of magmas and lavas
• Sedimentary – formed by the breakdown through weathering of an existing rock mass,
thus they are deposited by the sedimentation of eroded materials carried by water,
wind, ice or gravity, or else be chemical sedimentation.
• Metamorphic – formed from igneous, sedimentary or other metamorphic rocks affected
by varying degrees of heating, pressure or chemical fluids.

Table 3-6 shows the classification of most general parent rock types and examples.

Table 3-6: Rock classification

Parent Acid Basic Calcareous Argillaceous Arenaceous Metamorphic
Rock Igneous Igneous Rocks (clayey) (sandy) Rocks
Type Rocks Rocks Sedimentary Sedimentary
Rocks Rocks
Examples Vein Basalt, Calcrete, Claystone Sandstone, Marble,
of Rock quartz, Dolerite, Limestone, Mudstone, Conglomerate, Slate,
Types Pegmatite, Andesite, Marble, Siltstone, Tillite, Hornfels,
Rhyolite, Diorite, Dolomite Shale, Chert Quartzite,
Aplite, Norite, Coal Schist,
Granite Pyroxenite Gneiss,
Anthracite

Igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rocks are all present in Mozambique. Cretaceous
and Tertiary sandstones and limestones are the most common rocks found at the surface
in parts of the south and southeast (predominantly in Inhambane and Gaza Provinces).
The volcanic rocks (rhyolites and basalts) form the Libombo Mountains in the far west of
Maputo Province. Metamorphic rocks exposed at the surface are found in the north and
northwest of the country.

(38)
 3.3.4.2 Rock sample description
The descriptions of rocks differ from soil descriptions as laboratory methods are typically
not used to corroborate the rock type and consideration is given to the characteristics of
both the intact rock and the discontinuities. The classification consists of two basic
assessments, sample characteristics and rock mass characteristics.
Sample characteristics consists of a written classification of the intact rock core, with
regards to lithology, degree of weathering, grain-size, voids, hardness, and colour. Rock
descriptions should also include stratigraphic classification when known.
Rock mass characteristics on the other hand consists of a quantitative classification of the
in-place rock mass. The structural or lithological discontinuities, such as bedding, joints,
faults, and formational contacts as well as the amount of core recovery are essential
characteristics. Characteristics of the rock mass are obtained by measurements of
Recovery (REC), Average Core Length (ACL), Rock Quality Designation (RQD) and
Fractures per Interval (Core Breaks).
Methods of rock descriptions vary but should be expressed in a specific sequence to
maintain consistency in the rock description portion of the boring log. Good practice
requires that it reads as one or more articulate sentences. The description in general
should cover the following main aspects:
1. a description of the rock material (or intact rock): the term rock material here
refers to rock that has no through-going fractures significantly reducing its tensile
strength;
2. a description of the discontinuities; and
3. a description of the rock mass: the term rock mass here refers to the rock material
and the discontinuities. Information from (1) and (2) is combined to provide an
overall description of the rock mass.

The following is an example:

1. Weathering
2. Hardness
3. Bedding (if present – sedimentary rocks only)
4. Colour
5. Rock type
6. Fracturing /Joint Condition, including spacing, surface condition, separation of joint
planes, wall rock condition, continuity of joints, and orientation of each joint set.
7. Inclusions, minor rock types, and minerals observed (i.e. Pyrite, Anhydrite, etc.).
8. Other features that might need to be brought to the attention of the engineer

Weathering
Weathering is the process of physical disintegration and chemical decomposition generally
acting together. The process of alteration and breakdown of rock occurs under the direct
influence of the hydrosphere and the atmosphere, at or near the Earth’s surface.
Weathering and chemical alteration are important aspects of rock classification that can
affect both intact rock and rock mass properties. The changes occur over time, impacting
on rock hardness, strength, compressibility and permeability. The rock mass is altered
until the rock is reduced to soil. Table 3-7 shows the terms used to describe the weathering
state of a rock mass.

(39)
 Table 3-7: Weathering terms for Rock Mass
Term Description Grade
Unweathered No visible sign of rock material weathering, perhaps slight
I
discoloration on major discontinuity surfaces. Rock rings
under hammer if crystalline.
Slightly Discoloration indicates weathering of rock material and
II
weathered discontinuity surfaces. All the rock material may be
discoloured by weathering and may be somewhat weaker
externally than in its fresh condition. Some joints may
show thin clay coatings.
Moderately Less than half of the rock material is decomposed and/or
III
weathered disintegrated to a soil. Fresh or discoloured rock is
present either as a continuous framework or as core-
stones. Rock has dull sound under hammer and shows a
significant loss of strength compared to fresh rock.
Highly More than half of the rock material is decomposed and/or
IV
weathered disintegrated to a soil. Fresh or discoloured rock is
present either as a discontinuous framework or as core-
stones. Rock shows severe loss of strength and can be
excavated with a geologist’s pick. Rock goes ‘clunk’ when
struck.
Completely All rock material is decomposed and/or disintegrated to
V
weathered soil. The original mass structure is still largely intact.
Residual soil All rock material is converted to soil. The mass structure
VI
and material fabric are destroyed. There is a large change
in volume, but the soil has not been significantly
transported
Fresh No visible sign of weathering of the rock material.
Discoloured The colour of the original fresh rock material is changed. The degree
of change from the original colour should be indicated. If the colour
change is confined to particular mineral constituents, this should be
mentioned
Decomposed The rock is weathered to the condition of a soil in which the original
material fabric is still intact, but some or all of the mineral grains
are decomposed
Disintegrated The rock is weathered to the condition of a soil in which the original
fabric is still intact. The rock is friable, but the mineral grains are not
decomposed

Hardness
Rock hardness is a measure of rock strength and is controlled by many factors including
degree of induration, cementation, crystal bonding, and/or degree of weathering. Rock
hardness can be determined through manual or laboratory testing of samples.
Where it is apparent that rock strength has changed as a result of weathering or change
in lithology, rock hardness tests should be performed. Table 3-8 lists the various degrees
of hardness that could be used. Since rock hardness measurements should be obtained
from samples which are representative of the rock mass, testing of rock acquired from
split tube samples for rock hardness should generally not be done.

(40)
 Table 3-8: Scale of relative rock hardness
Term Field Identification
Extremely Soft Loose sand to soft core, crumbles or falls apart (very friable) upon
removal from core barrel/split tube, or under slight pressure;
uncemented sandstone
Very Soft Can be indented with difficulty by thumbnail. May be mouldable or
friable with finger pressure. In outcrop, can be excavated readily
with point of geology pick. Sandstone can be deformed or crushed
with fingers
Soft Can be scratched with fingernail. Can be peeled with a pocketknife.
Crumbles under firm blows with geology hammer/pick. Sandstone
cannot be deformed with finger, but grains can be rubbed from
surface and small pieces can be crushed between fingers with some
difficulty.
Moderately Hard Cannot be scratched with fingernail. Can be peeled with difficulty by
a pocketknife. Specimen can be fractured with a single firm blow of
geology hammer/ pick. Sandstone can be scratched with a knife;
grains do not rub off surface.
Hard Can be scratched by knife or geology pick only with difficulty.
Several hard hammer blows required to fracture specimen

Bedding
Identified by the presence of a series of planar or nearly planar surface that visibly
separates each successive layer of stratified rock (of the same or different lithology) from
the preceding or following layer. It may or may not be physically separated (appear as a
fracture). These features including foliation and igneous layering should be measured and
properly described as they control the mechanism and extent of slope failure. They also
affect the degree of rock fracturing during excavation and blasting. Typically, sedimentary
rocks contain a series of these beds.
The bedding terms used to describe the thickness of beds are shown in Table 3-9. The
term bed thickness represents the amount of rock material between two distinct bedding
planes.

Table 3-9: Bedding terms

Bedding term Thickness
Very thickly bedded >2m
Thickly bedded 600 mm – 2 m
Thinly bedded 60 mm – 600 mm
Very thinly bedded 20 mm – 60 mm
Laminated 6 mm – 20 mm
Thinly laminated < 6 mm

Colour
Colour may be an indicator of the influence of other significant geologic processes that
may be occurring in the rock mass (e.g. the presence of water, the action of weathering,
etc.); it is not in itself a specific engineering property. It is good practice that the process
of colour designation is also performed on a wet rock face that has been scrubbed clean
of debris and drilling fluids. Wherever possible, colour should be compared with a standard
chart such as the Munsell Soil Colour Chart or those produced by Geological Society of
America.

(41)
Discontinuities
Geologic discontinuities are breaks or visible planes of weakness in the rock mass that
separate the rock mass into discrete units. They include structural features, such as joints
and faults, and depositional features (fillings), such as bedding planes. Properties of
geologic discontinuities that are measured in core samples include orientation and spacing.
Discontinuities often occur in sub-parallel sets within a rock mass. They should be
described carefully and systematically as they play a significant role in controlling the
engineering performance of rock masses in terms of strength, deformation, and
permeability of rock masses.
A joint is a fracture or parting in a rock. Joints may range from perpendicular to parallel
in orientation with respect to bedding. No visible movement parallel to the joint surface.
Movement occurring at right angles to the joint surface causes the joints to separate or
open up. Joint surfaces are usually planar, and often occur with parallel joints to form a
joint set. Two or more joint sets that intersect define a joint system.
The frequency of discontinuities is established by the number of fractures per interval
measurement and is described in the Rock Mass Characteristics section.
The spacing between discontinuities is defined as the perpendicular distance between
adjacent discontinuities. Table 3-10 shows how it is described in the field.

Table 3-10: Definition of Discontinuity Spacing

Description Spacing of discontinuity
Very widely spaced >3m
Widely spaced 1–3m
Moderately spaced 300 mm – 1.0 m
Closely spaced 30 – 300 mm
Very closely spaced <30 mm

Orientation
This the inclination of a discontinuity measured from the horizontal. The orientation of
discontinuities in a rock mass is of paramount importance to design in rock engineering.
The orientation of a discontinuity in space is described by dip direction (azimuth, three
digits) measured clockwise in degrees from the true North and by the dip of the line of
steepest declination in the plane of the discontinuity measured in degrees from the
horizontal (two digits). The orientation may be expressed in degrees but preferably by
using the descriptive terms given in Table 3-11 below:

(42)
 Table 3-11: Description of Orientation (Dip)
Term Angle (degrees)
Horizontal 0-5
Shallow or low angle 5-35
Moderately Dipping 35-55
Steep or High Angle 55-85
Vertical or near Vertical 80-90

Rock Mass Characteristics

The quality of rock recovered may be classified in terms of total or solid core recovery or
in terms of a quality index such as rock quality designation (RQD), fracture index or
stability index, provided only natural fractures are considered.
The overall engineering characteristics of the rock mass are established through the
assessment of structural elements of rock core. The properties of geologic discontinuities
are evaluated via measurements taken in core samples, including average core length
(ACL), rock quality designation (RQD) and fractures per metre interval. Core Recovery is
also measured and describes to some degree the properties of discontinuities but is more
pertinent in characterising other properties of the rock mass, such as presence of voids.
ACL, RQD, Fractures per Interval and Core Recovery values are determined for each core
run and are noted in the original driller’s log.
Table 3-7 shows the core box for transporting and storage of recovered rock. Care should
be taken in placing rock core in core boxes and it is recommended to enclose the core in
a loose-fitting polyethylene sleeve and labelled prior to placing it in the core box. The core
box labels should be completed using an indelible black marking pen.

(43)
 Figure 3-2: Recovered rock core box (Road N221 Chibuto – Guijá, Gaza
Province)

The RQD is the sum of the lengths of piece of all intact and sound rock retrieved at a
borehole of any orientation. All pieces of intact and sound rock core equal to or greater
than 100 mm long are summed and divided by the length of the core run. Thus, RQD is
simply a measurement of the percentage of sound rock recovered from an interval in a
borehole. RQD is an indicator and has been related to the overall engineering quality of
the rock, Table 3-12 with higher values indicating more intact and better performing rock.

Table 3-12: Qualitative description of Rocks based on RQD

RQD (%) Rock Quality
0 - 25 Very Poor
25 – 50 Poor
50 – 75 Fair
75 – 90 Good
90 – 100 Excellent

How to determine the RQD (Figure 3-3): As an illustration, on the basis of the length
of the rock core obtained from each run, the following quantities can be used for the
evaluation of the quality of rock:

(44)
 𝐑𝐨𝐜𝐤 𝐐𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐃𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧
ΣLength of intact and sound core pieces > 100 mm
= x100%
Total Length of core run (mm)

For the core run, the RQD is calculated as follows:

625 + 230 + 135 + 100
𝑅𝑄𝐷 = = 0.727
1500

The RQD is 73%. From Table 3-12, the rock quality

is fair.

Length of rock core recovered

𝐑𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨 =
Length of coring

Figure 3-3: Determination of RQD

Common descriptions of fracture density are summarised in Table 3-13. It is worth noting
that core recovery is also dependent on the strength of the rock mass and the method of
drilling.

Table 3-13: Fracture density. Modified from US DOI Bureau of Reclamation

(1998)
Fractured density Description
Unfractured No observed fractures, or core recovered mostly in lengths
greater than 1 m.
Slightly fractured Core recovered mostly in lengths from 300 mm to 1 m with
few scattered lengths less than 300 mm or greater than 1 m.
Moderately fractured Core recovered mostly in lengths from 100 to 300 mm with
most lengths about 200 mm.
Highly fractured Lengths average from 30 to 100 mm with fragmented
intervals. Core recovered mostly in lengths less than 100 mm.
Extremely fractured Core recovered mostly as chips and fragments with a few
scattered short core length

Estimated strength of rock material

It is often the secondary characteristics of the rock mass that govern the strength and
behaviour of rock. As such, when describing rock cores or rock exposures, it is normally
sufficient to estimate the strength. This can be achieved in the field by using the Schmidt

(45)
hammer rebound test or the Point Load test, which is especially more reliable. The results
are then refined later in the laboratory. Terminologies for describing rock strength based
on the unconfined compressive strength are presented in Table 3-14.

Table 3-14: Rock material strength description in the field versus UCS
Description Field identification Unconfined
Compressive
Strength
(MPa)
Extremely weak Indented by thumbnail 0.3 to 1

Very soft rock Material crumbles under firm blows with the 1 to 3
sharp end of the geological pick

Soft rock Can just be scraped with a pocketknife 3 to 10

Shallow indentations of 2 to 4mm with firm
blow of the sharp end of the geological pick
Medium hard rock Cannot be scraped or peeled with a 10 to 25
pocketknife. Handheld specimen breaks with
firm blows of geological pick point.
Hard rock Point load tests must be carried out in order 25 to 70
to distinguish between these classifications,
Very hard rock 70 to 200
these results may be verified by unconfined
Extremely hard compressive strength tests on selected >200
Rock samples

3.3.5 Soil and rock characteristics requirements for geotechnical analysis

On the basis of USC classification, engineering soil characteristics can be correlated to

requirements for geotechnical analysis as provided in Table 3-15. General guidance is also
provided for slope stability characterisation where detailed analysis may not be required
on the basis of past similar experience in the area or where the rock gives the required
slope angles. Guidance on material group suitability as fill, as well as foundation support
and rock quality is provided.

(46)
 Table 3-15: Required Geotechnical Engineering Analysis (FHWA, 2012)
Soil Classification Embankment and Cut Structure Foundations Retaining Structures
Slopes Bridges and Retaining Conventional, Crib and MSE
Structures
Unified AASHTO Soil Type Slope Settlement Bearing Settlement Lateral Earth Stability
Stability Analysis Capacity Analysis Pressure Analysis
Analysis Analysis
GW A-1-a GRAVEL Generally. Generally, Required for Generally, not GW, SP, SW & All walls should
Well-graded not required not required spread needed except SP soils be designed to
GP A-1-a GRAVEL if cut or fill except footings, for SC soils or generally provide
Poorly slope is possibly for pile or for large heavy suitable for maximum
graded 1.5H to 1V SC soils. drilled shaft structures. backfill behind factor of safety
GM A-1-b GRAVEL of flatter, foundations. or in retaining (F.S.) = 1.5
Silty and Empirical or reinforced against sliding
GC A-2-6 GRAVEL underdrains Spread correlations soil walls. along base.
A-2-7 Clayey are used to footings with SPT
SW A-1-b SAND draw down generally values usually GM, GC, SM & External slope
Well-graded the water adequate used to SC soils stability
SP A-3 SAND table in a except estimate generally considerations
Poorly cut slope. possibly for settlement. suitable if they same as
graded SC soils. have less than previously
SM A-2-4 SAND Erosion of 15% fines. given for cut
A-2-5 Silty slopes may Lateral earth slopes &
SC A-2-6 SAND be a pressure embarkments.
A-2-7 Clayey problem for analysis
SW or SM required using
soils. soil angle of
internal friction.
ML A-4 SILT Required Required Required. Required. These soils are
Inorganic silt unless non- unless non- Spread Can use SPT not
SANDY plastic. plastic. footing values if non- recommended
Erosion of generally plastic. for use directly
slopes may adequate. behind or in
be a retaining or
problem. reinforced soils
walls.

(47)
Soil Classification Embankment and Cut Structure Foundations Retaining Structures
Slopes Bridges and Retaining Conventional, Crib and MSE
Structures
Unified AASHTO Soil Type Slope Settlement Bearing Settlement Lateral Earth Stability
Stability Analysis Capacity Analysis Pressure Analysis
Analysis Analysis
CL A-6 CLAY Required Required Required. Required. These soils are
Inorganic silt unless non- Can use SPT not
Sandy plastic values if non- recommended
OL A-4 SILT Required Required Required. plastic. for use directly
Organic behind or in
retaining or
reinforced soil
walls.
MH A-5 SILT Required. Required Required. Required. These soils are All walls should
Inorganic Erosion of not be designed to
slopes may Deep Consolidation recommended provide
be a foundation test data for use directly minimum F.S.
problem. generally needed to behind or in = 2 against
CH A-7 CLAY Required Required required estimate retaining walls. overturning &
Inorganic unless soil settlement F.S. = 1.5
Fat Clay has been amount and against sliding
OH A-7 CLAY Required Required pre-loaded. time. along base.
Organic
PT - PEAT Required Required. Deep Highly External slope
Muck Long term foundation compressible stability
settlement required and not considerations
can be unless peat suitable for same as
significant excavated foundation previously
and support. given for cut
replaced. slopes &
Rock Fills not required for Required for Required Required. embankments.
slopes 1.5H to 1V of spread where rock is Use rock backfill
flatter. footings or badly angle of internal
Cuts – required but drilled weathered or friction.
depends on spacing, shafts. closely

(48)
Soil Classification Embankment and Cut Structure Foundations Retaining Structures
Slopes Bridges and Retaining Conventional, Crib and MSE
Structures
Unified AASHTO Soil Type Slope Settlement Bearing Settlement Lateral Earth Stability
Stability Analysis Capacity Analysis Pressure Analysis
Analysis Analysis
orientation and strength of Empirically fractured (low
discontinuities and related to RQD).
durability of rock RQD
May require in-
situ test such
as
pressuremeter.
REMARKS: Soils – temporary ground water control may be needed for foundation excavations in GW through SM soils. Backfill
specifications for reinforced soil walls using metal reinforcements should meet the following requirements to ensure use of non-
corrosive backfill: pH range = 5 to 10; Resistivity > 3000 ohm-cm; Chlorides < 100 ppm; Sulfates < 200 ppm; Organic content 1%
maximum.

Rock – Durability of shales (siltstone, claystone, mudstone, etc.) to be used in fills should be checked. Non-durable shales should be
embanked as soils, i.e., placed in maximum 0.3 m loose lifts and compacted with heavy sheeps-foot or grid rollers.

(49)
Table 3-16 is a guide in the use of weathered rocks as road base material.

Table 3-16: Weathered rock classification for application in road bases

Durability Mill
Aggregate Impact Value Test
Test
%
Typical
Rock Type Passing Modified 4-day
examples Modified
DMI 0.425 AIV wet/dry Glycol
AIV (dry)
mm after ratio soaked
treatment
Basalt < 2%
Basic Dolerite increase
< 125 < 35 < 39 < 114%
Crystalline Gabbro from wet
AIV
Acid Granite
< 420 < 35 < 39 < 114% N/A
Crystalline Gneiss
Quartzite
High Silica
Chert N/A N/A <39 < 114% N/A
rocks
Hornfels
Sandstone
Arenaceous Arkose
< 125 < 35 < 31 < 114% N/A
rocks Conglomerate
Siltstone
Shale
Argillaceous Wet AIV
Mudrocks < 125 < 35 < 24 N/A
rocks < 26
Phyllite
Dolomite
Carbonate
Limestone N/A N/A < 39 < 114% N/A
rocks
Marble
Tillites
Diamictites < 125 < 35 < 22 < 115% N/A
Greywacke
Calcrete < 114%
Pedogenic
Ferricrete < 480 < 40 < 39 (calcretes < N/A
material
Silcrete 120%)

3.4 Selecting geotechnical engineering parameters

3.4.1 General
The analysis of the stability of geotechnical features such as slopes, embankments,
retaining structures and foundations requires adequate knowledge of the engineering
properties of the soil and rock for proper design and construction of the road. The
properties of the materials forming the subgrade and those used for the construction of
embankments and fills have a significant influence on the performance of the road and the
supported structures. This section is aimed at establishing the soil and rock properties
required to establish the final soil and rock parameters to be used for geotechnical analysis
and design.
The results of the geotechnical investigation undertaken are used to characterise the
subsurface conditions and to establish geotechnical properties for design or develop
geotechnical units for the project. These geotechnical units are established from the
obtained background geotechnical information as well as from the results of the boreholes,
in-situ tests, test pits and laboratory test data as presented in the sections above. The
interpretation of the subsurface conditions, in combination with project requirements
determines which parameters are critical to the design of the project and the development
of a ground model for the project alignment. The geotechnical design parameters should

(50)
therefore be interpreted from a large number of measurements for the ground model to
reflect the subsurface conditions as accurately as possible.

3.4.2 Required information

The required information obtained from site investigation in combination with the
laboratory tests in Error! Reference source not found. enable the design requirements
of the geotechnical features and the selection of suitable materials for construction to be
established. Other than the roadway pavement structure, the overall performance of the
roadway is dependent on the proper design of the structural elements making up the road
environment, which include the following:
• The road pavement
• The embankments
• The foundation of the embankment
The cuttings.
The locations of these features should be established as early as possible to that ensure
subsurface explorations and geotechnical evaluation are properly planned in order to
obtain the required information for their design. Consideration should also be given for the
structures along the roadway, such as retaining walls and bridges.
The road structure should provide resistance to deformation due to traffic loading. The
overall depth of the pavement structure is influenced by the strength of the subgrade. As
such, the basic design criterion of road pavements is based on subgrade strength values.
The subgrade material should be assessed in order to determine the following:
• The subgrade strength
• Indication of compacted densities
• Derive indices for consistency: Atterberg Limits

The strength is determined by using the penetration rate (mm/blow) from the Dynamic
Cone Penetrometer (DCP) test, which has a reasonable correlation with the more familiar
CBR strength parameters. But other factors to consider are swelling and collapse
susceptibility of the material within the road prism. The stability of the material should not
be affected by water. Subgrade that is composed of heavy clay will be affected by moisture
variation, which is accompanied by volume changes, where it shrinks in the dry season
and expands/heaves in the wet season.
Subgrade geotechnical properties for sands and gravels can be established from
correlations between SPT N-values and soil peak friction angle and in-place density.
The embankment and embankment foundation should comprise stable material that
will not compress under the self-weight of the embankment. In addition, road
embankments should be designed and constructed with stable slopes and not experience
excessive settlements. The selection of the filling for the embankment and its preparation
during construction requires the knowledge of the engineering properties of the material.
The settlement potential of the road embankment depends on thickness and properties of
the fill and underlying compressible material and height of the embankment. Embankment
foundation material should be assessed to determine design parameters as presented in
section 3.1.2.3, for the following:
1. the subgrade strength
2. settlement potential
3. stability
4. hydrogeology, moisture regime and drainage requirements
5. special construction requirements.

Refer to Table 6.1 of the Site Investigation Manual 2019 on detailed required information
for design of the embankments and embankment foundation.

(51)
The cuttings on the other hand require an assessment of slope stability. The excavation
of the cuttings requires an understanding of the type of soil and rock to be encountered
during construction. Cut slope analysis and design requires the determination of the angle
at which excavated slopes will remain stable under the anticipated environmental
conditions. Knowledge of the soil and rock type enables the correct slope to be determined.
The range of materials in the cuttings should adequately be assessed for the following:
• shear strength of soil
• subgrade strength
• slope stability
• suitability of cut materials for basecourse, sub-base and embankment fill
• hydrogeology, moisture regime and drainage requirements
• the extent of any problems which may be encountered during and after
construction
Reference should be made to Table 6.1 of the Site Investigation Manual 2019, on detailed
required information for design of road cuts.
Cuttings in rock excavation materials require that the seismic velocity profile within
the cutting materials be determined to identify:
• the rock type;
• characteristics of rock discontinuities, joint spacing as they affect rock mass
performance and will therefore affect the stability of the cutting in rock
Engineering properties of rock are generally controlled by the discontinuities within the
rock mass and not the properties of the intact material and that is why it is critical that
these are properly identified and quantified. However, the seismic refraction surveys
require a suitably qualified and experienced geophysicist.
Reference should be made to Table 6-1 of the Site Investigation Manual 2019, on detailed
required information for assessing/design of excavations and cuts.

3.5 Subsurface site categories

3.5.1 General
An observational approach also provides the geotechnical engineer a good understanding
of the likely source of construction problems and the methods of investigation which might
be appropriate to use. The subsurface site condition can conveniently be divided into the
categories shown in Error! Reference source not found., which are based on
generalisations of expected behaviour in construction works (Clayton 1995).

Table 3-17: Subsurface site categories

Material type Strength Compressibility Permeability
Rock Very high Very low Medium to high
Granular soil High Low High
Cohesive soil Low High Very low
Organic soil Very low Very high High
Made ground Medium to very low Medium to very high Low to high

3.5.2 Roadbed problem areas

In addition to the identified geo-hazards, specific problem soils and conditions may be
encountered along the length and width of the road footprint. These require special

(52)
attention. Specific field investigations and laboratory testing are required to evaluate these
soils and will therefore influence the geotechnical investigation plan. The discussion on
roadbed preparation for problem soils and conditions as well as the required engineering
solutions is presented in Section 5. Reference should also be made to Section 5.3 of the
Site Investigation Manual 2019.

3.5.2.1 Collapsible soils

Description:
Collapsible soils undergo settlement when wetted up and simultaneously loaded. The
phenomenon presents itself when the material is partially saturated. This occurs mainly
in any open textured silty or sandy soil, with a high void ratio (low dry density, i.e.
<1500kg/m³). They have relatively high shear strength at a low moisture content due to
colloidal or other coatings around individual grains, but this significantly reduces with small
increase in moisture. Collapsible soils may generally be identified by simple tests such as
particle size distribution, Atterberg limits, dry density, void ratio or degree of saturation
and many regulatory authorities present criteria by which collapse may be recognised.
A further major implication of the work is that in these materials relatively high penetration
test results could be misleading in that small increases in moisture could, by significantly
reducing suction pressures, cause a large reduction in stiffness and hence settlement of
foundation
Collapsible settlement will occur when:
• Soil has a very low density, because of the large number of voids separating the
quartz framework.
• Initial condition of partial saturation exists
• An increase in moisture content affects the bridging colloidal material leading to
the loss of shear strength with no change in applied pressure
• Densities of less than about 1600 kg/m3 (mostly in the range 1000 to 1585 kg/m3).
• The presence of “pinholing” or voiding observed during the soil profiling.
• Usually more than 60% of the mass of the material lies in the 0.075 to 2 mm range
and less than 20% is finer than 0.075 mm.
• The imposed pressure exerted on the soil fabric by the structure exceeds the
overburden pressure

Evaluation
• Identification of the problem through detailed field profiling, the presence of
“pinholing” or voiding observed during the soil profiling.
• Field Plate loading test with soaking
• Oedometer testing in the laboratory is the most common method used to predict
collapse settlement.

Table 3-18 provides a guide for determining the severity of the collapse problem, based
on the collapse potential from the oedometer test. Refer Section 5.3.5 of the Site
Investigation Manual 2019 for the method of determining collapse potential (CP).

(53)
 Table 3-18: Guide for determining the severity of the collapse problem
Collapse Potential Severity of Problem
0% - 1% No problem
1% - 5% Moderate problem
5% - 10% Problem
10% - 20% Severe problem
>20% Very severe problem

Geotechnical solutions
• Removal or partial removal
• Surface rolling with impact rollers

Further details on soil improvement provided in section 5.

3.5.2.2 Dispersive soils

Description
Dispersive soils are those soils that, when placed in water, have repulsive forces between
the clay particles that exceed the attractive forces. Dispersion can occur in any given soil
with a high percentage of exchangeable sodium percentage. If the water is flowing, the
dispersed clay particles are carried away, causing internal erosion and eventually piping
through embankments. Dispersive soils often develop in low-lying areas with gently rolling
topography and relatively flat slopes and usually characterised by an annual rainfall of less
than 850 mm. Identification of dispersive soils is very critical in the design of
embankments and slopes.
Evaluation
The following soil engineering and pedological laboratory tests are used for the
dentification of dispersive soils:
• Determination of the Exchangeable Sodium Percentage (ESP).
• Pinhole test.
• Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC).
• Crumb test.
• Double hydrometer test.
• Sodium Absorption Ratio (SAR) and the pH.

For test details, refer to Site Investigation Manual 2019

Geotechnical solutions
The countermeasures for avoiding dispersive soil damage in the road environment include
the following:
• Avoid its use in fills as much as possible.
• Remove and replace it in the subgrade.
• Properly manage water flows and drainage in the area. Channels and gullies created
due to erosion should be backfilled with less erodible material and the water flows
redirected.
• Covering of the erodible soils with non-erodible materials and careful bio-
engineering, assisted by geosynthetics where necessary.

(54)
Further details on soil improvement provided in Section 5.

3.5.2.3 Expansive soils

Description
These are soils in which variations in moisture content result in volumetric change, i.e.
swell or shrinkage of the soil skeleton due to presence of secondary minerals derived from
the decomposition of the parent bedrock. The decomposition/chemical weathering of basic
rock forms minerals containing smectite (montmorillonite) clays, which primarily control
the expansive potential of a soil. It is the quantity and type of the clay minerals that
influence the magnitude of volume change with moisture variation due to drying and
wetting cycles, consequently causing the problems related to expansive soils. Typical
damage by expansive soils to roads includes longitudinal unevenness and bumpiness,
differential movement near culverts and longitudinal cracking or a grid of interconnected
longitudinal and transverse cracks, lifting of culverts and damage to pipes.

Evaluation
Undertaken through:
• Field observation is the simplest way of identifying the presence of expansive soils
through the surface expression of cracking in dark grey, black or sometimes red
soils is evident.
• An indication of potentially expansive soils can also be obtained from land type soil
maps where materials identified as “vertic” soils will always have expansive
characteristics, while soils with a high base status (or eutrophic) and clay content
should be investigated more thoroughly, as they have the potential to be expansive
• Correct recording of the soil profile. The presence of a thick non-expansive
transported or topsoil cover can sometimes mask the presence of the cracks and
excavation of a test pit, in which cracking and slickensiding (indication of volumetric
movement) of the material will be observed.
• Simple field tests
• In-situ tests
• Laboratory Tests
• Indicator Tests
• X-Ray Diffraction (XRD), for the identification of smectite in subgrade soils
• Swelling Pressure Testing
• Free Swell Testing

Typical characteristics of expansive clay for the preliminary identification of potential

problems are given in Table 5-5 of the Site Investigation Manual 2019.

Prediction of expected heave

Active zone
Seasonal moisture content variation due to drying and wetting cycles mostly affects the
upper few metres of a soil deposit, confining the volume changes in expansive soils to
within this zone. This zone is defined as the active zone and is evaluated by plotting the
in-situ moisture content with depth for samples taken during the wet and dry seasons.
The depth at which the moisture content shows no seasonal variation is the limit of the
active zone. This is also referred to as the depth of seasonal moisture change. The active
zone is usually down to a depth of 300 mm: however, for design purposes the zone for
equilibrium moisture shall be considered to be at 600 mm and below.
Potential expansiveness
The most common and simple method is the modified Van der Merwe (1964) method for
potential expansiveness of soils using Figure 3-4, which is based on the clay fraction and

(55)
the standard Plasticity Index (PI). It is useful for the preliminary identification of expansive
soils. Parameters required are the Plasticity Index (PI), the percentage material passing
the 0.425mm sieve and the clay content. On the Van der Merwe’s swell prediction chart,
the Plasticity Modulus (PM) or PI of the whole sample (PI × (% passing 0.425mm
sieve/100)) is plotted versus the clay content (% of material smaller than 2 μm) to
determine the heave potential of the clay as either low, medium, high or very highly
expansive. The heave potential is the potential total heave for a moisture change from dry
to saturated and the actual in situ moisture content should also be considered.

Figure 3-4: Van der Merwe’s potential swell prediction chart

To quantify the expected heave, a depth factor from Figure 3-4is applied to the percentage
heave read off the graph (Figure 3-5). The depth factor is used to make provision for a
reduction in heave with depth due to decreasing moisture penetration and a decrease in
heave due to the inherent overburden pressure

(56)
 Figure 3-5: Nomogram for estimating the total potential heave likely to be
experienced in expansive soils (After Van der Merwe and Savage, 1979)

The modified Van der Merwe method incorporates the use of a unit heave approach and
does not take into account initial moisture content or in-situ density. The method proposed
by Weston (1979) takes initial moisture content, density and overburden pressure into
account. It is based on a statistical approach from measured heave values on road
pavement structures. The method does not require sophisticated and in situ testing and

(57)
generally reliable for heave profiles up to 5 metres. Figure 3-6 provide a graphical method
for the prediction of percentage swell.

Figure 3-6: Percentage swell after Weston (1979)

Geotechnical solutions
• Flattening of embankment side slopes (between 1V: 4H and 1V:6H).
• Remove expansive soil and replace with inert material (between 0.6 and 1 m
depending on depth of clay).
• Retain the road over the clay as an unpaved section.
• Pre-wetting prior to construction of the fill or formation (to OMC).
• Placing of uncompacted pioneer layers of sand, gravel or rockfill over the clay and
wetting up, either naturally by precipitation or by irrigation (100 to 500 mm
depending on clay thickness and potential swell).
• Lime stabilization of the clay to change its properties (expensive – up to 6% lime
may be required).
• Blending of fine sand with the clay to change its activity (blend ratio to be
determined by laboratory experimentation).
• Sealing of shoulders (not less than 1 m wide).
• Compaction of thin layers of lower plasticity clay over the expansive clay to isolate
the underlying active clays from significant moisture changes.
• Use of waterproofing membranes and/or vertical moisture barriers, which are
generally geosynthetics.

Further details on soil improvement provided in section 5.

3.5.2.4 Liquefiable soils

Description
Liquefiable soils generally occur as saturated, loose, coarse-grained soils that include
sands, gravels, silty sand, silty gravel, and gravelly sands. The soil displays fluid-like
characteristics, a state in which the loose saturated sandy soils lose a large proportion of
its shear strength. Under such conditions, the loose saturated sand develops
characteristics similar to those of a liquid in that the interparticle forces will be zero as the
pore water pressure cumulatively increases and becomes equal to the maximum total
stress component. The pore water pressure increases under the induced cyclic loading
caused by the earth tremors as it cannot rapidly dissipate under undrained conditions since

(58)
the loose sand tends to compact under the induced cyclic loading conditions. This may
develop at any depth in a sand deposit where a critical combination of in-situ density and
cyclic deformation occurs. The reduction in shear strength and stiffness of soil causes
failure such as slope failures and lateral spreads, reduced bearing resistance for
foundations, and vertical ground settlement that negatively impact the roadway.
The two main variables for estimating liquefaction potential are the resistance to cyclic
loading, or capacity of the soil to resist liquefaction, represented in terms of a cyclic stress
ratio, termed cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) and the cyclic stress ratio (CSR) which is the
seismically induced stress ratio caused by an earthquake. A site-specific seismicity analysis
can be carried out to determine the design CSR profile with depth.
Key conditions for liquefaction to occur include:
• The soil is saturated (i.e., below the water table);
• The soil is predominantly coarse-grained (typically less than about 20 percent
fines);
• The soil is loose (relative density less than about 40 percent); and
• The ground motion is sufficiently strong.

Evaluation
The liquefaction potential or resistance is evaluated using the relationship expressed as a
Factor of Safety, defined as a ratio of the cyclic stress ratio (CSR) to cyclic resistance ratio
(CRR). This is usually calculated for a magnitude earthquake of 7.5 and scaled to the
design earthquake by a magnitude scaling factor (MSF)

CRR7.5
FOS = x MSF Equation 3-1
CSR

No liquefaction is expected when FOS is greater than 1 and a materials is deemed

potentially liquefiable if the FOS is less than 1.
The evaluation of the CSR is governed by the peak horizontal ground acceleration and
expressed by the following simplified equation given by Seed and Idriss (1971):

τ αmax σ
CSR = σ′av = 0.65 ( ) (σ′vo ) rd Equation 3-2
vo g vo

where τav is the average cyclic shear stress; αmax is the maximum horizontal acceleration
at the ground surface; g = 9.81 m/s2 is the acceleration due to gravity; σvo and σ’vo are
the total and effective vertical overburden stresses, respectively; and r d is an empirical
stress-reduction factor which is dependent on depth. The reduction factor accounts for the
soil profile and is a function of the depth and the nature of the soil profile. The value of
the reduction factor as reported by various investigators varies from 0.4 to 1.0.
Mozambique is classified into three zones for the purpose of determining seismic actions
as shown in Figure 9.1 of the Specifications for Bridge Loads 2018 and Table 9.1 of the
same Specifications provides the peak ground acceleration values.
Until ANE develops local database, the following relationships may are proposed for
estimating the reduction factor according to Robertson (2010):
rd = 1- 0.00765z If z < 9.15m Equation 3-3a
= 1.174 – 0.0267z If 9.15 m<z< 23m Equation 3-3b
= 0.744 – 0.008z If 23 m<z<30m Equation 3-3c
= 0.5 If z > 30m Equation 3-3d

(59)
The evaluation of the liquefaction resistance of the soil profile requires the establishment
of the in-situ stress state of the soil. Empirical field tests have been developed to establish
criteria for liquefaction and estimate CRR, the most commonly used tests being Standard
Penetration (SPT) and Cone Penetration (CPT). The cone penetration test provides a
continuous soil profile data; however, verification is required with samples from SPT to
confirm soil type and verify liquefaction resistance interpretation, based on the soil
properties. Figure 3-7shows charts for estimating CRR from corrected CPT penetration
resistance with respect to fines content and grain characteristics.

Figure 3-7: CPT-based charts for estimating cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) for
clean sands (after Ishihara 1993).

Figure 3-8 a shows recommended cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) for clean sands under level
ground conditions based on CPT γl, limiting shear strain and Figure 3-8b shows variation
of cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) with fines content based on CPT field performance data
(Stark and Olson 1995).

(60)
 Figure 3-8: a) Cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) for clean sands under level ground
conditions based on CPT limiting shear strain, b) Variation of cyclic resistance
ratio (CRR) with fines content based on CPT field performance data (after Stark
and Olson 1995).

Laboratory evaluation
Conducted on reconstituted samples subjected to cyclic loading by means of cyclic
triaxial, cyclic simple shear, or cyclic torsional tests.

Geotechnical solutions
Soil improvement methods employing densification and improved drainage.
Further details on soil improvement provided in section 5.

3.5.2.5 Soft clays

Description
These are soils that exhibit very low shear strength, high compressibility and lead to severe
time related settlement problems. They are mostly in estuarine (lagoon) and marshy areas
result from the presence of very soft alluvial clays. The deep soft clays in estuarine areas
are formed mostly as a result of periodic fluctuations in sea level. Inland soft clays tend
to be much shallower having been deposited in marshy areas. Due to the low undrained
shear strengths associated with soft clays, values ranging between about 10kPa and
40kPa, typical problem include instability, large settlements under heavy loading such as
road embankments.

Evaluation
Field Testing
• Use of aerial photographs to determine the lateral extent of alluvial planes where
soft clays may be present, before normal site investigation techniques commence
• Standard Penetration Test (SPT) in boreholes: Determines consistency and related
shear strength or bearing capacity of soil.
• Vane Shear Test: Used to determine the undrained shear strength of fully saturated
clays, but should be regarded as an index test only.

(61)
 • Cone Penetration Test (CPT, formerly known as Dutch Probe test): Evaluates the
soil’s relative density, shear strength, compressibility characteristics and bearing
capacity.
• Piezometer Probe (CUPT): Further development of the CPT. The system measures
cone pressures and simultaneously, the induced pore pressures during penetration.
The nature of the soil can be established from the relationship between the cone
and pore pressure.
• Self-Boring Pressuremeter (SBP): Used in conjunction with normal drilling and
consists of advancing a tube into the soil to the test position and then inflating a
membrane. The pressure required to inflate the membrane is measured at strain
intervals. Pore pressures can be measured and drained or undrained conditions
tested. Elastic modulus and shear strength can be derived.

Laboratory Testing
• Atterberg Limits
• Consolidation testing should be performed in an oedometer on an undisturbed soil
sample to determine both compressibility and consolidation data. The assessment
of the former, expressed as either the coefficient of compressibility (mv) or the
compression index (Cc) is generally accepted to be much more reliable than
assessment of the coefficient of consolidation (see Section 4.3.3.1)
• Laboratory Vane
• Triaxial Consolidation

Geotechnical solution
Early construction of road fills (pre-loading). Controlled road fill/embankment construction
to avoid stability failures as pore water pressures increase under the applied loads.
Embankments in these areas should be constructed slowly, layer by layer, while
monitoring pore water pressures and additional layers are only added once the pore water
pressures have dissipated adequately and provide shear strength gain. The initial strength
of the soft soil and its rate of increase with time due to consolidation under the applied
loads due to embankment construction must be estimated to control staged construction
(see Section 4.3.6.1).
Bridging soft soils by constructing a series of closely spaced stone columns along the
footprint of the road fill, which are dynamically compacted into the soft clay.
The use of the wide range of geosynthetic products as separation layers and to facilitate
and accelerate drainage has contributed to improved construction over such areas in the
past decade or two, and specialist advice in this respect should be obtained
Further details on soil improvement provided in Section 5.

(62)
4 Design considerations

4.1 Introduction
This chapter focuses on Geotechnical Design considerations related to roadway
construction. In general, it covers aspects on analytical approaches, stability analyses of
geotechnical features such as slopes and embankments, support and protection structures
such as retaining walls, determination of bearing capacity, ground improvement design to
improve compressible soils in order to accelerate the consolidation process, improving
loose fill granular soil to increase the resistance to deformation and slope stabilisation
design. The chapter builds on the information that will have been gathered from previous
chapters, including guidance on proper planning of geotechnical investigations,
understanding of the subsurface condition, identification of geo-hazards in order to be
aware and anticipate problems that could happen during and post construction,
interpretation of the soil and rock parameters. The preceding chapters provide the required
input for this chapter.

4.2 Analytical approach

The performance of roadway structural elements as presented in Section 3.4.2 relies on
adequate understanding of the subsurface and interpretation of the soil and rock
parameters and characteristics. The selection of an appropriate value for the parameter
such as soil shear strength to be used in the analysis is dependent on a particular
geotechnical structure under consideration. Stability analysis applies to a wide variety of
geotechnical engineering problems. Geotechnical structures under consideration are
shown in Figure 4-1 to Figure 4-2, illustrating the minimum required parameters for
stability analysis in limit equilibrium methods. Each case will be dealt with later in specific
sections of this chapter.
The limiting equilibrium method is based on the concept of a limiting value that can be
matched when the forces acting to cause failure are in balance with the forces acting to
resist failure. The analysis therefore requires the application of a factor of safety (FS) to
prevent the acting forces from causing failure. The FS is defined in each illustration.
The basic elements to limit equilibrium method of analysis are:
• Failure surface of simple shape (planar, circular, or log-spiral) is assumed. Special
attention is required for slopes in rock with discontinuities.
• Distribution of stresses acting along the failure surface to cause failure is also
assumed
• Mobilised shear strength is estimated and assumed to act simultaneously along
the entire failure surface.

From the above, it means that if the limit equilibrium FS is less than 1.0, failure shall be
considered likely. The requirement is therefore the analysis of the condition that would
exist at failure and measures applied to achieve safety factors to prevent this from
occurring. According to this approach, it is critical that it be verified that a limit state of
rupture or excessive deformation will not occur.

4.2.1 How to determine the Factor of Safety for soil and rock slopes

Soil and Rock slopes

In Figure 4-1, the FS is defined as the ratio of the shearing strength (S) available
along the sliding surface to the shearing stresses (F) tending to produce failure along
the surface.

(63)
 Figure 4-1: Strength parameters in stability analysis by limit equilibrium
method in rock and soil slope (adopted from Hunt, 1986)

Rock slope
S cL+(N−U)tanφ
FS = F = Equation 4-1
W sin θ

cL+(Wcos θ−U)tanφ
FS − Equation 4-2
Wsin θ

Soil slope (method of slices)

1
∑ [cb+(W−Ub)tanφ]
S Mi
FS = F = Equation 4-3
∑ Wsin θ

M = f(φi θi FS)

The presence of water in a slope and embankment increases the magnitude of the forces
acting to cause failure. The annual rainfall has a direct bearing on the stability of slopes
and embankments. The moisture conditions at the site will influence soil parameter
selection as soil moisture conditions may change on a site. The material may become dry,
become partially saturated or saturated depending on seasonal changes and geo-hazard
events, such as flooding or long spells of drought. The drainage conditions will also play a
role in the selection of soil parameters.

4.2.2 Embankment on soft clay

In Figure 4-2, the FS is defined as the ratio of the resisting moment to the overturning
moment for slope stability of an embankment on soft clay. 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 analysis along with time rate of settle-
ment analysis to estimate the percent consolidation required for stability as discussed in
Section 4.3.4.

(64)
Figure 4-2: Definition of stability analysis by limit equilibrium for embankment
on soft clay (adopted from Hunt, 1986)

rLSu
FS = Equation 4-4
B∆qs a

4.2.3 Gravity retaining wall

Figure 4-3: Strength parameters in stability analysis by limit equilibrium

method gravity retaining wall (from Hunt, 1986)

Pa = Ws tan(θ − φ) Equation 4-5

Pa = (1/2γH 2 cotθ)tan(θ − φ) Equation 4-6

Ww d1 +Pa sinφB+Pp d3
FSoverturning = Equation 4-7
Pa cosφ d2
Where:
Pa Resultant of active earth pressure
Pp Resultant of passive earth pressure

(65)
Ww Weight of wall
Ws Weight of soil wedge
d1 Distance to centre of Ww
d2 Distance to point of application of resultant Pa
d3 Distance to point of application of resultant Pp

4.2.4 Braced excavation

In Figure 4-3, the FS is applied to the measured strength parameters. The earth pres-
sure force shall be the force necessary to achieve stability.

In cohesionless soil

Figure 4-4: Apparent earth pressure diagram for sands (Sabatini et al., 1999)

The following definitions apply to Figure 4-4 and Figure 4-5:

H1 Distance from ground surface to upper most ground anchor
Hn+i Distance from base of excavation to lowermost ground anchor
Thi Horizontal load in ground anchor i
R Reaction force to be resisted by subgrade (i.e. below base of excavation
P Maximum ordinate of diagram

1−sinφ φ
𝐾𝑎 = 1+sinφ = tan2 (45° − 2 ) Equation 4-8

(66)
 1+𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜑 𝜑
𝐾𝑝 = = 𝑡𝑎𝑛2 (45 + ) Equation 4-9
1−𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜑 2

TOTAL LOAD = 0.65K A γH 2 Equation 4-10

In cohesive soils:

The active and passive earth pressure coefficients for a cohesive soil defined by effective
stress strength parameters φ′ and c′, are defined as follows:

φ′ 2c′ φ′
𝐾𝑎 = tan2 (45° − ) − σ′ tan (45° − ) Equation 4-11
2 v 2

φ 2c′ φ′
𝐾𝑝 = tan2 (45° + 2 ) + σ′ tan (45° + ) Equation 4-12
v 2

where σv is the total vertical stress.

For the undrained case with φ = 0 and c = Su, the total stress active and passive earth
pressure coefficients are:

𝟐𝑺𝒖
𝑲𝒂𝑻 = 𝟏 − Equation 4-13
𝝈𝒗

𝟐𝑺𝒖
𝑲𝒑𝑻 = 𝟏 + Equation 4-14
𝝈𝒗

Figure 4-5: Apparent earth pressure diagrams for stiff to hard and soft to
medium clays (Sabatini et al., 1999)

(67)
In the case of excavations in clay soils, the apparent earth pressure is related to the
stability number, Ns, which is defined as follows:
γH
Ns = Equation 4-15
Su

where γ is the total unit weight of the clay soil, S u is the average undrained shear strength
of the clay soil below the base of the excavation, and H is the excavation depth.
• for soft to medium clays, Ns>4
• for stiff to hard clays: Ns<4)
• transition value between soft to medium and stiff to hard clay : (Ns = 4)

For soft to medium clays, Ns>4

Ph = γH − 4Su Equation 4-16
4𝑆𝑢
𝑃𝑎 = 𝛾𝐻 (1 − ) Equation 4-17
𝛾𝐻

To evaluate apparent earth pressures for design of temporary walls in soft to medium
clays, the total stress active earth pressure coefficient is defined as follows:
4Su
KA = 1 − m Equation 4-18
γH

where m is an empirical factor that accounts for potential base instability effects in deep
excavations in soft clays. The apparent earth pressure coefficient K A in equation (4-18) is
different from the local horizontal limiting active undrained earth pressure coefficient k a.

Stiff to hard clays: Ns≤4

Pa = 0.2γH to 0.4γH
TOTAL LOAD = 0.17γH 2 to 0.33γH 2 Equation 4-19

The constant value of KA equal to 0.22 should be used to evaluate the maximum pressure
ordinate for the soft to medium clay apparent earth pressure envelope for the range 4<N s
5.14.

Cantilever sheet piling should not be used when cu/H < 7.

4.2.5 Anchored sheet pile

Limit equilibrium approach can be used to evaluate the stability of anchored walls for the
stabilization of slopes or excavation in highly stratified soils, especially in cases for which
the potential failure surface is deep-seated or occurs along weak, well-defined interfaces,
and where complicated surcharges are present.
Two methods of analysis commonly used differ by the assumptions made with regard to
the restraint provided by the soil at the toe:
• Free-earth support: assumes that the wall is free to rotate and that there is no
passive resistance behind the wall, i.e. passive resistance in front of the wall is
sufficient to resist forward movement at the toe, but not sufficient to prevent
rotation. Recommended for loose cohesionless soils, silts and clays.

• Fixed-earth support: assumes that the soil provides complete restraint against
rotation with pressure resistance developed both sides, i.e. passive pressure in

(68)
 front of the wall is sufficient to prevent both forward movement and rotation at the
toe. Recommended for dense sand and gravels.

where:
(a) Deflection shape
(b) Assumed pressure distribution
(c) Bending moment distribution

Figure 4-6: Pressure distribution for free-earth and fixed earth support

The following definitions apply to Figure 4-6:

d = driving depth
H = depth of excavation
PA = active thrust
PP = passive resistance
T = force in the anchor

Fixed-earth support method of analysis: From the pressure distribution, for

equilibrium, Σ horizontal forces = 0
The passive resistance on the length CD acts as a horizontal load at C.
Piling considered to be two equivalent beams, AF and FC, connected by a pin at F
The distance x, locating the point of contraflexure can be obtained by a rigorous analysis
involving an iterative procedure, however, it is usually determined through the relationship
x/H and φ’:
Φ’ 15⁰ 20⁰ 25⁰ 30⁰ 35⁰ 40⁰
x/H 0.37 0.25 0.15 0.08 0.033 -0.01

Simple approach is to assume that the point of contraflexure occurs at the point of zero
lateral pressure.
Considering equivalent beam AF, the forces can be defined as follows:
P1 = 12K a γ(H + x)2 and R1 = 12K p γx 2

(69)
The Tie-back/anchor force T is then calculated by equating moments about E, to calculate
the reaction at F and then determining T, for horizontal equilibrium of beam EF.
T = P1 – R1- RF Equation 4-20
Where RF is obtained by equating moments about point E
Considering equivalent beam FC, the resultant forces are given by:
R 2 = pF (d − x) where 𝑝𝐹 = K a γ(H − x) − K p γx and
R 3 = 12(K p − K a )γ(d − x)2
Equating moments about C, the required depth d is calculated by solve for (d-x). An
increase of 20% to 50% is made to the calculated value of d to allow for the length CD,
ignored during the analysis. Typical value is increase of 20%
ds = 1.2d
If the maximum bending moment occurs at z0 below the top of wall
T = 12K a γz02
Giving point of zero shear

2T
z0 = √K Equation 4-21
aγ

Maximum bending moment

Mmax = T(z0 − a) − 16K a γz02 Equation 4-22

Free-earth support method of analysis:

Four forces to maintain equilibrium are defined as follows:
T = force in the anchor
PAD = active thrust above point B =
1
K p γ(H − z0 )2
2

RPI = passive resistance = [2c′(√K p − √K a ) − K a γH]d

RP2 =
1
(K p − K a )γd2
2

Equating moments about the anchor point, a value for d is obtained.

Equating horizontal forces, the value of T per metre run of wall is obtained:
ΣH = 0 = T – PAD + RP1+RP2 Equation 4-23
It is recommended that the value of T be increased by 15% to allow for load concentration
at the anchor point due to the flexibility of the sheeting.

4.2.6 Foundations
The purpose of foundations is to transfer loads of a structure to the ground in a manner
that provides adequate support for the structure to provide satisfactory performance. The
requirements is that for each geotechnical design situation, the settlement of the soil
caused by the load must be within tolerable limits and no relevant limit state is exceeded
to give rise to ground rupture. This will lead to either collapse or overturning of the
structure. Foundations should therefore prevent shear failure of the bearing material
beneath the footing and to minimize settlement by reducing the applied bearing stress. It

(70)
is the responsibility of the geotechnical engineer to provide the structural designer with
settlement-limited allowable bearing capacity information.

4.2.6.1 Shallow foundations

They derive their support entirely from their base and bears at a depth less than about
two times the foundation width. Shallow foundations are generally less costly than deep
foundations and are not used in soils with insufficient bearing capacity, in soils where
settlement exceeds the tolerance of the supported structure, where differential settlement
exceeds the tolerance of the structure, or where excessive scour or erosion could endanger
the integrity of the foundation. Excessive foundation settlement can lead to poor
performance of geotechnical structures. Embankment settlement causes bridge bump
problem to the bridge approach and differential settlement between two points of
foundations to bridges, can lead to bridge angular distortion.
Applied load to a footing, induces a pressure at the base of the footing and as the pressure
increases, the footing gradually sinks into the ground. When the applied pressure exceeds
the bearing capacity of the soil, the footing experiences very large settlement without any
further increase of the pressure. The response behaviour of the footing under loading is
best explained by referring to the pressure-settlement diagram in Figure 4-7 for the
different modes of foundation failure.
The three modes of failure are: (a) general shear failure, (b) local shear failure and (c)
punching shear failure. Failure mode depends mainly on the compressibility of the soils.

Figure 4-7: Modes of failure: (a) general shear, (b) local shear and (c) punching
shear (Craig, 2004)

General shear failure is typical of soils of low compressibility (i.e. dense or stiff soils).
General shear failure is characterised by heaving of the ground surface on both sides of
the footing. The final slip movement generally occurs only on one side, accompanied by
severe tilting of the footing leading to final collapse. Failure is sudden.
Local shear failure is typical of soils of high compressibility and soils that are relatively
loose or soft when compared to soils susceptible to general shear failure and this mode of
failure is characterised by the occurrence of relatively large settlements and the ultimate
bearing capacity is not clearly defined. Slight adjacent bulging may occur on the ground
surface, but no rotation or tilting of the footing occurs.
Punching shear failure typically occurs in a soil of low compressibility if the foundation
is located at considerable depth. Footings placed at great depth on dense sand or on dense
sand underlain by soft, compressible soil can fail under punching-shear modes. There is

(71)
relatively high compression of the soil under the footing, accompanied by shearing in the
vertical direction around the edges of the footing.
Figure 4-8 shows the boundaries of plastic equilibrium after failure of soil beneath a
continuous footing of breadth Bf and depth of embedment of Df.

Figure 4-8: Footing of breadth Bf at depth Df below the surface

Definitions of bearing Capacity

Ultimate bearing capacity The value of the net loading intensity (pressure) which
qult or qf would cause shear failure of the supporting soil
immediately below and adjacent to a foundation
Net loading intensity Value of the additional loading intensity imposed by the
new structure at the base of the foundation, including
earthworks
Gross loading intensity The intensity of loading at the base of the foundation due
to all loads above that level.
Gross ultimate bearing The stress applied to the soil by the footing at ultimate
pressure (failure) conditions at the bearing elevation.
Allowable bearing capacity The maximum allowable net loading intensity at the base
of the foundation taking into account the bearing capacity,
the amount and kind of settlement expected and the
ability of the given structure to take this settlement.

The ultimate gross bearing capacity equation (Terzaghi, 1943), for a centrically loaded
infinitely long strip footing of breadth Bf, on a foundation material with unit weight is given
by:

q ult = c(Nc ) + q(Nq ) + 0.5(γ)(Bf )(Nγ ) Equation 4-24

Where

(72)
 c = cohesion of the soil
Nc = bearing capacity factor for the cohesion term
q = surcharge at the base of the footing (γDf)
Nq = bearing capacity factor for the surcharge term
Bf = footing width
γ = unit weight of soil beneath the footing

Nγ = bearing capacity factor for soil unit weigh

It should be noted that the values of Nγ depend on the friction angle and differences are
reported by various researchers. The most commonly used expressions are:
Nγ = 2(Nq + 1)tan φ (Caquot and Kerisel, 1948)
Nγ = 1.8(Nq − 1)tan φ (Hansen, 1961)
Nγ = (Nq − 1)tan(1.4φ) (Meyerhof, 1963)

FHWA, AASHTO and EC7 use the expression by Caquot and Kerisel and therefore proposed
for use in this Manual. The values of Nc, Nq and Nγ as function of the friction angle are
provided in Figure 4-9 and in Table 4-1.

Figure 4-9: Bearing Capacity Factors versus Friction Angle (AASHTO, 1996)

(73)
 Table 4-1: Bearing Capacity Factors (AASHTO, 1996)

Ultimate stability design for shallow foundations

Influence of footing shape
The bearing capacity expression is for a problem of an infinitely long strip footing. The
bearing capacities of square, rectangular and circular footings are determined by means
of semi-empirical shape factors applied to the solution for the strip footing. The bearing
capacity factors Nc, Nq and Nγ should be multiplied by the respective shape factors as
presented in Table 4-2 below for a footing with breadth Bf and length Lf:

Table 4-2: Shape correction factors (AASHTO 1996)

Friction Angle Cohesion Term Surcharge Unit weight
(sc) Term (sq) Term (sγ)
φ=0 Bf 1.0 1.0
1+( )
5Lf
φ>0 Bf Nq Bf Bf
1 +( )( ) 1 + ( tan φ) 1 − 0.4 ( )
Lf Nc Lf Lf

(74)
For circular and square footings (Bf/Lf) = 1.

Influence of embedment depth

Depth factors have also been established in terms of the ratio Df/Bf as shown in Table 4-3.
However, the depth correction factor should only be used if it is certain that the shear
strength of the soil above foundation level is, and will remain, equal (or almost equal) to
that below foundation level. The backfill or cover over the footing should be of high-quality,
compacted granular material that can be reliably assumed to remain in place over the life
of the footing. This provides additional shearing resistance and can be included by addition
of the embedment depth factor, otherwise the depth correction factor should be taken as
1. The embedment depth factor influences the surcharge term as shown in Table 4-3.

Table 4-3: Depth correction factor (Brinch Hansen, 1970)

Friction Angle, φ Df/Bf dq
(degrees)
1 1.20
2 1.30
32
4 1.35
8 1.40
1 1.20
2 1.25
37
4 1.30
8 1.35
1 1.15
2 1.20
42
4 1.25
8 1.30

Influence of water table

The values of unit weight used in the bearing capacity equation for an effective stress
analysis considers three different situations for the groundwater location: (1) If the water
table is well below foundation level, the bulk unit weight (γ ) is used in the second and
third terms of Equation 4-24. (2) If the water table is at foundation level, the effective
(buoyant) unit weight (γ′) must be used in the third term (which represents the resistance
due to the weight of the soil below foundation level), the bulk unit weight being used in
the second term (representing the resistance due to the surcharge above foundation
level). (3) If the water table is at the surface, the effective unit weight must be used in
both the second and third terms.
In the case of a sand (c’ = 0) the first term is, of course, zero. In a total stress analysis of
a foundation on fully saturated clay the saturated (i.e. total) unit weight ( γsat) is used in
the second term, the third term being zero (Nγ = 0 for φu = 0).
The correction factors to account for the reduction in shearing resistance due to location
of ground water may be incorporated using the values provided in Table 4-4 and
interpolating values in between those provided. The correction factors apply to the second
and third terms in the bearing capacity equation, since they include a unit weight.

(75)
Table 4-4: Correction factor for location of ground water table (AASHTO, 1998)
Depth of Ground CWγ CWq
Water Table, DW
0 0.5 0.5
Df 0.5 1.0
> 1.5Bf + Df 1.0 1.0

The ground water table correction factors may be computed using the following equations:
D
CWγ = 0.5 + 0.5 (1.5BW+D ) ≤ 1.0 Equation 4-25
f f

D
CWq = 0.5 + 0.5 ( DW ) ≤ 1.0 Equation 4-26
f

In addition to shape and depth factors, other factors are incorporated to take into account
load inclination, ground inclination (sloping ground surface) and footing inclination. There
are differences in these factors by various researchers.
Influence of inclined loading
The effect of inclined loading on bearing capacity can be taken into account by means of
inclination factors. If the angle of inclination of the resultant load to the vertical is then N c,
Nq and Nγ should be multiplied, respectively, by the following factors:
H
ic = 1 − 2cBL Equation 4-27
1.5H
iq = 1 − Equation 4-28
V

iγ = i2q Equation 4-29

where V and H are the vertical and horizontal components of the resultant load
respectively. The inclined load case is the resultant formed by both axial and shear load
components applied to the footing by the column or wall stem. The inclination loads are
typically a result of large lateral load component combined with the gravity load
component arising from a structure subjected to wind loading or deadweight connected by
a mooring line for seafloor foundations. The inclusion of the inclined loading factor in the
bearing capacity equation can generally be omitted, if the components of this resultant
(i.e., axial and shear forces) are checked against the available resistance in the respective
direction (i.e., bearing capacity and sliding, respectively).

Influence of inclined footings

In cases where the footing is inclined to the horizontal, the bearing capacity equation
should also be modified. This is the case where the footing is normal to the inclined load
(base is inclined), see Figure 4-10. However, such footings are in general to be avoided
for bridges or limited to shallow inclinations, where α is less than about 8 to 10 degrees
from horizontal (upward positive).

(76)
 Figure 4-10: Inclination of foundation to horizontal (after Meyerhof 1953)

The bearing capacity equation should be modified using the factors as determined from
Table 4-5.

Table 4-5: Inclined Base Correction Factor (Brinch Hansen, 1970)

Friction Angle Cohesion Term Unit Weight Term Surcharge Term (q)
(c) (γ)
bc bγ bq
α 1.0 1.0
φ=0 1−( )
147.3
φ>0 1 − bq
bq − ( ) (1 − 0.017α tanφ)2 (1 − 0.017α tanφ)2
Nc tan φ

The general form of the resulting ultimate bearing capacity equation, including correction
factors is thus:
q ult = cNc Sc bc + qNq CWq Sq bq dq + 0.5γBf Nγ CWγ Sγ bγ Equation 4-30

where:
bc , bq and bγ Correction factors for the inclination of the base

CWγ and CWq Correction factors considering the location of the ground water table
dq A correction factor to account for the shearing resistance along the
failure surface passing through cohesionless material above the
bearing elevation (applied to surcharge term only and at the bearing
elevation)
Nc, Nγ and Nq Obtained from Table 4-1 or Figure 4-9

Sc, Sq and Sγ Shape correction factors

Influence of eccentric loading

Eccentric loads result from loads applied somewhere other than the footing’s centroid or
from applied moments. Abutments and retaining wall footings are examples of footings
that are subjected to this type of load condition. Footings may be subjected to eccentric
loading as a result of a combination of vertical loads and moments, or moments induced
by shear loads transferred to the footing. Footings with eccentric load, distribute the load

(77)
over a smaller area than the entire footing area, which results in reduction of bearing
capacity. The bearing capacity can be analysed by two methods: (1) the concept of
useful/effective width and (2) application of reduction factors.
In the useful width method, an effective foundation width B’ should be used to determine
the bearing capacity, which is that part of the footing that is symmetrical with regard to
the load, where
B′ = Bf − 2𝑒𝐵 Equation 4-31
eB is the eccentricity of the resultant load on the base of a footing of width B f. In a two
way eccentricity, load is also eccentric in the length direction of a rectangular footing, a
similar expression is used for the effective length L’:
L′ = Lf − 2eL Equation 4-32

Figure 4-11: Pressure distribution at foundation base

For e < Bf/6

P 6e
q min = B L (1 − B ) Equation 4-33
f f f

P 6e
q max = B L (1 + B ) Equation 4-34
f f f

For e> Bf/6

q min = 0 Equation 4-35

4P
q max = 3L (B −2e) Equation 4-36
f f

The allowable bearing stress

Calculating the gross allowable load bearing capacity of shallow foundations requires the
application of a factor of safety to the gross ultimate bearing capacity. An allowable bearing
capacity should be computed that provides a minimum factor or safety of 3.0 against
bearing failure in shear and limits the settlement of the footing to a tolerable amount.

(78)
 qult
q all = Equation 4-37
FoS

Figure 4-12 shows the applicable forces for a comprehensive analysis of the bearing
capacity problem for footings.

Figure 4-12: Definition and location of forces for footings (from WSDOT, 2010)

The variables shown in Figure 4-12 are defined as follows:

DC, LL, EQ vertical structural loads applied to footing/wall (dead load, live load, EQ
load, respectively)
DCabut structure load due to weight of abutment
EQabut abutment inertial force due to earthquake loading
EVheel vertical soil load on wall heel
EVtoe vertical soil load on wall toe
EHsoil lateral load due to active or at rest earth pressure behind abutment
LS lateral earth pressure load due to live load
EQsoil lateral load due to combined effect of active or at rest earth pressure plus
seismic earth pressure behind abutment
Rep ultimate soil passive resistance (note: height of pressure distribution
triangle is determined by the geotechnical engineer and is project specific)

(79)
 Rτ soil shear resistance along footing base at soil-concrete interface
σv resultant vertical bearing stress at base of footing
R resultant force at base of footing
eo eccentricity calculated about point O (toe of footing)
Xo distance to resultant R from wall toe (point O)
B footing width
H total height of abutment plus superstructure thickness

Table 4-6 provides the guidance on when to use maximum or minimum load factors for
the various modes of failure for the footing (bearing, overturning, and sliding) for each
force, for the strength limit state.

Table 4-6: Selection of Maximum or Minimum Spread Footing Foundation Load

Factors for Various Modes of Failure for the Strength Limit State (WSDOT 2010)
Load Load Factor
Sliding Overturning, eo Bearing Stress (ec, σv

DC, DCabut Use min. load factor Use min. load factor Use min. load factor
LL, LS Use transient load Use transient load Use transient load
factor (e.g., LL) factor (e.g., LL) factor (e.g., LL)

EVheel, EVtoe Use min. load factor Use min. load factor Use min. load factor
EHsoil Use max. load factor Use min. load factor Use min. load factor

4.2.6.2 Deep foundations

Deep foundations derive their support in most cases from their base and from friction
acting along their sides (Figure 4-13), or friction or base support alone, and depth is
substantially greater than the least width. They are grouped as piles. Deep foundations
are used when a shallow foundation is either not feasible or is believed to pose a
problematic project risk due to future excavations, scour, or other potential circumstances
where the foundation support may be compromised. The depth of exploration for pile
foundations to culverts should be such that, more frictional resistance could be developed
so that the culvert can be safe against sliding.

(80)
 Figure 4-13: Deep foundation end bearing and shaft resistance definition (Das,
2001)

Pile ultimate capacity

The basic equation for the ultimate pile resistance, which is a contribution of the pile shaft
and pile base is given as:
Qult = Qs + Qp Equation 4-38

where
Qp Load carried at the pile point

Qs Load carried by the skin friction developed at the side of the pile (caused
by the shearing resistance between the soil and the pile

If Q s is small, then
Q ult ≈ Q p
In this case, piles are referred to as end/point bearing piles. The required length of the
pile may then be estimated accurately if proper subsoil exploration records are available.
If Q p is small, then
Q ult ≈ Q s
These piles are called friction piles because most of the resistance is derived from skin
friction developed at the side of the pile.
On the basis of equation 4-30, the general ultimate bearing capacity may be expressed as
below, replacing B with D as diameter of pile:
q ult = 𝑞𝑝 = cNc∗ + qNq∗ + γDNγ∗ Equation 4-39

where Nc∗ , Nq∗ and Nγ∗ are the bearing capacity factors that include the necessary shape and
depth factors. Since D is relatively small, the term γDNγ∗ may be dropped, thus

q ult = cNc∗ + q′Nq∗ Equation 4-40

Hence the load-carrying capacity of the pile tip is:

(81)
 Qp = Ap q p = Ap (cNc∗ + q′Nq∗ ) Equation 4-41

where
Ap = area of pile tip
c = cohesion of the soil supporting the pile tip
qp = unit point resistance
′
q = σ′v = effective vertical stress at the level of the pile tip
Nc∗ , Nq∗ =bearing capacity factors

DETERMINING LOAD-CARYING CAPACITY OF PILE IN SAND

Capacity of pile point
In sand c = 0, thus equation 4-41 takes the form:
Qp = Ap q p = Ap σ′v Nq∗ Equation 4-42

The values of Nq∗ as function of φ are shown in Figure 4-14. The point bearing capacity of
piles in sand generally increases with depth of embedment in the bearing stratum and
reaches a maximum at an embedment ratio Lb/d = Dcr (critical depth), Figure 4-15. In a
homogeneous material Lb is equal to the actual embedment pile length L. Where the pile
has penetrated into a bearing stratum beyond Dcr, the value of 𝑞𝑝 remains constant, hence
Q p should not exceed the limiting value:

Qp = Ap σ′v Nq∗ ≤ Ap q l Equation 4-43

The limiting point resistance is:

q l (kN⁄m2 ) = 50Nq∗ tan φ Equation 4-44

where φ = soil friction angle in the bearing stratum.

The ultimate point resistance may be obtained from standard penetration numbers as
suggested by Meyerhof (1976) as follows:
L
q l (kN⁄m2 ) = 40Ncor D ≤ 400Ncor Equation 4-45

where Ncor = average standard penetration number near the pile point (about 10D above
and 4D below the pile point).
Friction resistance
The frictional resistance at any depth for a pile is:
f = Kσ′0 tan δ Equation 4-46
where:
f = unit friction resistance at any depth z
Ks = earth pressure coefficient
σ′0 = effective vertical stress at the depth under consideration

δ = soil-pile friction angle

The frictional or skin resistance of a pile is given by:

Qs = ∑ p∆Lf Equation 4-47

(82)
where:
p = perimeter of the pile section
∆L = incremental pile length over which p and f are taken constant (Figure 4-16)

The value of Ks depends on the nature of pile installation and the following values are
recommended for use in equation 4-38:

Table 4-7: Average values for coefficient of earth pressure

Pile installation method Ks
Bored or jetted ≈ K 0 = 1 − sin φ
Low displacement driven ≈ K 0 = 1 − sin φ to 1.4𝐾0 = 1.4(1 − sin φ)
High displacement driven ≈ K 0 = 1 − sin φ to 1.8𝐾0 = 1.8(1 − sin φ)

The vertical effective stress σ′0 for use in equation 4-48 increases with pile depth to a
maximum limit at a depth of 15 to 20 pile diameters and remains constant thereafter, see
Figure 4-16. The critical depth L’ in Figure 4-16 depends on several factors such as, soil
friction angle, compressibility and relative density.
The critical depth L’ is defined as:
L′ = 15D Equation 4-48
A number of investigators have proposed the values of 𝛿. Others have proposed values for
the term (Ks tan), for example Tomlinson (1977) proposed values for driven piles of
different material are presented in Table 4-8

Table 4-8: Ks tan δ values after Tomlinson (1977)

Pile Type 𝜹 Ks
Low Relative Density High Relative Density
Steel 20⁰ 0.5 1.0
Concrete 0.75 𝜑′ 1.0 2.0
Wood 0.67 𝜑′ 1.5 4.0

Judgement must be used in choosing the values of 𝛿 and they range from 0.5𝜑 to 0.8𝜑
(Das, 2001).
The average unit frictional resistance for driven piles may be obtained from average
standard penetration resistance (Meyerhof, 1976) as follows:

For high-displacement driven piles

fav = (kN⁄m2 ) = 2Ncor Equation 4-49

For low-displacement driven piles

fav = (kN⁄m2 ) = Ncor Equation 4-50
Thus,

(83)
 Qs = pLfav Equation 4-51

Figure 4-14: Meyerhof’s bearing capacity factor, 𝐍𝐪∗

(84)
Figure 4-15: Variation of unit point resistance in a homogenous sand (from Das,
2001)

Figure 4-16: Unit frictional for piles in sand (from Das, 2001)

DETERMINING THE LOAD-CARYING CAPACITY OF PILE IN CLAY

For piles in clay, the undrained resistance is generally taken to be the critical value. The
undrained shear strength cu is used to calculate both the ultimate shaft and base
capacities.
End bearing capacity
The base end-bearing capacity of both driven and bored piles is given by the equation
Qp = Nc cu Ap Equation 4-52

where:
cu = undrained strenth on the pile-toe
Ab = area of pile base

(85)
 Nc = bearing capacity factor = 9.0 when L/D > 4 or at least five pile
diameters into the bearing stratum or 6.75 for fissured clays

For piles in saturated clay in undrained condition 𝜑 = 0,

Qp = Nc∗ cu Ap = 9cu Ap Equation 4-53

Frictional resistance
The frictional or skin resistance expressed in terms of effective stress is given by:
fs = Kσ′v tan δ = βs σ′0 Equation 4-54

The value of K depends on the soil type, the method of pile installation and stress history
of the soil. The lower bound value of 𝛽 may be obtained by assuming 𝛿 = 𝜑′𝑑 and

𝐾 = 1 − 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜑𝑑′ thus:
βs = (1 − sin φ′d )tanφ′d Equation 4-56
Where 𝜑𝑑′ = drained friction angle of shearing resistance of remoulded clay
For overconsolidated clays:

K = (1 − sinφ′d )√OCR Equation 4-57

Frictional resistance for normally consolidated clays is then given by:

fs = (1 − sin φ′d ) tanφ′d 𝜎𝑜′ Equation 4-58

Frictional resistance for overconsolidated clays is then given by:

fs = (1 − sin φ′d ) tanφ′d √𝑂𝐶𝑅𝜎𝑜′ Equation 4-59

The total frictional resistance is therefore given by:
Qs = ∑ fp∆L Equation 4-60

Allowable Pile Capacity

The allowable load carrying capacity of the pile by applying a factor of safety to the
ultimate load carrying capacity:

Qult
Qall = Equation 4-61
FoS

The factor of safety ranges from 2.5 to 4, depending on the uncertainties of the ultimate
load calculation.
Error! Reference source not found. shows examples of bored piles (drilled piers): (a)
and (b) in strong cohesive soils; (c) and (d) penetrating through relatively weak soil into
strong soil and (e) and (f) rock-supported.

(86)
 Figure 4-17: Principal types of piles (From Hunt, 1986)

Design Requirements:
If a pile foundation is recommended by the engineering geologist, the geotechnical
engineer will calculate the nominal bearing resistances of the recommended pile types and
dimensions. The geotechnical engineer will prepare foundation recommendations including
the following information; recommended pile types and dimensions and a graph of the
calculated nominal capacities versus depth for each substructure and each pile type and
dimension considered.
1. The geotechnical engineer will recommend field control methods along with the
associated phi factors corresponding to the field control method.
2. The geotechnical engineer will address any other issues associated with the pile
including the potential for downdrag and the associated value for downdrag,
the potential for setup along with the estimated rate and amount of anticipated
setup, and the potential for relaxation and the estimated amount of relaxation.
(piles driven into dense saturated fine sands, dense silts, or weak laminated
rocks such as shale, will exhibit a decrease in capacity after the driving has
been completed)
3. The geotechnical engineer will provide P-Y curve parameters for pile lateral load
analysis when appropriate.
4. The bridge engineer will prepare final foundation recommendations using
information contained in the foundation report.
5. The structural engineer will use the foundation recommendations to determine
the number of piles required and complete the substructure design.
6. The hydraulic requirements of the structure and a prediction for potential scour
depth should be established and reference should be made to the Hydrology
Manual 2017.

Dragload: The effect of down dragload should be taken into account. Soil and rock
conditions which promote modest to large dragload effects include:

(87)
 1. Changes in overburden weight/geometry at, or adjacent to, foundations with
compressible soil strata (even relatively small fills, depending on soil stratigraphy
and type). This includes embankment widening, excavation removals and
replacements, and other general construction earth moving operations.
2. Deep foundations installed through compressible soil strata with on-going
processes of slowly consolidating soils from previous fill placement.
3. Dewatering or changes in native groundwater or soil moisture.

The following project information is needed to properly assess the magnitude of drag
load:
1. Soil properties and stratigraphy of site soils.
2. Pile type, dimensions, and proposed pile length.
3. Information on amount, extent, and construction timeline associated with soil fills.
4. Unfactored structural ‘top loads’, particularly dead load, applied to the pile head.
5. Soil behaviour models (based on load tests or existing models) for pile load vs.
deformation behaviour- (T-z and Q-z curves), if available.

The above illustrations provide an overview on the parameter requirements. The

geotechnical design property assessment and final selection is dependent on the individual
geologic strata identified and the identified geologic hazards as presented in Table 2.1
regionally and specifically at the project site. The prevailing condition at the time when
the structure will be in service should accurately be considered at the design phase.
The basic elements to limit equilibrium method of analysis are:
• Failure surface of simple shape (planar, circular, or log-spiral) is assumed. Special
attention is required for slopes in rock with discontinuities.
• Distribution of stresses acting along the failure surface to cause failure is also assumed
• Mobilised shear strength is estimated and assumed to act simultaneously along the
entire failure surface.
From the above, it means that if the limit equilibrium FS is less than 1.0, failure shall be
considered likely. The requirement is therefore the analysis of the condition that would
exist at failure and measures applied to achieve safety factors to prevent this from
occurring. According to this approach, it is critical that it be verified that a limit state of
rupture or excessive deformation will not occur.
The limit equilibrium methods form the basis of the analysis to assess stability. However,
where the stability failure mechanisms anticipated are more complex and not well
modelled by limit equilibrium techniques, or if deformation analysis of a slope is required,
it is the Geotechnical Engineer’s discretion to use more sophisticated techniques of analysis
in addition to the limit equilibrium methodologies or use computer programs for performing
computations and for analysis purposes insofar that such programs are available. The
Geotechnical Engineer should be aware of the sensitivity of the computer programs to the
input data and the details of the model setup.

4.3 Road embankments

4.3.1 General
Road embankments should be designed and constructed with stable slopes and not
experience excessive settlements. The key geotechnical issues for road embankments are
stability and settlement characteristics of the foundation soils and the bearing capacity of
the base. The settlement potential of the road embankment depends on thickness and
properties of the fill and underlying compressible material and height of the embankment
Figure 4-18 shows roadway environment inclusive of embankments and cut, but the

(88)
embankment section is highlighted, showing the prevailing conditions.

Figure 4-18: Typical Cut/Embankment Section (NYSDOT (2012)

Road embankments are generally described in terms of four main parameters, namely
topography, geologic condition, climate and height. Consideration of the four parameters
will provide an indication of the relative probability of significant potential problems of
either stability or deformation.
The impact of geology and landform have been discussed in Section 2.2.3 and Section 2.2
and Table 3.6 of the Site Investigation Manual 2019, showing information on the
physiographic features and topographic classes in Mozambique. Since embankments are
usually constructed of engineered fill imported from other locations, including from cuts
within the project, a roadway in areas with variable topography and hilly areas will require
the construction of high fills and deep cuts and will impact on project costs.
Rainfall has the most important bearing on slope stability of embankments on side slopes
or gulleys, when the phreatic surface rises as a result of rain and thus reducing the
effective shear strength of the material. The analysis is influenced by the type of soil as
the rate of rainfall infiltration depends on soil type. Infiltration may occur suddenly and
remain stable or reduce slowly in sandy clay compared to a coarser material which may
lead to complete infiltration and water table rise.
There is a high probability of having stability and settlement problems with high
embankments. If the embankment is constructed with good quality material and is well
compacted, the long-term settlement within the embankment can be expected to be
minimal or within the allowable limits.
Cognisance should be taken of the impact of the above on key geotechnical issues for road
embankments, which are stability and settlement characteristics of the foundation soils

(89)
and the bearing capacity at the base. The selection of the filling for the embankment and
its preparation during construction requires the knowledge of the engineering properties
of the material. Appropriate information on established parameters in Chapter 3 should be
available for use and application in the design process.

4.3.2 Design considerations

The primary design issue is whether the existing foundation soil can support the new
embankment loads without undergoing bearing failure, or excessive settlement. The
Geotechnical Engineer has the responsibility to evaluate both field and laboratory
information as a validation of the design process. If the results are unusual, based on
experience and historic information from previous reports, this provides insight into the
validity and reliability of the information, before final selection of design parameters can
commence. If estimating the parameter from the various testing methods is poor, this can
often lead to additional testing for cross checking purposes. Sometimes trial embankments
are constructed at the beginning of the construction process to check assumptions made
during the design.
Table 4-9 provides a summary of the engineering properties and field and laboratory tests
needed for the design of embankments. The site characterisation needs, and field and
laboratory testing considerations for embankment design are presented in Section 6.2.1
as well as Table 6-2 and Table 6-4 of the Site Investigation Manual.

(90)
 Table 4-9: Engineering properties and field and laboratory tests for
embankment design. From Washington State DOT (2013)
Parameter Field test/requirement Laboratory tests
Collapse Recover undisturbed Double oedometer test
samples from auger trial
Collapse potential test
hole, test pit or borehole
Compacted Density (In- In situ tests Density of undisturbed
Place Density samples
(DPSH/CPT/SPT/CPTU)
Moisture-Density relations
In situ profiling of trial
of soils and soil-aggregate
holes/test pits
mixtures
Sand replacement tests
Drained shear strength Recover undisturbed Drained triaxial test
samples from auger trial
Effective angle of internal Drained shear box test
holes, test pit or boreholes
friction
Undrained traixial test with
Effective cohesion measurement of pore
water pressure.
Consolidated-Undrained
Triaxial Compression Test
on Cohesive Soils

Heave Recover undisturbed Double oedometer test

samples from auger trial
Swell under load test
hole, test pit or borehole
Index property test
(disturbed sample)
Index property tests Recover undisturbed Grain size distribution
samples from auger trial
Atterberg limits
hole, test pit or borehole
Moisture content
Level of water-table Drill a hole or borehole, Degree of saturation
leave for a period of time
for the water-level to
stabilise in the hole and
then measure the level
Permeability Recover undisturbed Falling or Constant head
samples from auger trial permeability test
hole, test pit or borehole
CPTU, Lugeon test

While embankments under 5 m high and in areas of stable ground and with slopes not
greater than 1.5H:1V generally do not require a detailed geotechnical investigation and
analysis, they should not be ignored and the design basis for calculation and
recommendations must still be reviewed and checked. These embankments can be
specified particularly when based on past experience in the same region and on
engineering judgment. On the same basis, embankments over 5 m high and those
constructed over soft ground will usually require a detailed geotechnical analysis.

(91)
Consideration on embankment construction material is covered in Section 5.2.2 of the Site
Investigation Manual 2019 and specific construction specifications for construction of
earthworks are provided in the Work Standards for Road Works Series 300 and the
Standard Specifications for road and Bridge Works, Series 3000. The geotechnical designer
should determine during the exploration programme if any of the material from planned
earthwork will be suitable for embankment construction. Consideration should be given to
whether the material is moisture sensitive and difficult to compact during wet weather.

4.3.3 How to carry out a settlement analysis

When the foundation of the embankment consists of peat or soft clay, the likelihood of
settlement of the embankment is increased. This settlement could either be due to the
consolidation of the foundation soil or due to the ultimate failure of the foundation soil. In
such cases, a combination of deformation and rupture takes place. There is a sudden
settlement of the embankment accompanied by the heaving of the ground, usually at
some distance from the toe of the embankment.
The total embankment settlement is considered to consist of: compression within the
embankment, immediate settlement of the fill or the foundation soil (undrained)
settlement, primary consolidation settlement of the foundation soil, and secondary
compression controlled by the composition and structure of the foundation soil skeleton.
In order to establish the target settlement criteria, the tolerance of structures or utilities
to differential settlement as the result of the embankment settlement behaviour shall be
determined.
To determine the amount and rate of settlement, knowledge on the following is required:
• The subsurface profile including soil types, layering, groundwater level and unit
weights. This will be satisfied from the results of subsurface exploration, Chapter 3;
• 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.
• In addition to the compression indexes, the geometry of the proposed fill embankment
load, including the unit weight of fill materials and any long-term surcharge loads;
• The stress distribution through the soil after the structure has been erected.

As stated above the total settlement is divided into three stages:

1. Initial Settlement (immediate, settlement of the fill or the foundation soil or
undrained or shear settlement (Si)
2. Primary Consolidation Settlement (Sc)
3. Secondary Compression (Ss)

The total settlement (long term) is the sum (ST) = Initial + primary consolidation +
secondary compression settlements:

𝑺𝑻 = 𝑺 𝒊 + 𝑺𝒄 + 𝑺𝒔 Equation 4-62

4.3.3.1 Determination of parameters for primary consolidation

Compression versus pressure curve
The data from the consolidation test is used to establish the required parameters. The
Geotechnical designer should be aware that parameters, based on laboratory consolidation
results will often vary from actual values in the field, due to sample disturbance and
presence of seams in the sample that reduce the drainage distance; which strongly
influences consolidation rates and therefore time for consolidation.
The results of the consolidation test are plotted in a specific manner to obtain the re-
quired parameters. The curve representing the void ratio versus pressure, where
pressure is plotted on a log scale (e-log-p curve) is shown in Figure 4-19. In other

(92)
instances, this is referred to as the (e-log-𝜎′𝑣 curve). Figure 4-19 illustrates the differ-
ent characteristics of the (e-log-〖σ'〗_v curve), virgin compression curve, disturbed
sample curve, undisturbed sample curve, design curve, the overburden pressure 𝑝0
preconsolidation pressure 𝑝𝑐 and the incremental pressure, ∆𝑝.

Figure 4-19: Pressure versus void ratio curve (e-log-p curve), Hunt (1986)

Table 4-10 presents a summary of the parameters for use in one-dimensional consolidation
theory obtained from the one-dimensional consolidation test.

Table 4-10: Consolidation parameters and symbols

Symbol Parameter
Cc or Cεc Compression Index
Cs Swell index
Cr or Cεr Recompression Index
Cα or Cεα Secondary Compression Index
σ’p or p’c Effective Pre-consolidation Stress
Cv Coefficient of Consolidation
mv Coefficient of Volume Compressibility

Recompression Index
In Figure 4-19 above, the recompression portion of the curve is extended back from the
initial curve at p, to form a new curve with a flatter initial slope. This flat portion of the
curve is referred to as having a slope, 𝐶𝑟 .
Compression Index
The compression index Cc is the slope of the virgin compression curve in
Figure 4-19, the linear portion of the slope, considering any two points on the linear por-
tion of the plot. It is dimensionless. The compression index represents

(93)
the change in void ratio (e) per log cycle of change in effective pressure. Thus, the
compression index is given by Equation 4.63:

𝒆𝟏 −𝒆𝟐
𝑪𝒄 = 𝒑 Equation 4-63
𝒍𝒐𝒈( 𝟏⁄𝒑𝟐 )

𝐶𝑐 is estimated from the following expressions:

For normally consolidated (NC) clays of moderate to low sensitivity (Terzaghi and Perk,
1967)

𝑪𝒄 ≈ 𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟗(𝑳𝑳 − 𝟏𝟎%) Equation 4-64

Where LL = liquid limit

For silts and clays (McCarthy, 1982)

𝑪𝒄 ≈ 𝟎. 𝟓𝟒(𝒆𝟎 − 𝟎. 𝟑𝟓) Equation 4-65

Where 𝑒0 is the initial void ratio.

𝑪𝒄 ≈ 𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟓𝟒(𝟐. 𝟔𝒘 − 𝟑𝟓) Equation 4-66

Where
w = natural water content

The coefficient of volume compressibility

The coefficient of volume compressibility (mv) is defined as the volume change per unit
volume per unit increase in effective stress. The units of mv are the inverse of pressure
(𝑚2 /MN). The volume change may be expressed in terms of either void ratio or specimen
thickness. If, for an increase in effective stress from 𝜎′0 to 𝜎′1 , the void ratio decreases
from 𝑒0 to 𝑒1 , then 𝑚𝑣 is given by equation 4.67:

𝟏 𝒆𝟎 −𝒆𝟏
𝒎𝒗 = ( ) Equation 4-67
𝟏−𝒆𝟎 𝝈′𝟎 −𝝈′𝟏

Figure 4-20 shows the idealised consolidation test results and how the parameters are
determined. The slope of the response during unloading or swelling is often denoted
as 𝐶𝑠 while the response during an unload-reload cycle is often denoted as 𝐶𝑢𝑟. In prac-
tice, the values for 𝐶𝑟, 𝐶𝑠, and 𝐶𝑢𝑟 are practically identical and often used interchangeably
(Loehr et al. 2016).
Alternatively, the consolidation results are plotted in terms of the vertical strain,
𝜀𝑣=Δ𝑒/(1+𝑒𝑜) versus the base-10 logarithm of effective vertical stress – Figure 4-21(a), or
the specific volume, 𝜐=1+𝑒, versus the natural logarithm (base-𝑒) of the effective ver-
tical stress – Figure 4-21(b). The compressibility established for the recompression
range from graphs of effective vertical stress versus strain is referred to as the modified
recompression index or recompression ratio, 𝐶𝑟𝜀. The compressibility for the virgin com-
pression range is termed as the modified compression index or compression ratio, 𝐶𝑐𝜀.
For graphs of specific volume versus the natural log of effective stress, Figure 4-
21(b), the compressibility is respectively denoted as 𝜅 and 𝜆 for the recompres-
sion and virgin compression ranges.
Thus Cεc, Cεr and Cεα are used when the consolidation data is presented in terms of vertical
strain (εv) instead of void ratio, as shown in Figure 4-21.

(94)
 Figure 4-20: Idealised consolidation parameter definition (Loehr et al. 2016)

Figure 4-21: Common alternative presentations for consolidation tests: (a) log
of effective vertical stress vs. vertical strain, and (b) natural log of effective
vertical stress vs. specific volume (Loehr et al. 2016)

A word of caution: The, numeric values established from the different diagrams should
not be used interchangeably.

The compressibility values established from the different diagrams are interrelated,
according to the following equations:

𝑪𝒄 = 𝑪𝒄𝜺 (𝟏 + 𝒆𝟎 ) Equation 4-68

(95)
 𝑪𝒓 = 𝑪𝒓𝜺 (𝟏 + 𝒆𝟎 ) Equation 4-69

𝑪𝒄 = 𝝀. 𝒍𝒏(𝟏𝟎) ≊ 𝟐. 𝟑𝝀 Equation 4-70

𝑪𝒔 = 𝜿. 𝒍𝒏(𝟏𝟎) ≊ 𝟐. 𝟑𝜿 Wood (1990) Equation 4-71

Where 𝜆 and 𝜅 are slopes in natural log of effective vertical stress vs. specific volume curve
as defined in Figure 4-21b

Degree of consolidation
From the previous section, it can be observed that, during the process of consolidation,
the voids of the soil are reduced by the increase in pressure, due to the action of loading.
In practice, this process may take place over a long period of time, depending on the type
of soil, related to the permeability of the compressible layer and loading history. Stress
history refers to the conditions leading to normal consolidation, over consolidation or under
consolidation.
If the present effective stress is the maximum to which the soil has ever been subjected,
the clay is said to be normally consolidated (NC). If the effective stress at some time in
the past has been greater than the present value, the clay is said to be over consolidated
(OC). When consolidation under the existing load is still occurring and will continue to
occur until primary consolidation is complete, soils are considered to be under-
consolidated. This may continue even if no additional load is applied. The loading history
to which the clay layer has been subjected, influences how the layer consolidates and the
degree of over consolidation is a useful parameter in this regard.

Interpretation of pre-consolidation pressure: This is the maximum effective vertical

stress that has acted on the clay in the past. The most commonly used method to obtain
the pre-consolidation pressure is the Casagrande empirical graphical construction method,
from the (e–log 𝜎′𝑣 curve), shown in Figure 4-22. In many clays and silts, this approach
may be adequate for evaluating a reasonable value of the pre-consolidation pressure 𝜎’𝑝
for engineering purposes. The steps involved in the Casagrande graphical method are
shown in Figure 4-22 and are as follows:

1. Construct a line tangent to the steepest portion of the consolidation curve within the
normally consolidated range of loading.
2. Locate the point of maximum curvature of the measured consolidation curve for
stresses where the slope transitions from shallow to steep. Construct a horizontal line
from this point of maximum curvature.
3. Construct a line tangent to the curve at the point of maximum curvature.
4. Construct a line that bisects the angle between the horizontal line constructed in Step
2 and the tangent line constructed in Step 3.
5. The stress value at the intersection between the bisector line (Step 4) and the first
tangent line (Step 1) is taken to be the pre-consolidation pressure.

(96)
 Figure 4-22: Illustration of Casagrande method for interpreting pre-
consolidation stress (Loehr et al. 2016)

There are cases where the point of maximum curvature is unclear. In such cases, several
alternative interpretations of this point should be considered to establish a reasonable
range of estimates for the pre-consolidation stress.
The degree of over consolidation is expressed using the over consolidation ratio (OCR)
defined as the maximum value of effective stress in the past (pre-consolidation) divided
by the present value, expressed by Equation 4.72:

𝛔′𝐩
𝐎𝐂𝐑 = 𝛔′ Equation 4-72
𝐯𝐨
where 𝜎′𝑣𝑜 is the current in situ vertical effective stress.

Adjustment of laboratory consolidation test to obtain field consolidation curve:

Normally consolidated clays

A normally consolidated clay has an over consolidation ratio of 1. They usually have a
consistency ranging from very soft to soft depending upon their age. But they tend to be
stiff to hard in consistency offshore, where substantial thickness can be deposited (Hunt
1986).
Due to sample disturbance and the fact that the laboratory soil specimen has been
removed from its in-situ stress environment, it means that the actual in-situ field
consolidation curve will be somewhat different from what is measured in a laboratory
consolidation test. A simple graphical method suggested by Schmertmann (1955) is used
to correct laboratory consolidation curves in order to obtain more realistic field
consolidation curves. In this method, the laboratory virgin line may be expected to
intersect the in-situ virgin line at a void ratio of approximately 0.42 times the initial void
ratio. Figure 4-23 shows the method for NC clay samples and the steps are as follows:
1. Perform the Casagrande graphical construction to obtain the pre-consolidation stress,
𝜎′𝑝
2. Calculate the initial void ratio,(𝑒0 ). Draw a horizontal line from 𝑒𝑜, parallel to the
effective stress axis, to the pre-consolidation stress, 𝜎′𝑝 . This defines Point 1 in Figure
4-23.

(97)
3. Draw a horizontal line parallel to the effective stress axis at a void ratio of 𝑒=0.42𝑒0 .
Where this line intersects the extension of the measured virgin compression curve
defines Point 2 in Figure 4-23.
4. Connect Points 1 and 2 with a straight line, 𝐹, to produce the estimated field virgin
consolidation curve.

Figure 4-23 Schmertmann (1955) method to obtain field consolidation curve for
normally consolidated soils (in Loehr et al. 2016, from Holtz, et al., 2011).
Adjustment of laboratory consolidation test to obtain field consolidation curve:

Over consolidated clays

Over consolidated soil has an over consolidation ratio greater than 1. Over consolidation
comes about due to geological factors, such as the erosion of overburden and the
permanent rise of the water table. Depending on the amount and duration of the
prestresses, over consolidated clay soils vary in consistency from firm to stiff to hard. Over
consolidated soils do not tend to have large settlements. The Schmertmann (1955) method
is also used to correct laboratory consolidation curves in order to obtain more realistic field
consolidation curves for over consolidated clays as follows:
1. Perform the Casagrande graphical construction to obtain the pre-consolidation stress,
𝜎′𝑝 .
2. Calculate the initial void ratio, 𝑒𝑜. Draw a horizontal line from 𝑒𝑜, parallel to the effective
stress axis, to the in situ vertical effective stress, 𝜎′𝑣0 . This defines Point 1 in
Figure 4-24.
3. From Point 1, draw a line parallel to the measured unload-reload curve to the
pre-consolidation stress, 𝜎′𝑝 . This defines Point 2 in Figure 4-24.
4. Draw a horizontal line parallel to the effective stress axis at a void ratio of 𝑒=0.42𝑒0 .
Where this line intersects the extension of the laboratory virgin compression curve
defines Point 3 in Figure 4-24.
5. Connect Points 1 and 2, and Points 2 and 3 by straight lines. The slope of the line
connecting Points 1 and 2 is the estimated in-situ recompression curve whereas the
slope of the line connecting Points 2 and 3 represents the field virgin consolidation
curve.

(98)
Since the slope of the unload-reload curve is generally a better representation of
recompression behaviour for the soil than the initial recompression curve, the slope of the
unload-reload cycle is used to establish the slope of the recompression (𝐶𝑟) range of
loading.

Figure 4-24: Schmertmann (1955) method to obtain field consolidation curve

for overconsolidated soils (in Loehr et al. 2016 from Holtz, et al., 2011)

The OCR can be calculated from the interpretations for determining pre-consolidation
pressure based on the stress history of the soils as shown in Table 4-11

Table 4-11: Soil terminology applied to stress history (Loehr et al. 2016)
𝑶𝑪𝑹 Terminology Abbreviation
1 Normally Consolidated NC
1<𝑂𝐶𝑅<2 Lightly Over consolidated LOC
2<𝑂𝐶𝑅<8 Moderately Over consolidated MOC
𝑂𝐶𝑅>8 Heavily Over consolidated HOC

Consolidation Time Rate

In order to estimate consolidation settlement, the value of either the coefficient of volume
compressibility or the compression index is required.
The time rate of settlement is typically represented by the coefficient of vertical
consolidation (𝑐𝑣 ) from the compression versus time curve, in a range of loading of

(99)
practical interest. Figure 4-25 shows the consolidation test conditions and the defini-
tions of the compression versus time curve. The curve is divided in two parts, to be dis-
cussed in detail in sections below:
• Primary consolidation, occurring while the excess pore pressure dissipates. This is
the settlement associated with the readjustment of soil particles due to dissipation of
water out of the voids.

• Secondary consolidation is a slow process continuing beyond primary consolidation.

It occurs when the soil continues to settle after the excess pore water pressures are
dissipated to a negligible level, i.e. primary consolidation is essentially completed.

Figure 4-25: Compression versus time for one load cycle of consolidation test
(Hunt, 1986)

Casagrande method
Figure 4-26 is an illustration of the Casagrande graphical method. The method uses a
plot of deflection versus the logarithm of time. Tangents are drawn to the primary sec-
tion of the curve at its point of inflection and to the secondary section to locate 𝛿100
(the dial reading at 100% primary consolidation). The corrected dial reading for 𝑡0 is loc-
ated by laying off, above a point corresponding to a time of about 0.1 minute, a distance
equal to the vertical distance between this point and the point for which the values of t are
in the ratio of 4:1, and the vertical distance between them is measured. The dial reading
for 50% compression is found as the midpoint between 𝛿0 and 𝛿100 and the correspond-
ing value for 𝑡50 is determined in seconds. The point corresponds to U = 50% (i.e 50%
primary consolidation).
The Casagrande method uses the time to complete 50 per cent primary consolidation, 𝑡50 ,
to compute the coefficient of consolidation (𝑐𝑣 ) from equation

𝑻𝒗 𝑯𝟐
𝒄𝒗 = 𝒄𝒎𝟐 /𝒔𝒆𝒄 𝒐𝒓 (𝒎𝟐 /𝒚𝒆𝒂𝒓) Equation 4-73
𝒕𝟓𝟎
where
H = one half the average thickness of the specimen in the test as it has double
drainage. Example, for a layer of 10m, two-way drainages top and bottom, H =
5m.
Tv = the theoretical time factor to reach 50 percent consolidation (𝑇50 = 0.197).
The coefficient of consolidation is given by Equation 4-74

(100)
 𝟎.𝟏𝟗𝟕𝑯𝟐
𝒄𝒗 = Equation 4-74
𝒕𝟓𝟎

Figure 4-26: Casagrande’s log time method for determining the coefficient of
consolidation (Loehr et al. 2016)

Taylor’s square root of time method

In Taylor’s method, the dial gauge readings (deflection) are plotted against the square
root of time in minutes as shown in Figure 4-27. The theoretical curve is linear up to
about 60% consolidation and at 90% consolidation.
The time for 90% primary consolidation, 𝑡90 , is obtained by drawing a straight line (DE)
having abscissa 1.15 times the corresponding abscissa. 𝑡90 is taken to correspond to the
point where this line intersects the time rate of consolidation curve. The intersection of
the line DE with the experimental curve locates the point (a90) corresponding to 90%
degree of consolidation, U = 90% and the corresponding value √𝑡90 can be obtained.
The value of Tv corresponding to U = 90% is 0.848 and the coefficient of consolidation is
then calculated according to Equation 4-75.

𝟎.𝟖𝟒𝟖𝐇𝟐
𝐜𝐯 = Equation 4-75
𝐭 𝟗𝟎

(101)
Figure 4-27: Taylor’s square root of time method for determining the coefficient
of consolidation (Craig, 2004)

Both graphical methods are approximate and will result in different calculated values for
𝑐𝑣 for the same test measurements. The Casagrande method can be applied only to
typical S-shaped curves but for other curves, the method is unsatisfactory. The value of
𝑐𝑣 from the Casagrande method, when compared with the 𝑐𝑣 value obtained by the Taylor
method, is generally smaller, and the ratio varies between 0.2 and 1 (Leroueil (1987).
Taylor method cannot be applied successfully for reliable values of cv, in the case of
rapidly consolidating specimens (e.g. coarse kaolinite), because of the high speed of
rotation of the compression dial pointer (Shukla et al. (2009).
High quality specimens will typically exhibit a sharp reduction in calculated 𝑐𝑣 values
near the pre-consolidation stress.
Consolidation occurs relatively rapidly and 𝑐𝑣 values can be relatively high, when load
increments are less than pre-consolidation stress.
Time rate of settlement analyses based on consolidation test results often over predict
the time actually required for primary consolidation to be completed in the field.
The 𝑐𝑣 used to determine the time for primary consolidation settlement should be the
one at the stress (load increment) closest to the anticipated field conditions.

The length of time for primary consolidation settlement to occur is a function of

compressibility and permeability of the soil. The coefficient of consolidation (𝑐𝑣 ) is related
to the permeability (k) and the coefficient of vertical compression (𝑚𝑣 ) as indicated in
Equations 4.76 – 4.78

(102)
 𝟏 𝐤
𝐂𝐯 = Equation 4-76
𝛄𝐰 𝐦𝐯
∆εv
mv = ∆σ′ Equation 4-77
v

∆𝒆
𝒎𝒗 = ∆𝝈 Equation 4-78
𝒗 (𝟏+𝒆𝒂𝒗 )
Where
𝛾𝑤 = Unit weight of water
∆𝜀𝑣 = Change in sample height
∆𝜎𝑣 = Change in effective stress
∆𝑒 = Change in void ratio
∆𝑒𝑎𝑣 = Average void ratio during consolidation

4.3.3.2 Determination of parameters for secondary compression

As can be observed from Figure 4-24, settlement from secondary compression is
relatively small compared to settlement from primary consolidation. However, in
soft clay and organic soils, secondary compression can be very significant and may
equal primary consolidation in magnitude. The rate of secondary compression is gen-
erally independent of the layer thickness in the field stress state and theoretically is a
function only of the secondary compression index and time. The magnitude of set-
tlement from secondary compression is estimated using the coefficient of secondary com-
pression (𝐶𝛼 ). The coefficient of secondary consolidation is measured from the time-void
ratio curve after primary consolidation is completed for the desired stress as shown in
Figure 4-28.
The anticipated final effective stress should be considered when assessing values of (𝐶𝛼 )
(or 𝐶𝛼𝜀 ) for design as it is stress history dependent. The maximum c is observed for
stresses that exceed the pre consolidation stress for the virgin compression. The
measurements of the coefficient of secondary compression should be made using high
quality specimens when secondary compression is important for design as the values from
disturbed specimens are generally less. 𝐶𝛼 is expressed as:

∆𝒆
𝑪𝜶 = Equation 4-79
∆ 𝐥𝐨𝐠 𝒕
Where
∆𝑒 = the change in void ratio over an elapsed time equal to (𝑡1 − 𝑡2 ), after primary
consolidation, generally considered to be U = 99.3%.

(103)
Figure 4-28: Evaluation of 𝑪𝜶 from time-deformation response for consolidation
test increment (Loehr et al. 2016)

The secondary compression of highly compressible organic deposits such as peat is usually
very large, and it is sometimes difficult to identify the end of primary consolidation. This
is attributed to the transition from primary to secondary compression not being easily
identifiable using standard interpretation methods. Use is made of the consolidation theory
for the calculation time of rates of settlement. The use of full-scale load tests that are fully
instrumented is preferred.

4.3.4 Determination of amount of settlement

All embankments shall be assessed for settlement as the performance of a roadway
embankment can be adversely affected by excessive differential settlement at the road
surface. This shall include embankments that have an adequate overall stability factor of
safety.

4.3.4.1 Primary consolidation settlement

The amount of primary consolidation depends on the initial void ratio of the soil. The
greater the initial void ratio, the more water that can be squeezed out, and the greater
the primary consolidation. The rate at which primary consolidation occurs is also
dependent on the rate at which the water is squeezed out of the soil voids, which is related
to the permeability of the material. At the end of primary consolidation, all excess pore
water pressures have dissipated and the average degree of consolidation (U) approaches
100%.
In the settlement analysis, the compression of an in-situ clay stratum is assumed to be
directly related to the test specimen and expressed by Equation 4.80.

∆𝒆
𝑺 = ∆𝑯 = 𝟏+𝒆 𝑯 Equation 4-80
𝟎
Where
H = stratum thickness
e0 = the initial void ratio corrected for the slight expansion occurring in sampling extrusion

(104)
Δe = the change in void ratio resulting from an increase in pressure from the effective
overburden pressure to the pressure imposed on the stratum by the foundation load.
The manner in which the data is plotted will determine how the parameters determined
above will be used to calculate the settlement. Either the e-log p or ε-log p curves are
used. Table 4-12 presents a summary of relationships for determining the total primary
consolidation settlement (𝑆𝑐 ). The pre-consolidation stress provides the conditions for use
of the equations.
Settlement computation starts with the soil profile being divided into layers, with each
layer reflecting changes in soils properties.

Table 4-12: Primary Consolidation Settlement Equations (NYSDOT, 2012)

Stress history Settlement determination Equation
e-log p

𝜎′𝑣𝑜 = 𝜎′𝑝 𝑖 𝐶𝑐 𝜎′𝑓 4-81

𝑆𝑐 = ∑ 𝐻0 (𝑙𝑜𝑔 )
1 1 + 𝑒0 𝜎′𝑣0
𝜎𝑓 < 𝜎𝑝 𝑖 𝐶𝑟 𝜎′𝑓 4-82
𝑆𝑐 = ∑ 𝐻0 (𝑙𝑜𝑔 )
1 1 + 𝑒0 𝜎′𝑣0
𝜎′𝑣0 < 𝜎′𝑝 < 𝜎′𝑓 𝐶𝑐 𝜎′𝑓 𝐶𝑟 𝜎′𝑝 4-83
𝑆𝑐 = 𝐻0 ⌊ (𝑙𝑜𝑔 )+ (𝑙𝑜𝑔 )⌋
1 + 𝑒0 𝜎′𝑣0 1 + 𝑒0 𝜎′𝑣0
𝜀 – log p
𝜎′𝑣0 = 𝜎′𝑝 𝑖 𝜎′𝑓 4-84
𝑆𝑐 = ∑ 𝐻0 𝐶𝜀𝑐 (𝑙𝑜𝑔 )
1 𝜎′𝑣0
𝜎′𝑓 < 𝜎′𝑝 𝑖 𝜎′𝑓 4-85
𝑆𝑐 = ∑ 𝐻0 𝐶𝜀𝑐 (𝑙𝑜𝑔 )
1 𝜎′𝑣0
𝜎′𝑣𝑜 < 𝜎′𝑝 < 𝜎′𝑓 𝑖 𝜎′𝑓 𝜎′𝑝 4-86
𝑆𝑐 = ∑ 𝐻𝑜 ⌊𝐶𝜀𝑐 (𝑙𝑜𝑔 ) + 𝐶𝜀𝑐 (𝑙𝑜𝑔 )⌋
1 𝜎′𝑣𝑜 𝜎′𝑣𝑜
Where:
𝜎′𝑓 = 𝜎′𝑣𝑜 + ∆𝜎′𝑣
𝜎𝑣𝑜 = Initial vertical effective stress on the ith layer
∆𝜎𝑣 = Change in stress on the ith layer

4.3.4.2 Secondary consolidation settlement

The occurrence of secondary compression is independent of the stress state and is
theoretically a function only of the secondary compression index and time. It can take
years for primary settlement to complete and secondary compression continues for
decades without additional load. The following equations are used for the determination
of the secondary compression settlement.

(105)
 Table 4-13: Secondary Consolidation Settlement Equations (NYSDOT, 2012)
Stress history Settlement determination Equation
e – log p 𝑖 𝐶𝛼 𝑡2 4-87
𝑆𝑐 = ∑ 𝐻𝑜 𝑙𝑜𝑔 ( )
1 1 + 𝑒 𝑜 𝑡1
𝜀 – log p 𝑖 𝑡2 4-88
𝑆𝑐 = ∑ 𝐻𝑜 𝐶𝜀𝛼 𝑙𝑜𝑔 ( )
1 𝑡1

4.3.5 Design procedure

4.3.5.1 Design parameter selection

1. Plot all the borehole results (subsurface cross-section)

2. Establish correct groundwater level.

3. Compile all consolidation parameters into the following plots (parameters will be
defined below), for all boreholes or zones as per exploration plan.
𝐶𝑐
i) vs Depth
1+𝑒𝑐

𝐶𝑟
ii) vs Depth
1+𝑒0

𝐶𝛼
iii) vs Depth
1+𝑒𝜌

iv) OCR vs Depth

v) 𝛾𝑏𝑢𝑙𝑘(𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑙) vs Depth (effective overburden pressure)

vi) 𝐶𝑣 vs Depth

vii) 𝑚𝑣 vs Depth

viii) 𝑘𝑣 vs Depth (obtained from 𝑚𝑣 𝐶𝑣 and 𝛾𝑤 relationship)

4. Obtain estimated values of (𝜎′𝑝 ) from several in-situ tests that may be used to
provide estimates of (𝜎′𝑝 ) or 𝑂𝐶𝑅, which can be used to evaluate (𝜎′𝑝 ) at specific
points in the subsurface profile or as profiling tools to obtain a more continuous
profile of (𝜎′𝑝 ), such as:
• Cone penetrometer (CPT)
• Cone penetrometer, piezocone (CPTU)
• Flat dilatometer (DMT),
• Pressuremeter (PMT),
• Field vane shear device (FVT), and
• SPT value correlations.

However, correlations from in-situ tests only provide indirect measures of (𝜎′𝑝 ) that
must be transformed using empirically or other theoretically derived functions to
produce the estimated value of (𝜎′𝑝 ). The geotechnical designer should be aware

(106)
 of the appropriateness of using a specific type of instrument, subsurface conditions
and type of soil and be knowledgeable with respect to the limitations.

5. To estimate immediate settlement (based on theory of elasticity), determine value

of undrained Young’s Modulus (𝐸𝑢 ) of the subsoil based on laboratory or field
correlations:
• SPT value correlations
• Undrained shear strength correlations.

4.3.5.2 Stress distribution determination

The embankment loading, which can either be in single stage or multi-stage will induce
the additional stress to the foundation soil. It is one of the primary input parameters for
settlement analysis. Several methods are available to estimate the stress distribution as
a result of the embankment or other imposed loads. There are other factors that influence
the stress distribution, at depth, midpoint of the layer being evaluated, these include:
• The geometry (length and width) of the embankment
• Inclination of the embankment side slopes,
• Unit weight of fill material (for stress due to self-weight)
• Pore water pressure and Skempton’s pore water pressure parameters 'A' & 'B'.
• Depth below the ground surface to the layer being evaluated, and
• Horizontal distance from the centre of the load to the point in question.

Elasticity based methods are commonly used to estimate the vertical stress increase in
subsurface strata due to an embankment loading, or embankment load in combination
with other surcharge loads. The increase in vertical stress is estimated at the midpoint of
the layer being evaluated. In most cases, the equations for the theory of elasticity have
been generated into design charts and tables for typical loading scenarios for application.
Figure 4-29 and Figure 4-30 show the influence factors for vertical stress under a very
long embankment and under the corners of a triangular load of limited length, respect-
ively. In Figure 4-29, the Influence Factor (I) is a function of the ratio of the embank-
ment cross sectional measurements to depth at the point of evaluation. In Figure 4-30, it
is the ratio of the embankment base measurements to the depth of interest.
∆𝜎 = 𝐼𝑞𝑜 Equation 4-89

𝑎 𝑏
𝐼 = 𝑓 (𝑧 , 𝑧 ), Figure 4-29.

𝐼 = (𝑚, 𝑛) , Figure 4-30

Where
𝑚= 𝐿 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑛 = 𝐵 as defined in Figure 4-30
𝑧 𝑧

(107)
Figure 4-29: Influence factors for vertical stress under a very long embankment
(after NAVFAC, 1971 as reported in Holtz and Kovacs, 1981)

(108)
 Figure 4-30: 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)

(109)
 4.3.5.3 Immediate settlement determination
Immediate settlement can be estimated using elastic displacement theory. The calculated
immediate settlements are generally expected to be completed during the construction of
the embankment.
1
𝑆𝑖 = ∑𝑖1 𝐸 (𝐼. 𝑞)𝑑ℎ Equation 4-90
𝑢

Where
q = Applied Stress / Pressure on the subsoil (kPa).
dh = thickness of each layer (m).
Eu = Undrained Young’s Modulus of the subsoil (kPa)
I = Influence factor

During application of the load, excess pore pressures will set up in the clay, but relatively
little drainage of water will occur since the clay has a low permeability.

4.3.5.4 Primary consolidation settlement determination

• Equations in Table 4-12 shall be used, according to stress history.

4.3.5.5 Rate of consolidation determination

• Equations 4-73 to 4-75 shall be used, according to problem boundary conditions.
The average degree of consolidation as a function of Time Factor for consolidation
theory by vertical flow is given by:

4𝑇𝑣
𝑈𝑣 = √ Equation 4-91
𝜋

𝑇𝑣 = 0.25𝜋𝑈 2 for U < 60% Equation 4-91a

𝑇𝑣 = 1.781 − 0.933log (100 − 𝑈%) for U > 60% Equation 4-91b

𝐶𝑣 𝑡
For 𝑇𝑣 = < 0.2
𝐻02

8 −𝜋2 𝑇𝑣
𝑈𝑣 = 1 − 𝜋2 𝑒𝑥𝑝 ( ) Equation 4-92
4

𝐶𝑣 𝑡
For 𝑇𝑣 = > 0.2
𝐻02

Alternatively determine 𝐶𝑣 from field in-situ permeability tests together with 𝑚𝑣

from laboratory oedometer consolidation tests and use Equation 4-76.

(110)
 4.3.5.6 Secondary compression settlement determination
• Equations in Table 4-13, shall be used according to test conditions.

4.3.5.7 How to determine the surcharge

Surcharging is aimed at achieving a higher rate of initial settlement and thus reducing
long-term settlements. There are three main issues that need to be addressed when
designing the required surcharge.
• Duration required for the surcharge
• Height of extra fill on top of the embankment required for the surcharging
• Bearing capacity check for the embankment at the edge with the surcharge fill

The Net Fill Height of the embankment = Finished Road Level – Existing Ground Level
𝑁𝐹𝐻 = 𝐹𝑅𝐿 − 𝐸𝐺𝐿
Estimated Embankment Fill Height = Net Fill Height + Total Settlement
𝐸𝐹𝐻 = 𝑁𝐹𝐻 + 𝑆𝑇
The total settlement is the sum of Immediate Settlement (𝑆𝑖 ), Primary
Consolidation Settlement (𝑆𝑐 ) and Secondary Consolidation Settlement (𝑆𝑐 ).
The Gross Fill Height is the sum of the Embankment Fill Height and the Surcharge Fill
𝐺𝐹𝐻 = 𝐸𝐹𝐻 + 𝑆𝐹
Total Pressure Action is a function of the effective overburden pressure from the
embankment and the surcharge.
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 = 𝐸𝐹𝐻 ∗ 𝛾𝑏𝑢𝑙𝑘 𝐹𝑖𝑙𝑙 + 𝑆𝐹 ∗ 𝛾𝑏𝑢𝑙𝑘 𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒

The design procedure can be summarised as follows:

1. Determine the long-term settlement of the embankment under loading from the
embankment fill (EFH)
2. Determine the duration time for surcharging (𝑇𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒 ). This is dictated by the
project schedule.
3. Generate total settlement versus time plots for different gross heights (GFH).
4. Using the total settlement on the basis of EFH, and the required surcharge time,
the GFH can be determined from the generated curves, to achieve the required
settlement for the allowable project time frame.

4.3.5.8 Stability assessment considerations

The design of embankments requires that side slope stability and bearing capacity be
assessed in addition to settlement. There are key issues that will influence approach to
stability analysis.
• Confidence in site investigation: If complete confidence in the investigation is
not achieved, a conservative approach will be required for the factor of safety.
• Presence of soft ground: It is necessary to first establish if the site is underlain
by any soft material, such as soft silt, clay or peat. The presence of soft silt, clay
or peat will require a staged stability analysis. Embankments on weak foundation
soils frequently require detailed analyses. Failure may take place if the critical
height is reached during construction.
• Site constraints should be established as they will impact on the embankment
slope. Available space will allow for flatter slopes, while sites with constraints will

(111)
 need slopes that are steeper than 1.5H:1V. In general, embankments that are 5
m or less in height with 1.5H:1V or flatter side slopes, may be designed based on
past precedence and engineering judgment provided there are no known problem
soil conditions such as organic and soft soils.
• Impact on nearby structures: If new embankments are likely to have an impact
on nearby structures or bridge abutments, for example, it is expected that
appropriate and more detailed sampling, testing will have been undertaken. More
elaborate analysis is required. Settlement of foundation soils induced by
embankment loads can result in excessive movements of substructure elements.
• Presence of potentially liquefiable soils: Seismic analysis is required to
evaluate liquefiable soils and ground improvement may be needed. This will impact
on the options for ground improvement techniques.

4.3.5.9 Stability analysis

Embankments that do not support structures with side slopes of 1.5H:1V or flatter would
typically not require a slope stability analysis.
1. For stability analysis, at least the short-term and long-term stages shall be
checked.
a) Short Term (total stress using undrained shear strength, 𝑆𝑢 . In this case, 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. An undrained analysis
assumes that the analysed load is applied faster than the excess pore water
pressures resulting from the load.
b) Long term (effective stress) using drained strength parameters (c’-∅'). In this
case, the critical stability is under drained conditions, such as in sand or gravel.
Effective stress analysis using a peak friction angle is appropriate and should
be used for stability assessment.

2. The required factor of safety

Figure 4-18 shows a condition of ultimate failure of an embankment on soft clay, a
combination of deformation and rupture has taken place. The objective of stability
analysis is to verify that a limit state of rupture or excessive deformation will not
occur, i.e. the design value of the effect of the driving force is less than the design
value of the resisting force to the action.
Potential instability is due to the total fill weight of the soil mass (W per unit length)
above the failure surface A-B. At failure, the driving and resisting forces act as
follows:
The force driving movement consists of the embankment weight. The driving
moment is the product of the weight of the embankment acting through its centre
of gravity times the horizontal distance from the centre of gravity to the centre of
rotation (Lw).
The resisting force is the total shear strength acting along the slip plane. The
resisting moment is the product of the resisting force times the radius of the circle
(Ls).
For equilibrium, the shear strength which must be mobilised is the sum along the
failure surface A-B. The factor of safety (FS) against failure is equal to the ratio
between the resisting and driving moments as given below.

Resisting Moment Total Shear Strength ∗ Ls

FS = =
Driving Moment Weightforce ∗ Lw

(112)
 Preliminary analysis, during the early stages of the design, can be performed using
a quick preliminary estimation of whether stability may be a problem and if more
detailed analyses should be conducted, by using Equation 4-93:
6c
FS = γ Equation 4-93
Fill ∗HFill

where c is the cohesion of the of the clay foundation soil, 𝛾𝐹𝑖𝑙𝑙 is the unit weight of
the fill and 𝐻𝐹𝑖𝑙𝑙 is the height (thickness) of the fill. The value for the cohesion (c),
can be obtained from field vane strength tests on the underlying soils and used
with the equation to estimate the FS in the field. A more detailed stability analysis
is needed when the FS obtained in this way is less than 2.5 or when groundwater
is expected to lie within the slip circle AB in Figure 4-31.

Figure 4-31: Typical circular arc failure mechanism. Adapted from US DOT
FHWA (2006)

As a general guide, for overall stability, the required factor of safety is as follows:
a) Short term FS 1.2 to 1.3 (if confidence on strength values, use 1.2). All
embankments not supporting or potentially impacting structures shall have a
minimum safety factor of 1.25.
b) Long term FS = 1.4 to 1.5. All Bridge Approach Embankments and
embankments supporting critical structures shall have a safety factor of 1.5.
Critical structures include those for which failure would result in a life-
threatening safety hazard for the public.

3. At least two types of potential failure planes shall be checked.

a) Circular (Modified Bishop).
b) Noncircular or Wedge method (modified Janbu or Morgenstern & Price or
Sarma). These are based on satisfying force equilibrium, rather than moment
equilibrium.

Note:
• Normally, Wedge Method will produce lower FS compared to Circular
Method.

(113)
 • Should select proper boundary for wedge analysis, if possible start with
circular methods and to determine potential failure zone.
• When the supporting soils are homogeneous and deep, the failure surface
will approach a circular arc.
• If the soft stratum is relatively thin and underlain by very strong material,
a planar failure surface is likely.

The geotechnical engineer should consider the boundary conditions of the

problem in order to determine the most effective method of analysis. Figure 4-
32 shows stability problems in the form of rotational and sliding block failures
which often occur when the embankment is built over soft soils such as low
strength clays and silts, and when the foundation soil is overstressed during or
immediately after construction.

Figure 4-32: Modes of side slope failures in embankments. From IOWA State
(2013) and US DOT FHWA (2006)

The parameters to be used in the method of analysis selected to determine the

factor of safety depend on the soil type and strength characteristics. Shear strength
parameters for the fill material should be determined from tests on specimens
compacted to the values of dry density and water content to be specified for the
embankment.

In cohesive soils, the unconsolidated undrained (UU) triaxial test or consolidated

undrained (CU) or field vane shear should be used in a short-term analysis, while
the CU triaxial test with pore water pressure measurements or consolidated drained
(CD) triaxial tests are used for the long term analysis. For granular soils, the values
of the effective friction angle from charts of standard penetration resistance (SPT)
versus friction angle or from direct shear tests are required for the analysis.

(114)
 4. The following dimension will be used
a) The height of embankment shall be:
• EFH if no surcharging applicable
• GFH if surcharging present.
b) At least 10kPa surcharge loading (construction traffic) on top of the
embankment acting pressure.
c) The magnitude of immediate settlement (soft ground) should be included in the
EFH or GFH to simulate settlement during construction so that stability analysis
does not underestimate the weight of the embankment.

5. General for the strength parameters of the well compacted predominantly granular
fill master is c’ = 0 to 5kPa, ∅′ = 28° to 30°. It is recommended to carry out shear
box test on the well-compacted fill material to obtain representative parameters.

Disadvantages of shear box

• The distribution of the shear stress over the plane of failure is assumed to be uniform,
which is not the case
• The normal stress cannot be varied during a test to reflect stress path
• Only total stress measurements can be made, as it is not possible to measure pore
pressure within the sample.

The following table summarises different methods of slope stability analysis. These are
also the methods typically included in slope stability analysis software packages.

Table 4-14: Slope Stability Methods, Details and Assumptions (ODOT, 2018)
Method Force Moment Assumptions
Equilibrium Equilibrium
Ordinary or The slip surface is circular and the forces
√
Fellenius on the sides of the slices are neglected.
Bishop’s The slip surface is circular and the forces
√
simplified on the sides of the slices are horizontal
(no shear)
Janbu’s The inclinations of the interslice forces are
√
simplified assumed
Spencer Interslice forces are parallel and the
√ √
position of the normal force on the base
of the slice is assumed
Morgenstern- Interslice shear force is related to
√ √
Price interslice normal force by X = 𝜆f (x)E and
the position of the normal force on the
base of the slice is assumed
Lowe- The inclinations of the interslice forces are
√
Karafiath assumed
Sarma Interslice shear force is related to the
√ √
available interslice shear force, interslice
shear strength depends on shear strength
parameters, pore water pressures, and
the horizontal component

(115)
 4.3.5.10 Consideration for embankments on swampy ground
Soil in swampy areas has low initial shear strength and the initial layer of the embankment
should be distributed evenly in a manner that no shear failure is induced. The layer should
also be able to support heavy construction equipment. The thicknesses of each subsequent
fill stage should be determined primarily by considering the stability of the slope, using
the methods in Table 4-6. The construction of embankments on swampy ground should
be closely monitored using instrumentation. The pore-pressure and settlement can be
monitored during each stage of fill placement. Monitoring and instrumentation is further
discussed in Chapter 7. The acquired data can be used for future design as well as input
for comparative analysis of the embankment behaviour, with respect to both the rate and
magnitude of the embankment settlement during the construction. The actual thickness
for the next stage can be modified based on the information collected from the
instrumentation, compared to the predicted values.
Vertical drains should be installed to provide vertical flow channels in the swamp deposits.
The objective is to reduce the length of the drainage path, affected by the spacing of the
drains and therefore the most important design consideration. The spacing and depths of
the drains depends on the thickness and horizontal permeability of the swamp deposits
and the underlying clay layer as well as the long-term function of the embankment.
Swampy deposits are more likely to have horizontal permeability that is much greater than
vertical permeability. It is essential that the coefficients of consolidation in both the
horizontal and the vertical directions are known as accurately as possible. Drains are
normally installed in either a square or a triangular pattern as discussed in Section 4.3.7.2.
Techniques to support construction working platform, include placing a layer of geotextile
on the soft deposit

4.3.5.11 Consideration for ground treatment for embankment

stability
Consideration is given to a number of techniques available to mitigate inadequate slope
stability for new embankments or embankment widening. Three main methods for
improving stability are:
1. Constructing the embankment slowly enough to permit consolidation and
subsequent strength increase. This may include use of vertical drains to control
excessive pore-pressure build up;
2. Design the embankment with slopes with low inclination;
3. Constructing a counter-berm. The objective is to add weight to increase resistance
to overturning moment.

The following are examples of options for instability mitigation and will be discussed in
more detail in section 4.3.6.
Option 1
• Counterweight berm (Should have sufficient fill material at the site)
• Partial soft soil replacement (should be limited to not more that 4m deep if
possible).
• Combination of the above.

Option 2
• Staged construction (with or without vertical drains). Gain in strength for each
stage should be assessed
• Geosythetc reinforcement (high strength geotextiles)
• Combination of the above.

Option 3

(116)
 • Piled embankment using slab system (requires transition piles between piled and
un-piled embankment)
• Geofoam as lightweight fill, from expanded polystyrene (EPS)
• Stone columns
• Dynamic replacement (only if soft clay is shallow)

Practical considerations on settlement behaviour of soils in embankments

Gravels, sands, and non-plastic silts:
• relatively stiff compared to other soil types
• consolidate rapidly under load.
• seldom present settlement problems unless close tolerances are required or the
soil is very loose or heavily loaded.

Plastic silts, clays, and mixtures of clay

• consolidate more slowly and may pose settlement problems depending on the
stiffness of the soil and the magnitude of loading.

Soft silts and clays

• especially compressible
• often require considerable effort and attention during site characterisation,
design, and construction to avoid serviceability problems from excessive
settlements.
• Settlement often continues long after construction is complete.

Organic soils
• usually highly compressible and biodegradable.
• consolidation settlement in some organic soils may occur quickly
• secondary compression can result in large settlements that occur for many years.

4.3.6 Stability Mitigation

There are a number of options that can be implemented, using a variety of techniques to
mitigate inadequate slope stability for new embankments, existing embankments or
embankment widening projects. If space allows, shifting the roadway centre-line to an
area with better soils may be the most economical solution or reducing the grade line will
decrease the weight of the embankment and will improve the stability of over-stressed
soils. However, this is not always possible. Common techniques are discussed below and
include staged construction to allow the underlying soils to gain strength, base
reinforcement, ground improvement, use of lightweight fill, and construction of toe berms
and shear keys. The application of the different methods is further discussed in Section 5.

4.3.6.1 Stage construction

The technique is used to allow excess pore water pressures to dissipate and allow the
foundation soils to gain strength with each construction stage, as the dissipation of pore
water pressure increases the effective stress. An increase in effective stress in the subsoil
results in an increase in the shear strength. The procedure entails placing the embankment
slowly in stages. However, the method is applicable when it is possible to permit dissipation
of excess pore water pressures within available construction time, which depends on the
permeability of the subsoil being large enough, or the total depth of compressible strata
sufficiently thin. Different approaches are used to assess the rate of fill placement and the
necessary strength gain on various types of foundation soils.

(117)
For staged construction, total stress analysis and effective stress analysis are the two
general approaches used to assess the criteria used during construction to control the rate
of embankment fill placement and to allow the necessary strength gain to occur in the soft
sub-soils. 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. Only when the desired amount of consolidation has occurred
can placement of the next lift of fill begin.
On the hand, in the effective stress approach, the pore pressure increase beneath the
embankment in the soft subsoil is monitored and used to control the rate of embankment
construction. The pore pressure increase is not allowed to exceed a critical amount, which
is the ratio of pore pressure to total overburden stress. This insures embankment stability
during construction. The critical amount is generally controlled in the contract. The pore
pressure increase caused by consolidation stress is measured using pore pressure
transducers, typically located at key locations beneath the embankment. Typical
instrumentation consists of slope inclinometers to monitor stability, piezometers to
measure excess pore water pressure and settlement devices to measure the amount and
rate of settlement. Figure 4-33 shows the concept of calculating the percentage
consolidation in staged construction.

Figure 4-33: Concept of calculating the percent consolidation in staged

construction (NYSDOT, 2012)

After the first fill placement, construction of the second and subsequent stages commences
when the strength of the previous layers is sufficient to maintain stability. Each time fill is
added, the fill starts to consolidate, while the soft subsoil and previous fills have already
had time to react to the stress increase due to the fills applied earlier. Figure 4-33 is a
simplistic illustration, of a weighted average of the per cent consolidation that has oc-
curred for each stage up to the point in time in question, which should be used to de-
termine the average percentage consolidation of the subsoil due to the total weight of
the fill. In general, it is best to choose as small a fill height and delay period increment
as practical.
The lift thickness that can be placed on the weak soils should not induce ground rupture.
Fill height increments range from 60 cm to 120 cm, and delay period increments range
from 10 to 30 days. As advocated in section 4.3.7, computer programs are used to define
the height of fill placed during each stage and the rate at which it is placed, along with the
time of settlement and the per cent consolidation required for stability. However, the step
by step approach in section 4.3.5.7 can be used to manually determine height of fill.
Figure 4-34 shows the principles of stage construction method. It shows the evolution of
the different parameters at each stage as fill is added, the fill starts to consolidate,

(118)
while the soft subsoil and previous fills have already had time to react to the stress in-
crease due to the fills applied. A time interval passes to permit some gain in strength
from consolidation before the next lift is placed and the procedure is repeated until
the full height is attained.

Figure 4-34: Principles of Stage Construction Method (NYSDOT, 2012)

Both the initial undrained strength of the soft soil and its rate of increase with time due to
consolidation under the applied loads must be estimated to control staged construction.
For each stage, determine the undrained strength gain as follows:

ΔCuu = Δσv tanφconsol. Equation 4-95

Estimate the strength at any degree of consolidation using:

Cuu% = Cuui + UΔσv tanφconsol Equation 4-96

where
𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜑𝑐𝑢
𝑡𝑎𝑛 𝜑𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑜𝑙 =
(1 − 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜑𝑐𝑢 )

The consolidation stress increase is the increased effective stress in the soft subsoil caused
by the embankment fill. On the basis of end-result specifications, the immediate
settlement can be assumed as a percentage of the primary settlement of the embankment
to achieve a critical FS, for the design purpose. This will then be checked against the field
monitoring programme.
The basic settlement equation is used to estimate the settlement, taking into account the
height of the fill and therefore the increase in stress, the thickness of the soft soil and its
elastic modulus through the coefficient of compressibility:

(119)
 σH
δ= Equation 4-97
E
where
𝛿 Settlement
𝜎 increase in stress due to embankment
H thickness of compressible layer
E modulus = 1/mv
mv coefficient of compressibility

This is based on the monitored data, of the maximum lateral deformation observed below
the toe of the embankment and the maximum settlement observed below the center of
the embankment. The maximum lateral deformation beneath the toe of the embankment
is approximately 0.28 times the maximum settlement observed below the center of the
embankment at the end of loading stage
Material used in stage construction of embankments or fills, should be well graded, capable
of being well compacted and should not contain deleterious materials, such as tree roots
and saturated clays and highly organic soils are considered unsuitable. According to Table
3-15 and section 4.3.5.11, highly desirable material for embankment fill, range from well
graded granular soils (sand and gravel), to the more finely sized soils (silt and clay), which
are less desirable. This includes soils with more than 5% by weight of organic materials,
a swell of more than 3% (e.g. black cotton soils) and clays with a plasticity index over 45
or a liquid limit over 90.
The disadvantages of the staged construction include requirement for instrumentation in
the soil and regular monitoring of data. The process requires longer time of construction.
The critical factors governing the design of road embankments are: stability,
total/differential settlement and time for settlement. In situations where the monitored
data reveal that conditions for stage construction are not fulfilled, for example slower rate
of settlement and that the total settlements may not be reduced, the method may be used
in conjunction with other techniques as discussed in the following sections below.

4.3.6.2 Base reinforcement

Base reinforcement may be used to increase the factor of safety against slope failure of
planned embankment, particularly those located in soft soils which are characterised by
poor shear strength, high compressibility and low permeability. Base reinforcement
typically consists of placing a geotextile or geogrid at the base of an embankment prior to
constructing the embankment. Techniques such as stone columns, soil mixing, soil nailing,
ground anchors, and grouting can be used to increase resisting forces. The reinforcement
/confinement effect from geotextiles/geogrids/geocells is useful as it improves
embankment stability, permits controlled construction over the soft soils, ensures more
uniform settlement of embankment and results in cost effective solutions.
The base reinforcement can be designed for either temporary or permanent applications.
Most base reinforcement applications are temporary, in that the reinforcement is needed
only until the shear strength of the underlying soil has increased sufficiently as a result of
consolidation under the weight of the embankment. Therefore, the base reinforcement
does not need to meet the same design requirements as permanent base reinforcement
regarding creep and durability. Limit equilibrium slope stability methods are used to

(120)
determine the strength required to obtain the desired safety factor in the design of base
reinforcement.
During construction, base reinforcement materials should be placed in continuous
longitudinal strips in the direction of main reinforcement. Joints between pieces of
geotextile or geogrid in the strength direction (perpendicular to the slope) should be
avoided. All seams in the geotextiles should be sewn and not lapped. Likewise, geogrids
should be linked with pins and not simply overlapped. Where base reinforcement is used,
the use of gravel borrow areas, instead of earth materials, may also be appropriate in
order to increase the embankment shear strength.

4.3.6.3 Ground improvement

Ground improvement is another option used to mitigate inadequate slope stability for both
new and existing embankments, as well as reduce settlement. Most foundation problems
occur from high void ratios, low strength materials and unfavourable water content in the
soil. Therefore, basic concepts of soil improvement include densification, cementation,
reinforcement, soil modification or replacement, drainage, and other water content
controls. In addition to these categories, wick drains may be used in combination with
staged embankment construction to accelerate strength gain and improve stability and
accelerate long term settlement. The wick drains in effect significantly reduce the drainage
path length, thereby accelerating the rate of strength gain. Other ground improvement
techniques such as stone columns can also accelerate strength gain in the same way as
wick drains. Columns made of stone or chemically stabilised soil increase the stiffness of
the foundation and can substantially increase stability and decrease settlement.

4.3.6.4 Lightweight fills

Use of lightweight fills is another option for improving embankment stability. Conditions
where their application is appropriate are: the reduction of the driving forces contributing
to instability, and reduction of potential settlement resulting from consolidation of
compressible foundation soils. Geofoam as an example of lightweight fills, is approximately
1/100th the weight of conventional soil fill and, as a result, is particularly effective at
reducing driving forces or settlement potential. Lightweight fills are infrequently used due
to either high costs or other disadvantages with using these materials. A variety of
materials can be used as lightweight fill such as:
• Expanded polystyrene fill (“geofoam” blocks),
• Lightweight aggregates (expanded shale (solite, norlite), pumice, blast furnace
slag, fly ash),
• Shredded rubber tyres,
• Lightweight concrete fill. This is an engineered geotechnical material with a unique
strength / density relationship which can be used to reduce loads on soft foundation
soils, buried structures, or against retaining walls. Lightweight Concrete Fill consists
of a cement matrix containing uniformly distributed, non-interconnected air voids
introduced by a foaming agent. The flowability and cementitious properties of this
material provide a product that is self-levelling and does not require compaction.
Lightweight Concrete Fill has a density that is 25% - 35% of that of typical soil fills.

4.3.6.5 Berms and shear keys

The objective of toe berms is to add weight to area beyond the toe of the embankment to
increase resistance to overturning. Counterberm design requires analysis executed as
carefully as for any structures and may be performed using Figure 4-35. Three cases are
considered. Case I: the embankment width is large compared to soft soil thickness (>
1.5 times), Case II: embankment width ranges from 0.5 to 1.5 times soft soil thickness
and Case III: embankment width small compared to soft soil thickness (< 0.5 times).

(121)
 Figure 4-35: Counterberm design, from NAVFAC (1982) in Hunt (1984)

The side slopes of the toe berms are often gentler than the fill embankment side slopes,
but the berm itself should be checked for stability. The use of berms may increase the
magnitude of settlements as a consequence of the increased size of the loaded area. Toe
berms increase the shearing resistance in the following ways:
• By adding weight, and thus increasing the shear resistance of granular soils below the
toe area of the embankment;
• By adding high strength materials for additional resistance along potential failure
surfaces that pass through the toe berm;
• By creating a longer failure surface, thus adding more shear resistance, as the failure
surface must pass below the toe berm rather than the embankment and the berm.

Use of shear keys is another method to improve the stability of an embankment by

increasing the resistance along potential failure surfaces. Shear keys function in a manner
similar to toe berms, except instead of being adjacent to the toe of the embankment, the
shear key is placed under the fill (Figure 4-36) and frequently below the toe of the em-
bankment. They improve the stability of the embankment by forcing the potential fail-
ure surface through the strong shear key material or along a much

(122)
longer path below the shear key. Shear keys are more appropriate for conditions where
they can be embedded into a stronger underlying formation. They are typically backfilled
with quarry waste or similar materials that are relatively easy to place below the
groundwater table, require minimal compaction, but still have high internal shear strength.
Shear keys typically range from 1.5 to 4.5 m in width and extend 1.2 to 3.0 m below the
ground surface.

Figure 4-36: Use of shear key (US DOT FHWA (2006B)

4.3.6.6 Removal and replace

The very soft compressible cohesive soils are excavated and replaced with better materials
(e.g. compacted sand or suitable fill) to provide a stable foundation. If the soft material is
much deeper than the practical excavation depth, partial excavation and replacement is
also possible. However, the effect on stability and long-term settlement of the remaining
soft material should be considered. Sometimes partial excavation and replacement of soft
material is used with ground treatment techniques to overcome the above problems. This
method will be more difficult if the groundwater level lies above the base of the excavation.

4.3.7 Settlement Mitigation

Settlement mitigation techniques are employed when it is observed that the extent of
settlement is beyond the amount that can be tolerated as discussed in section 4.3.6.1.
The settlement in embankments is relative to a norm judged to be suitable for the specific
embankment. It is important to monitor the performance of an embankment and the
subsoil supporting it during and after construction.
Often, there is an attempt to reduce potential settlement by compaction of the foundation
soil, but this process is expensive and for practical reasons is rarely applied. Instead, the
most commonly used methods to mitigate settlement include acceleration using
surcharges and wick drains, lightweight fills and removal and replacement as was the case
described for stability.

4.3.7.1 Acceleration using surcharge and preloading

Surcharging or preloading is one of the techniques applied primarily to strengthen weak
soils. Most surcharging is accomplished by constructing an earth fill over the weak soils.
Thus, surcharge loads are additional loads placed on the fill embankment above and
beyond the design height. The effectiveness of the surcharge is dependent upon several
factors which should be analysed, such as the time-settlement characteristics of the
foundation soil, and the ratio between surcharge height and the final fill height. The intent

(123)
is to use the surcharge to pre-induce the settlement estimated to occur from primary
consolidation and secondary compression due to the embankment load.
As the surcharge height-fill height ratio decreases, the effectiveness of the surcharge also
decreases. The loading intensity of the surcharge increment on the compressible layers
should be checked by the usual pressure distribution methods. If the fill is high (>10 m)
and the compressible layer is deeper than 5 m, then the surcharge will be relatively
ineffective, it will not eliminate all of the settlement. The surcharge is designed to achieve
the total estimated settlement or greater under primary consolidation only. The preload
fill cannot be constructed too rapidly over a soft clay where a rotational slide or base failure
could occur due to the development of excessive pore water pressures.
During embankment construction, the surcharge is constructed to a predetermined height,
usually between 300 mm and 3 m above the final grade elevation. The procedure described
in section 4.3.5.7 can be used to estimate the height of fill. The surcharge is maintained
for a predetermined waiting period (typically 3 to 12 months) based on settlement-time
calculations. The surcharge fill needs to be at least one-third the design height of the
embankment to provide any significant time savings.
Preloading is applied in roadways to improve foundation soils to the embankments. In
preloading, the surcharge is removed after the settlement objectives have been met in
order to avoid additional deformation. The pore water pressure in undrained loading
occurring under the embankment due to the preloading may be predicted using the
Skempton' s pore water pressure parameters “A” and “B” measured in the CU triaxial test
as indicated in Table 4-1, with the following procedure:
1. Determine the effective stress (𝜎′𝑣 ) and the static pore water pressure (𝑢0 ) for the
clay mid-depth, prior to placing the preload.
2. Find the stress increment at depth z from the preload (∆𝜎1 ).
3. Using parameter ‘A” and “B” measured in the laboratory calculate the excess pore-
water. During the triaxial testing, it is important to monitor pore pressure in order
to determine the pore pressure parameters A and B. The parameters A and B are
not constant but change with the stress path of the soil. The excess pore water
pressure is calculated from:

∆𝑢 = ∆𝜎3 + 𝐴(∆𝜎1 − ∆𝜎3 ) Equation 4-98

∆𝑈 ∆𝑈
where 𝐴 = and 𝐵 =
∆𝜎1 ∆𝜎3
4. Measure field pore pressure with piezometer to check calculated values
5. Using the effective stress path defined in the triaxial test, determine the values of
the pore pressure and parameters A and B. In general, triaxial tests should be
performed at the initial confining stress (𝜎0 ’). The third point in the triaxial test is
usually performed at 4𝜎0

The rate of loading relative to the rate of soil consolidation should be such that
excess pore pressures do not develop. In this case, drained loading and
consolidation occur.

4.3.7.2 Vertical drains

The slow rate of consolidation in saturated clays, loose silts, fine sand, and clayey silts of
low permeability may be accelerated by means of vertical drains. The primary objective of
vertical drains is to reduce the drainage path in a thick compressible soil deposit.
Consolidation is then due mainly to horizontal radial drainage, resulting in the faster
dissipation of excess pore water pressure; vertical drainage becomes of minor importance.
Theoretically, the final magnitude of consolidation settlement is the same, only the rate of

(124)
settlement being affected. A degree of consolidation of the order of 80% would be
desirable at the end of construction.
The traditional method of installing vertical drains is by driving boreholes through the clay
layer and backfilling with suitably graded sand. The sand must be capable of allowing the
efficient flow of water while preventing fine soil particles from being washed in. Careful
backfilling is essential to avoid discontinuities which could give rise to ‘necking’ and render
a drain ineffective. The sand drains, vary from 2.5 to 5 m in spacing, installed through the
weak stratum and connected to a free draining blanket of granular soil (Figure 4-37). The
grid spacing is selected in such a way as to increase the consolidation rate and
render the settlements acceptable, as per project requirement. The most commonly ad-
opted grid spacing for ground improvement lies between the range 1.5 to 3.5 m, depend-
ing on whether square or triangular pattern is used as discussed in section 5.3. Sand
drains may reduce the time required for surcharging to as little as 1/100 or less. The time
of installation needs to be taken into account. The effectiveness of the drains depends
on the horizontal permeability of the soil and the depth.
Prefabricated drains are now generally used and tend to be more economical than
backfilled drains for a given area of treatment. Generally, wick drains (Figure 4-37) are
small prefabricated drains consisting of a plastic core that is wrapped with geotextile,
which functions as a separator and a filter to keep holes in the plastic core from being
plugged by the adjacent soil. The drains are usually 100 mm wide and about 6.25 mm
thick, produced in rolls that can be fed into a mandrel. They are installed by pushing
or vibrating a mandrel into the ground with the wick drain inside. Predrilling of dense soil
deposits may be required in some cases to reach the design depth. Since vertical
drains are generally expensive, any advantages must be set against the additional
cost of the installation and the feasibility of a surcharge solution should always be con-
sidered first.

Figure 4-37: Use of vertical drains to accelerate settlement (NCHRP, 1989)

4.3.7.3 Removal and replace

The soft soil may be removed to provide a stable foundation. Removal and replacement
(over-excavation) refer to excavating soft compressible soils from below the embankment

(125)
and replacing it with a more granular material, higher quality, less susceptible to the
negative effects caused by water or excessive moisture content or less compressible soil
(Figure -4-38). Where analyses indicate that more foundation settlement would occur
than can be tolerated, partial or complete removal of compressible foundation material
may be necessary. However, because of high costs associated with excavating and dis-
posing of unsuitable soils and the difficulty of excavating below the water table, re-
moval and replacement is only justified under certain conditions. Some of these condi-
tions include the following:
• The area requiring over-excavation is not wide;
• The unsuitable soils are near the ground surface and do not extend very deeply
(removal of unsuitable material beyond the depth of 3 m is not normally
economically feasible);
• Temporary dewatering is not required to support or facilitate the excavation;
• The unsuitable soils can be dumped on site or can be disposed of safely elsewhere
close by;
• Suitable fill materials are readily available to replace the volume of unsuitable soils.

Figure 4-38: Removal and replacement

4.4 Abutments, retaining walls and reinforced slopes

4.4.1 Bridge abutments over soft clay

At bridge approaches, deformation can occur both in the vertical and lateral directions.
The main settlements are results of vertical deformation. Embankment settlement near an
abutment could create an unwanted dip in the roadway surface. Bridge approach slabs are
used at the transition between the bridge and the abutment fill to minimize the effects of
differential settlement and should be the same width as the bridge deck. However, because
only a small settlement is desirable at abutments, piles and drilled shafts are required and
use is made of selected materials with increased compaction requirements to prevent
differential settlement. Figure 4-39 shows elements of the bridge approach embank-
ment.

(126)
 Figure 4-39: Elements of a bridge approach embankment. From Briaud et al
(1997)
Lateral squeeze of the foundation soils can occur if the soils are soft and if their thickness
is less than the width of the end slope of the embankment. Attention should also be given
to the weight of the embankment fill behind the wall, as it will impose lateral earth pressure
on the piles and it should not exceed the yield point (𝑝𝑦 ) of the clay given by the following:

𝑝𝑦 = 3𝑐𝑢 Equation 4-99

Equation 4-99 is used as criteria to evaluate when special attention to excessive bending
stresses is required.
In order to analyse the problem, a triangular distribution of lateral earth pressure is
assumed, in which the maximum value of the lateral pressure 𝑝𝐻 occurs at the centre of
the clay layer and given by:
𝑝𝐻 = 𝐾0 𝜎𝑧 𝐵𝑤 Equation 4-100

where 𝐾0 = 0.4, the coefficient of at rest earth pressure

𝜎𝑧 = the increment of vertical stress at the centre of the clay layer under the heel
of the embankment due to the backfill weight
𝐵𝑤 = pile width.
The materials surrounding deep foundation systems may also cause negative skin friction
or a down-drag effect on individual piles or drilled shafts, as approach embankments and
foundation soils settle (Figure 4-40). Past studies have indicated that this effect can
occur with as little as a 10 mm settlement. If enough down-drag occurs, the axial capa-
cities of piles or shafts may be exceeded. The resulting bending stresses due to the lateral
pressure in the piles account for the observed tilting of the pile-supported abutments to-
wards their backfill. Piles should be designed for negative friction. .

(127)
Figure 4-40: Settlement and down-drag in bridge abutments and piles. Modified
from US DOT FHWA 2006

Surcharges can be used in the areas of bridge abutments located on soils such as loose
silts, fine sand, and clayey silts that consolidate rapidly. By preloading the abutment area,
it is possible to reduce the structure settlement to an amount where a spread footing
foundation may be used instead of piles.

4.4.2 Retaining walls

Retaining walls are used in cut and fill locations where space does not permit a free-
standing (natural) earth slope to extend to the original ground. Retaining walls are also
used where the hillside slope is too steep to form a stable fill slope. Retaining walls may
also be needed at the base of a bridge approach embankment. Traditionally, these walls
are poured reinforced concrete (gravity or cantilever), steel, or precast concrete cribbing,
stone-filled wire-basket gabions, steel sheeting, or steel soldier pile and lagging walls, all
of which provide external support to the retained soil mass.
Several innovations in types of retaining walls have become available, including using
inherent characteristics of retained or reinforced soil as part of the support system.
Gravity walls derive their capacity to resist lateral loads through the dead weight of the
wall. The gravity wall type includes rigid gravity walls, mechanically stabilised earth (MSE)
walls, and prefabricated modular gravity walls. Semi-gravity walls are similar to gravity
walls, except that they rely on their structural components to mobilise the dead weight of
an embankment fill to derive their capacity to resist lateral loads. The most common
terminology associated with the design of semi-gravity structures is given in Figure
4-41.

(128)
 Figure 4-41: Terminology associated with semi-gravity retaining walls

Non-gravity cantilevered walls rely on structural components of the wall partially

embedded in foundation materials or hill-side slope to mobilise passive resistance to resist
lateral loads.
There are three categories of support systems based on their intended functional life:
permanent, temporary, and interim (NYSDOT, 2013).
1. Permanent: A permanent system provides a structural support function for the life
of the facility.
2. Temporary: A temporary system is designed to provide structural support during
construction and is removed when construction is complete.
3. Interim: An interim system is identical to a temporary system in function, except
it remains in place (although it no longer provides a structural function) because
its removal would be detrimental to the finished work.

4.4.2.1 Retaining wall types

The classification of retaining wall systems is based on the basic geotechnical mechanism
used to resist lateral loads and the construction method used for the installation of the
wall. The following are definitions used to classify retaining wall systems (NYSDOT, 2013):
1. Externally Stabilised Structures: Externally stabilised structures rely on the
integrity of wall elements (with or without braces, struts, walers and/or tiebacks or
anchors) to both resist lateral loads and also prevent ravelling or erosion of the
retained soil.
2. Internally Stabilised Structures: Internally stabilised structures rely on friction
developed between closely spaced reinforcing elements and the backfill to resist
lateral soil pressure. A separate, non-structural element (facing, erosion control
mat and/or vegetation) is attached to prevent ravelling or erosion of the retained
soil.
3. Fill Type Retaining Walls: Retaining structures constructed from the base of the
wall to the top (i.e. “bottom-up” construction).
4. Cut Type Retaining Walls: Retaining structures constructed from the top of the wall
to the base (i.e. “top-down” construction).

(129)
Externally Stabilised Fill Structures
Examples of externally stabilised fill structures include the cast-in-place/precast gravity
wall, comprised of a mass of concrete, including levelling pads, earth backfill, and a
subsurface drainage system to reduce hydrostatic pressure on the wall system.
a. Gravity wall
A gravity wall is a massive structure, usually economical only for small heights to
support low height embankments of less than 6 m. Stability of the gravity wall is
achieved by the weight of the wall system to resist lateral soil pressure.Figure
4-42 shows the load diagram for a gravity wall. Using the defined loads, refer to
Figure 4-43 for the calculation of FS.

Figure 4-42: Force diagram of a Gravity retaining wall (Hunt, 1986)

Where:
PA Resultant of active earth pressure
Pp Resultant of passive earth pressure (providing resistance to sliding)
W Weight of wall (providing stability)
Ws Weight of soil wedge
d Distance to centre of Ww (induced moment)
R Resultant at the base of wall used for determining the base pressure
d3 Distance to point of application of resultant Pp

b. Prefabricated Wall Systems

Another example of the externally stabilised fill structure is the Prefabricated Wall
Systems (PWS). The system is comprised of prefabricated face units and coping
units, including levelling pads, unit infill, earth backfill, joint filler material and
geotextile, and a subsurface drainage system to reduce hydrostatic pressure on the

(130)
 wall system. The prefabricated face units may either be a series of open face units
assembled to form bins, which are connected in unbroken sequence or a
combination of solid face units with a characteristic alignment and connection
method. Stability of the PWS is achieved by the weight of the wall system elements
and the weight of the infill to resist lateral soil pressure.

c. Gabions
Gabions are an externally stabilised fill structure comprised of twisted or welded
wire baskets that are divided by diaphragms into cells, including basket infill
consisting of stone fill. Gabions are most applicable when constructed in new fills,
such as embankment widenings. Stability of these systems is achieved by the
weight of the stone-filled baskets resisting the overturning and sliding forces
generated by the lateral stresses from the retained material.

Gabions are strengthened at the corners by higher gauge wire and mesh
diaphragms that divide them into compartments. The wire should be galvanized,
and sometimes PVC coated for greater durability. The baskets usually have a double
twisted hexagonal mesh, which allows the gabion wall to deform to an extent
without the boxes breaking or experiencing significant loss of their strength.

Gabion walls are commonly used for walls of up to 6 m high. Because of their
inherent flexibility, they are not favoured immediately below sealed roads due to
the likelihood of movement of the backfill and subsequent pavement cracking.

Figure 4-43 shows typical examples of gabion walls. The maximum recommended
step at each course is half of the depth of the gabion unit. In some cases, the
bases of gabion walls can be inclined by up to 6º into the slope to increase stabil-
ity. In order to keep the back-slope as dry as possible, it is advisable to
provide outlet drains from the lowest point of the wall and ensure that drainage
discharge can be visually inspected from these outlets into catch-pits.

(131)
 Figure 4-43: Typical types of gabion walls

Table 4-15 presents standard sizes of the Hexagonal steel wire mesh gabions and
revet mattresses meeting the requirements of SANS 1580:2010 are.

Table 4-15: Typical Hexagonal steel wire mesh Gabion size1

Element Depth (m) Maximum Width Maximum Length
(m) (m)
Cage Dimension (m) <0.5 2.0 6.0
<1.0 1.0 4.0

Depth of cage Cross width Mesh wire Selvedge

(m)
Wire mesh dimensions 0.17 – 0.30 60 (-4 +10) 2.2 (±0.08) 2.7 (±0.08)
0.30 – 1.00 80 (-4 +10) 2.7 (±0.08) 3.4 (±0.08)

In general, gabion walls have the following advantages:

• Gabions can be easily stacked in different ways, with internal or external
indentation improving stability
• Gabions blend very well with natural surroundings
• They can sustain differential settlements without significant loss of strength
or serious distress
• They allow free drainage through the wall,
• The cross section can be varied to suit site conditions

(132)
 • The boxes can take limited tensile forces to resist differential horizontal
movement

Their disadvantages include:

• Gabion walls need a large space to fit the wall base. This base width normally
occupies about 40 to 60% of the height, and gabions may not be a good
solution where space is limited.
• Their high degree of permeability can result in a loss of fines through the
wall. In embankments, this can result in settlement behind the wall and on
the surface of the road. Often this problem can be avoided by using a
geotextile between the wall and the backfill as shown in Figure 4-43.
• The inherent flexibility can be a disadvantage as overlying facilities may
distort. An important consideration in determining the use of these systems
is the space required for the size of the baskets, most notably the base
basket.
• The installation of the baskets will sometimes require cutting and benching
adjacent fills.

Externally Stabilised Cut Structures

The mechanism for stability of an externally stabilised cut structure is obtained by
installing a structural wall of sufficient strength to resist the overturning and sliding forces
generated by the lateral stresses from the retained soil behind it. Externally stabilised cut
structures include sheeting walls, soldier pile and lagging walls, and anchored walls.
Figure 4-44 shows an example of anchored retaining wall. Anchors are generally used
where it is difficult to attain sufficient embedment to provide cantilever support for a
retaining wall. Anchors receive their resistance either by being attached to a deadman, as
shown in Figure 4-44a, or by being grouted in soil or rock as in Figure 4-44.b. Anchored
retaining walls should not be used when utilities, other than roadway drainage, or other
roadway features must be constructed within the influence zone of anchor system.
Guidance in determining design properties such as spacing is provided in Table 4-10.

Figure 4-44: A typical anchored retaining wall (NYSDOT, 2013)

Soldier piles used as part of a shoring system are vertical structural units, or members,
which are spaced at set intervals, typically spaced at 2 m to 3 m intervals. A lagging

(133)
material is placed between the soldier piles to complete the shoring system. Soldier piles
and lagging have higher available section moduli and thus greater excavation depths can
be supported by this system compared to those supported by sheeting. Cantilevered
soldier piles are usually practical for excavations up to approximately 5 m in height.
Table 4-16 summarises conditions most suitable for the different externally stabilised cut
structures.

Table 4-16: Wall support systems suitability

Wall type Conditions most suitable Disadvantages

Cannot extend wall below

Over-consolidated clays
excavation bottom
Soldier piles and
Sands with cohesion Effective dewatering required
lagging
Permits large movements in weak
Sands adequately dewatered
soils

May permit large movements in

weak soils
Easy driving conditions in
Sheet piles clays, sands, and clay-sand Cannot penetrate obstacles or
mixtures strong materials
Effective dewatering required

Soft clays and loose sands Relatively costly

below water table where the
Diaphragm walls Penetration in strong soils by slurry
need is to control lateral
movement trench method slow and difficult

Support Conditions most suitable Disadvantages

system

Cross-lot bracing Narrow excavations Permits large wall movements in

weak soils
Rakers and Wide excavations
berms

Need material suitable for

Anchors Any excavation width where anchorage in reachable distance
(tiebacks) movement control is needed Vertical component imposed on
wall

Internally Stabilised Fill Structures

Internally stabilised fill structures include Mechanically Stabilised Earth Systems (MSES),
Mechanically Stabilized Wall Systems (MSWS), and Geosynthetically Reinforced Soil
Systems (GRSS). These structures are used when embankments are required to be
constructed with steeper than usual slopes where limited right of way and construction
constraints exist. Required properties for geosynthetics are provided in SANS ISO 10318-
2013 and presented in Section 4.11.
The mechanism for stability of an internally stabilised fill structure is obtained by improving
the strength of the backfill soil by placing tensile reinforcing elements (inclusions) in the
backfill to create a reinforced mass. The weight of the reinforced soil mass resists the
overturning and sliding forces generated by the lateral stresses from the retained soil.

(134)
These wall systems may not be appropriate where it may be necessary to gain future
access to underground utilities by cutting or disturbing the reinforcing elements as they
rely on a reinforced mass of soil for stability.
a. Mechanically Stabilised Earth Systems (MSES)
Mechanically Stabilised Earth (MSE) retaining walls employ metallic (inextensible)
or polymeric (extensible) tensile reinforcements in the soil mass and a vertical or
near-vertical facing element (see Figure 4-45). MSE are preferred over
unstabilised earth systems where poor soil foundation is encountered as
they can tolerate large differential settlement and general vertical settlement.
MSE walls can be constructed in cut and fill situations, but are better
suited to fill sites and are normally used for wall heights between 3 to 12 m,
but technically feasible to heights greater than 30 m. They provide a higher
resistance to seismic loading than rigid concrete wall structures.

Each reinforcement is connected to the facing with a mechanical connection. Load

is transferred from the backfill soil to the metallic or polymeric inclusion by shear
along the interface and/or through the passive resistance on the transverse
members of the inclusion. Stability of these systems is achieved by the weight of
the reinforced soil mass resisting the overturning and sliding forces generated by
the lateral stresses from the retained soil behind the reinforced mass.

Figure 4-45: MSE Wall with Precast Concrete Face Panels

A guide in determining the preliminary embedment lengths is to use 70% of the

proposed MSES wall height. The cutting and benching of adjacent fills to install the
reinforcing to the required embedment lengths is sometimes required. Guidance in
determining design properties such as spacing is provided in Table 4-10.

MSE walls should not be used where floodplain erosion or scour may undermine
the reinforced soil mass unless the wall is founded at sufficient depth or adequate
scour protection is provided to prevent the erosion or scour.

Figure 4-46 shows application of soil reinforcement in embankment slopes, used

in new construction to steepen side slopes and increase embankment heights
thereby reducing fill requirements. They are also used to replace conventional
retaining walls and repair failed slopes, Figure 4-46 band Figure 4-46d respect-
ively. The most prominent use of reinforcement is, however, for widening and re-
construction of existing roads (Figure 4-46c). The use of reinforced

(135)
 steepened slopes to widen roadways improves mass stability, eliminates additional
right-of-way, and often speeds construction. Guidance in the method of analysis to
evaluate the design parameters for reinforcement is presented below under failure
modes for reinforced soil embankments and in Table 4-10.

Figure 4-46: Application of reinforced slopes in road construction. NYSDOT

(2007)

Reinforced soil slopes should not be used where floodplain erosion may undermine
the reinforced soil mass. They should not be used where utilities, drainage or other
feature must be constructed within the reinforced zone unless their installation can
be adequately coordinated.

Guardrail, fence posts and other similar features can be installed within the
reinforced soil zone but must be accounted for in the design. A vegetative facing
for the reinforced soil slopes can be provided but requires special details that
depend on the slope angle.

Failure modes for reinforced soil embankments

The overall design requirements for reinforced embankment slopes are similar to
those for unreinforced slopes. That means the factor of safety must be adequate
for both the short-term and long-term conditions and for all possible modes of
failure. The weight of the reinforced soil mass resists the overturning and sliding
forces generated by the lateral stresses from the retained soil.

There are three possible failure modes (Figure 4-47) for reinforced slopes: in-
ternal, external and compound. The internal mode of failure occurs when the
slip plane passes through reinforcing elements. In the case of the external mode,
the failure surface passes behind and underneath the reinforced soil. The com-
pound failure occurs when the failure surface passes behind and through the
reinforced soil mass (Figure 4-47) .

(136)
 In the analysis, the reinforcement is represented by a concentrated force within
the soil mass that intersects the potential failure surface. By adding the failure
resistance provided by this force to the resistance of the soil, a factor of safety
equal to the rotational stability safety factor is applied to the reinforcement. The
tensile capacity of a reinforcement layer is considered as the minimum of its
allowable pullout resistance behind the potential failure surface or its long-term
allowable design strength. The slope stability factor of safety is taken from the
critical surface requiring the maximum amount of reinforcement.

Figure 4-47: Failure modes for reinforced soil embankments. US DOT FHWA,
2001)

The method of analysis is as follows:

STEP 1: Establish the geometric, loading and performance requirements for design.
The geometric and loading requirements are the embankment slope height,
slope angle, external surcharge loads, and traffic barriers. The performance
requirements are related to external, compound and internal stabilities.
Hence, external (sliding, deep seated, overall stability, local bearing failure
or lateral squeeze), compound, and internal failures need a factor of safety
greater or equal to 1.3. The safety factor for dynamic loading and the
magnitude and time rate of post constriction settlement based on project
requirements are also important.

STEP 2: Determine the engineering properties of in-situ soils. These include: the
foundation and retained soil (i.e. soil beneath and behind reinforced zone),
strength parameters (𝑐𝑢 and ϕu, or c′ and ϕ′) for each soil layer, unit weights
𝛾𝑤𝑒𝑡 and 𝛾𝑑𝑟𝑦 , consolidation parameters (Cc, Cr, Cv and Δp), location of the
ground water table and piezometric surfaces, and for slide repair, the
identification of the location of previous slip planes and cause of failure.

STEP3: Determine the properties of reinforced fill and, if different, the retained fill,
namely, gradation and plasticity index, compaction characteristics (𝛾𝑑𝑟𝑦
±2% of optimum moisture content, and ω opt), compacted lift thickness,
shear strength parameters (cu and ϕu, or c’ and ϕ’), and the chemical
composition of the soil (pH).

STEP 4: Evaluate the design parameters for reinforcement. One of these

parameters is the allowable geosynthetic strength (T al). It is defined as the
ultimate strength (Tult) divided by the FS (safety factor) times reduction

(137)
 factor (RF), which is a combined factor to account for geosynthetic strength
loss during the wall design life and is equal to RF ID times RFCR times RFD,
where RFID is a reduction factor for installation damage, RFCR is a reduction
factor for creep, and RFD is a reduction factor for chemical and biological
degradation. Tult is the ultimate wide-width strip tensile strength of the
geosynthetic based on the minimum average roll value for the given
product.

FHWA NHI Manual recommends, RFID = 1.1 to 3.0, RFCR = 1.6 to 5.0, and
RFD = 1.1 to 2.0.

For granular backfill, RF = 7 may be conservatively used for preliminary

design and routine, non-critical structures where the minimum test
requirements are satisfied. The second parameter is the pullout resistance
that is modelled with a factor of safety of 1.5 for granular soils, 2 for
cohesive soils, and a minimum anchorage length (Le) of 1 m is also needed.

b. Mechanically Stabilised Wall Systems (MSWS)

These are Prefabricated Wall Systems (PWS) which, when constructed beyond wall
heights exceeding the maximum allowable unreinforced height, can be used as tall
structures, exceeding more than 20 m of wall height rely on reinforcing elements
within the backfill to provide stability. The reinforcement is connected to the facing
either with a mechanical or friction connection, depending on the system.

c. Geosynthetically Reinforced Soil Systems (GRRS)

Geosynthetics are commonly used to reinforce a soil mass, to allow the construction
of embankments with very steep and even vertical slopes. These systems are called
Geosynthetically Reinforced Soil Systems (GRSS). Temporary GRSS systems are
very commonly used for staged construction, as they are inexpensive and easy to
construct.

An important consideration in designing these systems is the space required for

embedment of the reinforcing. A guide in determining the preliminary embedment
lengths is to use 70% of the proposed GRSS wall height.

GRSS should not be used in the top 2 m of a fill if significant future utility work is
expected.

Internally Stabilised Cut Structures

Internally stabilised cut structures include the Soil Nail Wall System (SNWS), Figure
4-48. The mechanism for stability of such wall systems is obtained by improving
the strength of a soil by placing tensile reinforcing elements (inclusions) in the soil
to create a reinforced mass. The weight of the reinforced soil mass resists the overturn-
ing and sliding forces generated by the lateral stresses from the retained soil. Soil
nails are steel bars or tendons installed to reinforce or strengthen the existing ground.

(138)
 Figure 4-48: Soil Nail wall (NYSDOT, 2013)

Soil nail walls are used to support the existing soil for a cut situation. Soil nails are installed
into a slope or excavation as construction proceeds from the existing ground surface to
the proposed bottom of excavation. The soil nailing process creates a reinforced section
that is itself stable and able to retain the ground behind it.

4.4.2.2 Design considerations

Geotechnical design considerations include:
• Establishing the wall alignment and the top and bottom elevations;
• Analysing the external stability of the wall (i.e., sliding and overturning);
• Analysing the global stability (i.e. failure behind or below the wall);
• Designing foundation treatments to support the wall; and
• Providing the structural analysis and details for non-proprietary walls. The internal
stability of proprietary retaining wall systems is provided by the manufacturer
during the construction phase.
• Required structure capacity is determined primarily by the wall height and the
magnitude of the forces to be retained, see section 4.2.4 and 4.2.5.
• Consideration of earth pressures may be based on either Coulomb or Rankine
theories. The type of earth pressure used for design depends on the ability of the
wall to yield in response to the earth loads. For walls that are free to translate or
rotate (i.e., flexible walls), active pressures shall be used in the retained soil.
• Generally, MSE walls directly supporting spread footing bridge abutments shall be
8 m or less in total height. Abutment spread footing service loads should not exceed
285 kPa.
• All retaining walls and reinforced slopes shall have an overall safety factor of 1.3.
• All abutments and those retaining walls and reinforced slopes deemed critical shall
have a safety factor of 1.5.
• For soil nails, the minimum construction safety factor shall be 1.2 for noncritical
walls and 1.35 for critical walls such as those underpinning abutments.

Factors influencing selection of appropriate wall type include:

• the design loading,
• depth to adequate foundation support,
• presence of deleterious environmental factors,

(139)
 • physical constraints of the site,
• cross-sectional geometry of the site both existing and planned,
• settlement potential, desired aesthetics,
• constructability, maintenance, and cost.

Table 4-17 summarises the most important factors relating to each of the different lateral
support systems and provides a guide when evaluating the suitability of a system for the
specific project. The different lateral support systems presented above are classified as
either embedded walls or reinforced soils. The embedded wall uses an external structural
wall against which stabilising forces are mobilised, inclusive of the passive pressure. Walls
that are not embedded for stability are internally stabilised by the installation of reinforcing
elements which extend beyond any potential failure surface and do not significantly rely
on passive soil pressure for their stability.

(140)
 Table 4-17: Details of lateral support systems (Franki)
Type Nominal Nominal Additional Normal Max Vertical Establishment Cost Noise Site Area Flexibility in Water
size (mm) Spacing Secondary Depth that Load Costs per m2 Pollution Required the Event of and
(metres) Support can be Bearing Obstruction Collapse
Supported Capacity

EMBEDDED WALLS

Steel sheet Per supplier Continuous None Cantilever: 3 Poor Medium High High Medium Poor Good
Piles details
Braced: 10
Anchored: 15+

Concrete Per supplier Continuous None Cantilever: 3 Fair Medium High High Medium Fair Good
Sheet Piles details
Braced: 10
Anchored: 15+

Steel Standard H 1 – 2.5 Timber Cantilever: 3 Fair Medium Medium High if Medium Fair Poor
Soldiers Section, lagging or driven,
RSJ or gunite Braced: 10 else low
channel Anchored: 15+
profiles

Concrete 300 – 1200 1 – 2.5 Gunite Cantilever: 4 – Good Medium Medium Low Medium Fair to Good Poor
Soldier diameter 5
Piles
Braced: 10
Anchored: 25+

Contiguous 300 – 1200 0.5 – 1.0 x None Cantilever: 4 – Good Medium High Low Medium Fair to Good Fair to
and Secant diameter diameter 5 Good
Pile Walls
Braced: 10
Anchored: 25+

Diaphragm Width Contiguous None Cantilever: 4 – Good High High Low Large Fair to Good Good
Walls 5
400 – 500,
Braced: 10
600,
Anchored: 25+
800, 1000,
1200, 1500

EMBEDDED WALL SUPPORT SYSTEM

(141)
Prop 300 – 1200 3-8 Anchors 5 – 20 -- Medium Medium Low Large Fair to Good Good
Supports diameter possible

Post- 165 1.5 - 5 Piles < 30 -- Medium Medium Low 5 – 6m Good Use
Stressed bench hollow
Anchors bar in
poor soil

Anchor 500 – 1500 Varies Varies -- Good Medium Medium Low Medium Poor Good
Piles to High (driven)
Poor
(bored)

REINFORCED SOILS

GeoNails 80 – 125 1.0 – 2.0 Gunite 12 Poor Low to Medium Low to Low Small Good Poor
diameter vertical Medium
and
horizontal

Reticulated 80 – 250 0.5 – 1.0 None or 8 Good Medium Medium Low Small Good Fair
Micropiles diameter gunite to High

Soil 450 – 1500 1.0 – 3.0 None or 8 Good Medium Medium Low Medium Poor Good
Doweling diameter gunite to High (driven)
Poor
(bored)

(142)
4.5 Road slopes
Roadside slopes are defined as those slopes that are either cut or fill slopes, or adjacent
natural slopes. Figure 4-49 provides details of the terminology used in defining the
slopes, both within and outside of the Right of Way, but which can influence the stabil-
ity of the road. Unstable natural slopes and road cuts often create a considerable prob-
lem to road users.

Figure 4-49: Commonly used terminology to define a road and associated

slopes

4.5.1 Submerged slopes

The analysis of fully submerged slopes is relatively straightforward and is generally
addressed using buoyant weights and total stress analysis. The analysis of partially
submerged slopes is much more common. Examples of partially submerged slopes would
include roadway embankments that toe out in bodies of waters such as lakes and rivers
or dam and pond side slopes for storm water facilities. The analysis of the submerged
portion is to use total weights with applied surface water forces or buoyant weights with
seepage forces. Merely using buoyant weights for the portions below the water surface or
defining a water surface in space ignores the buttressing effect of the free water. The
standing water should be modelled as a normal force derived from hydrostatic pressures.
Some roadway embankments may be subjected to water ponding at the base of the slopes
during flood events or nearby standing water or lakes. Districts of the Zambezia and Sofala
provinces are most susceptible to regular flooding. Manica and Tete provinces have been
affected by several severe flood events. This situation may cause embankment and
foundation soils to become saturated.
Soils may not drain as quickly as the water recedes and may remain saturated for some
period after the water returns to its normal lower elevation. On the other hand, a situation
can arise where the water level adjacent to the slope lowers at a rate faster than the
hydrostatic pressures can equilibrate through seepage, creating a critical embankment
instability condition commonly known as rapid drawdown (Figure 4-50). This condition
can occur on the slopes adjacent to a reservoir, river, or canal following a long period
of rainfall accumulation, planned lowering of water through control structures, or failure
of water impoundment structure.

(143)
Rapid drawdown is most prevalent in clayey slopes in which the excess pore water
pressures do not dissipate as the water recedes, thereby keeping the overall shear
strength low.
Stability analyses performed to evaluate this situation should model the embankment as
being saturated up to the high water elevation and should be performed using effective
stress parameters for foundation soils and embankment materials coupled with in-depth
knowledge of pore water and seepage pressures.

Figure 4-50: Effect of flooding and rapid-drawdown on embankment stability

4.5.2 Embankment in hilly areas

The design of embankments in hilly and mountainous regions often takes a different form
from those on flat areas. This is because many embankments in these places are
constructed by cut and fill operations. The procedure is that soil and rock are cut; if suitable
for use as fill, they are compacted to form side-long fills (Figure 4-51). The use of these
predominantly granular materials limits the amount of vertical deformation or settlement
of the type observed in embankments on soft soils in flat areas. The suitability of soil ex-
cavated from a roadway cut section for reuse should be determined by a combination of
site reconnaissance, boring information and laboratory testing. The height and width of
benches depends on the characteristics of the slope materials and is usually specified in
design and earthworks manuals. .

(144)
 Figure 4-51: Typical construction of embankments in hilly areas. From FAO
(1998)

Poor compaction techniques used on such fills located on inclined, side-long hill slopes
often results in embankments that are only marginally stable. The following conditions
should be given careful consideration, if not properly assessed and addressed, will increase
the probability of embankment failures along mountain roads:
• Inadequate subsurface drainage under conditions of pronounced seepage;
• Incomplete removal of vegetation and organic material and lack of benching prior
to embankment construction;
• Construction of embankments on loose spoil material derived from earlier
excavations;
• Erosion on slopes immediately below the embankment;
• Presence of pre-existing shear surfaces beneath the embankment;
• the presence of unfavourably orientated planes of weakness in the soil or rock
beneath the embankment.

The overall stability of a fill slope on a hillside is difficult to quantify and unlike relatively
homogenous embankments on flat areas, the mechanisms of failure of embankments in
hilly terrain are very difficult to analyse using conventional limit equilibrium methods. The
reason is that failure surfaces often involve nonhomogeneous material, as both the fill and
underlying hill slope, each with significantly different material properties, are involved. In
addition, the cross-section of embankments in hilly terrain is different from that on flat
ground as they are usually constructed only on one side of the road. Hence, stability and
fill side slope angles are often designed on the basis of local experience, based on the
properties of the material forming the fill.
The type of material (rock or soil, and the strength parameters of each) that is going to
be used plays a critical role when deciding fill slope angles for design without stability

(145)
analysis. Table 4-18 shows preliminary or provisional fill slope batters based on types of
materials.

Table 4-18: Preliminary fill slope angles

Fill materials Embankment Height
<5m 5-10 m 10-15 m
Rock fill 1.5H:1V 2H:1V
Well graded sand, gravels, and sand or silt 1.5H:1V – 2H:1V 2H:1V
mixed with gravels
Poorly graded sand 2H:1V – 3H:1V -
Sandy clay soils, silty clay soils and stiff to 2H:1V 3H:1V -
hard clayey soils
Soft clay soils, plastic clays 3H:1V - -

For embankments in hilly terrain, where fills are dominantly granular, side slopes are often
designed using a slope ratio of 1.5H:1V. This assumes that the specifications for particle
size, drainage and compaction are met. Larger-sized rock blocks (rip-rap) may be placed
on the lower side of the fill to reinforce the embankment and drain surface water, as shown
Figure 4-52. .

Figure 4-52: Typical side-slopes of a rock fill embankment

In high embankments, berms up to 5m width may be constructed to give access to side-

slopes for maintenance or for the control of surface drainage. They are also important to
prevent erosion provided the surface water they collect is properly controlled. Steps or
shear keys cut into the hill slope prior to embankment construction (Figure 4-53) in-
creases the resistance to failure along the natural ground-fill interface. .

(146)
 Figure 4-53: Benched fill on a benched hill-side slope. JKR (2010)

4.5.3 Soil cut slope design

Geotechnical problems are often encountered in road cuts. Safe design of cut slopes is
based either on past experience or on more in-depth analysis. Both approaches require
accurate information regarding geologic conditions obtained from standard field and
laboratory classification procedures. They are designed to be stable for the anticipated
conditions, but they frequently become unstable when either the ground conditions
exposed during excavation are different from those envisaged during design or when
steeper slopes have to be constructed due to space constraints.
Typical cut slope angles for most soils are 27º. Cut slopes greater than 3 m in height
usually require a more detailed geotechnical analysis. Relatively flat (2H:1V or flatter) cuts
in granular soil when groundwater is not present above the ditch line, will probably not
require rigorous analysis. Generally, the design factor of safety for static slope stability is
1.25. This factor of safety should be considered as minimum value.
For low volume roads, the generally accepted practice is that cut slopes need to be as
steep as possible, and at a steeper angle than fills since they constitute relatively
undisturbed in-situ soil or rock.
The angle at which excavated slopes will remain stable for the assumed or observed
groundwater conditions that will apply, should be determined for the design. This shall
involve the examination of soils and rock from surface exposures and studies of the
performance of existing natural slopes and cut slopes in the area.
The information needed for the design of cut slopes includes the nature and strength of
the materials that will be excavated, the groundwater conditions, the inclinations of rock
strata, the degree of weathering, and the extent of joints or any other potential
weaknesses.
The stability of a cut slope can be increased through using a number of techniques,
including:
• Flattening slopes. There must be enough right-of-way available. Flattening slopes
usually proves more effective for granular soils with a large frictional component.
Single-sloped profiles are usually cut in dense soils with enough resistance against
failure. Their height is often limited to 6 m.

(147)
• Benching slopes. This will prove more effective for cohesive soils. Benching also
reduces the amount of exposed face along a slope, thereby reducing erosion.

Cut slope profiles can be single-sloped, multi-sloped or benched (Figure 4-54). Of-
ten cut slopes are benched, i.e. excavated in steps in order to enhance drainage
control and intercept falling debris. Benched cut slopes are usually deployed in
rock and weathered rock and should not be used in weak soils, such as colluvium.
As a rule, excavation should be performed from the upper part of the slope to the
lower part to maintain stability. Figure 4-54 shows a typical example of benching
a cut slope in a residual soil. .
Multi-sloped profiles are cut where an excavation encounters soil overlying rock or
where the stratigraphy consists of two or more soil or rock layers with different
strength characteristics as illustrated in Figure 4-54. Benched slopes are de-
signed when there is a need to slow down and intercept surface runoff, or to
contain falling debris from one bench to another, as would be the case for an ex-
cavation in jointed rock. .
Water control is key in benched cut slopes and drainage from above must be
transported laterally using ditches at the toe of each cut section and discharged
into adjacent streams or via chutes and cascades into culverts. The point ‘D’ in the
section shows drains locations.
Note that the slope varies with rock quality. The slope in saprolite varies with
orientation of foliation. As much as practically possible, benches should be placed
on contact between material types. However, it is difficult to adopt variable cut
slope angles at a location where the soil type changes within short distances
laterally or vertically. The safe angle should be determined from an overall
evaluation of the predominant soils encountered. In the event of uncertainty, it is
necessary to select a conservative angle of inclination.

Figure 4-54: Cut slope benching (Hunt, 1986)

(148)
 Slopes often contain a mix of materials and are heterogeneous, as illustrated in
Error! Reference source not found., making it virtually impossible to determine
the average or effective shear strength of the slope forming materials by laboratory
tests. In such cases, stability analyses will help very little in determining the safe
angle of cut, and the cut slope design must be accompanied by the application of
judgment and experience. The methods to use in the design of an individual cut
slope will therefore vary according to the conditions at the site. The characteristics
of the slope materials will impact on the height and width of benches, for example
as presented in section 4.3.6.5 and is usually specified in design and earthworks
manuals.

• Lowering the water table. Subsurface drainage can be employed to reduce

driving forces and increase soil shear strength by lowering the water table, thereby
increasing the factor of safety against slope failure. Subsurface drainage techniques
available include cut-off trenches, horizontal drains and relief wells.

• Structural systems such as retaining walls or reinforced slopes. These options

are generally more expensive than the other techniques but might be the only
option when space is limited.

A ‘cut and fill’ approach, whereby materials cut from a hill slope are used to build an
adjacent fill for the purpose of supporting part of the road, is the most optimum
construction process. If the amount of material from excavations roughly matches the
amount of material needed to make fill slopes and embankments, then the process is
called a ‘balanced cut and fill’ operation, assuming the excavated material is suitable for
use as fill. Since ground elevation with respect to the centreline can change abruptly,
balanced cut and fill is normally used to describe the situation whereby the balance can
be achieved within a short distance along the alignment.

Table 4-19 summarises cut slope angles for use in a preliminary design. These slope angles
are indicative and require site-specific assessment.

Table 4-19: Soil cut slope ratios (H:V) for preliminary design purposes
Type of Material Cut-slope total height (m) Remark
3–6 6 - 10 10 - 15
Residual clay soils 1:1 1:1 2:1 Consider benching when the
slope height is above 6 m.
Vegetation cover is highly
recommended
Heavy, plastic clay soils 1.5:1 2:1 --- Keeping the slope dry is
--- extremely important
Granular soils with 1.5:1 2:1 --- Keep a constant slope.
some clays --- Appropriate drainage and
vegetation is necessary
Dense transported soils 0.75:1 1.5:1 2:1 Reduce the upper portion to 1:1
(sub-angular cobbles, to limit gully formation or
gravels and sands in a widening
fine matrix)
Loose to medium dense 1:1 1.5:1 2:1 Cover the slope with grass and
transported soils other suitable plants and keep
(boulders, sub-angular the slope dry.
cobbles and gravels in a
fine matrix), or talus

(149)
4.5.4 Rock slope design

In mountainous terrain, such as Niassa and Manica Provinces, the design of the rock cut
slope shall satisfy the various needs of the project, and that is the steepest configuration
that is also stable given the local geology. The rock slope design will also include the rock
catchment area recommendations that are appropriate for the height and inclination of
the slope face. Rock slope design is aimed at developing rock cuts that will be safe to
construct and will provide long-term safety for the public.
The inclination of rock slopes should be based on the structural geology and stability of
the rock units. These are usually described in the Geology or Geotechnical Report. Rock
unit slopes of vertical, 0.25:1, 0.5:1, 0.75:1 and 1:1 are commonly considered. The design
rock cut slope should be the steepest continuous slope (without benches) that satisfies
physical and stability considerations. Controlled blasting (using presplit and trim blasting
techniques) is normally required for rock cut slopes from vertical to 0.75:1.

4.5.4.1 Rock slope fall out area

Rock-slope failures may also take the form of rockslides or rock falls, where many larger
blocks, or individual blocks, detach from the rock mass and fall or roll into the roadway.
The fallout area is a non-travelled area between the roadway and the cut slope with
minimum width, depth and slope requirements. The minimum dimensions should be
determined based on rock cut slope inclination and height. The depth of the fallout area
varies with the slope configuration.
Good practice requires a goal of 90% retention of rock in the catchment area for all new
and reconstructed rock slopes. This goal may not be achievable in all cases due to cost,
environmental reasons, or other factors. The catchment area depth may be achieved in a
number of ways, including excavation and/or placing suitable retaining structures at the
roadway shoulder. Where the slopes are inclined at flatter than 0.75:1, and where the
anticipated size of a single rock is less than 0.6 m in diameter, chain link catch fences may
be considered as a substitute for depth of fallout.
Temporary detours may require the construction of rock slopes and fallout areas. Fallout
areas should then be designed to capture or retain at least as much rock fall as was
previously available prior to construction, for sites that have previously been an area of
rock fall activity. Any detour that will reduce the fallout area will put motorists in increased
risk, and the rock slope and fallout area must be designed to, at a minimum, not increase
the risk to the public. Additional mitigation measures, along with one-way travel, reduced
travel speed in the rock fall zone, and increased sight distances may be required to reduce
risk to the public. The designer should address all of these issues in the design process.

4.5.4.2 Benches
For most rock slope designs, benches should be avoided. The need for benches will be
evaluated in the geology and geotechnical investigations and described in the resulting
reports. The bench configuration may be controlled by the need to perform periodic
maintenance which requires access to the bench. Soil and rock slopes may need a
modification with benches to conform to the environment or for safety and economic
concerns. The following are some appropriate bench applications.
• Benching may improve slope stability where continuous slopes are not stable.
• Where maintenance due to sloughing of soil overburden may be anticipated, a
bench will provide access and working room at the overburden rock contact.
• Developing an access bench may facilitate construction where the top of cut begins
at an intermediate slope location.
• On very high cuts, benches may be included for safety where rock fall is expected
during construction.

(150)
 • Where necessary, benches may be located to intercept and direct surface water
runoff and groundwater seepage to an appropriate collection facility as shown in
Figure 4-54.
• All benches should be constructed to allow for maintenance access

4.5.4.3 Rock slope stabilisation and rock fall mitigation

techniques
Figure 4-55 shows the stability conditions of a rock slope with
potentially unstable block formed by fracture dipping out of face. Several stabilisation and
protection measures can be implemented, and are divided in three classes by Willey
(1991), as follows:
a) Reinforcement: - improvement of the resisting forces by increasing the shear
resistance. A number of reinforcement techniques are shown in Figure 4-56.
b) Rock removal: - reduction of driving forces by removal of loose rocks, see
Figure 4-57 .
c) Protection: - construction of structures to protect the roadway from rock falls, see
Figure 4-58 .

In Figure 4-55, a block of rock of weight W has potential sliding plane of area, A which
dips an angle of Ψ𝑝 out of face. The water table is at a level above the base of the ten-
sion crack so that water forces U and v are developed within the slope and act in direc-
tions normal to the sliding plane and tension crack respectively. The shear strength of
the sliding plane is defined by the cohesion (c) and friction angle (𝜙) of the fracture
face. The assumption is that rock is a Mohr-Coulomb material. As was defined in section
4.2, the factor of safety of the block is given by the following equation.
Resisting forces
FS = Displacing forces

cA+Ntanϕ
= Equation 4-101
S
cA+(Wcosψp −U−Vsinψp ) tanϕ
FS = Equation 4-102
Wsinψp +Vsinψp

Where N and S are normal and shear forces respectively, acting on the sliding face. Thus,
resting forces can be improved by increasing the normal force, N through installation of
tensioned rock bolts and the displacing force can be reduced by removing rock to diminish
the weight of the block. Reducing the water pressure within the slope will also improve
both the resisting and the displacing forces.

(151)
Figure 4-55: Resisting and driving forces in a rock slope (Willey, 1991)

Figure 4-56: Rock slope reinforcement method (Willey, 1991)

(152)
One of the most common rock removal methods employed is to flatten the slope to an
angle sufficient enough to prevent rocks from sliding/falling. This shall apply when the
goal is to totally eliminate all potential for future rockfall. This is usually performed by
blasting techniques. Considerations for laying back a slope include the existing slope
condition, slope angle, orientation of discontinuites within the rock, availability of right-of
way and total volume of rock to be removed.

Figure 4-57: Rock removal methods for rock slope stabilisation (Willey, 1991)

Secured netting is a method commonly used to secure unstable rocks at the surface of the
slope by pinning a wire or cable net to the slope. This helps to tie together the loose
masses of rock, creating a cohesive mass that improves the rock face stability. Other
protection structures include:
• Wire Mesh Drape
• Rock Buttress
• Thrie Beam Railing Corrugated Beam Rock Fence
• Wire Rope Catchment Fence (Figure 4-58)

(153)
 Figure 4-58: Wire Rope Catchment Fence (NYSDOT, 2013)

The wire rope catchment barriers are designed to perform as energy absorbing
systems that can withstand the impact of rocks hitting the system while dissipating
the rock’s energy where the rock can either drop at the base of the fence or pass
through in the case of an attenuating drape system (hybrid rockfall fence system).

One of the methods of constructing structures for protecting the roadway from rock falls
is the construction of rock fall ditches. Well-designed catchment ditches are probably the
most effective form of rock fall control. The minimum dimensions shall be determined
based on rock cut slope inclination and height. The catchment area provides a collection
area for fallen rock, and it also provides recovery zones for errant vehicles, and facilitates
the drainage of water. Improvements to catchment ditches include widening the ditch,
increasing the depth of the ditch, and modifying the angle of the foreslope of the ditch
towards the rock cut/slope.
Figure 4-59a shows a representation of rocks falling from a 24.4-meter high 4V:1H
slope and impacting in a flat catchment area and roll the distance in Figure 4-59b. The
most common preferred rockfall paths for this slope are labelled ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’. At
least two factors are key to the development of preferred rockfall paths: the presence of
launch features and increasing slope height. Impact distance is defined as the meas-
ured slope distance from the base of the rock cut slope to the point where a falling rock
first strikes the ground.
A catchment area’s slope, whether flat-bottom or inclined, has only slight influence on
where a falling rock will first impact the catchment area. In other words, a rock fall’s point
of impact can be strongly influenced by cut slope irregularities, commonly referred to as
“launch features.”
Roll out distance is defined as the measured slope distance between the base of the cut
slope and the furthest point the rock reaches from the base of the slope, Figure 4-59b.

(154)
 Figure 4-59: Rock fall paths and roll out distance (Pierson et al., 2001)

Rocks that fall along path ‘A’ do not encounter the slope until just before impact, resulting
in smaller impact distances measured from the base of the cut slope. Rocks following path
‘B’ strike the slope in two places, but do not strike launch features, thus resulting in a
lower impact distance.
Those that encounter launch features on the slope are pushed farther away from the slope
and follow paths similar to ‘C’ or ‘D’. “Launched” rocks tend to have greater impact
distances, increasing the spread or dispersion of recorded impacts compared to rocks that
do not strike launch features. Launch features change a rock’s vertical drop to horizontal
displacement. Typically, the higher the rock velocity when it strikes a launch feature, the
greater the horizontal displacement.
According to Figure 4-59b, there are two outcomes once the rock falls: (i) the rock
does not move beyond the point of impact, position ‘A’. For this case, roll out distance
equals impact distance. This outcome includes rocks that roll back toward the toe of the
slope from the point of impact; (ii) the rock impacts at position ‘A’, then rolls toward the
road attaining a maximum distance from the base of the slope at position ‘B’. In this
case, the roll out distance is greater than the impact distance.
The rock catchment area includes the flat ditch area plus the inslope that ends at the
shoulder (Figure 4-60). The inslope normally varies between 1V:6H and 1V:4H.

(155)
 Figure 4-60: Rock cut slope diagram (MnDOT, 2017)

Design charts are provided in Pierson et al. (2001), to evaluate catchment area
effectiveness, design catchment areas, based on a given design goal percentage of rock
fall retention. The design charts can be used to evaluate the economic feasibility of various
cut slope and catchment area combinations that will maximize the benefit for a given
investment. A combination of mitigation measures may be applied. If a barrier system is
incorporated into the mitigation design, the full design criteria catchment area width may
not be required. In such cases, the decision to reduce the catchment area width should be
made by an experienced rock slope designer.
The general recommendation is that rock fall catch areas wider than 10 to 11.5 m are not
typically cost effective to construct, and additional barriers, fences or walls to gain ditch
depth become more cost effective than wider ditches.

Note:
Only qualified, experienced rock slope engineering personnel should perform
the overall rock slope design and catchment area dimensioning. Understanding
the forces that trigger rockfalls is an important step toward mitigation, rather
than trying to predict it.

4.5.4.4 Rock slope Stability Analysis

Unlike soil slopes, rock cut slope stability is influenced by a number of factors such as the
type of rock, the strength of intact rock blocks, the characteristics of discontinuities, as
discontinuities strongly control rock slope stability, the degree and extent of the rock mass
weathering, and the groundwater conditions. Presence of water in the rock discontinuities,
is critical to the assessment of stability.
Rock slope design heavily relies upon surface mapping and discontinuity logging in
boreholes of rock structure to assess discontinuities (fracture/joint) patterns and
conditions. In some cases, test hole data should also be obtained, especially if surface
mapping is not feasible due to the presence of overburden soil or for other reasons.
Cut slope angles are typically derived from an evaluation of rock mass characteristics,
which can be attained from a combination of measurement made of exposed bedrock faces
and an assessment of rock cores. The analysis and final recommendations are based on
many different factors, including:
• Rock type

(156)
 • Discontinuity (bedding, joints, fractures) orientation and frequency
• Cut Height
• Weathering
• Presence of erodable material
• Roadway orientation
• Right-of-way
• Aesthetics

It is difficult to provide general guidelines for design recommendations that fit all
circumstances. This is because the geologic structure and type of rock vary considerably
at each individual rock cut (often within the same project). Rock mass strength of intact
rock is mostly affected by discontinuities, and discontinuity orientation and friction angle
and they usually control rock slope stability. These rock features were discussed in section
3.3.4.2.

Rock slope height

Cut slopes are either in:
• soft rocks, which include principally shale and sandstone, which can be excavated
without blasting or;
• hard rocks, requiring blasting. Hard rocks include igneous, metamorphic rocks and
carbonates.
a) Low rock cuts
Low rock cuts (<2 m in height) can be treated as rock slopes or soil slopes by the
designer. Softer rock slopes may be laid back to match existing soil slopes and
covered with topsoil and vegetation. In hard rock, blasting of the slope will likely
be required.

b) Intermediate rock cuts

Intermediate rock cuts (2 to 10 m in height) should closely follow Table 4-1 in the
design guidelines in the Pavement Design Manual. Soft rock slopes can be treated
as soil slopes with standard ditch sections, in which case they should be covered
with topsoil and vegetation.

In this case, it is often desirable to cut the soft rock to a steep slope, such as 4V:1H,
and direct runoff away from the face to the extent possible. In hard rock types,
controlled blasting techniques are required for final shaping of the cut face. The
standard ditch width should be 4 m, with a depth of 1.33 m. Using a standard
inslope of 1V:6H or 1V:4H, the resultant rock catchment area (ditch width +
inslope) would be 3 or 9 m, respectively. Composite slopes, consisting of both soft
and hard rock types (particularly with hard overlying soft) are susceptible to
differential erosion and require careful consideration. Typically, the hard rock layer
will be set back 3 m from the face of the underlying soft rock, with an impermeable
bench constructed on top of the soft rock layer.

c) High rock cuts

High rock cuts (>10 m in height) should be investigated and designed by an
experienced Geotechnical Engineer. Investigation of rock quality and rock mass
properties (such as joint orientation and frequency) should be conducted on rock
outcrops and rock core samples to design appropriate cut slopes and ditch
catchment areas. High rock cuts require controlled blasting techniques to limit rock
fall during construction and after completion of the project. For preliminary
planning purposes, estimate the necessary rock removal/right-of-way by assuming
a rock slope of 2V:1H (63°) and a rock catchment area of 11.65 m. These will yield
conservative values in most cases and should be refined prior to finalising the
design.

(157)
Generally, the design of rock cut slopes is a progressive process. It starts with adequate
exploration of the project site within which each rock slope along the road is divided into
design units. The classification of the slope and the formation of design units are generally
based on slope material properties, discontinuity conditions, the stratigraphy of the slope,
the degree of weathering, and the influence of groundwater. Figure 4-61 shows slope
stability analysis process.

(158)
Figure 4-61: Slope stability analysis process

(159)
 4.5.4.5 Failure occurrences and remediation
Rock slope stability analyses consists mainly of two phases, the first being for global slope
stability hazard, and the second being for rock fall (sub-global) hazard. From the above
discussion, the remediation method required for global slope stability will also manage
rock fall hazard. It may be necessary to manage rock fall hazard even though there is no
global slope stability hazard. Remediation options are generally correlated to the energy
or volume of the global or sub-global event and can be simplified as given in Table 4-20.

Table 4-20: Remediation options (adapted from VDOT, 2012)

Remediation Purpose Cost rating Application Requirement
option for
maintenance
Reconstruction Intended to Highest cost Appropriate for Requires limited
and Excavation minimise per unit of the most high- inspection and
probability of remediated energy events; maintenance.
an event slope area and
Debris-Flow Nets Intended to High cost per Appropriate for Requires periodic
or High-Energy intercept and unit of both high- inspection and
Absorbing Devices hold a large remediated energy and inspection after
mass of failed slope area; high-volume each event
material events;
Rock Bolting or Intended to High cost per Appropriate for Requires limited
Drainage increase factor unit of moderate- to inspection and
of safety or remediated high-energy maintenance
stabilise large slope area and high-
wedges, slabs, volume events
or toppling
masses;
Rock Mesh or Intended to Moderate cost Appropriate for Requires periodic
Shallow stabilise large per unit of moderate- inspection
Stabilisation areas of slope remediated energy and
face displaying slope area moderate-
shallow failure volume events;
zones parallel and
to slope surface

4.5.4.6 Design considerations

There a number of key aspects that need to be considered during rock cut slope design.
These include:
A. Stability
Stability is concerned with the stability of rock blocks formed by the discontinuities.
Major discontinuities such as adversely dipping persistent joints, bedding planes
and sheet joints, weak weathered seams, and fault zones should be given special
attention in the design of rock cuts. Field data collection of the dip, dip direction,
nature and type of joint infilling, joint roughness and spacing are important for the
stability analysis of planar, wedge and toppling failure modes. Slope height, angle,
presence of potential rock launching features, block size, and block shape are
important for the analysis and design of rock fall mitigation techniques.

(160)
 Field data collection is generally done on a project site specific basis. In areas where
failure can lead to major damage to properties and structures or significant road
blockage, the rock face should be mapped in detail by experienced engineering
geologists.

Benches should be provided between batters of significantly different gradients.

Benches are generally not necessary in massive hard rock from a stability point of
view.

Hand-calculation methods can be used to analyse potential planar and wedge

failures and computer programs can also be used where available.

B. Potential rock fall

The designer should consult and establish the geologic hazard potential to
understand the degree of rock fall potential on the project.

Where benches are provided, possible bouncing of rock fall should be assessed.
Rock fall simulation programs are used to analyse rock fall catchment size and the
prediction of rock kinetic energy. However, only geotechnical practitioners
experienced in using these programs should perform the analysis.

For large rock slopes, the potential risk of rock fall can be difficult to assess. If
practicable and economically feasible, a catch ditch or fence should be provided
along the toe of the cut to contain falling rocks.

Benches if provided should be as wide as possible (preferably at least 2 min fresh

rock) in order to contain small rock falls and debris and allow access for
maintenance.

C. Drainage
Attention to drainage is imperative in both the design and construction phases and
represents a relatively low-cost method to improve structural performance and
stability. Unless it is considered that there is no potential for surface erosion,
drainage ditches should be provided along benches, see Figure 4-41.

Bench drainage ditches would reduce the velocity and volume of runoff on the
slope, with consequent reduction of erosion and infiltration. Benches constructed
without drainage provision may encourage infiltration of surface water, leading to
reduced stability.

Where works are being constructed in cut sections or in locations with large
quantities of water introduced by overland flow or through groundwater systems,
specially designed drainage systems must be evaluated and appropriately detailed
to accommodate these impacts.

D. Land take (Right of Way)

A rock slope without benches can minimise land take. If stability is assured, this
should be considered.

The option of providing a catch ditch or a rock fall barrier at road level may not
necessarily take up significantly more space than the provision of benches on the
slope. This should be considered as an alternative.

E. Construction
The construction process (e.g. blasting) often weakens the rock mass, particularly
at bench locations if they are considered in the design. Controlled techniques (e.g.

(161)
 hand scaling, pre-splitting, trimming) should be employed to minimise damage. A
Blasting Consultant may need to be retained to assist a contractor in designing a
safe blast if there are nearby structures, if the site is particularly challenging, or
otherwise has the potential to result in undesired consequences.

F. Vegetation
The slope gradient and the topsoil should support vegetation growth.

G. Maintenance
Aspects of maintenance inspections and works, including provision of safe access
should be considered and agreed during design.

Benches can facilitate access for maintenance. The maintenance of benches is such
that they should be regularly cleaned, especially during rainy seasons.

4.5.5 Stabilisation of slopes in cuts and embankments

Slope stabilisation techniques are site specific and therefore shall be selected and designed
based on the characteristics of the fill and slope materials in the project. Generally, before
constructing a fill in hilly areas, it is necessary to assess the stability condition of the slope
against shallow and deep failures. Table 4-21 gives some slope stabilisation techniques
appropriate for fill and underlying hill slopes.

Table 4-21: Slope stabilisation techniques for embankments on hill slopes.

Modified from MPWT (2008)
Type of instability Stabilisation option
Failure within fill slopes • Reduce the slope angle and remove excess material
(internal) • Properly compact fill material
• Consider the use of a retaining wall
• Ensure road-side drainage is controlled
• Bio-engineering is usually important to prevent
surface erosion

Failure in fill slopes and

underlying hill slopes • Re-grade the slope and remove excess material
(external) • Properly compact fill material
• Before placing fill, prepare benches on the slope to
intercept potential planes of failure and to provide a
key
• Consider the use of a retaining wall
• Ensure road-side drainage is controlled
• Bio-engineering is usually important to prevent
surface erosion

Failure within underlying hill

slopes • Reduce side slope if sufficient space exists
• Retaining wall
• Ensure road-side drainage is controlled
• Bio-engineering is usually important to prevent
surface erosion and increase the resistance of the
surface soil.

In cases where groundwater from different sources is expected to be present, fill slopes
require surface and sub-surface drainage structures to keep groundwater away from the

(162)
area, as provided in Section 4.9. Poor control of the groundwater can lead to softening of
the founding material or cause the fill material to be undermined through seepage erosion.

4.6 Landslide analysis and mitigation

4.6.1 Landslide occurrence

The assessment outlined in the Site Investigation Manual 2019, indicates that landslides
are not a major source of natural geohazard in Mozambique. However, when they happen,
they result in partial or complete temporary blockages to sections of the road. Landslides
pose a significant risk to the operation of the road and they can also lead to fatalities.
Several fatalities were reported in Zambezia, Tete and Sofala Provinces due to landslides
that occurred during heavy rain in 1998.
There are intrinsic parameters which define the stability conditions within the slope. These
intrinsic parameters are slope geometry, slope material, structural discontinuities, land
use and landcover and groundwater. The occurrence of landslides is often related to an
increase in shear stress (driving force) or a reduction in shear strength (resisting force).
The processes that increase the shear stress or decrease the shear strength in a slope are
normally termed as landslide preparatory or triggering factors. Preparatory
(preconditioning) factors make the slope increasingly susceptible to failure without actually
initiating movement. Triggering factors are events that finally initiate movement.
Geological and topographical parameters are usually regarded as landslide preparatory
factors. Triggering factors include rainfall, earthquakes, toe erosion and human activities.
The common causal factors of landslides are given in Table 4-22.

(163)
 Table 4-22: Common landslide causal factors. Modified from Nettleton et al
(2005) in ERA (2013)
Internal causes
Materials:
• Soils subject to strength loss on contact with water or as a result of stress relief (strain
softening).
• Fine-grained soils which are subject to strength loss due to weathering.
• Weak rocks with adversely orientated discontinuities characterised by low shear strength
such as bedding planes and joints.
Weathering:
• Physical and chemical weathering of soils causing loss of strength (apparent cohesion and
friction).
Pore-water pressure:
• High pore-water pressures causing a reduction in effective shear strength
External causes
Removal of slope support:
• Undercutting by water (waves and stream incision).
• Washing out of soil.
• Man-made excavations
• Increased loading:
• Natural accumulations of water, snow, talus.
• Man-made pressures (e.g. fill and buildings).
Transient effects:
• Earthquakes and tremors.
• Shocks and vibrations (blasting).

In order to understand the occurrence of landslides, the geotechnical engineer should be

aware and knowledgeable about the causes of landslides, which can be categorised as
follows:
• Natural and artificial
• Geological, topographical and hydrological

Aspects of the causes are presented in Table 4-23 and Table 4-24.

(164)
 Table 4-23: Natural and artificial causes of landslides (ERA, 2013)
Natural causes
• Plastic and otherwise weak material
• Sensitive and collapsible material
• Weathered and sheared material
• Jointed or fissured material
• Adversely orientated structural discontinuities (including joints faults, flexural shears,
lithological contacts)
• Contrast in permeability and its effects on groundwater and pore-pressures
• Contrast in stiffness (stiff, dense material over less dense and weaker material)
• Geomorphological processes:
• Tectonic and volcanic uplift
• Fluvial erosion of the slope toe
• Subsoil erosion (solution, piping)
• Natural loading of the slope by accumulation of material from above
• Undercutting of cliffs and riverbanks

Physical processes:
• Intense, short period rainfall
• Prolonged high precipitation
• Rapid drawdown following floods
• Increase in pore water pressure
• Earthquake loading
• Freeze-thaw, i.e. mechanical weathering
• Shrink and swell of expansive soils
Artificial causes
• Removal of vegetation
• Interference with, or changes to, natural drainage
• Modification of slopes during the construction of roads, railways, buildings, etc.
• Overloading slopes
• Mining and quarrying activities
• Vibrations from heavy traffic, blasting, etc
• Drawdown (of reservoirs)
• Irrigation
• Defective maintenance of drainage systems
• Side casting of uncompacted spoil

(165)
 Table 4-24: Climatic, Geological, hydrological and topographical causal factors
Climatic causes
• Periods of prolonged and/or intense rainfall that could lead to saturation of the slope
• Anomalous high rainfall.
Geological causes
• Rock type, weathering grade, jointing and fracture patterns
• Presence of faults or shear zones
• The direction and angle of dip and joints in underlying bedrock compared to the angle and
orientation to the slope, particularly if bedrock is exposed or at a shallow depth beneath the
surface,
• The persistence of joints and clay filling
• The sequence of the underlying strata, particularly if this includes weak or impermeable layers
• The presence of colluvium and unconsolidated materials
Hydrological causes
• Periods of prolonged and/or intense rainfall that could lead to saturation of the slope
• Anomalously high rainfall
• The presence of a river or stream at the base of the slope, particularly if this could cause toe
erosion during periods of flood or high flow
• The presence of a drainage course at or above the crest of the slope
• Any indications of a high or temporarily perched water table within the slope, e.g. seepages
and springs.
Topographical causes
• Steep slopes
• Un-vegetated steep slopes, susceptible to erosion;
• Irregular depressions or undrained swampy areas on slopes

Landslides can occur either above or below the road, or through the road in the case of
deep-seated failures. Landslides which occur below the road can involve fill slopes as well
as the underlying natural slope material. Landslides above the road can occur in the cut
slope or can involve movement of the natural slope above.

4.6.2 Landslide movement

There are four general types of landslides as shown in Figure 4-62.
Falls refer to the fall of soil or rock mass and where a sliding surface does not form. The
mass in motion travels most of the distance through the air after detachment. Often, it
includes movement by bouncing. A fall starts with the detachment of material from a steep
slope along a surface in which little or no shear displacement takes place. Soil falls often
occur when an easily erodible material underlies a more erosion resistant material. Rock
falls can occur in almost all types of rock and are general caused by weathering,
temperature variation, high cleft water pressures or undercutting. They generally occur
along bedding planes, joint or local fault zones.
Rotational (the slip surface is curved). Rotational slides are relatively infrequent and
occur in cohesive soils or very weak rock masses with little or no structural control. The
slides of this type are relatively deep seated. The multi rotational slides are triggered by
an initial, often local slide and develop gradually spreading backwards along a common
basal failure.

(166)
Translational (the slip surface is more or less planar) or wedge (the slip surface is formed
by two or more intersecting surfaces. They can be divided into block, slides, slab slides,
multiple translational slides and spreading failures.
In flows, the material breaks up as it moves down a slope as viscous fluid. Typical flows
include: earth flows, mudflows, debris flows, and flow slides. The characteristic difference
between earth and mudflow is that the rate of flow of mudflow is higher than that of an
earth flow.

Figure 4-62: Landslide types (adapted from Wintercorn and Fang, 1975)

Landslides can also be classified in terms of maximum depth as given in Table 4-25.

Table 4-25: Landslide classification in terms of depth (Wintercorn and Fang,

1975)
Type Maximum depth (D)
Surface slides < 1.5 m
Shallow slides 1.5 – 5.0 m
Deep slides 5.0 – 20.0 m
Very deep slides >20.0 m

Landslide susceptibility assessment: The common causal factors of landslides are

given in Table 4-24 showing that the occurrence of landslides is controlled by various
spatial and climatic factors, such as geology, topography, hydrogeological conditions,
vegetation, and rainfall. Landslide susceptibility assessment requires diverse and large
amounts of spatial data to be considered in the analysis procedure. Figure 4-63 shows
landslide susceptibility assessment methods, which can be classified into qualitative
(knowledge-driven) and quantitative (data-driven and physically based) methods,
depending on the way they treat landslide inducing factors and models.

(167)
 Figure 4-63: Landslide susceptibility assessment (Chae et al., 2017)

As indicate above, landslide susceptibility assessment is complex and the analytical

techniques used, also require careful verification and calibration against field data as well
as judgement approach based on landslide typology (Hungr et al., 2005). Empirical
methods have been developed based on available data and can assist in predicting area
covered by landslide debris, and quantifying volume for debris flow runout and travel
distance.
The landslide volume is a fundamental parameter for the assessment of both landslide
susceptibility and hazard. Hazard analysis must also take into account the maximum
distance that the landslide mass is able to travel in its downslope movement Figure 4-64
shows the relationship between travel distance (L) of landslides and the elevation
difference between the starting point and the ending point of deposition (H) and the
influence of volume of the mass movement (V) on its mobility. Due to the scatter it is
advisable to use the lower envelope or the line corresponding to a certain confidence level
(e.g., 90%) (Hungr et al., 2005).

(168)
 Figure 4-64: Relationship between landslide mobility (H/L) and volume (from
Chae et al., (2017)

The spatial susceptibility can be expressed in terms of the area affected by the arrival of
landslide debris. A rough proportionality has been found between volume (V) of the
landslide debris and the area (A) covered by it. Li (1983) provides the following empirical
equation:
Log A = 1.9 + 0.57 Log V Equation 103

Table 4-26 illustrates that in bedrock outcrops, rock falls are expected to appear on slopes
over 45°. In slopes covered with scree deposits, debris failures are expected to occur on
slope angles over 30, shallow landslides and debris flows on colluvium and till covered
slopes over 25° while rotational slides are feasible in deltaic and lacustrine deposits with
slopes over 15°.

Table 4-26: Threshold angles for different geological materials on the slope
(from Corominas, 2003),
Slope material Landslide type Threshold angle
Bedrock Rock fall 45°
Scree deposits Debris failure 30°
Colluvium and till Shallow landslide and debris flow 25°
Glaciolacustrine deposits Rotational slide 15°

4.6.3 Early warning system

According to the definition of the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster
Reduction (UNISDR 2009), an early warning system is defined as “the set of capacities
needed to generate and disseminate timely and meaningful warning information to enable
individuals, communities and organizations threatened by a hazard to prepare and to act

(169)
appropriately and in sufficient time to reduce the possibility of harm or loss”. Land slide
early warning is therefore essential for early or advance recognition of landslide indicators,
so that residents can be evacuated from potential landslide areas to reduce the damage
caused by landslides and instruct road closures.
The development of early warning system is aimed at taking measures to manage and
reduce the spectrum of risks. The design of the geotechnical investigation plan should
therefore be aligned to the scope of geo-hazards presented in Table 2-1, to ensure disaster
risk reduction is properly managed. A number of methods exist for predicting landslide
potential,
• The traditional systems of topographic monitoring performed through control
points. This can include a programme for quick checks of stability made by making
distance measurements only.
• An automated system can be set up to take more frequent readings at pre-set
intervals.
• Slope movement can be checked using triangulation or GPS to determine the
coordinates of each station at less frequent intervals to re-confirm measurements.
This is based on the application of information and geospatial technologies such as
remote sensing and geographic information systems (GIS).
• The identification of intrinsic and external triggering parameters that cause slope
instability is important in order to establish the level of landslide hazard potential
and threshold. A threshold is defined as the minimum or maximum level of some
quantity needed for a process to take place or a state to change (White et al.,
1996). Most landslide warning methods use triggering thresholds that are
determined based on rainfall and the soil physical properties.
• Slope susceptibility evaluation parameter (SSEP) rating scheme can be used as an
expert evaluation approach for landslide hazard zonation. The monitoring of rainfall
and changes in the soil physical properties in real time or near-real time can provide
information for early detection of landslides in a broad natural terrain. An
instrument to measure changes in slope inclination (tiltmeter) is installed in areas
susceptible to slope inclination change.
• Securing reliable triggering thresholds for landslide early warning is critical. In
many cases landslides are triggering under heavy rainfall condition and it is
therefore important to establish a threshold related to rainfall and the hydrological
conditions in soil.

Figure 4-65 shows the mechanism of data transmission of interhuman–technical sensors.

In this methodology, each monitoring device sends designated information concerning the
hazard level directly to the community and to the local control centre. A trained officer
capable of identifying the symptoms (initiation of landslide movement), conducts a visual
ground check of the monitoring equipment and warning device in case a false warning has
happened, due to equipment failure.

(170)
 Figure 4-65: Mechanism of data transmission among landslide monitoring and
warning devices. (from Fathani et al., 2016)

A special unit should be in place to adequately manage emergency system in order to

organise and timely respond to landslides that can affect the roads. For the unit to respond
in order to establish an early warning system, it is essential to have accurate and timely
information about the landslide sites and rainfall data. The development of EWS data-
driven because the data on past landslides is used to obtain information on the critical
factors influencing the occurrence of the landslides.
The existence of emergency system will facilitate early identification and inspection of
serious landslide incidents and enable urgent remedial actions to be taken. An efficient
EWS should comprise the following activities (DiBiagio and Kjekstad, 2007):
• monitoring, including data acquisition, transmission and maintenance of the
instruments;
• analysis and forecasting, which can be done by using thresholds, expert judgment,
forecasting methods and so on;
• warning, i.e. the dissemination of understandable messages alerting for the
impending threat;
• response, concerning if people are able to understand and how they react to the
warning.

4.6.4 Landslide remedial measures

Landslides have very serious consequences leading to catastrophes. Failure in quick clay,
and saturated loose sands and silts take place very rapidly and without warning. The
consequences of rockslides are frequently indirect but have disastrous direct
consequences. Remedial measures take different forms.
The selection of appropriate remedial measures will depend on engineering feasibility,
economic viability, and environmental acceptability. Table 4-27 contains a list of the most
common methods that can be used to stabilise or remedy the effects of landslides. While
one remedial measure may be sufficient to minimise the effect of a landslide, most
remedial works usually involve a combination of two or more methods.

(171)
 Table 4-27: Common landslide remedial measures. From Sassa and Canuti
(2008)
Drainage:
• Surface drains to divert water from flowing into the slide area
• Shallow or deep trench drains filled with free-draining materials (coarse granular fills and
geosynthetics)
• Buttress counterforts of coarse-grained materials
• Vertical (large diameter) wells with gravity draining
• Sub-horizontal drains
• Drainage tunnels, galleries or adits
• Dewatering by pumping
• Drainage by siphoning.
Internal slope reinforcement:
• Rock bolts
• Micropiles
• Soil nailing
• Anchors
• Grouting
• Stone columns
• Freezing
• Bioengineering
Modification of slope geometry:
• Removing material from the area adjacent to the crest of the slope (with possible
replacement by lightweight fill)
• Adding material to the area at the base of the slope (counterweight berm or fill)
• Reducing the overall slope angle.
Retaining structures:
• Gravity retaining walls
• Crib walls
• Gabion walls
• Passive piles, piers and caissons
• Cast-in situ reinforced concrete walls
• Reinforced earth retaining structures
• Retention nets for rock slopes
• Shear key.

4.7 Geotechnical design for marine structure foundations

4.7.1 General
The requirements for the design of foundations to support marine structures, such as
dolphins, quay and wing walls, wharfs, terminal structures and docks, pedestrian ramps
are the same as for other transportation facilities. Other than the pedestrian ramps and
terminal buildings, these structures must handle ship impact loads and wave loads. The
basis for the design of foundations for terminal buildings shall be covered by the Ports
Authority requirements.
The structures enable vessels to be able to berth/moor for the transfer of cargo. The
materials to be used vary with loading conditions, purpose of the structure desired life and
availability. The walls are typically constructed out of mass concrete, steel sheet piles or

(172)
timber piles. The basic elements of these walls are the structural foundation, the scour
protection of the wall, the wall structure itself.
The key factor in the design of marine structures is that they should be able to resist the
impact loads of the vessels. For more details refer to BS 6349-2:2019 Maritime works,
which provides recommendations for the design of quay walls, jetties and dolphins.

4.7.2 Maritime structures

Maritime structures include fixed anchored structures and fixed floating structures along
oceanic and large river and lake shores and coasts.
Figure 4-66 and Figure 4-67 show examples of waterfront structures: (a) anchored
bulkhead; (b) cantilever bulkhead; (c) relieving platform; (d) cellular cofferdam: (1) cir-
cular and (2) diaphragm; (e) double-wall cofferdam; (f) gravity rock dike; (g) con-
crete gravity wall; (h) concrete block wall; and (i) precast-concrete floating box.

Figure 4-66: Types of waterfront structures (From Hunt, 1986)

(173)
 Figure 4-67: Waterfront structure along Avenida da Marginal, Maputo.

4.7.3 Design requirements

4.7.3.1 General
The operational environment of the vessels will influence the design requirements. The
height of the structure and the loads to be supported impose restrictions on the selection
of the type of structure. Normally, structures subject to ship impact loads are designed to
fully resist those loads. However, for ferry terminals, the greater risk in terms of financial
loss and potential loss of life is the potential to damage the ship. Therefore, ferry terminals
subject to ship impact loads need to be designed to be flexible enough to slow down the
ship without damaging the ship. If foundation failure occurs, the choice is to have the
foundation fail before the ship is damaged. This requires that foundation elements be
designed with a lower margin of safety than is normally required for the structures.

4.7.3.2 Analysis and design factors

a) Geological conditions
Complete information on geologic conditions, soil properties is required before analysis
design and construction processes are considered. Foundation stability requires careful
evaluation. Waterfront areas are characterised by loose granular soils and soft organic
materials, typically poor soil conditions. The forces imposed by nature and the facility itself
should also be considered. Current/waves forces cause scour and erosion of the
foundations and the structure itself, particularly in the case of relieving platforms.

b) Lateral forces
Lateral forces to be considered include the following:
• Active and passive earth pressures and effects of surcharge loadings
• Unbalanced water pressures from river flood stages and tidal changes, especially
during heavy rains and effects of climate change
• Ship breasting forces and mooring pulls
• Wave pressure, current forces and loads and effects of scour
• Earthquake forces

Thick soft soil deposits results in high lateral forces and backfill settlement which severely
affect the performance of the bulkhead anchor system. Several methods to reduce lateral
pressures and backslope subsidence are shown in Figure 4-68. .

(174)
 Figure 4-68: Methods to reduce lateral pressures and backslope subsidence in
soft soils (From Hunt, 1986)

In Figure 4-68, procedures are as follows:

(a) excavate soft soil, install bulkhead, place rock dike and backfill;
(b) excavate soft soil, install bulkhead, place granular backfill from bulkhead landward;
(c) excavation backfill scheme where granular backfill is scarce.

Figure 4-69 and Figure 4-70 show the earth pressure distributions around cantilevel
sheet pile wall and against anchored bulkhead.

(175)
 Figure 4-69: Pressure diagram around cantlevel sheet pile wall (From Hunt,
1986)

Figure 4-70: Pressure diagram against anchored bulkhead system (From Hunt,
1986)

(176)
 c) Stability
The stability against overturning is of concern with all types of structures. Base stability
against rotational shear failure in weak soils requires consideration for all types of
structures and sliding is critical for gravity structures.

d) Construction
In most cases, waterfront structures are constructed in the water and then the land is
reclaimed by backfilling either with hydraulic fill or a combination of barge-dumped and
land-dumped fill. The waterfront is then dredged to its final depth and the wall must retain
all the material placed behind it. Thus, possible effects of construction sequence and
procedures on the integrity of the structure should be considered and those that may have
adverse effects on the structures should be prohibited.

4.7.3.3 Ship impact loads

These must be determined. The impact load is dependent on the size of the vessel and the
corresponding cope level. Different vessels require different operating cope levels, for
example small crafts are much lower than container vessels. Vessel sizes are therefore
considered as critical design aspects. The impact load will depend on the ship’s approach
speed, berthing angle and the Deadweight tonnes (DWT) of the ship. Maputo harbour is
as of 2018, able to receive ships up to a capacity of 120 000 DWT. For the calculation of
berthing and mooring forces, users should refer to BS 6349-4:2014 - Maritime structures.

4.8 Infiltration facility design and subsurface drainage

Groundwater or surface infiltration affects performance of roadways and significantly
contributes to pavement failures, if not properly controlled. Infiltration facility design
includes the design of structures to encourage infiltration of storm water back into the
ground. Geotechnical design of infiltration facilities includes assessment of the
groundwater regime, soil stratigraphy, and hydraulic conductivity of the soil as it affects
the hydraulic functioning of the infiltration facility, and the geotechnical stability of the
facility (e.g., slope stability, effect of infiltration on stability of adjacent structures and
slopes, and design of fills that must retain water for both slope stability and piping failure).
Figure 4-71 shows pavement drainage control methods: (a) shallow cut in level
ground; (b) side hill cut and (c) side hill fill. Underdrains are used to lower the ground-
water level, drain slopes, help stabilize cut slopes, and prevent water from entering
the pavement section from below, while edge drains remove water from the pavement
section.

(177)
 Figure 4-71: Methods of pavement drainage control (From Hunt, 1986)

Since underdrains and edge drains remove water by means of gravity flow, they must be
continuously sloped to an outlet to effectively function and ensure that no intercepted
water is allowed to accumulate. Outlets may include drainage channel or a closed drainage
system. Edge drains must be provided with lateral outlets to the roadway ditch or to
appropriate structures in a closed storm-drain system
Some obvious locations for underdrains are areas of existing springs where a new road is
to be located, or where the pavement is located at the base of a side-hill cut, or on very
long downhill grades where flow from infiltrated runoff and seepage zones tend to follow
the direction of the pavement.
The edge drain should intercept water from the highest water-bearing layer of the
pavement section. This water is usually encountered in the asphalt base course. In
pavement sections that include permeable base, the edge drain should be in contact with
the permeable base at the low points of its cross-section.
For design purposes, it is recommended that water flow quantities from infiltrated runoff
and seepage zones be estimated to provide for adequate drainage structures. Reference
should be made to the Hydrology and Drainage Design Manual, 2019.

4.9 Foundation design for signals, signs, noise barriers and culverts
The structures for traffic signals, signs, luminaries, and noisewalls are usually standard
items, designed by the manufacturer and shall be approved by ANE.

(178)
ANE shall be involved in the preliminary designs when subsurface information is needed
and/or foundation recommendations are needed. This should allow an estimated quantity
to be included in the contract plans. The preliminary foundation design for high-mast
lighting, overhead sign structures, or other heavy steel supports shall be provided by ANE
during the design phase.
Noisewalls frequently use standard designs. Appropriate analysis shall be undertaken to
ensure that the noisewalls perform well and do not require excessive maintenance due to
settlement or overturning. If the soil investigation reveals that there are areas where the
noisewalls may encounter problematic construction (artesian conditions, shallow rock, or
peat) this should be highlighted in the geotechnical report and brought to the attention of
design personnel such that a specialty design or guidance can be included in the plans.
Potential geotechnical hazards such as landslides that could affect the structures should
be identified. The identification and extent/condition (i.e., thickness) of existing man-made
fills should be noted, as many of these structures may be located in engineered fills.
Surface and subsurface conditions that could affect constructability of the foundations,
such as the presence of shallow bedrock, or cobbles and boulders, should be identified as
many of these structures have very shallow foundations and the investigation may only
consist of general site reconnaissance with minimal subsurface investigation.
New subsurface data shall be obtained, if the available geotechnical data and information
gathered from the site review is not adequate to make a determination of subsurface
conditions as required in the Manual. Explorations consisting of geotechnical borings, test
pits and hand holes or a combination thereof shall be performed to meet the investigation
requirements provided herein. As a minimum, the subsurface exploration and laboratory
test programme should be developed to obtain information to analyse foundation stability,
settlement, and constructability with respect to:
• Geological formation(s)
• Location and thickness of soil and rock units
• Engineering properties of soil and rock units such as unit weight, shear strength
and compressibility
• Groundwater conditions (seasonal variations)
• Ground surface topography
• Local considerations, (e.g., problem soil deposits as per section 5.3 of the Site
Investigation Manual, 2019, underground voids from solution weathering or mining
activity, or slope instability potential).

Foundations to these structures should not be placed on slopes steeper than 1.5H:1V. If
sloping ground is present, some special considerations in determining the foundation depth
are needed. However, the top of the standard foundation can simply be located at or below
the bottom of the drainage ditch, if the foundation is located on a slope that is part of a
drainage ditch.
For all foundations placed in a slope or where the centreline of the foundation is less than
1B for the shoulder of the slope, where B is the width or diameter of the Standard
Foundation, the Standard Plan foundation depths should be increased as follows, and as
illustrated in Figure 4-72:
• For slopes 3H:1V or flatter, no additional depth is required.
• For 2H:1V or flatter, add 0.5B to the depth.
• For 1.5H:1V slopes, add 1.0B to the depth.

(179)
Figure 4-72: Foundation design detail for sloping ground (From WSDOT, 2010)

For foundations in rock, a special design is required and fracturing and jointing in the rock, and its
effect on the foundation resistance, must be evaluated. A drilled shaft or anchored footing
foundation is generally required.

If non-standard foundation designs are required for noisewalls, the geotechnical designer
should provide the following information to the structural designer:

• Description of the soil units using Unified Soil Classification System.

• Ground elevation and elevation of soil/rock unit boundaries.
• Depth to the water table along the length of the wall.
• Earth pressure diagrams and design parameters
• Soil unit strength parameters that include effective unit weight, cohesion (φ),
active earth pressure coefficient (Ka), passive earth pressure coefficient (Kp),
• For shaft foundations, passive pressures are assumed to act over 3 shaft diameters,
and a factor of safety of 1.5 should be applied to the passive resistance.

The final design of foundations to these structures, if completed by the Contractor shall be
reviewed and approved by ANE.

4.10 Geotechnical aspects of pipe design and installation

4.10.1 Data requirements

Drainage pipes and culverts may be installed in native ground, existing embankments or
embankments to be constructed. When developing geotechnical engineering
recommendations for drainage pipes and culverts, the geotechnical engineer is responsible
for addressing the following (NYSDOT, 2018):
• Suitability of excavated soil for re-use as backfill.
• Anticipated soil settlement resulting from newly-placed embankment fill.
• The effect of corrosion of the installation (where applicable) on the integrity of the
adjacent soil system.

(180)
 • The extent to which engineering measures are required to mitigate settlement
concerns (i.e., use of pile support, use of pre-loads, prefabricated vertical drains,
staged construction, etc.)
• The likely presence of ground water and its effect on bedding conditions (i.e., the
extent to which construction dewatering may be required)
• pH, resistivity and classification of soil and pH of surface water in proximity to the
drainage pipe or culvert.
• Soil classification of soil within 0.67 to 1.0 m (depth) of pipe outfalls.

4.10.2 Installation techniques

The installation of a pipe to the proper alignment and elevation requires disturbance to
the surrounding area, the extent of which is a consequence of the specified technique. The
Designer must weigh factors understanding that the most straightforward method of
installation (open excavation) often results in a sizeable level of disturbance while an
alternate, resourceful method of installation (trenchless technology) can reduce the level
of disturbance but will be more costly and require more up-front investigation.
Open Excavation (open cut, cut-and-cover) is an excavation made in the open rather than
in a tunnel. The most straightforward method of installing a cross-culvert, utility or tunnel
is by excavating a trench to the required depth and then backfilling the excavation over
the structures roof. However, to safely perform this operation (especially at extensive
depths), it requires either a broad work zone area to allow sufficient lay-back of the
excavations sideslopes or the installation of shoring elements of sufficient structural
capacity (with bracing components, if required) to support and surround the cavity of the
excavation.
Factors that may offset the increase in costs for trenchless technology and influence the
decision of the appropriate method of installation are characterised as social costs
(NYSDOT, 2018, from Boyce and Bried, 1994):
Road damage: Disturbance caused by the pipe installation operation significantly
contributes to the decrease in pavement life expectancy. Inadequate or improper
excavation restorations result in higher costs due to periodic repair, increases road user
costs and initiate user complaints.
Damage to adjacent facilities: Contractors are expected to perform work using the
necessary precautions to prevent damage to pipe conduits and other underground
facilities.
Damage to adjacent structures: The support system for open excavations must
address stability of adjacent structures. In addition to the excavation or removal of
material impacting adjacent structures, the groundwater table may be in conflict with the
proposed installation and backfill operations. Dewatering of the trench can cause
movement and/or settlement problems.
Noise and Vibration: Construction noise and vibration may have a major impact on the
surrounding areas. An open excavation requires equipment and construction operations to
track the alignment of the cross-culvert, utility or tunnel throughout its entire length. In
contrast, trenchless methods typically utilise point locations which localise disturbances,
making them easier to manage and control.
Air Pollution: As mentioned with noise and vibrations, an open excavation requires
equipment and construction operations to track the alignment of the cross-culvert, utility
or tunnel throughout its entire length. Dust generated from construction operations is not
only a public nuisance but may have serious health implications which may be critical in
sensitive areas (e.g. hospitals, schools).
Vehicular Traffic Disruption: A zone traffic control plan for all work affecting vehicular
and pedestrian traffic is required. In open excavations, adequate precautions must be
taken to protect vehicle and pedestrian traffic. No lanes shall be closed without prior

(181)
approval and no pavement cuts are to be left unfilled overnight. Steel cover plates
(recessed) may be used. These operations all have an impact on traffic movement.
Trenchless methods often minimise delay and slower movement of traffic by reducing
surface excavation.
Pedestrian Safety: As mentioned with vehicular traffic disruption, plan for all work
affecting vehicular and pedestrian traffic is required. The utilisation of detour routes to
allow open excavations increases traffic on secondary roads utilised by pedestrians. The
additional vehicular traffic can impede pedestrian traffic and create a safety risk.
Business and Trade Loss: An open excavation requires equipment and construction
operations to track the alignment of the cross-culvert, utility or tunnel throughout its entire
length. The natural tendency of people to avoid obstructed areas can have an impact on
local business.
Damage to Detour Roads: The utilisation of detour routes to allow open excavations
increases traffic on secondary roads. These routes are typically not designed for the
increase in traffic loads which can result in damage if not addressed prior to the increase.
Site Safety: Trenchless technology involves less equipment, labour or surface disruption
all of which reduces the probability of site-related accidents.
Citizen Complaints: Road damage, noise and vibrations, air pollution, etc. are all
consequences of the construction activity which disrupts the normal life of residents and
businesses. Any disruption may generate complaints.
Environmental Impacts: Construction projects can involve work in environmentally
sensitive areas (e.g. wetlands, rivers, streams, historic sites, etc.). An open excavation is
often not feasible or permitted in these circumstances. Trenchless methods can eliminate
detrimental effects to these sensitive areas. In addition, for sites which contain
contaminants, an open excavation introduces a plethora of impediments from how to
handle the material to how to dispose of it. Trenchless methods minimise ground
disturbance and reduce spoil removal.

4.10.3 Design development

Table 4-28 provides assumptions on the potential method of installation based upon the
identified subsurface conditions.

Table 4-28: Trenchless Construction Techniques (NYSDOT, 2018)

Installation Method Compatible Soil Types
Auger Boring Variety of soil conditions
(AB)
Slurry Boring (SB) Firm, stable cohesive material. Wet, non-cohesive material
can be accommodated provided that special precautions are
exercised
Pipe Jacking (PJ) Stable granular and cohesive soils are best. Unstable sand
is least favourable. Large boulders cause frequent work
stoppage. Method can be executed with any ground
condition with adequate precautions.
Micro-Tunneling (MT) Variety of soil conditions, including full face rock and high
groundwater head.
Horizontal Directional Clay is ideal. Cohesionless sand and silt require bentonite.
Drilling (HDD) Gravel and cobbles are unsuitable
Utility Tunneling (UT) Variety of soil conditions

(182)
4.10.4 Construction

To ensure that the designed drill path is in compliance with the contract documents during
installation, the Contractor shall submit their proposed steering (e.g. articulated steering
head, offset jets incorporated into a direction sensing and steering head, etc.) and tracking
equipment (e.g. sonde transmitter & receiver, electromagnetic down-hole navigational
system, water level line, laser & survey tools, etc.), procedures, and proposed locations
requiring surface or subsurface access.
Because trenchless installations are typically specified to minimise/eliminate disturbance
to the surrounding area, monitoring tasks for the Contractor shall be included in the
contract. A survey of the existing ground surface along the proposed path of casing
installation, prior to the start of work, will establish baseline data. The trenchless
installation process will be closely monitored during its operation to minimise/eliminate
ground movements.

4.11 Geosynthetic design

In areas where selected materials are not available, the use of geosynthetic materials for
reinforcement of backfill can reduce the differential settlement. There are a large number
of geosynthetic materials for use in geotechnical applications. These products generally
fall into the following major categories:
• soil separators,
• reinforcing elements,
• impermeable barriers and liners,
• drainage elements and filters,
• paving fabrics, and composite systems where the material performs more than one function.

According to SANS ISO 10318-2013, geosynthetics cover multiple functions as shown in

Table 4-29. Table identifies which of the geosynthetic products would provide the greatest
benefits in functionality. Table 4-29 gives an overview of geosynthetics versus function

Table 4-29: Geosynthetics type and function

Type Function
Drainage Filtration Separation Protection Barrier Reinforcement Surface
erosion
control

Geotextiles ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Geogrids ✓
Geomembranes ✓
Geonet ✓
Geomat ✓
Geocell ✓ ✓
Geospacer ✓
Geosynthetic ✓ ✓
Barrier
Geocomposite ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Geosynthetics are characterized by the following properties.

(183)
 • Tensile strength and tensile strain.
• Tear resistance.
• Water permeability vertical to plane.
• Water permeability in plane.
• Opening size.

Table 4-30 summarises the most commonly required material properties to be specified
according to the corresponding standard tests.

Table 4-30: Summary of material properties for geosynthetics

Material Property Test Standard Unit
Permittivity ASTM D4491 sec-1
Flow Rate ASTM D4491 l/m/m2
Trapezoidal Tear ASTM D4533 kN
Grab Tensile Strength ASTM D4632 kN
Grab Elongation Strength ASTM D4632 %
Apparent Opening Size (AOS) ASTM D4751 mm
Puncture (CBR ASTM D6241 kN
Tensile Strength (MD) EN ISO 10319 kN/m
Strain at max load EN ISO 10319 %
Tensile Strength (CD) EN ISO 10319 kN/m
Strain at max load (CD) EN ISO 10319 %
Permeability – normal to plane EN ISO 11058 8 m/sec
Static Puncture Resistance - EN ISO 12236 kN
Opening Pore Size O90 EN ISO 12956 mm
Dynamic Puncture Resistance – Cone EN ISO 13433 mm
Drop

Note that the grab tests characterise the short-term tensile properties of geotextiles. To
determine the tensile properties of geotextiles under long-term sustained load and
deformations. tension creep and rupture tests should be carried out.

4.11.1 Development of design parameters

The application of the geosynthetic reinforcement in roadways will reduce significantly the
vertical stresses transferred to the base and subgrade, which should result in long-term
benefits for those layers. However, the performance of geosynthetic as pavement
reinforcement depends on the material characterization such as reinforced position, tensile
stiffness and elongation.
Although many products may look similar, material characteristics can vary widely among
materials. It is important to verify that materials delivered to a project site are consistent
with design requirements.
For underground drainage design, information regarding the gradation and density of the
soil in the vicinity of the geosynthetic drain, as well as details regarding the likely sources

(184)
of water to the drain, including groundwater, are needed. For shallow systems, hand holes
will be adequate for this assessment. For drainage systems behind retaining walls, test
holes may be needed. In general, the geotechnical site investigation conducted for the
structure itself will be adequate for the drainage design. Generally, woven geotextiles
exhibit poor permeability characteristics in comparison to the corresponding nonwoven
geotextiles
In general, for soil stabilisation and separation, hand holes coupled with Falling Weight
Deflectometer (FWD) test results will be adequate for design purposes. For extremely soft
subgrade soils, subgrade shear strength data may be needed to allow a subgrade
reinforcement design to be conducted.
For permanent erosion control, the gradation characteristics of the soil below the geotextile
layer, and measurement of the groundwater, are important to the geosynthetic design.
Test holes or test pits will be needed at key locations where permanent erosion control
geotextiles might be used.
For geomembrane design, groundwater information and soil gradation information is
usually needed. If the geomembrane is to be placed on a slope, the geotechnical data
needed to investigate slope stability will need to be obtained
Materials must also be installed properly, in the correct direction, with correct connections
(seaming, welding, overlapping, butting, etc.) per the project specifications to ensure that
the design intent is met.

4.11.2 Design Requirements

Fills reinforced with geosynthetics can be designed using the principles of reinforced soil
slopes. The requirements of reinforced soil embankments, Section 4.4.2.1, shall apply.
It is recommended that ANE make use of FHWA manual No. FHWA HI-95-038
“Geosynthetic Design and Construction Guidelines – Participant Notebook” (Holtz, et al.,
1995) in addition to the sections referenced above herein.

(185)
5 Ground improvement

5.1 Purpose
There are a number of techniques aimed at changing the unfavourable conditions
discussed in Section 3.5.2 into those more suitable to support the roadway pavement
ensure stability, serviceability and performance of geotechnical structures or make use of
in-situ material for construction of embankments. Ground improvement is aimed at
achieving one or more of the following:
• increase shear strength and bearing resistance,
• increase density and therefore improve workability and usability of fill materials
• decrease permeability,
• control deformations (settlement, heave, distortions),
• improve drainage,
• accelerate consolidation and soil shear strength gain,
• decrease imposed loads,
• provide lateral stability, and/or
• improve slope stability for landslide mitigation,
• transfer embankment loads to more competent subsurface layers.

5.2 Design Parameters and input data for ground improvement

analysis
In general, the planning of soil improvement system requires specific soil information that
need to be emphasised, depending on the ground improvement technique to be
implemented. The following information is required:
• Detailed geotechnical information presented in Section 3.3.
• Loading conditions of structures including traffic load
• Allowable total and differential settlement of geotechnical structures
• Knowledge of the project site and its environment, the various conditions
encountered along the length and width of the road foundation
• Details of the various soil improvement systems available.

5.3 Ground improvement techniques

5.3.1 Ground improvement techniques and their application

There are a number of techniques aimed at changing the unfavourable conditions

discussed in Section 3.5.2 in order to provide improved stability or settlement
performance.
• Vibro-compaction techniques such as stone columns and vibro-flotation, and other
techniques that use vibratory probes that may or may not include compaction of
gravel in the hole created to help densify the soil
• Deep dynamic compaction
• Blast densification
• Geosynthetic reinforcement of embankments
• Wick drains, sand columns, and similar methods that improve the drainage
characteristics of the subsoil and thereby help to remove excess pore pressure that
can develop under load applied to the soil
• Grout injection techniques and replacement of soil with grout such as compaction
grouting, jet grouting, and deep soil mixing
• Lime or cement treatment of soils to improve their shear strength and workability
characteristics

(186)
 • Permeation grouting and ground freezing (temporary applications only)

Each of these methods has limitations regarding their applicability and the degree of
improvement that is possible. Table 5-1 gives a summary of ground improvement tech-
niques for various geologic conditions and application.

Table 5-1: Summary of ground strengthening techniques (Hunt, 1986)

Conditions Technique Application

Low grades Compacted sand fill Minimise structure settlements

Shallow Excavate and backfill Minimise structure settlement

Miscellaneous
Dynamic compaction Reduce structure settlement
Fill Deep
Sand columns Reduce structure settlement

Excavate and backfill Minimise structure settlement

Shallow
Geotextiles Support low embankments
Surcharge Reduce structure settlement
Deep Geotextiles Support low embankments
Sand columns Reduce structure settlement
Organics
Surcharge Reduce structure settlement
Dynamic compaction Reduce structure settlement
Buried Compaction grouting Arrest existing structure
settlement
Sand columns Reduce structure settlement

Excavate and backfill Minimise structure settlement

Shallow
Geotextiles Support low embankments
Surcharge Reduce structure settlement
Geotextiles Support low embankments
Deep
Sand columns Reduce structure settlement
Lime columns Reduce structure settlement
Soft clays
Surcharge Reduce structure settlement
Dynamic compaction Reduce structure settlement
Compaction grouting Arrest existing structure
Buried
settlement
Sand columns Reduce structure settlement
Lime columns Reduce structure settlement

Gravel admixture Base, sub-base, low-quality

pavement
Clays, surface Lime admixture Stabilise roadway base and sub-
base
Freezing Temporary arrest of settlement

Loose silts Shallow Excavate and backfill Minimise structure settlement

(187)
 Salts admixture Dust palliative
Surface compaction Increase support capacity
Surcharge Reduce structure settlement
Stone columns Increase support capacity
Deep
Electro-osmosis Increase slope strength
temporary
Vacuum well points Improve excavation bottom
Buried
stability

Surface compaction Increase support capacity

Cement admixture Base, sub-base, low-quality
Shallow pavement
Bitumen admixture Base, sub-base, low-quality
pavement
Vibroflotation / Terra- Increase support capacity
probe
Dynamic compaction Increase support capacity
Loose sands Stone columns Increase support capacity
Deep
Well points Increase stable cut-slope
inclination
Freezing Temporary stability for
excavation
Penetration grouting Arrest existing structure
settlement
Buried
Freezing Temporary stability for
excavation

Preloading with PVDs

As presented in Section 4.3.7.2, the slow rate of consolidation in saturated clays of low
permeability may be accelerated by means of vertical drains which shorten the drainage
path within the clay. Preloading is one of the most common ground improvement
techniques for soft ground. The application of the preloading method is combined almost
always with the use of vertical drains. Prefabricated vertical drains (PVDs), are generally
used and tend to be more economic than backfilled drains for a given area of treatment.
It is essential for a successful design that the factors that affect the consolidation of soil
around PVDs are taken into account. The factors include soil parameters, ch and kh, the
coefficient of consolidation and permeability of soil in the horizontal direction respectively,
the diameter of smear zone, ds and ks, permeability of the smeared zone and the properties
of PVD. Drains are normally installed in either a square or a triangular pattern. The vertical
prismatic blocks of soil surrounding the drains are replaced by cylindrical blocks, of
diameter D, having the same cross-sectional area (Figure 5-1).

(188)
 Figure 5-1: Relationship of Drain Spacing (S) to Drain Influence Zone
(D)(Rixner et al., 1986)

The smear effect is affected by soil properties. From Figure 5-1, the equilateral triangular
pattern, the diameter of the cylinder of influence (D), is 1.05 times the spacing between
each drain. In a square pattern, D is 1.13 times the spacing between drains.
From equations 4-91 and 4-92, the time factor for consolidation due to radial drainage
only is given by:
ch t
Th = Equation 5-1
D2
Equation 5-1, where ch is the coefficient of consolidation of soil in the horizontal direction,
t is time, D is the diameter of soil cylinder dewatered by a drain which is related to the
drain spacing, shows that the closer the spacing of the drains, the quicker the consolidation
process due to radial drainage proceeds.
The time (t) is the duration required to achieve the desired average degree of consolidation
(Uh) for a chosen diameter of drain influence (D) and drain diameter (d). Typically, to
achieve approximately 90 percent consolidation in 3 to 4 months, designers often choose
drain spacing between 1 to 1.5 m in homogeneous clays, 1.2 to 1.8 m in silty clays and
1.5 to 2.0 m in coarser soils.

5.3.2 Process of identifying appropriate techniques

Table 5-2 describes the process to assist in identifying the most appropriate ground
improvement method(s) for the prevailing conditions.

(189)
 Table 5-2: Ground improvement design process (NYSDOT, 2013)
Step Process
1 Perform subsurface investigations at the project site. Identify potential poor
ground conditions, including extent and type of negative impact. Identify
variables causing the unacceptable subsurface conditions (Section 3.5.2)
2 Identify or establish performance requirements of the unacceptable subsurface
material
3 Identify and assess any space, height, or environmental constraints
4 Assessment of subsurface conditions – type, depth and extent of poor soil as
well as groundwater table depth and assessment of shear strength and
compressibility potential (Section 2.3
5 Preliminary selection of ground improvement method(s) – takes into account
performance criteria, limitations imposed by subsurface conditions, schedule
and site or environmental constraints, and amount and type of improvement
required (Refer to Table 5-1 and use Table 5-3 for this step of selection
process).
6 Preliminary design based on each appropriate ground improvement method
7 Comparison and selection – final selection is based on performance,
constructability, cost, and any other relevant project factors.

Table 5-3: Ground improvement strategy, functions and methods (NYSDOT,

2013)
Strategy Improved function Method
Accelerate primary settlement and/or shear • Vertical
strength and bearing capacity increase, or control Drains
Consolidation
of non-uniform or excessive deformations • Temporary
Surcharge
Increase bearing capacity, and shear strength of • Vibro-
Densification granular soils. Decrease settlement and increase Compaction
resistance to liquefaction and lateral movement, • Dynamic
or control non-uniform or excessive deformations Compaction
• Temporary
Surcharge
Deep Soil Increase bearing capacity and shear strength; • Wet Mixing
Mixing decrease settlement and/or provide lateral Methods
stability and seepage control and resistance to • Dry Mixing
liquefaction and lateral movement
Methods
Grouting To fill voids, increase shear strength and bearing • Permeation
capacity, improved seepage control, and decrease Grouting
in settlement • Compaction
Grouting
• Jet Grouting
Load Reduce settlement, and control non-uniform or • Lightweight
Reduction excessive deformations Fills
Load Transfer Decrease settlement, improve resistance to • Column
dynamic loading or lateral movement, control Supported
non-uniform or excessive deformations Embankment
(CSE)
Reinforcement Increase shear strength, resistance to liquefaction • Stone
and lateral movement, and decrease settlement Columns

(190)
5.3.3 Advantages and disadvantages of ground improvement techniques

There are advantages and limitations for the different ground improvement methods that
should also be considered during method selection. These advantages and limitations are
indicated in Table 5-4.

Table 5-4: Advantages and disadvantages of ground improvement methods

Method Advantages Disadvantages
Change in Embankment Requires lower bearing Greater quantities of fill
Geometry capacity to support required.
embankment. Can use Greater land take.
lower grade fill at edges May increase settlements
of embankments
Embankment supported on Settlement of embankment Pile driving may affect
piles greatly reduced. stability of existing
Reduction structures or
of lateral loads on embankments. Piles are
abutment piles due to soil likely to be affected by
movements negative skin friction.
Geotextile may need to be
used to provide lateral
restraint at edges of
embankment
Excavation and lncreased bearing capacity. Excavation may be
replacement Reduction in settlements difficult below ground
water level.
Remaining
soft soil may cause
differential
settlements. Disposal
of excavated soil may
be a problem.
Placement of fill
below water level
requires careful
consideration. Effects
of temporary
excavation on nearby
structures should be
considered
Jet grouting Increased bearing capacity End product
and reduced settlements. dependent on
Interlocking columns can properties of existing
provide foundations of' soil. Disposal of
greater bearing capacity effluent required
Lightweight fills Requires lower bearing Polystyrene requires
capacity to support protection from petrol, fire
embankment. Reduced and UV light.
settlements. Reduced PFA is frost susceptible and
earth pressures on may inhibit plant growth.
structure PFA difficult to handle
when wet.
Expanded Clay difficult to
compact in unconfined

(191)
 situations
Lime columns Increased bearing capacity Strength of column
and reduced settlements. sensitive to soil
Columns act as drains to chemistry, particularly
increase rate of settlement pH, and high water
contents.
Strengths measured in
field and laboratory
may differ
Pre-loading Reduction of proportion of Can be time consuming.
consolidation and Double handling
secondary settlements. Soil of fill
strength increases. Low required. Confidence
grade fill can be used for in design parameters
pre-loading to time pre-loading
required
Reinforcement of the Increases bearing capacity Total settlements may not
embankment fill by reducing lateral stresses be reduced. Creep may
on soil from embankment reduce long-term
fill. Reduces lateral reinforcement strength.
movements adjacent to Need to avoid damage by
embankment. Can reduce construction plant.
differential settlements Requires protection from
UV light and some
chemicals
Sheet Piles Increases bearing capacity Corrosion protection needs
by lateral stresses on soil. to be considered.
Reduces lateral movements Disruption to groundwater
adjacent to embankment flows. Total settlements
may not be reduced
Soil displacement No excavation required. Large quantities of fill
Heaved material at sides of required. Unsuitable
embankment can enhance for thick deposits of
bearing capacity soft ground. Pockets
of soft soil may
become trapped and
cause differential
settlements. Filling
should be continuous
to avoid increase in
soil strength at tip
face
Staged construction Increased embankment Can be time consuming.
heights and steeper slope Instrumentation in soil
angles can be achieved required. Regular
monitoring of data.
needed
Stone columns Increased bearing capacity Wet methods produce
and reduced settlements. large quantities of
Stone columns act as effluent. Dry methods
vertical drains increasing not suitable for very
rate of consolidation soft soils
Surcharging Reduction of proportion of Can be time
consolidation and consuming. Bearing
secondary settlements capacity should be
sufficient to tolerate
increased height of fill.

(192)
 Confidence in design
parameters to time
duration of surcharge
required
Vertical drains Reduction in time for Must be used in
embankment settlements conjunction with
to occur after fill has been application of load to
placed the soil. Effects of
heave, smear, clogging
and discharge capacity
need to be considered
Vibro concrete columns Increased bearing capacity Access required for
and reduced settlement supply of concrete

(193)
6 Construction stage investigation

6.1 Introduction
Observations and tests should be performed during construction. This will enable
modification of the recommendations by the geotechnical engineer, in the event that the
exposed and encountered conditions during construction vary from those anticipated
based on the subsurface exploration programme.

6.2 In-situ instrumentation and monitoring

Installation of instrumentation at a site and adopting a monitoring programme helps
document behaviour; this information can then be used when developing a geotechnical
design for a project, adjusting and existing design, adjusting or responding to contractor
activities, or improving future designs. In some cases, instrumentation and monitoring is
recommended for a project to support research, development, or implementation of
construction techniques or processes.
Certain types of projects require quality monitoring. Examples include:
• settlement mitigation pre-loading and surcharging
• groundwater elevation studies
• slope stability assessment
• landslide rate and magnitude monitoring (including rock movements)
• load testing
• structural (and geotechnical) health monitoring.

Monitoring allows confirmation of predicted design behaviour and can provide valuable
information if there are deviations from expected performance. Showing that a design is
functioning as expected is often an underappreciated outcome. The information can be
beneficial as a validation of current design practice if the monitored parameters agree with
expectations. If conditions are unusual, this can often lead to additional insights that are
useful; if performance is inadequate, a mitigation programme will be required.
All key stakeholders share responsibility for managing instrumentation and monitoring
during construction. Construction documents must specify that the contractor has the
primary responsibility for interpretations and must manage data flow from the monitoring
at all times and submits this to the supervising engineer.
A provisional sum of 1.0% to a maximum of 2% of the total project cost shall be allocated
for the instrumentation and monitoring scheme during construction

6.3 Earth materials sources

Sources of road-building materials must be identified within an economic haulage distance
and they must be available in sufficient quantity and of sufficient quality for the purposes
intended.
Any existing material source data within the project area are collected and reviewed. In
project areas where materials sites are presently located, data that should be reviewed
and assessed during the construction stage includes:
• Site Geology, from existing mapping, reports, etc.
• Aerial photographs, LIDAR coverage
• Past quality testing and production history of the materials source sites
• Surface and subsurface drainage in the site area
• Fluctuations in the water table, including water wells located on adjacent land that
might be affected by those fluctuations, or moisture content of the deposit

(194)
 • Claims made by adjacent landowners
• Contractor claims, including final settlements
• Use of the site to obtain materials for future maintenance

For construction material requirements, reference should be made to Section 5.2.2 of the
Site Investigation Manual 2019 for details.

6.4 Quality assurance during construction

This is particularly aimed at assessing field performance, particularly if the site
stratigraphy or material properties were not well defined, or if there was a large amount
of uncertainty in the geotechnical design, or if the construction project involves major
changes to the site environment (such as by excavation or pumping). Instrumentation
installed during construction can be useful for this purpose.
The most common geotechnical monitoring used during construction involves:
• Noise and vibration monitoring
• Settlement monitoring
• Groundwater elevation and water flow monitoring
• Static load testing for construction control

Pile driving, drilled shaft and auger cast pile installation, and the execution of many ground
improvement techniques where equipment is monitored and displayed in real time are
typical activities that can easily be monitored during construction.
Temporary and permanent embankments, soil preloads, and soil surcharge operations are
monitored to ensure the system is performing as intended. In the case of soil preloads and
surcharges, the monitoring is usually used to determine both the magnitude and the time
rate behaviour of the work.
Monitoring should be instituted as early as possible during excavation and loading
operations so that as much of the embankment settlement (and any rebound) is captured
as part of the monitoring programme. Poorly planned monitoring programmes are more
likely to lead to omissions.
Actual settlement of shallow foundations is also of interest. Due to scale effects and
construction methods, predicted and measured settlement of large foundations often
disagree. Collection of full-scale field data is useful both for the design project at hand and
for use in larger studies of shallow foundation performance. The choice of systems for
measurements should take into account the magnitude of the expected measurements
with relatively high precision and accuracy being required for small measurements.
The purpose of quality control activities is to provide timely information for the contractor
to monitor and guide each production or placement process. Data collected during the
monitoring for certain quality characteristics may also be used in the final acceptance
decision.
The minimum contractor quality control activities are defined in the construction contract.
The contractor is responsible for establishing, implementing, and maintaining a quality
control plan to manage, control, document, and ensure that work complies with the
requirements of the contract documents.

(195)
7 Post construction considerations and monitoring

7.1 Geotechnical aspects in maintenance matters

A programme should be put in place for possible corrective actions used to address
emergency maintenance issues. The programme is to address site-specific soil instability
situations, the appropriate use, amount and extent of work, and incorporation of
specification items must be determined.
It is incumbent upon ANE to review the site and available information to determine the
source and extent of the problem, confirming that broader subsurface issues are not the
cause, and the use of the detail is appropriate. Typically, early warning signs can alert
observant maintenance employees of an unstable slope. This can include detailed
examination of soil movements at the site and in the vicinity, observation of fissures with
vertical displacement at the top or heaving near the slope toe, susceptibility with respect
to mass release e.g. crack opening, availability of loose debris material. If instability is
identified in its early stages, actions may be taken to prevent further movement, prevent
major failure, and save the cost of an expensive repair.

7.2 Instrumentation and monitoring

7.2.1 Purpose

There are cases where instrumentation is installed to help identify if there are performance
impacts arising from a construction problem. After construction of geotechnical and
structural works, it is of interest to monitor the performance of the constructed project or
surrounding soils. Post-construction performance monitoring is used to assess the
behaviour of constructed works for design validation or as part of research projects. In
some cases, a monitoring programme which is started in the construction phase may
continue in-service following construction.

7.2.2 Types of instruments used to monitor geotechnical performance

There are a large variety of techniques to measure geotechnical parameters of interest for
construction projects. Some methods require time and effort to read sensors in-situ, while
other systems are fully automated. The following are examples:
• (Earth/Total) Pressure Cells
• Crackmeters
• Deflection/Deformation Sensors
• Drive Point (Standpipe and Vibrating Wire)
• Horizontal Inclinometers, In-situ Inclinometers
• Load Cells
• Piezometers (Standpipe, Drive Point, and Electronic)
• Settlement Plates
• Specialised techniques: Time Domain Reflectometry (TDR), Light Detection and
Ranging (LiDAR)
• Specialty Strain Gages: Optical Strain Sensor Geosynthetic
• Standpipe Piezometers
• Strain Gages (Resistance, Vibrating Wire, and Fibre Optic)
• Tiltmeters
• Vertical Slope Indicators (Automated- In-Place Inclinometers)
• Vertical Slope Indicators (Manual)

(196)
Not all projects will require performance monitoring. However, for cases such as where
large embankments are constructed or unstable slopes are to be remediated, it is good
practice to develop a monitoring programme.

(197)
8 Use of computer programs
While computer programs provide a means for efficient and rapid detailed analysis of a
wide variety of slope geometry and load conditions. Software is available to interpret the
fracture orientation in the core samples and for soil settlement analyses. It is essential
that the user understands the basis for the software and required inputs. Table 8-1 lists
examples of software products and areas of application.
However, the following should be remembered when using any computer programs (ERA
2013)
• A thorough knowledge of the capabilities of the software and knowledge of the
theory of limit equilibrium slope stability analysis methods is important to
determine if the software is appropriate for any given situation.
• The software analyses a failure geometry that reasonably reflects the actual
condition. An understanding of the possible modes of failure is crucial to the
successful application of the result of the analysis. This is particularly important in
profiles where the mode of failure is governed by geological factors. Failures of
colluvium over bedrock or failures in weathered rock most frequently occur along
the surfaces dictated by structure. In such cases, circular failures do not generally
occur, and shallow non-circular analysis would be appropriate.
• The analytical program being used must be compatible with the critical elements
of the slope problem to be investigated, for example drainage condition, loading
condition, or layering of materials within the soil-rock mass.
• Appropriate shear strength and pore water parameters must be used for the
analyses. In cases where the accuracy of parameters is in doubt, it is appropriate
to undertake a sensitivity analysis to determine the effects on factor of safety of
variations in these parameters. Back analysis of similar existing failures may also
be an issue to consider.
• It is often recommended to check results from computer programs, if possible, by
hand or spreadsheet methods. If this is not possible, a sample parallel check using
another program is recommended. The program output should be checked to
ensure that the results are reasonable and consistent. Important items to check
include the weights of slices, shear strength properties, and pore water pressures
at the bottom of slices. The user should be able to determine if the critical slip
surface is passing through the relevant material.
• Any search scheme employed in computer programs is restricted to investigating
a finite number of slip surfaces. In addition, most of these schemes are designed
to locate one slip surface with a minimum factor of safety. The schemes may not
be able to locate more than one local minimum. The results of automatic searches
are dependent on the starting location for the search and any constraints that are
imposed on how the slip surface is moved. Automatic searches are controlled
largely by the data that the user inputs into the software. Regardless of the
software used, a number of separate searches should be conducted to confirm that
the lowest factor of safety has been calculated.

(198)
 Table 8-1: Examples of software products and areas of application
Software product Application

Geoslope – SLOPE/W Slope stability software for soil and rock slopes. Can
effectively analyze both simple and complex problems for
a variety of slip surface shapes, pore-water pressure
conditions, soil properties, and loading conditions.
Golden Software – Surfer Strater provides the means to quickly visualize and
(2D/3D), Grapher, and analyze subsurface data as well logs, boreholes, and
Strater; cross sections.
PLAXIS. Design and perform advanced finite element analysis of
soil and rock deformation and stability, as well as soil
structure interaction and groundwater flow. Has
advanced constitutive models for the simulation of the
nonlinear and time-dependent behaviour of soils. Apply
hydrostatic and nonhydrostatic pore pressures, model
structures and the interaction between the structures
and the soil, including projects of all types such as
excavations, foundations, embankments tunnels and
more.
Rocscience – RS2, RS3, A general-purpose finite element analysis program
designed for 3D analysis of geotechnical structures.
Applicable for both rock and soil, for underground
excavations, surface excavation, tunnel and support
design, foundation design, embankments, consolidation,
groundwater seepage,
Settle3 A three-dimensional program for the analysis of vertical
consolidation and settlement under foundations,
embankments and surface loads.
Slide2 Slide2 is a 2D slope stability program for evaluating the
safety factor or probability of failure, of circular and non-
circular failure surfaces in soil or rock slopes.
Can be used to analyze the stability of slip surfaces using
vertical slice or non-vertical slice limit equilibrium
methods as discussed in Section 4.3.5.9, like Bishop,
Janbu, Spencer, and Sarma, among others.
Individual slip surfaces can be analyzed, or search
methods can be applied to locate the critical slip surface
for a given slope. Users can also carry out deterministic
(safety factor) or probabilistic (probability of failure)
analyses.
Slide3D Slide3D allows geotechnical engineers to calculate the
factor of safety of complex 3D slope stability geometries
that 2D models cannot fully simulate. Model advanced
geometries like landslides, MSE walls, slopes supported
by soil nails
SWedge Analysis tool for evaluating the geometry and stability of
surface wedges in rock slopes
RockWare – Rockworks 3D Used for creating 2D and 3D maps, logs and cross
and Logplot sections, geological models, general geology diagrams.
RocPlane, RocFall, RocData Rock slope analysis toolkit for planar wedge stability
analysis and design. Especially useful tool for analysing
bench stability in open pit mines and rock slopes.

(199)
9 Geotechnical reporting and documentation

9.1 General Requirements

A geotechnical report is aimed at collating the information on the fundamental principles
behind the investigations, the techniques used to characterise the soil and rock properties,
quantify the mechanical behaviour of soil and rock, and interpret the obtained geotechnical
data and the recommendations for design application, for the purpose of communicating
to the design and construction personnel. The reporting and documentation of the data
collected during the site investigation, identification of general site characteristics and
subsurface conditions as well as recommendations for engineering analyses and design,
should be properly prepared and formatted to address the geotechnical aspects and
objectives of each specific structure or geotechnical feature on the project.
Different reports are produced depending on the project stage and the extent of
information needed. The report may only be a preliminary soil survey, or a presentation
of geotechnical data, compared to the detailed Geotechnical Engineering Report.
Geotechnical reports can be divided into preliminary and final level reports as discussed
below.

9.2 Geotechnical Report Content Requirements

9.2.1 Preliminary report

This serves the purpose of providing geotechnical input in the early stage of project
development and reconnaissance studies (pre-feasibility, feasibility, and possibly even
preliminary design stages). The required activities undertaken during the early stages of
the project depend on the complexity of the project. Thus, the contents will depend on
what the report is being prepared for, for example premature failure investigation of a
road pavement or required for a rapid assessment or emergency repair event, such as
occurrence of landslides or rock-fall. In general, the preliminary level reports should
contain the following elements:
• A general description of the project, project elements, and project background;
• A brief summary of the regional and site geology. The amount of detail
included will depend on the nature of the project;
• A summary of the field exploration and laboratory testing conducted;
• A description of the project soil and rock conditions. For preliminary design
reports in which new borings have been obtained, soil profiles for key project
features (e.g. bridges, retaining walls, etc.) may need to be developed. Information
is to be conveyed such that boring location and stratigraphy is presented in a
meaningful way;
• A summary of geological hazards identified that may affect the project design
(e.g. landslides, rock-fall, debris flows, liquefaction, soft ground, expansive soils,
seismic hazards, etc.);
• A summary of the preliminary geotechnical recommendations;
• Appendices that include any boring logs and laboratory test data obtained, soil
profiles developed, any field data obtained, and any photographs

9.2.2 Final level Geotechnical Design reports

The final geotechnical report is a product generated on the basis of a desk study review of
existing geotechnical data, a detailed geological assessment of the site, complete
subsurface investigation and laboratory programmes, and detailed analyses and
interpretations. The content of the report will depend on the size and complexity of the
project or project elements and subsurface conditions. The elements described below may
not necessarily be included in some cases.

(200)
On the basis of international good practice (WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual M 46-
03.01), the final geotechnical report should contain the following contents:
• A general description of the project, project elements, and project background;
• Project site surface conditions and topographic assessments;
• A summary of geotechnical conditions that briefly describes the subsurface and
groundwater conditions for key areas of the project where foundations, cuts, fills, etc.,
are to be constructed. This document should also describe the impact of these
subsurface conditions on construction. Regional and local geology. This section should
describe the site stress history and depositional/erosional history, bedrock and soil
geological units, etc.
• Regional and site seismicity for major bridges, potential source zones, potential
magnitude of shaking, frequency, historical activity, and location of nearby faults;
• A summary of the site data available from project or site records (e.g. final
construction records for previous construction activity at the site, as-built bridge or
other structure layouts, existing test hole logs, geological maps, previous or current
geologic reconnaissance results, etc.);
• A summary of the field exploration conducted, if applicable, with a description of
the methods and standards used as well as a summary of the number and types of
explorations that were conducted. A description of any field instrumentation (e.g.
piezometers) installed and its purpose should be included.
• A summary of the laboratory testing conducted with the description of the methods
and standards used, as well as a summary of the number and types of tests that were
conducted;
• A description of the soil/rock units encountered at the project site, groundwater
conditions including the identification of any confined aquifers, artesian pressures,
perched water tables, potential seasonal variations, any influences on the groundwater
levels observed, and direction and gradient of groundwater, if known. If multiple
groundwater level readings were obtained over time, the dates and depths measured,
or as a minimum the range of depths measured, and the dates the highest and lowest
water level readings were obtained. Also, a brief description of the method used to
obtain groundwater levels (open standpipe, vibratory piezometer, pneumatic
piezometer, etc.).
• The descriptions of soil and rock conditions illustrated with subsurface profiles
(i.e. parallel to road centreline) and cross-sections (i.e. perpendicular to roadway
centreline) of the key project features, as appropriate. A subsurface profile or cross-
section is defined as an illustration that shows the spatial distribution of the soil and
rock units encountered in the borings and probes. As such, the profile or cross-section
will contain the existing and proposed ground line, the boring logs (including SPT
values, soil/rock units, etc.), and the location of any water level(s). Interpretive
information contained in these illustrations should be kept to a minimum. What appears
to be the same soil or rock unit in adjacent borings should not be connected together
with stratification lines unless that stratification is reasonably certain. The potential for
variability in the stratification must be discussed in the report.
• A subsurface profile for bridges, viaducts, and other significant structures. For
retaining walls, subsurface profiles should always be provided for soil nail walls,
anchored walls, and non-gravity cantilever walls, and all other walls in which there is
more than one boring along the length of the wall. For other wall situations, judgment
may be applied to decide whether or not a subsurface profile is needed. For cuts, fills,
and landslides, soil profiles should be provided for features of significant length, where
multiple borings along the length of the feature are present. Subsurface cross-sections
must always be provided for landslides, and for cuts, fills, structures, and walls that
are large enough to warrant multiple borings to define the underlying geology.
• A summary of geological hazards identified and their impact on the project design
(e.g. landslides, rock-fall, debris flows, liquefaction, soft ground or expansive soils,
etc.), if any. The location and extent of the geologic hazards should be described.

(201)
• For the analysis of unstable slopes (including existing settlement areas), cuts, and
fills, the following data is needed:
o The analytical approach and assumptions used,
o Values of the design parameters,
o A description of any back-analyses conducted, the results of those analyses, and
comparison of those results to any laboratory test data,
o Any definition of acceptable factors of safety or discussion of acceptable risk of
failure.
• Proposed cuts and excavations should be considered in terms of temporary (short-
term) and long term and stability analyses performed for those that have a potential
for failure. Global and local stability conditions should be analysed as appropriate. The
level of analysis should be consistent with the consequences of slope failure. Special
attention is required for very high cuts and fills, steep cuts, and cuts with adverse
geological structure. The stability analyses used must be appropriate for the slope
conditions. For example, a circular failure model should not be used to analyse a cut
in rock where discontinuities will control the stability. The method of analysis should
be stated, along with the input data and any assumptions made. If stereographic
analyses are used, the stereo-nets should be appended, and the results of the analyses
summarised.
• Geotechnical recommendations for earthwork (fill design, cut design, usability of
on-site materials as fill). The design of embankment features such as fill slope angles,
the foundation, and subsurface drainage should include analysis of settlement, slope
stability, groundwater conditions, subsidence, compaction characteristics and potential
problems with the materials to be used in the embankments. Embankment design
recommendations should include the slope required for stability, any measures that
need to be taken to provide a stable embankment (geosynthetic reinforcement, wick
drains, controlled rate of embankment construction, light-weight materials, etc.),
embankment settlement magnitude and rate, and the need for and extent of removal
of any unsuitable materials below.
• Cut design recommendations should contain the slope angle required for stability,
seepage and piping control and erosion control measures needed, as appropriate, and
any other special measures required to produce a stable slope. In addition, cut slope
and other on-site materials should be identified as to their feasibility for use as fill,
with a discussion on the type of fill material for which they could be utilised, the need,
if any, for aeration to reduce the moisture content, and the effect of environmental
factors on their usability.
• Geotechnical recommendations for rock slopes and rock excavation. Such
recommendations should include any special measures to produce a stable rock slope
such as rock bolting/dowelling as well as any recommendations to prevent erosion and
undermining of intact blocks of rock, internal and external slope drainage
requirements, feasible methods of rock removal and rock excavation, and the need for
controlled blasting or any other special techniques that may be necessary.
• Geotechnical recommendations for stabilisation of unstable slopes (e.g.,
landslides, rock-fall areas, debris flows, etc.). This section should provide a discussion
on mitigation options, and detailed recommendations regarding the most feasible
methods for mitigating the unstable slopes, including a discussion of the advantages,
disadvantages, and risks associated with each option.
• Geotechnical recommendations for retaining walls and reinforced slopes with a
discussion on considered wall/reinforced slope options, the recommended
wall/reinforced slope options, foundation type and design requirements (for strength
limit state: ultimate bearing resistance, lateral and uplift resistance if deep foundations
have been selected; for service limit state: settlement limited bearing, and any special
design requirements), seismic design parameters and recommendations (e.g., design
acceleration coefficient, extreme event limit state bearing, uplift and lateral resistance
if deep foundations have been selected), design considerations for scour when
applicable, and lateral earth pressure parameters. For reinforced slopes requiring
internal stability design (e.g., geosynthetic walls, and soil nail walls), recommendations

(202)
 on minimum width for external and overall stability, embedment depth, bearing
resistance and settlement, soil reinforcement spacing, strength, and length
requirements, and dimensions to meet external stability requirements are needed. For
other retaining walls, minimum width for overall stability, embedment depth, bearing
resistance, settlement, and design parameters for determining earth pressures should
be provided. For anchored walls, achievable anchor capacity, no-load zone dimensions,
and design earth pressure distribution.
• Recommendations on aggregate and borrow materials, including sketches of
local sources and regional location maps, the quality of materials and their suitability
for the different road structures, and estimated quantity. The limits of the material
source relative to the proposed alignment should be defined, the approximate quantity
of material available described, the amount of overburden to be stripped, and material
excavation characteristics.
• Geotechnical recommendations for bridges and hydraulic structures,
foundation options considered, foundation design requirements (for strength limit
state: the ultimate bearing resistance and depth, and lateral and uplift resistance; for
service limit state: settlement limited bearing, and any special design requirements),
seismic design parameters and recommendations (e.g., design acceleration coefficient,
soil profile type for response spectra development, liquefaction mitigation
requirements, extreme event limit state bearing, uplift, and lateral resistance, and soil
spring values), design considerations for scour if applicable, earth pressures on
abutments and walls in buried structures, and recommendations regarding bridge
approach slabs.
• Construction considerations. Address issues of construction staging, shoring needs
and potential installation difficulties, temporary slopes, potential foundation installation
problems, earthwork constructability issues, dewatering, etc.
• Long-term or construction monitoring needs which should include
recommendations on the types of instrumentation required to evaluate long-term
performance or to control construction, and the zone of influence for each instrument.
• Appendices. Typical appendices should include layouts showing boring locations
relative to the project features and stationing, subsurface profiles and typical cross-
sections that illustrate subsurface stratigraphy at key locations, all boring logs used for
the project design (includes older borings as well as new borings), including a boring
log legend for each type of log, laboratory test data obtained, instrumentation
measurement results, and special provisions needed, design charts for foundation
bearing and uplift, design detail figures.

9.2.3 General reporting information and good practice

9.2.3.1 Presentation of Subsurface Investigation Information

The Geotechnical Engineer will present the results of the subsurface investigation with
each Geotechnical Report in the form of plotted borings on proposed plans and profiles
and cross sections where applicable. The plotted borings may be abbreviated but must
include soil and rock classifications, Standard Penetration Test values, unconfined
compression test results and a water table symbol all plotted with depth. All plots should
be plotted to an appropriate engineering scale.
Information will be such that boring location and stratigraphy is presented in a meaningful
way. It is preferred that geotechnical information be presented relative to the proposed
structures such that engineers can readily determine the locations of foundation elements
and other features with respect to the borings, soundings, and geophysical studies.
Final boring logs are to be included with the report. The logs are to be checked/validated
to ensure that information is correct and that relevant information from field logs is
presented (such as the presence of rocks, boulders, artesian conditions, environmental
comments, any unusual drilling/sealing conditions, and any equipment problems

(203)
experienced). Project identification number according to ANE, elevations, coordinates and
driller information must be included on all final boring and sounding logs.

9.2.3.2 Project Information

The Geotechnical Report shall contain a separate section labelled “Project Information”.
This section will include an overview of information about the type of structure analysed,
the location of the structure and any other pertinent information (such as earlier structure
numbers and any previous construction or maintenance problems or considerations) which
aids in the general description of the design. This section may also include information on
construction sequencing or background on design selection or functional requirements.
This section may be supplemented with additional information or with other sections such
as “Project Background” if the report is a part of a series of investigations, or if substantial
previous work exists to help lend context to the content of the current report.

9.2.3.3 Subsurface Investigation Summary

The Geotechnical Report shall contain a separate section labelled “Subsurface
Investigation Summary”. This section will include information about the geophysical
investigations, borings, soundings, or other advances undertaken for the site, a brief
description of the foundation soil and rock conditions at the site and a summary of the
water table measurements taken and an interpretation of the static water level.
This section, or a similar section should contain and address any relevant discoveries, such
as highly variable sites, presence of cobbles and boulders, problematic rock deposits (such
as karst areas), compressible clay soils, organic materials, or unusual circumstances such
as urban fill or any apparent soil contamination.

9.2.3.4 Geotechnical Analysis

The Geotechnical Report will contain a separate section labelled “Foundation Analysis”. For
this section, the Geotechnical engineer will summarise the results of a detailed
geotechnical engineering analysis to identify critical design elements and provide a basis
for geotechnical recommendations. At a minimum, the Geotechnical Engineer will address
the following:
• A summary of the design assumptions including but not limited to information
about embankment fill heights, unit weights of fill, side slope and end slope angles,
bridge loading information (both axial and horizontal), retaining wall loading
information, design methodologies, and other pertinent information will be provided.
• For structures, suitable foundation types will be assessed and alternate foundation
types reviewed.
• For embankments, the overall stability will be assessed including a bearing capacity
analysis, settlement analysis and global stability analysis. If necessary, the
Geotechnical Engineer will provide a settlement analysis for the use of wick drains,
surcharge embankments, and lightweight fill material. In addition, an estimate of the
time rate of settlement will be included to account for the primary and secondary
settlement that may be expected over the life of the project.
• For spread footing foundations, a bearing capacity and settlement analysis will be
provided. The analysis will include a summary of the allowable and ultimate bearing
capacities and the assumed safety factors. The analysis will include an estimate of the
total and differential settlements anticipated for each structure analysed. Differential
settlements for retaining walls will be calculated based on 10 m spacing. In addition,
an estimate of the time rate of settlement will be included to account for the primary
and secondary settlement that may be expected over the life of the project. All spread
footings will be designed for a minimum embedment depth of 1.5m.
• For piles and drilled shafts, ultimate capacity figures will be developed that show
the capacity in relation to tip elevation for both compression and tension. In addition,
downdrag and lateral squeeze will be reviewed. Lateral earth pressure calculations

(204)
 including parameters for P-y curve development for structures subject to horizontal
loads will be developed. Minimum tip elevations, casing requirements and estimates of
overdrive will be provided.
• All foundation elements will be designed to account for losses in lateral and axial
capacities resulting from calculated design scour depths.
• Analyses for structures supported on rock or tied to rock formations will be
addressed. This includes analyses for areas such as rock bolts and rock cuts.
• Construction considerations such as design of temporary slopes and shoring limits
will be addressed. Special provisions will be prepared for elements that may encounter
difficult ground conditions or that may require non-typical construction methods. Over-
excavation (sub-cuts) recommendations and backfill requirements will be discussed
and details prepared for the project. Construction staging requirements, where
applicable, will be addressed. Wet weather construction and temporary construction
water control will be evaluated.

9.2.3.5 Foundation Recommendations

The Geotechnical Report shall include a section labelled “Foundation Recommendations”.
This section will include definitive recommendations such as:
a) Ultimate and allowable bearing capacities and associated factors
b) Recommended footing sizes and embedment depths (or a chart indicating capacity
available based on effective footing sizes)
c) Recommended pile size and estimated lengths and tip elevations
d) Recommended drilled shaft dimensions and construction methods
e) Recommended slope angles for embankments
f) Waiting periods for embankment construction
g) Surcharge methods/system recommendations
h) Recommended foundation types, sizes, and embedment depths
i) Recommended rock cut slopes, including slope and subsurface drainage
recommendations
j) Top-soil excavations and muck and poor soil removal/excavations
k) Trench excavation slopes
l) Temporary slopes and shoring limits (where appropriate)
m) Rock excavation and any other recommendations as they apply to the design.

The recommendations are to be separated into two categories: General Recommendations

and Special Recommendations. The General Recommendations shall contain common
recommendations that are frequently repeated on projects, such as protecting foundations
from rain and constructing embankments at a suitable slope angle to improve
performance. The Special Recommendation section contains detailed information
important to the particular project. The information in this section is often project critical
and is based on a review of both the project site and design intent.

9.3 Information to be provided in a Geotechnical Design File

It is critical that documentation is provided that details of the basis of recommendations
made in the geotechnical report. This will assist in the following:
• for review by senior staff,
• for addressing future questions that may come up regarding the basis of the design
• to properly address changes that may occur after the geotechnical design is
completed
• to properly address questions regarding the design during construction
• to properly address problems or claims, and
• to provide a background for developing future projects in the same location, such
as bridge or fill widenings.

(205)
Since the engineer who does the original design may not necessarily be the one who deals
with any of these future activities, the documentation must be clear and concise, and easy
and logical to follow. Anyone who must look at the calculations and related documentation
should not have to go to the original designer to understand what was done.

9.4 Consultant Geotechnical Reports and Documentation produced

on behalf of ANE
Geotechnical reports and documentation produced by geotechnical consultants shall be
subject to the same reporting and documentation requirements as those provided by ANE.
The detailed analyses and/or calculations produced by the consultant in support of the
geotechnical report development shall be provided to ANE.
The checklists provided below are to aid ANE engineers with review of geotechnical reports
and plans and should also guide geotechnical consultant.

9.4.1 Checklist

Table 9-1 presents the general checklist. The detailed checklists covering the major
information and recommendations that should be addressed for specific geotechnical
features in project geotechnical reports are provided in Appendix B.

(206)
 Table 9-1: General geotechnical report checklist
General Y N N/A
Cover sheet
• Contract Number
• Report Title
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
• General recommendations
• Specific recommendations
• Description of special construction considerations recommendations
Introduction
Terms of reference
Project information supplied
Fieldwork
Site description
Existing geological conditions and effects on project (geography, topography,
physiographic, Description of any geologic hazards present (rockfalls, sinkholes,
wetlands, seismic
Geology
Region, geologic formations, unusual geologic conditions.
Subsoil condition
Laboratory testing
Summary
Recommendations for geotechnical features:
• Centerline Cuts and Embankments
• Embankments over Soft Ground .
• Landslide Corrections
• Retaining Structures
• Shallow Foundations
• Deep Foundations – Driven Piles and drilled Shafts
• Ground Improvement Techniques
• Material Sites
Tables
Appendices
• Typed Boring Logs
• Laboratory Test Results
• Results Analysis (slope stability)
• Site Specific Study (dispersivity, seismic)

(207)
9.5 Summary of Geotechnical Conditions
A Summary of Geotechnical Conditions should be mandatory for all projects that contain
bridges, walls, tunnels, unstable slope repairs, and significant earth work. The intent of
the Summary is to inform the contractor of what the geotechnical designers know or
strongly suspect about the subsurface conditions. The Summary of Geotechnical
Conditions should specifically contain the following information:
1. Describe subsurface conditions in plain language and avoid use of jargon and/or
nomenclature that contactors will not understand. Identify depths/thicknesses of the
soil or rock strata and their moisture state and density condition. Identify the
depth/elevation of groundwater and state its nature (e.g. perched, regional, artesian,
etc.). If multiple readings over time were obtained, identify dates and depths
measured, or as a minimum provide the range of depths measured and the dates the
highest and lowest water level readings were obtained. Also briefly describe the
method used to obtain the water level (e.g., open standpipe, sealed piezometer,
including what soil/rock unit the piezometer was sealed in, etc.). Refer to the boring
logs for detailed information. If referring to an anomalous soil, rock or groundwater
condition, refer to boring log designation where the anomaly was encountered.
Caution should also be exercised when describing strata depths. If depths/thicknesses
are based on only one boring, simply refer to the boring log for that information.
Comments regarding the potential for variability in the strata thicknesses may be
appropriate here. Also note that detailed soil/rock descriptions are not necessary if
those conditions will not impact the contractor’s construction activities. For example,
for fills or walls placed on footings, detailed information is only needed that would
support later discussion in this document regarding the workability of the surficial
soils, as well as the potential for settlement or instability and their effect on
construction.
2. For each structure, if necessary, state the impact the soil, rock or groundwater
condition may (will) have on construction. Where feasible, refer to boring log(s) or
data that provide the indication of risk. Be sure to mention the potential of risk for:
• Caving ground
• Slope instability due to temporary excavation, or as a result of a project element
(e.g. buttress, tieback wall, soil nail cuts)
• Settlement and its effect on how a particular structure or fill needs to be built
• Potential geotechnical impact of the construction of some elements on the
performance of adjacent elements that are, or are not, a part of the construction
contract (e.g., ground improvement performed at the toe of a wall could cause
movement of that wall)
• Groundwater flow and control, if anticipated, in construction excavations
• Dense layers (e.g., may inhibit pile driving, shaft or tunnel excavation, drilling for
nails, dowels or anchors)
• Obstructions, including cobbles or boulders, if applicable
• Excavation difficulties due to boulders, highly fractured or intact rock,
groundwater, or soft soil.
3. Where design assumptions and parameters can be affected by the manner in which
the structure is built, or if the assumptions or parameters can impact the contractor’s
construction methods, draw attention to these issues. This may include:
• Soil or rock strengths (e.g. point load tests, RQD, UCS, UU, CU tests, etc.)
• Whether shafts or piles are predominantly friction or end bearing by design
• The reasons for minimum tip elevations specified in the contract
• Downdrag loads and the effects on design/construction
• If certain construction methods are required or prohibited, state the (geotechnical)
reason for the requirement
• Liquefaction potential and impact on design/construction.
4. List of geotechnical reports or information. This should include the project specific
report and memoranda (copies at the Project Engineer’s office) as well as pertinent
reports that may be located elsewhere and may be historical or regional in nature.

(208)
5. The intent of the Summary is to inform the contractor of what the geotechnical
designers know or strongly suspect about the subsurface conditions. The summary
should be brief (1 or 2 pages). It should not include tabulations of all available data
(e.g. borehole logs, lab tests, etc.). Only that data that are pertinent to the adverse
construction conditions anticipated should be mentioned. It should not include sections
or commentary about structures or project elements about which the geotechnical
designer has no real concerns.

(209)
10 References and Bibliography
British Standard. BS 6349-4:2014 - Maritime structures: Part 4: Code of practice for
design of fendering and mooring systems.
British Standard. BS 6349-4:2019 - Maritime Works: Code of practice for design of
fendering and mooring.
Byrne, G., Chang, N and Raju, V (2019). A Guide to Practical Geotechnical Engineering in
Africa. 5th Edition. Franki A Keller Company.
Chae, B-G, Park, H-Jin, Catani, F, Simoni, A, and Berti M (2017) Landslide prediction,
monitoring and early warning: a concise review of state-of-the-art Geoscience Journal,
Vol. 21, No. 6, p. 1033−1070, December 2017
Caquot, A. and Kerisel, F. (1948). “Tables for the Calculation of Passive Pressure, Active
Pressure and Bearing Capacity of Foundations,” Gauthier-Villars, Paris
Jordi Corominas1, Ramon Copons2, Joan Manuel Vilaplana3,Joan Altimir2 And Jordi Amigó
(2003) Integrated Landslide Susceptibility Analysis and Hazard Assessment in the
Principality of Andorra. Natural Hazards 30: 421–435, 2003.
Craig R.F (2004) Criag’s Soil mechanics. 7th Edition, Spon Press London EC4P 4EE
DiBiagio, E., Kjekstad, O., (2007). EarlyWarning, Instrumentation and Monitoring
Landslides. 2nd Regional Training Course, RECLAIM II, 29th January - 3rd February 2007.
ERA (2013). Geotechnical Design Manual. Ethiopian roads Authority.
FHWA NHI Manual, Publication Number: FHWA-HRT-14-094. February 2015.
Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 4. Ground Anchors And Anchored Systems.
Publication No. FHWA-IF-99-015, Office of Bridge Technology 400 Seventh Street, SW
Washington, DC 20590. June 1999
Holtz, R. D., Christopher, B. R., and Berg, R. R., 1995, Geosynthetic Design and
Construction Guidelines, Federal Highway Administration, FHWA HI-95-038.
Hungr, O., Corominas, J., and. Eberhardt, E (2005) Estimating landslide motion
mechanism, travel distance and velocity. In: Hungr, O., Fell, R., Couture, R and Eberhardt,
E. (eds). Landslide risk management. Proceedings, Vancouver Conference. Taylor and
Francis Group, London.
Hunt, R.E (1986). Geotechnical Engineering Techniques and Practices. McGraw-Hill Book
Company. New York.
INGC, UNDP (2011) Mozambique, GRIP— Disaster Risk Assessment in Mozambique: A
Comprehensive Analysis of Country Situation (http://www.gripweb.org)
JKR. (2012). Guidelines for Slope Design. JKR 21500-0011-10. Slope Engineering Branch,
Malaysia.
Keller, G and Sherar, Jn (2003). Low-Volume Roads Engineering Best Management
Practices Field Guide. US Agency for International Development (USAID)
Leroueil, S. (1987). “Tenth Canadian geotechnical colloquium: recent developments in
consolidation of natural clays.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 25, 85-107.
Li, T. (1983). A mathematical model for predicting the extent of a major rockfall. Zeitschrift
für Geomorphologie 24: 473-482.
MnDOT (2017). Geotechnical Engineering Manual, Geotechnical Engineering Section.
Minnesota Department of Transport.
NYSDOT (2013). Highway Design Manual: Chapter 9 - Soils, Walls, and Foundations. New
York State Department of Transport

(210)
NYSDOT (2018). Geotechnical Design Manual: Chapter 21 Geotechnical Aspects of Pipe
Design and Installation. New York State Department of Transport.
Meyerhof, G.G. (1956) Penetration tests and bearing capacity of cohesionless soils,
Proceedings ASCE, 82, No. SM1, Paper 866, pp. 1–19.
Paju,T and Covane, L. (2016). Preliminary Vulnerability Assessment Report. Consultancy
Services to “Provide Technical Assistance to Develop Capacity for a Climate Resilient Road
Sector” RFP No.: 08/DG/360/2016
Pierson, L.A, Gullixson, C.F., Ronald,F., Chassie, G. (2001). Rockfall Catchment Area
Design Guide. FINAL REPORT SPR-3(032). Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
December 2001.
Rixner, J.J., Kraemer, S.R. and Smith, A.D., Prefabricated Vertical Drains, Vol. I:
Engineering Guidelines, Vol. II: Summary of Research Effort, US Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Publication No. FHWA/RD-86/168 & 169,
August, 1986
Sabatini, P.J., Pass, D.G and Bachus R.C. (1999). Ground Anchors and Anchored Systems
Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 4 1. Report No. FHWA-IF-99-015. Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA). June 1999.
Samtani, N.C and Nowatzki, E.A. (2006) Soils and Foundations Reference Manual – Volume
I, Report FHWA-NHI–06-088 National Highway Institute U.S. Department of
Transportation.
Shukla, S.K., Sivakugan, N and Das, B.M. (200). Methods for determination of the
coefficient of consolidation and field observations of time rate of settlement — an overview.
International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering (2009) 3: (89-108)
Stark, T.D., and Olson, S.M. (1995). Liquefaction resistance using CPT and field case
histories. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 121(12): 856–869
Van der Merwe, D.H. (1964). Prediction of Heave from the Plasticity Index and Percent
Fraction of Soils. The Civil Engineer in South Africa, Vol 6, No 6, June 1964, pp 103-107.
VDOT (2012). Manual of Instruction (MOI): Chapter III - GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING.
Willey, D.C (1991). Rock slope stabilization and protection measures. National Symposium
of Highway and Railway Slope Maintenance. Symposium Series No 6. Association of
Engineering Geologists.
Winterkorn, H.F and Fang, H. (1975). Foundation Engineering Handbook. Van Nostrand
Reinhold Company. New York.
Weston, D.J. (1977). Expansive Soils and Road Construction in South Africa. National
Institute for Transport and Road Research.
WSDOT (2010). Geotechnical Design Manual (M 46-03.01). Environmental and
Engineering Programs. Washington State Department of Transport. 2010.

(211)
Appendix A. Example of subsurface exploration log

(212)
Appendix B. Checklists for review of Geotechnical
Reports (FHWA, 2003)

All response other than (yes) or (N/A) for any of the checklist questions in BLUE
requires to contact the appropriate geotechnical engineer for a clarification and/or to
discuss the project.

SITE INVESTIGATION INFORMATION

See section 2 and 3
Geotechnical Report Text (Introduction) Yes No N/A
1. Is the general location of the investigation described and/or a vicinity map
included?
2. Is scope and purpose of the investigation summarized?
3. Is concise description given of geologic setting and topography of area?
4. Are the field explorations and laboratory tests on which the report is
based listed?
5. Is the general description of subsurface soil rock, and groundwater
conditions given?
6. Is the following information included with the geotechnical report
(typically included in the report appendices):
a. Test hole logs?
b. Field test data
c. Laboratory test data?
d. Photographs (if pertinent)?
Plan and Subsurface Profile
7. Is a plan and subsurface profile of the investigation site provided?
8. Are the field explorations located on the plan view?
9. Does the conducted site investigation meet minimum criteria outlined in
(3.1)?
10. Are the explorations plotted and correctly numbered on the profile at
their true elevation and location?
11. Does the subsurface profile contain a word description and/or graphic
depiction of soil and rock types?
12. Are groundwater levels and date measured shown on the subsurface
profile?
Subsurface Profile or Field Boring Log
13. Are sample types and depths recorded?
14. Are SPT blow count, percent core recovery, and RQD values shown?
15. If cone penetration tests were made, are plots of cone resistance and
friction ratio shown with depth?
Laboratory Test Data

(213)
16. Were lab soil classification tests such as natural moisture content,
gradation, Atterberg limits, performed on selected representative
samples to verify field visual soil identification?
17. Are laboratory test results such as shear strength, consolidation, etc.,
included and/or summarized?

CENTERLINE CUTS AND EMBANKMENTS

See section 4.5
Are station-to-station descriptions included for: Yes No N/A
1. Existing surface and subsurface drainage?
2. Evidence of springs and excessively wet areas?
3. Slides, slumps (mass movement), and faults noted along the
alignment?
General Soil Cut or Fill
4. Specific surface/subsurface drainage recommendations?
5. Excavation limits of unsuitable materials?
6. Erosion protection measures for back slopes, side slopes, and
ditches, including riprap recommendations or special slope
treatment.
Soil Cuts
7. Recommended cut slope design?
8. Special usage of excavated soils?
9. Estimated shrink-swell factors for excavated materials?
10. If answer to 3 is yes, are recommendations provided for design
treatment?
Fills
11. Recommended fill slope design?
12. Will fill slope design provide minimum F.S. = 1.25?
Rock Slopes
13. Are recommended slope designs and blasting specifications
provided?
14. Is the need for special rock slope stabilization measures, e.g.,
rockfall catch ditch, wire mesh slope protection, shotcrete, rock
bolts, addressed?
15. Has the designing of all rock slopes on 0.25:1 rather than
designing based on orientation of major rock jointing been
avoided?
16. Have effects of blast induced vibrations on adjacent structures
been evaluated?

EMBANKMENTS OVER SOFT GROUND 4.2, 4.3

Embankment Stability Yes No N/A
1. Has the stability of the embankment been evaluated for
minimum F.S. = 1.25 for side slope and 1.30 for end slope of
bridge approach embankments?

(214)
2. Has the shear strength of the foundation soil been determined
from lab testing and/or field vane shear or cone penetrometer
tests?
3. If the proposed embankment does not provide minimum factors
of safety given above, are recommendations given or feasible
treatment alternates, which will increase factor of safety to
minimum acceptable (such as change alignment, lower grade,
use stabilizing counterberms, excavate and replace weak subsoil,
lightweight fill, geotextile fabric reinforcement, etc.)?
4. Are cost comparisons of treatment alternates given and a specific
alternate recommended?
Settlement of Subsoil see section
5. Have consolidation properties of fine-grained soils been
determined from laboratory consolidation tests?
6. Have settlement amount and time been estimated?
7. For bridge approach embankments, are recommendations made
to get the settlement out before the bridge abutment is
constructed (waiting period, surcharge, or wick drains)?
8. If geotechnical instrumentation is proposed to monitor fill
stability and settlement, are detailed recommendations provided
on the number, type, and specific locations of the proposed
instruments?
Construction Considerations
9. If excavation and replacement of unsuitable shallow surface
deposits (peat, muck, top soil) is recommended, are vertical and
lateral limits of recommended excavation provided?
10. Where a surcharge treatment is recommended, are plan and
cross-section of surcharge treatment provided in geotechnical
report for benefit of the roadway designer?
11. Are instructions or specifications provided concerning
instrumentation, fill placement rates and estimated delay times
for the contractor?
12. Are recommendations provided for disposal of surcharge material
after the settlement period is complete?

LANDSLIDE CORRECTIONS
See section 4.6
General Yes No N/A
1. Is a site plan and scaled cross-section provided showing ground
surface conditions both before and after failure?
2. Is the past history of the slide area summarized, including
movement history, summary of maintenance work and costs, and
previous corrective measures taken, if any?
3. Is a summary given of results of site investigation, field and lab
testing, and stability analysis, including cause(s) of the slide?
Plan
4. Are detailed slide features, including location of ground surface
cracks, head scarp, and toe bulge, shown on the site plan?
Cross-section

(215)
5. Are the cross-sections used for stability analysis included with
the soil profile, water table, soil unit weights, soil shear
strengths, and failure plane shown as it exists?
6. Is slide failure plane location determined from slope indicators?
7. For an active slide, was soil strength along the slide failure plane
back-calculated using a F.S. = 1.0 at the time of failure?
8. Is the following information presented for each proposed
correction alternative (typical correction methods include
buttress, shear key, rebuild slope, surface drainage, subsurface
drainage-interceptor, drain trenches or horizontal drains, etc.).
a. Cross-section of proposed alternative?
b. Estimated safety factor?
c. Estim ated cost?
d. Advantages and disadvantages?
9. Is recommended correction alternative(s) given that provide a
minimum F.S. = 1.25?
10. If horizontal drains are proposed as part of slide correction, has
subsurface investigation located definite water bearing strata that
can be tapped with horizontal drains?
11. If a toe counterberm is proposed to stabilize an active slide has
field investigation confirmed that the toe of the existing slide
does not extend beyond the toe of the proposed counterberm?
Construction considerations
12. Where proposed correction will require excavation into the toe of
an active slide (such as for buttress or shear key) has the “during
construction backslope F.S.” with open excavation been
determined?
13. If open excavation F.S. is near 1.0, has excavation stage
construction been proposed?
14. Has seasonal fluctuations of groundwater table been considered?
15. Is stability of excavation backslope to be monitored?
16. Are special construction features, techniques and materials
described and specified?

RETAINING STRUCTURES
Section 4.4
Design and analysis Yes No N/A
1. Recommended soil strength parameters and groundwater elevations for
use in computing wall design lateral earth pressures and factor of safety
for overturning, sliding, and external slope stability.
2. Is it proposed to bid alternate wall designs?
3. Are acceptable reasons given for the choice and/or exclusion of certain
wall types?
4. Is an analysis of the wall stability included with minimum acceptable
factors of safety against overturning (F.S. = 2.0), sliding (F.S. = 1.5), and
external slope stability (F.S. = 1.5)?

(216)
5. If wall will be placed on compressible foundation soils, is estimated total,
differential and time rate of settlement given?
6. Will wall types selected for compressible foundation soils allow
differential movement without distress?
7. Are wall drainage details, including materials and compaction, provided?
Construction Considerations
8. Are excavation requirements covered including safe slopes for open
excavations or need for sheeting or shoring?
9. Fluctuation of groundwater table?
10. For soil nail and anchor walls are the following included in the
geotechnical report?
Top-down Construction Type Walls
a. Design soil parameters (φ, c, γ)
b. Minimum bore size (soil nails)?
c. Design pullout resistance (soil nails)?
d. Ultimate anchor capacity (anchors)?
e. Corrosion protection requirements?

STRUCTURE FOUNDATIONS – SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

See section 4.2.6.1
Recommendations Yes No N/A
1. Are spread footing recommended for foundation support? If not,
are reasons for not using them discussed?
If spread footing supports are recommended, are conclusions and
recommendations given for the following:
2. Is recommended bottom of footing elevation and reason for
recommendation (e.g., based on frost depth, estimated scour
depth, or depth to competent bearing material) given?
3. Is recommended allowable soil or rock bearing pressure given?
4. Is estimated footing settlement and time given?
5. Where spread footings are recommended to support abutments
placed in the bridge end fill, are special gradation and
compaction requirements provided for select end fill and backwall
drainage material
Construction Considerations
6. Have the materials been adequately described on which the
footing is to be placed so the project inspector can verify that
material is as expected?
7. Have excavation requirements been included for safe slopes in
open excavations, need for sheeting or shoring, etc.?
8. Has fluctuation of the groundwater table been addressed?

(217)
 STRUCTURE FOUNDATIONS – DRIVEN PILES
Section 4.2.6.2
Recommendations Yes No N/A
1. Is the recommended pile type given (displacement, non-displacement,
steel pipe, concrete, H-pile, etc.) with valid reasons given for choice
and/or exclusion?
2. Do you consider the recommended pile type(s) to be the most suitable
and economical?
3. Are estimated pile lengths and estimated tip elevations given for the
recommended allowable pile design loads?
4. Do you consider the recommended design loads to be reasonable?
5. If a specified or minimum pile tip elevation is recommended, is a clear
reason given for the required tip elevation, such as underlying soft layers,
scour, downdrag, piles uneconomically long, etc.?
6. Has design analysis (wave equation analysis) verified that the
recommended pile section can be driven to the estimated or specified tip
elevation without damage (especially applicable where dense gravel-
cobble-boulder layers or other obstructions have to be penetrated)?
7. Where scour piles are required, have pile design and driving criteria been
established based on mobilizing the full pile design capacity below the
scour zone?
8. Where lateral load capacity of large diameter piles is an important design
consideration, are p-y curves (load vs. deflection) or soil parameters given
in the geotechnical report to allow the structural engineer to evaluate
lateral load capacity of all piles?
9. For pile supported bridge abutments over soft ground:
a) Has abutment downdrag load been estimated and solutions such
bitumen coating been considered in design? Not generally required if
surcharging of the fill is being performed.
b) Is bridge approach slab recommended to moderate differential
settlement between bridge ends and fill?
c) If the majority of subsoil settlement will not be removed prior to
abutment construction (by surcharging), has estimate been made of
abutment rotation that can occur due to lateral squeeze of soil
subsoil?
d) d. Does the geotechnical report specifically alert the structural
designer to the estimated horizontal abutment movement?
10. If bridge project is large, has pile load test program been recommended?
11. For major structure in high seismic risk area, has assessment been made
of liquefaction potential of foundation soil during design earthquake (only
loose saturated sands and silts are susceptible to liquefaction)?
Construction Considerations
12. Pile driving details such as: boulders or obstructions which may be
encountered during driving; need for pre-augering, jetting, spudding;
need for pile tip reinforcement; driving shoes, etc.?
13. Excavation requirements: safe slope for open excavations; need for
sheeting or shoring; fluctuation of groundwater table?

(218)
14. Have effects of pile driving operation on adjacent structures been
evaluated such as protection against damage caused by footing
excavation or pile driving vibrations?
15. Is preconstruction condition survey to be made of adjacent structures to
prevent unwarranted damage claims?
16. On large pile driving projects, have other methods of pile driving control
been considered such as dynamic testing or wave equation analysis?

STRUCTURE FOUNDATIONS –DRILLED SHAFTS

See section 4.2.6.2
Recommendations Yes No N/A
1. Are recommended shaft diameter(s) and length(s) for allowable
design loads based on an analysis using soil parameters for side
friction and end bearing?
2. Settlement estimated for recommended design loads?
3. Where lateral load capacity of shaft is an important design
consideration, are p-y (load vs. deflection) curves or soils data
provided in geotechnical report that will allow structural engineer
to evaluate lateral load capacity of shaft?
4. Is static load test (to plunging failure) recommended?
Construction Considerations
5. Have construction methods been evaluated, i.e., can less
expensive dry method or slurry method be used or will casing be
required?
6. If casing will be required, can casing be pulled as shaft is
concreted (this can result in significant cost savings on very large
diameter shafts)?
7. If artesian water was encountered in explorations, have design
provisions been included to handle it (such as by requiring casing
and a tremie seal)?
8. Will boulders be encountered? (If boulders will be encountered,
then the use of shafts should be seriously questioned due to
construction installation difficulties and resultant higher cost to
boulders can cause.)

GROUND IMPROVEMENT TECHNIQUES

See section 5
Recommendations Yes No N/A
1. For wick drains, do recommendations include the coefficient of
consolidation for horizontal drainage, ch, and the length and
spacing of wick drains?
2. For lightweight fill, do recommendations include the material
properties (φ, c, γ), permeability, compressibility, and drainage
requirements?

(219)
3. For vibro-compaction, do the recommendations include required
degree of densification (e.g., relative density, SPT blow count,
etc.), settlement limitations, and quality control?
4. For dynamic compaction, do the recommendations include
required degree of densification (e.g., relative density, SPT blow
count, etc.), settlement limitations, and quality control?
5. For stone columns, do the recommendations include spacing and
dimensions of columns, bearing capacity, settlement
characteristics, and permeability (seismic applications)?
6. For grouting, do the recommendations include the grouting
method (permeation, compaction, etc.), material improvement
criteria, settlement limitations, and quality control?

MATERIAL SITES
See section 6.3
Recommendations Yes No N/A
1. Material site location, including description of existing or
proposed access routes and bridge load limits, if any?
2. Have soil samples representative of all materials encountered
during pit investigation been submitted and tested?
3. Are laboratory quality test results included in the report?
4. For aggregate sources, do the laboratory quality test results
(such as L.A. abrasion, sodium sulfate, degradation, absorption,
reactive aggregate, etc.) indicate if specification materials can be
obtained from the deposit using normal processing methods?
5. If the lab quality test results indicate that specification material
cannot be obtained from the pit materials as they exist naturally,
has the source been rejected or are detailed recommendations
provided for processing or controlling production so as to ensure
a satisfactory product?
6. For soil borrow sources, have possible difficulties been noted,
such as above optimum moisture content for clay-silt soils, waste
due to high PI, boulders, etc.?
7. Where high moisture content clay-silt soils must be used, are
recommendations provided on the need for aeration to allow the
materials to dry out sufficiently to meet compaction requirements?
8. Are estimated shrink-swell factors provided
9. Do the proven material site quantities satisfy the estimated project
quantity needs?
10. Where materials will be executed from below the water table, have
seasonal fluctuations of the water table been determined?
11. Are special permit requirements been covered?
12. Have pit reclaimation requirements been covered adequately?
13. Has a material site sketch (plan and profile) been provided for inclusion in
the plans, which contains:
a. Material site number?
b. North arrow and legal subdivision?
c. Test hole or test pit logs, locations, numbers and date?
d. Water table elevation and date?

(220)
 e. Depth of unsuitable overburden, which will have to be stripped?
f. Suggested overburden disposal area?
g. Proposed mining area and previously mined areas?
h. Existing stockpile locations?
i. Existing or suggested access road?
j. Bridge load limits?
k. Reclaimation details?
14. Are recommended special provisions provided?

(221)
Appendix C. Illustrative Worked Examples on Piles and
Staged Backfill Construction

Precast driven pile example

A new jetty is to be designed and constructed. A geotechnical investigation has been
undertaken to establish the nature, depth and extent of the subsoils underlying the
footprint of the proposed jetty.
The boreholes were put down employing the washboring technique with Standard
Penetration Tests (SPT) carried at one metre intervals. For illustration, the results of
standard penetration tests shown in Borehole Log DH-12 (Appendix A) are assumed to
be from one of the locations along the alignment of the proposed jetty.
According to DH-12, the subsoil is mainly the layer of med-coarse sand and fine sand
clay, of which the structure is relatively density. The boreholes put down along the
alignment of the new bridge were drilled to depths of 51.6m below surface.

The results from a geotechnical report provides the following details:

INPUT DATA
Borehole Depth (m) SPT N’
From To Max Min Mean
DH-12 0.0 9.4 3.5 2.9 3.2
9.4 19.5 13.9 11.7 12.4
19.5 27.5 14.0 11.0 12.8
27.5 34.2 27.0 17.0 22.0
34.2 40.2 31.0 26.0 28.5
40.2 51.6 27.0 21.0 23.8

Requirements:
Determine the minimum depth (Db), a precast concrete pile 500 x 500mm in section,
must be driven to, if the pile is required to support a design compressive load of 700
kN and to withstand a design uplift load of 150 kN. Determine the depth:
(a) according to the traditional method with an overall load factor of 2.0 and
(b) according to the limit state method.

Analytical Procedures Calculations

1. Calculate the required bearing and uplift Bearing resistance Abqb:
resistance of the pile: = 2.0 x 700 = 1400 kN
Abqb + Asqs
Ab: area of pile base Uplift resistance, Asqs:

As: area of pile shaft = 2.0 x 150 = 300 kN

(222)
2. Calculate the ultimate bearing capacity, The calculations are set out in a table
which is the pressure that would cause form as shown in table below.
shear failure of the supporting soil
immediately below and adjacent to the
pile, from the SPT results.
The N-values are extracted from the
Geotechnical Report

Using Meyerhof ’s correlations,

𝑞𝑏 = 40𝑁𝐷𝑏 /𝐵 ≥ 400𝑁(𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚2 ) eq. 4-45
̅ (𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚2 )
𝑞𝑠 = 2𝑁 eq. 4-49

3. Determine the required depth of the From the Borehole Log, the location
pile to ensure that it is capable of is mainly underlain by clay and fine
supporting the required loading sand clay. It is evident from 5 to 19
m the soil is mostly silty fine sand.
By inspection from the table, 300 kN
of uplift can be provided at a depth of
at least 13.0m
However, that will not provide the
required bearing resistance.
By inspection, the pile should be
driven to a depth of 23.4m
Limit state method.
1. Calculate the values of qb and qs The Meyerhof ’s correlations used
to give the characteristic values (qbk above are divided by 1.50
and qsk).
2. Calculate the characteristic bearing and
uplift resistances.
For a driven pile a partial factor of 1.30
is applied to both the characteristic
bearing and uplift resistances

Required design bearing resistance, Rbd = 1.3 x 700 = 910 kN

Required design uplift resistance, Rsd = 1.3 x 150 = 195 kN
3. Determine the required depth of the Using the required bearing and uplift
pile, to ensure that it is capable of values and by inspection, the pile
supporting the required loading should be driven to a depth of 23.14
m.
Note
• The example illustrates a global assessment for preliminary design. In a detailed analysis, use
N-values for each layer thickness to complete the table.
• Alternative pile types should be considered. For example, cast in place pile length may be
limited. An alternative pile type is the Continuous Flight Auger (CFA) pile.

(223)
Db (m) N ̅
𝑵 Asqs qb (kN/m2) Abqb Abqb + Asqs
(kN) (kN)
𝟒𝟎 400N
𝐍𝐃𝐛
𝟎. 𝟓
9.4 3 3.2 120 2406 602 722
19.5 12 8.0 624 19344 4960 1240 1864
27.5 13 9.5 1045 5120 1280 2325
34.2 22 13 1778.4 8800 2200 3978
40.2 29 16 2572.8 11400 2850 5423
51.6 24 17 3508.8 9520 2380 5889

(224)
Under-reamed bored pile example
A geotechnical investigation has been undertaken to establish the nature extent of the
subsoils. The results of the subsoil conditions in terms of undrained strength as shown
below. an assessment of the bearing resistance of an under-reamed bored pile is
required:
1. Using the traditional method to ensure (i) an overall load factor of 2 and (ii) a
load factor of 3 under the base when shaft resistance is fully mobilized, and
2. According to the limit state method.

INPUT DATA:
• Shaft diameter: 1.10 m
• Under-reamed base: 3.15 m
• Pile length extends from: 4.5 m to 23.5 m
• Depth of top of under-ream: 21.5 m
• Unit weight of clay: 20 kN/m3
• Unit weight of concrete: 23.5 kN/m3

Analytical Procedures Calculations

1. Calculate end bearing capacity At base level (23.5 m) the undrained
qb = cuNc from equation 4-53 strength is 229.4 kN/m2

Nc = 6[1+0.2(Z/D)] ≤9 qb = 229.4 x 9 = 2065 kN/m2

Where
D = diameter of drilled shaft (m)
Z = penetration of shaft (m)

(225)
2. Calculate skin friction capacity. Between 4.5 and 19.3 m average (cautious
value) is 151.84 kN/m2
qs = αcu from equation 4-54 qs = 0.4 x 151.84 = 60.74 kN/m2
α = 0.4
It is recommended to disregard skin friction
over a length of 2D above the top of the
under-ream, below a depth of 19.3 m.

3. Calculate the ultimate load 𝜋

( 𝑥3.152 𝑥2065) + 𝜋 𝑥 1.10 𝑥 14.8 𝑥 60.74
4
Qf = Abqb + Asqs = 16 093 + 3108
= 19 201 kN

4. Calculate the allowable load. The allowable is the lesser of:

𝑄𝑓 19 201
= = 9 601 kN
2 2
𝐴𝑏 𝑞𝑏 16093
+ 𝐴𝑠 𝑞𝑠 = + 3108 = 8472 kN
3 3

5. Calculate the total allowable load

The allowable load is increased by:

(𝛾𝐷𝐴𝑏 − 𝑊)/3 1 𝜋 𝜋
{(20 𝑥 19 𝑥 𝑥 3.152 ) − (23.5 𝑥 19 𝑥 𝑥 1.102 )}
3 4 4
This takes into account the difference = 1/3(2961 – 424) = 846 kN
between the pressure removed at the
base of the under-ream due to boring = 8472 + 846
of the shaft and the pressure = 9320 kN
subsequently applied due to the
weight of the pile

Limit state method

6. Calculate the characteristic undrained
strength at base level

𝑐𝑢 229.4
𝑐𝑢𝑘 = = 154 kN/m2
1.5 1.5

7. Calculate the average value of

undrained strength between 4.5 and
19 m

𝑐𝑢𝑎𝑣
𝑐𝑠𝑘 =
1.5 151.84
= 101.2 kN/m2
1.5

8. Calculate the characteristic value of

base resistances per unit area4
154 x 9 = 1386 kN/m2
Nc = 9

(226)
9. Calculate the characteristic value of 0.4 x 101.2 = 40.5 kN/m2
the shaft resistance per unit area:
α = 0.4
10. Calculate the characteristics base 𝜋
resistance Rbk 𝑥 3.152 𝑥 1386
4
= 11731 kN
11. Calculate the characteristic shaft 𝜋 𝑥 1.10 𝑥 14.8 𝑥 40.5
resistance Rsk
= 2071 kN
12. Calculate the design bearing resistance
Rcd

The appropriate partial factors for a 11731 2071

+
bored pile are: 1.6 1.3
𝛾𝑏 = 1.60 and = 7332 + 1593
𝛾𝑠 = 1.30
= 8925 kN

(227)
 Staged fill construction design example (Total stress approach)

INPUT DATA

Gravel fill Soft Silt

Friction angle (∅): 36° Coefficient of consolidation (CV): 0.093
Unit weight (𝛾𝑇 ): 20.42 kN/m3 m2/day
Friction angle (∅𝑐𝑢 ): 17°
Dense Sand Friction angle, drained (∅𝐶𝐷 ): 27°
Friction angle (∅): 40° Undrained strength (Cuu): 7.67 kN/m2
Unit weight (𝛾𝑇 ): 19.64 kN/m3 Unit weight (𝛾𝑇 ): 14.14 kN/m3

Analytical Procedures Calculations

1. Carry out stability analysis Refer to sections:
4.2.1
First step is to assess the slope stability of the 4.3.5.9
embankment geometry, considering short-term Table 4-6 for different methods of
condition, i.e undrained condition. analysis.

A minimum long-term FS value of 1.25 is

required
Bishop’s simple method of slices is used
On the basis of stability inadequacy and to
ensure that there is gain of strength to support
the fill, staged construction is used as a form
of mitigation in the construction of the
embankment.
2. Calculate first stage fill height stability

Use this initial fill height as a starting point for

both the total stress and the effective stress Stability analysis is repeated using
analyses. Bishop’s simple method of slices, but
with fill height to provide minimum FS.
The fill height should provide a FS that is equal Fill height of 1.82 m
to or greater than the minimum acceptable
interim value. This example used FS = 1.15 to
1.2 as minimum.

(228)
3. Calculate strength gain due to initial fill

This is achieved by calculating the stress

increase due to the placement of the first stage Refer to Section 4.3.5.2
fill.

Subdivide the soft silt layer into layers and

zones for analysis as illustrated below.

The embankment width (B) is given by: 10.67 + (4 x 6.10) – (2 x 1.82)

= 31.40 m

Stress increases in the zones are as follows based on an equivalent strip footing width of
31.40 m and using the Boussinesq stress distribution method. Thus zone 3 is close to the
centre and is only used later in the analysis.

4. Calculate rate and time for consolidation

The relationship between the rate and time of

consolidation is dependent on the time factor
Tv, the degree of consolidation U and the
drainage path length.

The soft silt can drain on top as well as at

Drainage path = (H/2), where H is the height

of the soft silt layer.

(229)
 Assuming that stage 1 fill is allowed to
consolidate for two weeks (14 days), the
percent consolidation is calculated from:
14 days (0.093 m2/day)/(9.15/2)2
T = tCv/H2 equation 4-91: = 0.062

T = 0.25𝜋𝑈 2 from equation 4-91a, for U <60% = 0.281

Degree of consolidation U = 28%

5. Calculate strength gain at 14 days with 28% Calculations tabulated below

consolidation

From equation 4-96

Strength gain at 14-day delay and would achieve 28% consolidation

6. Calculate strength gain assuming a delay of 60

days
Calculate Tv and U 60 days (0.093 m2/day)/(9.15/2)2
= 0.267

= 0.583
= 58%

Calculations provided in table below

Strength gain as 60 days delay and consolidation would be at 58%

Note: Avoid delay period of more than 2 months

7. Calculate the height of the next stage fill
Next is to increase the fill height, assess
the stability, until the factor of safety is
approximately 1.2 but not less than 1.15

(230)
 The total fill height is increased to 2.42 m
(0.60) of new fill is added) after the 14-day
delay period.

Effective embankment width becomes

10.67 + (4 x 6.10) – (2 x 2.42)
= 30.24 m

Assuming that the second stage, bringing the total fill height up to 2.42 m, is allowed to
settle for 16 days, calculate what would be Time Factor (T) and the percent consolidation (U)
to be achieved.
8. Calculate the average consolidation

Since the first stage lift is allowed 14 days to

consolidate and the second lift of soil is allowed
to consolidate for another 16 days, the soil will
actually have been consolidating for 30 days
total.

As before, use:
T = tCv/H2 equation 4-91: 30 days (0.093 m2/day)/(9.15/2)2
= 0.133
T = 0.25𝜋𝑈 2 from equation 4-91a, for U <60%
Degree of consolidation U = 0.411
= 41%
The average consolidation of the 14 + 16-day
delay period will be: {1.82m (0.41) + 0,60m (0.28)}/2.42m
= 0.377
= 38%
9. Calcutate the strength gain at 30 days and
38% average consolidation Calculations tabulated below

Notes:

(231)
Steps 7 and 8 are continued in an iterative process of adding fill, determining the weighted
average consolidation, subsequent strength gain, and stability analysis to determine the next
“safe” lift until the embankment is constructed full height (6.10 m). A minimum long-term
acceptable FS of 1.25 should be achieved.
As illustrated in Figure 4-25, consolidation/settlement of the embankment will slowly continue
after placing the final stage fill. It occurs when the soil continues to settle after the excess
pore water pressures are dissipated to a negligible level, i.e. primary consolidation is
essentially completed. This will cause increase in strength of the soft silt.
Summary of the process used for this example. The calculations on how to determine the
time required once the embankment is completed to cause the factor of safety to increase to
the minimum long-term acceptable FS of 1.25 are summarized as follows:

FS of 1.25 obtained after 25 days has elapsed following placement of the final fill layer

Strength gain after 155 days and 71% consolidation

The above example illustrates the total stress approach. On the other hand the effective
stress analysis, is used to determine the amount of pore pressure build up that can be
tolerated before the embankment safety factor drops to a critical level when using φCD for the
soil strength. This is assessed by determining the pore pressure ratio (ru), which is often
used to compare pore pressure increase with in-situ pore pressure measurements. Thus, the
pore pressure ratios that should not be exceeded during fill construction.

(232)
Anchored sheet pile wall example (Waterfront structures)
Sheet piles can be used in waterfront structures to retain sea water from flowing into the
required service areas. They also offer cost effective solutions for the required deep
dredging of harbours to allow for modern vessels in the construction of new ports.

INPUT DATA

Soil Layer 1: Soil Layer 3:

Friction angle: 32° Friction angle: 22°
Undrained strength (C): 17 kN/m2 Undrained strength (C): 50 kN/m2
Unit weight (𝛾𝑇 ): 18 kN/m3 Unit weight (𝛾𝑇 ): 19 kN/m3

Soil Layer 2: Boundary conditions

Friction angle: 28° Dredge depth: 12 m
Undrained strength (C): 28 kN/m2 Anchor depth: 2.0 m
Unit weight (𝛾𝑇 ): 19 kN/m3 Water depth: 4.0 m
Allowing for a surcharge pressure of 80
kN/m2 on the surface
Allowable section Modulus: 180 MPA

Required
1. Determine penetration depth D
2. Determine the anchor force per unit length of the sheet pile.

Analytical Procedures Calculations

1. Calculate active and passive earth Make reference to section 4.2.1 and 4.7.3.2
pressure coefficients for each layer

Active condition: 32°

K aL1 = tan2 (45° − ) = 0.31
2
φ
K a = tan2 (45° − )
2
(233)
 28°
K aL2 = tan2 (45 − ) = 0.36
2

22°
K aL3 = tan2 (45 − ) = 0.46
2
Passive condition:

The value of Kp is required for the third

layer, below the K pL3 = tan2 (45 +
22
) = 2.2
dredge line. 2

φ
K p = tan2 (45 + )
2

2. Calculate the net lateral earth pressure

at each depth Refer to pressure distribution definitions in
Figures: 4-6, 4-69, 4-70
Active condition:

σha = (q + γH)K a − 2c√K a

Passive condition

σhp = (q + γH)K p + 2c√K p

At z = 0.0 (above dredge line: active

pressure only) 𝜎ℎ,𝑎 = (80 + 18𝑥0)𝑥0.31 − 2𝑥17√0.31
= 5.87 kN/m2
∆𝜎ℎ = 𝜎ℎ,𝑝 − 𝜎ℎ,𝑎
(0 – 5.87) = -5.87 (say 6.0 kN/m2 in the
active direction)

At z = 4m (above dredge line: active (80 + 18 ×4) × 0.31 − 2 × 17 × √0.31

pressure only) = 28.25 kN/m2
just before (0 – 28.25) = -28.25 kN/m2

just after (Ka = 0.36 , C = 28 kN/m2) (80 + 18 × 4) × 0.36 − 2 × 28 × √0.36

= 21.12 kN/m2
(0 – 21.12) = - 21 kN/m2

At z = 12m (just before: active (80 + 18 × 4) + (19 − 10) × 8) × 0.36 − 2

pressure only)(Ka = 0.36 , C = 28) × 28 × √0.36
= 47.04 kN/m2
(0 – 47.04) = - 47 kN/m2

At z = 12 m (just after:active pressure

at right, passive pressure at left)
(Ka = 0.45 , Kp = 2.2 , C = 50) below
the drege line

Active pressure on the right:

𝜎ℎ,𝑎

(234)
 (80 + 18 × 4 + (19 − 10) × 8) × 0.45 − 2 × 50 × √0.45
= 33.72 kN/m2

Passive pressure (at left)

𝜎ℎ,𝑝 (0 + (19 − 10) × 0) × 2.2 + 2 × 50 × √2.2
= 148.32 kN/m2
∆𝜎ℎ = 𝜎ℎ,𝑝 − 𝜎ℎ,𝑎
(148.32 - 33.72) = 114.61 kN/m2

At z = 12 + D (Active pressure at right,

Passive pressure at left "no inflection")

Active pressure at on right: (80 + 18 × 4 + (19 − 10) × 8 + (19 − 10) ×

D) × 0.45 −2 × 50 × √0.45
= 33.8+ 4.05D

Passive pressure (at left):

(0 + (19 − 10) × D) × 2.2 + 2 × 50 × √2.2
= 148.3 + 19.8D

∆𝜎ℎ = 𝜎ℎ,𝑝 − 𝜎ℎ,𝑎 (148.3 + 19.8 D) − (33.8 + 4.05 D)

= 114.5 + 15.75D

3. Calculate the penetration depth D

4. Establish the stress distribution diagram See Figures 4-6, 4-69 and 4-70.
Results for this example shown below.

To calculate D, take ∑ 𝑀𝑎𝑡 𝐹 = 0.0

To calculate F, take ∑ 𝐹𝑥 = 0.0

(235)
From the Force Diagrams the resultant forces for 1 ,2 ,3 and 4 are positive and forces F
, 5 and 6 are negative and the following table is prepared

∑ 𝑀𝑎𝑡 𝐹 = 0.0+29.84+1013.76+756.8 = 1145D + 57.25D2 + 78.8D2 + 5.28D3

→ 5.283 + 136.05D2 + 1145D – 1800 = 0.0
= 1.34592 m
D = 1.346 m

∑ 𝐹𝑥 = 0.0 → 23.48 + 44.76 + 168.96 + 103.2 − 114.5𝑥1.346 − 7.88𝑥1.3462

F = 172.0 kN

(236)