Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016 591

Slope Stability Evaluation of Highway Embankments in Large Transportation

Projects

Behzad Amir-Faryar, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE1

1
Chief Engineer, Fairfax County Land Development Services, Site Review and
Inspections Division (SDID), 12055 Government Center Parkway Suite 535, Fairfax,
VA 22035-5500. E-mail: behzad@members.asce.com
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Birmingham on 06/26/16. For personal use only.

Abstract

Construction of large highways often involves raising the elevation of existing

ground to build the planned highway subgrade. As a result, borrow materials are
typically placed to form embankments with different heights and slope inclinations.
Often times factors such as different embankment heights, different slope
inclinations, and variable subsurface conditions in long highway alignments can make
the selection of the most critical cross sections in terms of slope stability analysis a
tedious task. As an example, the cross section with the largest embankment height
may not be the most critical case to analyze if it is proposed to be founded on a very
dense subsurface soil. To identify the cross sections prone to potential global slope
stability failures when designing embankments, a soil strength parametric study was
performed for different embankment heights in drained and undrained conditions.
The results of the analyses and parametric study were used to determine the critical
condition and develop equations and tables correlating the minimum allowable shear
strength of the soil to the height of the proposed embankment. The suggested
equations and tables are useful tools to predict the sections with potential failure
along highway alignments in the preliminary slope stability analysis process. The
equations are compatible to both Allowable Strength Design (ASD) and Load
Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) slope stability analyses.

INTRODUCTION

When a road embankment is constructed with an inclined surface using fill

materials, the potential for global slope stability failure exists for the soil mass to
slide due to insufficient strength of foundation soil. The failure occurs when the
generated shear stress exceeds the shear strength of the foundation soil. This
phenomenon is of significance for engineers to be identified. The developers and their
design team need to identify the locations where the slope failure can happen early on
prior to the bidding stage in highway projects. It would allow developers to allocate
necessary budgets to improve the weak foundation soil when substantial fills are
placed as fill embankments.
In the analysis of the slope stability, it is important to make distinction
between the surficial (shallow) stability and global stability. In global stability

© ASCE

Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016

 Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016 592

analysis, the height of the proposed embankment and the strength of the foundation
soil are the main factors taken into analysis as opposed to the shear strength of the
embankment fill materials and slope inclination which are of high importance when
surficial stability is of interest. The shear strength of embankment fill materials still
influences the global stability analysis because the failure plane has to pass through
the embankment fill. However, this influence is minor when the global stability is
concerned. Figure 1 shows the global and surficial circular failure planes in a slope.
Embankment fills are ideally constructed with a 2H:1V (26.6º) or flatter slope
inclinations. It allows vegetation to grow on the slope and prevent surficial instability.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Birmingham on 06/26/16. For personal use only.

Figure 1. Global and surficial circular failure planes in a slope.

A study has shown that the seasonal variation of moisture content can be a
cause of the surface failure of a slope constructed with cohesive soils. This type of
failure is usually a progressive process and resulted from cycles of shrinkage and
rewetting of clayey soils in the dry and wet seasons over time (Zhang, et al., 2005). It
was shown that the use of non-woven fabric could prevent the cohesive slopes from
the surface failures. The non-woven fabric can generate tension forces required to
maintain the stability of the slope and prevent the development of pore water pressure
retained in clayey soils by providing horizontal drainage through the fabric (Zhang, et
al., 2003).
Another study on modeling road prisms using computer package XSTABL
has indicated that road fill ratio is not an important predictor of road stability.
Equations were provided to calculate the factor of safety of typical road prisms
constructed over sandy profiles. The fill ratio is defined as the projected road
structure that lies on subgrade road fill divided by the total width of the projected

© ASCE

Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016

 Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016 593

road structure. Further study on the subject needs to be performed including soils with
cohesion and a variable for depth of soil (Elliot, et al., 2003).
In large capital transportation projects, at the pre-bid phase (tender phase),
designers typically need to identify the weak sections of the proposed alignment
under the fill embankments that are potentially susceptible to failure by primarily
focusing on quantitative analyses of slides (Amir-Faryar, et al., 2014). In large
highway projects, alternative project delivery methods; such as, design-build (D-B)
and Public Private Partnerships (P3) may be utilized. In these delivery methods,
planning and design are performed side by side which can result in often changes in
the design scheme of the highway embankments as projects make headway. These
changes may need additional study on completely new alignments, different
embankment heights, etc. Therefore, identifying the weak cross sections in the fill
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Birmingham on 06/26/16. For personal use only.

embankment areas susceptible to global stability problem is a task that geotechnical

engineers constantly deal with in the planning and design stage of the projects. The
weak cross sections in terms of slope stability often cannot be easily identified due to
the large length of the alignment and variability of subsurface soils. As an example in
case, the embankment with the largest height may not be the most critical case to
analyze if it is intended to be founded on a very dense soil. Therefore, both
embankment height and strength properties of the foundation soil should be
considered in the analysis when identifying the sections along the new alignment that
need to be studied. In addition, the subsurface soil of cohesive nature can behave
differently in long and short term conditions. Therefore, selecting cross sections to
perform slope stability analyses solely based on the embankment height or soil
strength is not a reliable approach.
Some state departments of transportation (DOT), i.e., Illinois Department of
Transportation (IDOT) require geotechnical engineers to submit the results of the
LRFD slope stability analysis in lieu of those of the traditional ASD approach. With
more state departments of transportation requiring the use of LRFD design
methodology, the use of LRFD approach in slope stability analysis is becoming a
more common practice. In this paper, a parametric global slope stability analysis
using LRFD methodology was performed for clayey and sandy soil profiles modeling
proposed embankments with different heights and slope inclinations. In the clayey
profile, both undrained and drained conditions were taken into consideration to
determine the more critical condition. The objective of the analysis is to determine the
minimum allowable shear strength needed for an embankment slope to remain stable.
In addition, equations were developed to correlate the embankment fill height to the
allowable undrained shear strength of the cohesive soil. The average maximum
depths of failure were also obtained for each condition. The average maximum depths
of failure can provide the extent of the soil profile (minimum depth) needed to be
modeled when the slope stability is analyzed.

ANALYSIS METHOD AND GEOMETRY

Failures in homogeneous soils, such as natural cohesive soils, compacted fills,

can be idealized occurring along the arc of a circle. For this study, Modified Bishop’s
method or Simplified Bishop’s method was used for the analysis of the circular

© ASCE

Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016

 Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016 594

surfaces. Modified Bishop’s method is proven to be sufficiently precise for all

circular analyses (Wright, 1985). The method is too tedious to be solved by hand
because it is not closed-form solution. Therefore, Slide software package was used for
this study. Number of slices of 25, tolerance of 0.005, and maximum number of
iteration of 50 were selected.

RESISTANCE FACTORS AND SOIL PROPERTIES

In the LRFD design for overall slope stability, the stability of the slopes is
evaluated under Service I Limit State (AASHTO, 2010). In this limit state, a load
factor of 1 is applied to the unit weight of soils. Given that the load factor for the soil
unit weight is equal to 1, the resistance factor of shear strength (ᴪ) will be
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Birmingham on 06/26/16. For personal use only.

. For example, ᴪ = 0.67 = = ( ).

.
In LRFD evaluation of short-term and long-term stability, factored strength
parameters are used and directly input into the analyses. The resulting factor of safety
is compared to a value of 1.0 rather than to a target factor of safety value of 1.5 as it is
used in ASD approach. The factored shear strength parameters can be obtained from
the Eqs. 1 to 3.
∗
= Ψ × (1)
*
where c is factored cohesion (pcf or kPa), ᴪ is resistance factor, and c is cohesion
(pcf or kPa).
tan ∅∗ = Ψ tan (2)
*
where Ø is factored internal friction angle (degrees), ᴪ is resistance factor, and Ø is
internal friction angle (degrees).
∗
= Ψ ×S (3)
*
where Su is factored undrained shear strength (pcf or kPa), ᴪ is resistance factor, and
Su is undrained shear strength (pcf or kPa). A common resistance factor of 0.67
(=1/1.5) was assumed for the analyses.

BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE ANALYSIS

The global stability of earth slopes on cohesive soils is typically evaluated for
both short term and long term conditions. For short term, undrained parameters of the
cohesive soil are undertaken using the total strength analysis. Using LRFD approach,
the factored shear strength parameters were calculated using Eqs. 1, 2, and 3 and
entered into the software. Then, the minimum allowable undrained shear strength was
determined when the LRFD factor of safety was equal to 1 at different conditions.
The same methodology was applied to long term analyses. Drained parameters for
cohesive soils and also sandy soils were used in the analyses. Several slope stability
analyses were performed while reducing the soil strength to obtain the LRFD factor
of safety.
A constant distributed load normal to the top of the embankment boundary
(vertical) with the magnitude of 250 lb/ft2 (11.97 kPa) typical of highway traffic loads
were applied on the top of the embankments. The embankment fill material was
assumed to have a friction angle (Ø’) of 34 degrees and no cohesion. The moist unit

© ASCE

Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016

 Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016 595

weight of the fill material was assumed to be 120 lb/ft3(18.85 kN/m3). The moist and
saturated unit weights of clay were assumed to be 105 lb/ft3 (16.5 kN/m3) and 110
lb/ft3 (17.28 kN/m3) in the analyses. The moist and saturated unit weights of sand
were assumed to be 115 lb/ft3 (18.06 kN/m3) and 120 lb/ft3 (18.85 kN/m3) in the
global stability analyses.

PARAMETRIC STUDY FOR SAND

Iterative runs of LRFD slope stability analysis were performed for an extreme
condition (fill embankment height of 55 ft (16.76 m)) and the slope inclination of
1H:1V (45º). Water table was assumed to be at shallow depth of 5 ft (1.52 m) below
the ground surface. The results of the sandy profile are shown in following table:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Birmingham on 06/26/16. For personal use only.

Table 1. LRFD Factor of safety corresponding to sandy profile with different

friction angles.
SPT N-Value Ø’ (Peck, et al., 1974) LRFD Ø’ LRFD F.S.
40 38.5 28.1 1.262
38 38 27.6 1.260
36 37.5 27.2 1.259
34 37 26.8 1.258
32 36.5 26.4 1.257
30 36 26 1.256
29 35 25.1 1.251
26 34 24.3 1.241
22 33 23.5 1.228
18 32 22.7 1.213
14 31 21.9 1.195
10 30 21.1 1.174
7 29 20.4 1.153
4 28 19.6 1.131
3 27 18.8 1.104
2 26 18.1 1.080

PARAMETRIC STUDY FOR CLAY

In clayey profiles, both drained and undrained parameters were analyzed

separately to determine which condition will typically control the design. In long term
condition, Gholamreza Mesri’s typical range of Ø’ (25º to 35º) for soft clay
(Terzaghi, et al., 1996) with small cohesion equal to 0.02 of the undrained shear
strength of the soil were used in the analysis. In the drained condition, the
embankment was modeled using fill height of 55 ft (16.76 m)) and the slope
inclination of 1H:1V and strength parameters shown in Table 2. The result of LRFD
factors of safety was obtained using slope stability analyses. The LRFD factors of
safety corresponding to different clayey profiles are also shown in Table 2.

© ASCE

Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016

 Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016 596

Table 2. LRFD Factor of safety corresponding to clayey profile with different

friction angles and cohesions.
c (psf) LRFD c (psf) Ø’ LRFD Ø’ LRFD F.S.
60 40.2 38.5 28.1 1.524
56 37.5 38 27.6 1.507
52 34.8 37.5 27.2 1.493
48 32.2 37 26.8 1.479
44 29.5 36.5 26.4 1.465
40 26.8 36 26.0 1.452
36 24.1 35 25.1 1.423
32 21.4 34 24.3 1.397
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Birmingham on 06/26/16. For personal use only.

30 20.1 33 23.5 1.372

28 18.8 32 22.7 1.343
24 16.1 31 21.9 1.312
20 13.4 30 21.1 1.280
16 10.7 29 20.4 1.251
12 8.0 28 19.6 1.219
8 5.4 27 18.8 1.183
4 2.7 26 18.1 1.151
2 1.3 25 17.3 1.115
1 pound per square foot (lb/ft2) = 0.04788026 kilopascal (kPa)

For short term analysis when the profile is of clayey nature, factored
undrained shear strengths were assigned to the soil layer and the factors of safety
were obtained. The undrained shear strength was reduced for each run to obtain a
factor of safety of 1. The corresponding undrained shear strengths to a factor of safety
of 1 were obtained for different embankment fill heights and common slope
inclinations, i.e., 3H:1V, 2H:1V, and 1H:1V. The results of the minimum allowable
undrained shear strength for different heights and slopes are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3. Minimum allowable undrained shear strengths for different fill heights
and slope inclinations.
3H:1V 2H:1V 1H:1V
Fill Height (ft)
Allowable Su (psf) Allowable Su (psf) Allowable Su (psf)
75 2440 2480 2522
65 2128 2162 2211
55 1823 1850 1888
45 1500 1515 1556
35 1190 1200 1223
25 880 882 893
15 556 558 563
5 230 232 238
1 foot (ft) = 0.305 meters (m); 1 pound per square foot (lb/ft2) = 0.04788026 kilopascal (kPa)

© ASCE

Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016

 Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016 597

Linear regression was used to correlate the obtained allowable shear strengths
and embankment heights for different slope inclinations. Equations 4, 5, and 6 were
determined with the coefficient of determination (R2) of greater than 0.99.

Slope Inclination: 1H:1V = 32.793H + 75.036 (4)

Slope Inclination: 2H:1V = 32.113H + 75.351 (5)

Slope Inclination: 3H:1V = 31.511H + 82.946 (6)

where, Su is minimum allowable undrained shear strength in pcf; H is embankment

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Birmingham on 06/26/16. For personal use only.

fill height in ft.

The average maximum depth of the failure plane from the toe of the embankment for
clayey profiles with the undrained and drained conditions were determined to be 80 ft
and 15 ft, respectively. The average maximum depth of the failure plane from the toe
of the embankment for the sandy profiles was calculated to be 10 ft.

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

A parametric slope stability analyses was performed for sandy and clayey soil
profiles. In the clayey profile, both undrained and drained conditions were taken into
consideration to determine the more critical condition. For sandy profiles, an LRFD
factor of safety of greater than 1 was obtained. The results indicated that the
embankments constructed over sandy profiles were not susceptible to global stability
failures when friction angle of the sandy profile was greater than 26 degrees. The
average failure depth was calculated to be as shallow as 10 ft.
For clayey profile in drained condition, LRFD factor of safety of greater than
1 was obtained for the weakest soil (c=2 psf; Ø’=25º). The results indicated that clay
profiles in drained condition were not susceptible to global stability failures when C
and Ø’ were greater than 2 psf and 25 degrees, respectively. The average failure depth
was calculated to be as shallow as 15 ft. For clayey profile in undrained condition,
undrained shear strengths corresponding to LRFD factor of safety of less than 1
(minimum allowable undrained shear strength) was determined for different common
slope inclinations and fill heights. The minimum allowable undrained shear strength
values were obtained and plotted against the embankment fill heights as shown
below:

© ASCE

Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016

 Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016 598

3000

2500
Allowable Su (psf)
2000

1500 1H:1V
2H:1V
1000
3H:1V
500
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Birmingham on 06/26/16. For personal use only.

0
0 20 40 60 80
Embankment Fill Height, ft

Figure 2. Allowable undrained shear strength versus embankment height for

clayey profile in undrained condition using Eqs. 4, 5, and 6.
1 foot (ft) = 0.305 meters (m)
1 pound per square foot (lb/ft2) = 0.04788026 kilopascal (kPa)

Figure 2 shows that the minimum allowable undrained shear strength needed for a
slope to be globally stable increased with embankment height. It also indicates that
slope inclinations had a relatively minor influence on the global stability of the
roadway embankments. This influence was more pronounced when the embankment
height increased.
The maximum depth of the failure plane from the toe of the embankment were
determined to be on the order of 80 ft for undrained cohesive profile; 15 ft for drained
cohesive profile; and 10 ft for sandy profile. It can imply that if an undrained
condition is to be analyzed a deeper soil profile should be considered in the analysis.
The cohesion existing in soil properties can make failure surfaces to extend deeper. It
is also noteworthy to mention that the decision to select a depth that can contribute to
the global stability depends on the subsurface condition. In reality, the subsurface
condition is not homogenous. In case of a homogenous profile similar to this study, a
deeper profile can be considered for clay and a shallower for sand. In a heterogeneous
profile, when there is a dense layer at a certain depth from the ground surface, this
dense layer would force the failure plane to pass through the soft layer overlying the
dense layer. Therefore, the average shear strength of the soft layer can be used for the
analysis.
In Summary, in order to identify the potential slopes along the alignment
where it is expected to globally fail, the planned embankment can be modeled using
undrained parameters of the clayey soil. If the undrained shear strength of the
foundation soil was less than minimum allowable undrained shear strength calculated
for the foundation soil of the planned embankment, the planned embankment could
be susceptible to global stability failure. These locations where the slopes could
potentially fail (not meeting the threshold condition for global stability) can be

© ASCE

Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016

 Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016 599

identified using this approach and analyzed in depth using slope stability software
packages. In the suggested approach the potential for strength gain in clays of varying
plasticity was assumed to be negligible.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

This study was undertaken to determine the condition that can control the
design when slope stability is concerned. The following conclusions can be drawn
from this study:

1- In case of a cohesive profile, the short term condition can control the design.
2- In short term condition, equations were developed to determine the minimum
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Birmingham on 06/26/16. For personal use only.

allowable undrained shear strength for different embankment heights and

slope inclinations as:
Slope Inclination Slope Angle (Deg.) Threshold Equation Eq. Number
1H:1V 45.0 Su>32.793H+75.036 4
2H:1V 26.5 Su>32.113H+75.351 5
3H:1V 18.4 Su>31.511H+82.946 6
These equations will allow engineers to determine which sections of the road
are likely to fail considering the height of the planned embankment and the
shear strength of the soil beneath the proposed embankment. After identifying
these potential sections, more sophisticated analysis should be performed for
these sections to determine the factor of safety against failure.
3- The analysis indicated that the global stability failure when the cohesive soil
was in the long term condition was less likely for the analyzed embankment
heights and assumed parameters. Since the cohesive soils typically are slightly
to highly over consolidated, the over-consolidated soil can have effective
cohesions greater than zero which will improve the global stability of
embankment slopes.
4- In the case of sandy profile, the analysis for the analyzed embankment heights
did not indicate the slope global instability with the selected parameters.
5- The slope inclination slightly influenced the global stability of earth
embankments. This influence was more pronounced in larger embankment
heights.
6- The advantage of this approach is that the LRFD resistance factor can be
calibrated and tied to ASD method. So, the developed equations can be used
interchangeably satisfying both methods.
7- The average maximum depth of the failure plane from the toe of the
embankment for clayey profiles with the undrained and drained conditions
were determined to be 80 ft and 15 ft, respectively. The average maximum
depth of the failure plane from the toe of the embankment for the sandy
profiles was calculated to be 10 ft. It can be concluded that cohesion in soils
can cause failure planes to extend deeper.

If the desired factor of safety or project specifics, i.e., traffic loading,

geometry of the embankment, profile conditions, and etc. were different from what

© ASCE

Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016

 Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016 600

used in this study, the procedure explained in this study could be adopted to
determine the minimum allowable shear strength for the preliminary analysis. All
these observations can be entered into a spreadsheet or computer software packages
to determine the potential weak sections in the alignment.
The proposed equations could help geotechnical engineering professionals to
identify sections in the alignment that require more detailed slope stability analyses.
In addition, local conditions can vary greatly so determination of stable slopes should
be based upon local experience and engineering judgment. Detailed quantitative
analysis should be supplemented with qualitative information gathered from site
visits, subsurface explorations, and laboratory testing results.
The approach used in this paper can also be adopted when the shallow soils
consist of fissured/slickenside overconsolidated cohesive soils (Darrenbacher, 1998)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Birmingham on 06/26/16. For personal use only.

or there is a reactivated landslides present at the site (Stark and Eid, 1994), (Mesri
and Shahien, 2003), (Stark, et al., 2005). In these cases, a parametric shear strength
study similar to the one performed in this paper for fully softened and residual shear
strengths could be used in the analysis, respectively.
This paper is intended as an academic discussion, not an engineering advice,
and no reliance upon this paper is permitted. Independent advice by professionals of
record as to the application of the concepts and opinions herein to any specific project
should be sought.

REFERENCES

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).

(2010). AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications, Washington, DC.
Amir-Faryar, B., Suter, K.E., Finnen, R.E., and Fargher, J.F. (2014). “Preliminary
embankment memo.” Professional Service Industries, Inc. (PSI). PSI Project
Number: 0541100, Charlotte, Virginia.
Darrenbacher, K.E. (1998). “Slope stability strength values for Potomac Group
clays.” Geotechnical Special Publication, Stability of Natural Slopes in the
Coastal Plain, ASCE, 77, 9-26.
Elliot, W., Ballerini, M., and Hall, D. (2003). “Simplified methods for evaluating
road prism stability.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, No. 1819, No. 1819, Transportation Research
Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 95-100.
Mesri, G., and Shahien, M. (2003). “Residual shear strength mobilized in first-time
slope failures.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
ASCE, 129(1), 12-31.
Peck, R.B., Hanson, W.E., and Thornburn, T.H. (1974). Foundation Engineering,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Second Edition, New York.
Stark, T.D., and Eid, H.T. (1994). “Drained residual strength of cohesive soils.”
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 120(5), 856-871.
Stark, T.D., Hangseok, Ch., and McCone, S. (2005). “Drained shear strength
parameters for analysis of landslides.” Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 131(5), 575-588.

© ASCE

Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016

 Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016 601

Terzaghi, K., Peck, R.B., and Mesri, G. (1996). Soil mechanics in engineering
practice, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Third Edition, New York.
Wright, S.G. (1985). “Limit equilibrium slope analysis procedures.” Design of Non-
Impounding Waste Dumps, American Institute of Mining Engineers, 63-77.
Zhang, Z., Farrag, K., and Morvant, M. (2003). “Evaluation of the effect of synthetic
fibers and nonwoven geotextile reinforcement on the stability of heavy clay
embankments.” Report No. FHWA/LA.03/373, Louisiana Transportation Research
Center, Louisiana.
Zhang, Z., Mingjing, T., and Morvant, M. (2005). “Cohesive Slope Surface Failure
and Evaluation.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
ASCE, 131(7), 898-906.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Birmingham on 06/26/16. For personal use only.

© ASCE

Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Congress 2016