Seminar on

SLOPE STABILITY IN EXPANSIVE SOILS

Arbaminch University Submitted to: Professor R. K. Verma
By: Yidnekachew Thomas
Institute of Technology
SMSc/293/08
Department of Civil Engineering March, 2018
Geotechnical Engineering (MSc)
Course Name- Analysis of Slopes, Earth Retaining Structures
and Underground Structures
Course Code- CENG-7203
 1. Introduction
Expansive soils have properties which change based on their
surrounding ( such as fluctuation of moisture content,
overburden pressure, temperature…)
These soils have three typical properties (i.e., significant
swelling and shrinkage, fissures, and over consolidation) due
to hydrophilic minerals such as montmorillonite
These properties of expansive soils poses additional
difficulties to the analysis of slope stability and design of
earth retaining structures.
In most design and analysis theories expansive soils are
avoided because of their adverse properties, which are
dependent on environmental conditions, which could
not be predetermined easily for the design purposes.
But it is not always possible to avoid them.
Their presence mostly causes failures in slopes, earth
retaining structures, pavements, highways, foundations
and the like if proper treatment is not provided for their
effects.
 2. SLOPES
The slopes might be cut slopes (man made) or natural slopes
The failure of expansive soil slopes, especially surficial failure,
is one of the most common types of failure that occur on cut
slopes or natural slopes.
the reason for the surficial failure of expansive soil slopes may
be a drastic reduction in the strength of slope surface soil. It
results from the occurrence of swelling-shrinkage cracking and
fissures due to the repeated wet-dry cycles
the depth of the surficial failure of expansive soil slopes ranges
upto 1.4m.
surficial failure of an expansive soil cut slope
• During the process of repeated wet and dry cycles, the
occurrence of a large number of macro- and microcracks,
which gradually decreases from the surface of the slope to
the interior of the active zone in-situ, destroys the integrity,
identity, and continuity of the soil mass.
• Alternatively, the continuous accumulation of the plastic
strain will cause losses in cohesion of shear strength resulting
from the bonding of clay particles.
• In addition, the natural original structure or the bonding of
the soil might be irreversibly broken down by wet-dry cycles,
especially for the soils in the surficial layer of the slope.
Ground cracks associated with incipient
surficial
instability
Illustration of typical surficial slope failure: (a) plan
view; (b) cross-sectional view.
•Surficial failures are mostly 1.4m or less in depth
•The failure mechanisms are

1.During the hot period, the slope face becomes shrunken. The extent and depth
of the shrinkage cracks depends on many factors, such as the temperature and
humidity, the plasticity of the clay, and the extraction of moisture by plant
roots.

2.When the winter rains occur, water percolates into the shrinkage cracks
causing the slope surface to swell and saturate with a corresponding reduction
in shear strength. Initially, water percolates downward into the slope through
desiccation cracks and in response to the suction pressures of the dried clay.
3. As the outer face of the slope swells and
saturates, the permeability parallel to the
slope face increases. With continued rainfall,
seepage develops parallel to the slope face.

4. Because of a reduction in shear strength due

to saturation and swell coupled with the
condition of seepage parallel to the slope
face, failure occurs.
To determine the factor of safety (F) for surficial stability, an
effective stress slope stability analysis is performed and the
following equation is used
• In order to derive the surficial stability equation, it
is assumed that there is an infinite slope with
steady-state seepage of groundwater parallel to
the slope face and that this seepage extends from
the slope face to a depth of d
• Based on these assumptions, the values of σ’n and τ can be determined
and the final result is as follows (Lambe and Whitman, 1969):
• Since an effective stress analysis is being performed with steady-
state flow conditions, effective shear strength soil parameters (f′
= effective friction angle; c′ = effective cohesion) must be used in
the analysis.

• the parameter d is also the depth of the failure surface where

the factor of safety is computed.

• The factor of safety for surficial stability is highly dependent on

the effective cohesion value of the soil. Automatically assuming c
′ = 0 may be overly conservative.
• Because of the shallow nature of surficial failures, the
effective normal stress on the failure surface is very low.
Studies have shown that the effective shear strength
envelope for soil can be nonlinear at low effective
stresses.
• Because of the nonlinear nature of the shear strength
envelope, the shear strength parameters (c′ and f′)
obtained at high normal stresses can overestimate the
shear strength of the soil and should not be used
Figure shows the effective
stress failure envelope for
compacted London clay.
For an effective stress of
greater than 100 Kpa the
envelope is linear
For less than 100 Kpa the
envelope is non linear and the
shear strength is less than the
extrapolated line from high
effective stresses
 Steps for calculation of surficial factor of safety
1. Determine if a surficial failure is possible
 identify the presence of clay soil in cut, fill of natural slopes
2. Determine the shear strength parameters
 Obtain undisturbed samples of the fill or weathered rock and
perform shear strength tests, such as drained direct shear tests, at
confining pressure as low as possible to obtain the effective shear
strength parameters (φ′ and c′).
The factor of safety for surficial stability is very dependent on the
value of effective cohesion c’
If the shear strength tests indicate a large effective cohesion
intercept, then perform additional drained shear strength tests to
verify this cohesion value.
3. Calculate the factor of safety: the required parameters
can be obtained as follows
I. Inclination α. The slope inclination can be measured for
natural slopes or based on the anticipated constructed
condition for cut and fill slopes.
II. Total unit weight ϒt. For fill slopes, the total unit weight ϒt
can be based on anticipated unit weight conditions at the
end of grading.
 For cut or natural slopes, the total unit weight ϒt can
be obtained from the laboratory testing of undisturbed
samples. Note that the total unit weight used must be based
on a saturated soil condition (S = 100 percent).
 III. Buoyant (effective) unit weight ϒb. By knowing the total unit weight for
saturated soil, the buoyant unit weight ϒb can be obtained

IV. Depth of failure surface d. The depth of the failure surface (d) is also the
depth of seepage parallel to the slope face. In most cases a depth upto
1.4 m is assumed. This may be overly conservative for cut or natural
slopes, and different values of d may be appropriate given local rainfall
and weathering conditions.
 The acceptable minimum factor of safety for surficial stability is
often 1.5. However, as previously mentioned, root reinforcement
can significantly increase the surficial stability of a slope. It may be
appropriate to accept a lower factor of safety in cases where deep
rooting plants will be quickly established on the slope face.
If the factor of safety for surficial stability is deemed to be too low,
there are many different methods that can be used to increase the
factor of safety, as follows:

1. Flatten the slope. The surficial stability can be increased by

building a flatter slope (i.e. decrease α = slope inclination).

 It has been observed that 1.5:1 (horizontal:vertical) or steeper

slope inclinations are often most susceptible to surficial
instability, while 2:1 or flatter slope inclinations have
significantly fewer surficial failures.
 However, in clay slopes howmuchever the slope is flattened,
surficial failures happen most of the time depending on the
amount of clay and the repetition of wet – dry cycles
 i.e the original factor of safety decreases through time as the
repetition of wet – dry cycles increases

2. Use soil having a higher shear strength. The surficial stability

could also be increased by facing the slope with soil that has a
higher shear strength (i.e., increase c′ and/or φ′). This process can
be performed during the grading of the site and is similar to the
installation of a stabilization fill.
3. Increase the shear strength of the soil. There are many
different methods that can be used to increase the shear
strength of the soil, such as adding lime or cement to the
soil in order to increase c′ and f′.
 The slope face could also be constructed with layers of
geogrid, which will provide tensile reinforcement and
increase the soils resistance to slope movement.
4. Reduce infiltration of water. Maintaining adequate vegetation and
irrigating the slope during the dry season will promote root
reinforcement and reduce desiccation cracks.
Surface vegetation and the absence of desiccation cracks will reduce
the infiltration of water into the slope face.

5. Mitigate infinite slope conditions. A tall slope will have a long slope
face that can promote the development of infinite slope conditions and
seepage parallel to the slope face.
This condition can be mitigated by adding a ditch or berm at the top of
slope to prevent water from flowing over the top of slope.
 Gunite terrace ditches that effectively make a series of slopes of
smaller height. The terrace ditches will also intercept water flowing on
the slope face.
 3. MECHANICALY REINFORCED EARTH WALLS
The conventional design of MSE walls considers purely
cohesionless soils.
The main reasons as for why cohesive soils are held to be
unsuitable for MSE walls are
I. Short term stability ; the bond between cohesive soil and
strip reinforcement is poor and subject to reduction if
positive pore water pressures develop . It is unlikely that
the current , largely empirical design methods for
reinforced cohesionless soils may be satisfactorly applied
to cohesive soils.
II. Corrosion : fine grained cohesive soils are more
aggressive than cohesionless soils in thier corrosive
behavoir. It is known that clay minerals, such as
illite, accelerate metal corrossion.

III. Post - construction movements : it is thought that

long term deformations might occur when plastic
soils are reinforced.
Many wide spread benefits and applications would arise
(easpecialy when it is a must to work with cohesive soils) if
suitable reinforcements, construction techniques and
teoretical analyes could be developed to enable fin grained
cohesive soils for reinforced soil construction.
Carefully controlled laboratory tests were conducted by
different researchers.
Radiogarphy was used to study deformations in soil and
movements in reinforcement.
The tests have shown geogrids are an effective form of
reinforcement in cohesive soils
Grid reinforcement can be used to increase shear strength of
cohesive soils both under long term and short term loading
conditions.
 The main idea is that cohesive soils can also be strengthened by
reinforcements like cohesionless soils.
A test on reinforced and unreinforced cohesive soils in Cambridge
university revealed that the main difference of cohesive soils
from cohesionless soils is their degree of drainage especially
when sheared rapidly towards failure (undrained conditions)
Dimensions, stresses
and reinforcemnet
layout for shear tests
on reinforced clay.
 In order to study the formation of rupture planes within tha kaoline
durind shear tests, thin vertical threads of fine lead powder blended
with silicone oil were introduced into each sample.
Load displacement rsults for drained
direct shear tests on reinforced and
unreinforced samples.
The results show that the reinforced
kaoline displays a marked
improvement in both strength and
stiffness from early stage in the shear
test while when compared with the
unreinforced kaoline.
Load displacement rsults for quick
(undrained) direct shear tests on
reinforced and unreinforced samples.
Prints of radiographs showing lead powder thread markers indicating the
dofrmation patterns of reinforced and unreinforced kaoline samples in direct
undrained shear test.
The undrained test is preferred because the shear
displacement required to mobilize the peak strength
under undrained conditions in less than that of
drained conditions.

The grid reinforcement changes the orientation of

rapture and the overall mechanism of failure

The reinforcement causes a larger zone of kaolin to

be deformed.
Stress resultants
on the central
plane of reinforced
soil sapmles in
direct shear tests
The test results analyses revealed the increments in shear
strength of cohesive soils in drained and undrained conditions.
1. For reinforced cohesionless soil and drained cohesive
soils the increase in shear strength is

2. For reinforced undrained cohesive soils the increase in

shear strength is
The relevant PR In is the one which exists at failure.
For cohesive soils the magnitude of PR depends on rate of
testing or degree of drainage.
Therefore, short term and long term. strength of cohesive soils
can be increased with the help of reinforcements.
But grids made of glass and polymeric substances are the best
types since they are resistant to corrosion and not easily
biodegradable.