EMBANKMENT

ROSALINA PUTRI SEKAR

ARUM(175060400111008)
A N N I S A C A H YA N I N G J A N N A H ( 1 7 5 0 6 0 4 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 7 )
G AYAT R I P U T R I R A H AY U ( 1 7 5 0 6 0 4 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 8 )

A N G G OTA K E LO M P O K

Add a Footer 2
 INTRODUCTION
In the construction of embankment on soft soil
POLYFELT TS has, during the construction stage, the
same function as described in the chapter on
“unpaved road" also, the stability of a so called 3-
layers system embankment / geotextile/subsoil- is
strongly influenced by two geotextile parameters:

a)Horizontal and vertical permeability

b) Tensile strength

Add a Footer 3
It is well known,that consolidation time and
therefore construction time are strongly
influenced by the permeability of the
embankment foundation . When estimating the
consolidation time using conventional
consolidation theories (terzaghi theory) the
foundation is assumed to be ideally permeable .
this goal can be readily attained by using
POLYFELT TS as a separation layer, due to its
high vertical and horizontal permeability.

Add a Footer 4
 INTRODUCTION

The tensile strength of geotextile is generally of overrated

importance for the stability of an embankment on soft
saturated soils. This statement can easily be proven by
looking at the major failure modes for stability analysis

5
 During base failure, the Very seldom occurs in
entire embankment sinks
down into subsoil. practice

• At this time, tensile reinforcement in • Tensile reinforcement in the

the embankment base line is not a embankment base is particularly suited

consideration for the stability for the stability against sliding in the
base due to spreading pressure.

• However, failure due to spreading

pressure for fill materials with an angle
of friction greater than 30o is only
relevant to the very thin layers of soft
subsoil directly beneath an
embankment.

Add a Footer 6
 There are restricted by
base failure • For these reason, tensile
• The factor of safety against toe strength of POLYFELT TS has
failure can be improved theoretically not been considered in the
by reinforcing the embankment
stability analysis described in
base.
section 5 of this chapter
• However, this improvement is
considerably restricted by the above
mentioned base failure, which still
has to be considered.

Add a Footer 7
 EMBANKMENT

Add a Footer 8
 AREAS OF
APPLICATION
Flood control dams

Railroad embankment
Causeways

Add a Footer 9
 GEOTEXTILE FUNCTIONS

Separation Filtration Drainage

Add a Footer 10
10
 DESAIGN PARAMETERS
Fill
Material

Fill
Embankment
geometry
Polyfelt TS Placement
rate

Foundation

Add a Footer 11
11
4. Seleksi Kriteria
Mempertimbangkan kepadatan di lokasi konstruksi dan kondisi batas
hidraulik di perhitungkan berdasarkan pemilihan jenis geotextil, seperti
berikut ini:
*)Isi material dari lapisan pertama.

Isi material* Pemilihan Geotextil

Nonkohesif

Dapat dilihat pada bab "Unpaved Roads" TS 800

Kohesif
4. Selection Criteria
Considering the traffic on the construction site and the
hydraulic boundary conditions on which the calculations are
based, the following geotextile type selection is recommended:
*)fill material of the first layer.
Fill material* Geotextile Selection

Noncohesive
Refer to Chapter on "Unpaved Roads" TS 800
Cohesive
5. Stability Analysis
• In the following analysis the stability of an embankment on a soft,
homogeneous soil layer with the thickness D is checked. The soil below the
soft layer is assumed to be stiff. Figure 1 demonstrates the embankment
geometry on which stability calculations are based.
• Soil parameters ɸ and Cu have to be reduced by an adequate factor of
safety before entering the calculations. For multi-layered soils, an average
value can be considered (2).
Figure 1: Embankment Geometry
H = height of embankment (m)
B = crest width (m)

B = width of rectangular replacement load (m) : B = B + h . ctg ß

B’ = base width (m)
ß = inclination of slope (o)
ɸ = angle of internal friction of fill material (o)
ɣ = density of fill material (Kn/m3)
D = thickness of cohesive, soft layer (m)
Cu = undrained shear srength of subgrade (Kn/m2)
• Basically, three types of shear failure are possible;
- Base failure
- Toe failure
- Sliding because of spreading pressure
For each of these three types of failure
the load bearing capacity factor Kc is
calculated. The largest value of Kc is
the governing factor for embankment
stability.
𝐶𝑢
𝐾𝑐 =
ɣ. h
5.1. Base Failure

Figure 2 shows the considered types of base failure (2) (3) from which
type “a” was chosen based on lowest stability. Diagram E-I provides
the required value for Kc as a function of the D/B ratio.
Figure 2: Types of Base Failure
For D/B ratio ≥ 9,663, Kc is constant with Kc=0,189;
this value correlates with the solution of Prandtl
with Kc= 1/((2+π)) = 0,194, which is applicable for
D/B ≥0,71.
Diagram E-I: Determination of Kc Considering Base Failure of
an Embankment.
Refer to Chapter on "Unpaved Roads" TS 800:
Depending on load and subsoil conditions, there are three possible variants of construction.
Variant 1 POLYFELT TS alone as a seperation and filter layer.
Variant 2 POLYFELT TS with a protective sand layer.
Variant 3 POLYFELT TS with a compacted sandy gravel layer.
Applications for the individual variants are given in Table R-1.

Subsoil Type Embankment

Main Line Side Line

Cohesive Soils 2/3 2

Noncohesive
2 1/2
granular soils

Tabel R-1 Application of the three variants.

TOE FAILURE
Figure of Toe Failure Configuration

the considered types of toe failure (a), (b),

(c), from which type “a” chosen based on
lowest stability.
 Geometry for Toe failure
Where:
H = height of embankment (m)
B = crest width (m)
B = width of rectangular replacement load (m) : B = B + h . ctg ß
B’ = base width (m)
D = thickness of cohesive, soft layer (m)
Schematic showing the use of Diagrams E-II
through E-VII
Spreading Pressure

It is assumed that an embankment

failure is caused by spreading
pressure when the maximum shear
stress in the embankment / subgrade
interface reaches the value of
undrained shear strength of the soil
Figure 6: Distribution of shear Stresses at the
Cu.
Embankment / Subgrade Interface
Diagram E-VIII : Determination of Kc for an Embankment
Considering Failure by Spreading Pressure
Spreading Pressure

For stability analysis, That type of failure

governs which provides the greatest value for
the load bearing capacity factor Kc.

Cu required = kc . ɣ. h ≤ ( cu actual / Fs )

Where : Fs = Safety Factor

Diagram E-IX provides a rough reference for determining

if base failure or toe failure governs. As a general rule,
failure caused by spreading pressure governs only in the
case of very thin layer thickness D (D/h < 0,3)
EMBANKMENT FILL IN
STAGES
If the stability calculations on stability analysis. Indicate that the required shear strength
𝐶𝑢,𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑 is greater than the actual shear strength 𝐶𝑢,𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 , The increase in shear strength
∆𝐶𝑢 , dependent on an applied load is calculated as follows:
∆𝐶𝑢 = tan 𝜑′ . 𝜎 . U
Where:
𝜎 = 𝛾 . h . B / B’ (see figure 7)
𝜑′ = effective angle of friction
U = consolidation degree (time-dependent)
Gambar 7
Steps to be taken in determining
the time of consolidation:
 Selection of fill heights h1
 Calculationnof maximum increase in shear strength:
 ∆𝐶𝑢 𝑚𝑎𝑥 = . 𝛾 . h1 . B / 𝐵′ . tan 𝜑′
 Determination of required shear strength per section 5
 Calculation of degrees of cosolidation as required
𝐶𝑢,𝑖+1 − 𝐶𝑢,𝑖
 𝑈𝐼 = ∆𝐶
𝑢,𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑖 − 𝑢,𝑖+ 𝐶𝑢,𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙
 CONSOLIDATION
Since consolidation means forcing pore water out of the foundation subsoil,
the hydraulic boundary conditions play a decisive role in the evaluation of
the consolidation process. Due to its high permeability, POLYFELT TS on
the embankment foundation guarantees a perfect drainage of the subsoil,
whereas without POLYFELT TS the permeability in the zone where fill
material and foundation soil meet is greatly reduced because of
intermingling of the two materials, in addition, at the interface of
impermeable fill material, POLYFELT TS acts as surface drainage.
Theoretically assuming an infinitely permeable embankment foundation
surface.
The average degree of consolidation u is calculated
as:
2 2
 U = 1 - σ∞
𝑚=0 𝑀2 𝑀2 . 𝑒
−𝑀 . 𝑇𝑣

 Dimana:
1
 M = 2 . 𝜋 . (2 . m + I)

 m = running variable
 Tv = Cv . t/𝑙 2 (time factor)
 Cv = consolidation coefficient for vertical flow (𝑚2 /𝑠)
 T = time (sec)
 I = length of greatest seepage path (m) (D unilateral, D / 2 in bilateral drainage
Diagram L-X, Consolidation of subsoil with POLYFELT TS
Figure 9: Embankment Height vs Time withhh Linear Load Increase
 SETTLEMENT
 For an estimate of the final settlement in the center of the embankment,
the assumption is made that soil stiffness underneath the soft layer is
sefficiently great to neglect settlement of these layers. Furthermore, the
stiffness modulus e is assumed to be constant throught the entire layer
thickness, d if several layers with different e values are present,
calculations can be approximated with an average value:
E = 𝜀 (Ei . di) / 𝜀 𝑑𝑖
 The depth of influence of the applied load is limited to 2 . B. therefore, if
layer thickness D > 2. B, the ratio D / B should be stated as 2,0 in
diagram D-XI
 The final settlement in the center of embankment is
obtained according to steinbtenner:
𝑠∞ = D . f . 𝛾 . h / E
Where:
D = thickness of soft layer (≤ 2 . B ) m
f = influence factor per diagram E-XI
𝛾 . h = applied load (Kn/𝑚2 )
E = stiffness modulus (Kn/𝑚2 )

Figure 10: Vertical Setress Distribution in the soil

Diagram E-XI: influence factor f
Figure 11: Settlement Curve due to Loading
• Example
1. Due tue expacted traffic on the
construction site, POLYFELT TS 800 is
selected.
2. Stability Calculation for the entire
Embankment ( h = 6 m )
• Base failure per diagram E-I :
𝐷 12
= ( 4 + 30 ) = 0,70  Kc =
𝐵 0,5
0,189
• Toe failure per diagram E-II trough E-VII:
𝛽 25°
XB = = = 0,8
∅ 30°
𝑡 𝐷 12
= = = 2,0
ℎ ℎ 6
𝑏 𝐵 4
= 2,25 > = 6 = 0,67
ℎ ℎ
𝑏 𝑡
= 0,67  ℎ = 0,8
ℎ
Kc = 0,165
• Spreading pressure per Diagram E-VIII

𝛽 = 25° ; ∅ = 30°
Kc = 0,110
• Base failure is governing ( max Kc! )
Kc = 0,189
Curead = f8 x Kc x 𝛾 x h
= 1,1 x 0,189 x 19 x 6,0
= 23,7 Kn/m2

Curead = 23,7 Kn/m2 > Cuactual = 10 Kn/m2

Therefore, embankment fill is possible only in stages.

Maximum fill height of the first fill stage is calculated by

approximation :
𝐶𝑢𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 10
h1 = = = 2,55 m
𝑓8 𝑥 𝐾𝑐 𝑥 𝛾 1,1 𝑥 0,189 𝑥 19
 46

3. Selection of fill stages :

Selected :
- h1 : 2,5 m
- h2 : 4,5 m
- h3 : 6,0 m
 47

• Base failure per Diagram E-I :

𝐷 12
= x ( 19,2 + 30 ) = 0,49  Kc = 0,185
𝐵 0,5
𝐷 12
= x ( 10,5 + 30 ) = 0,59  Kc = 0,188
𝐵 0,5
𝐷 12
= x ( 4,0 + 30 ) = 0,70  Kc = 0,189
𝐵 0,5
 48

• Toe failure Diagram E-V (XB = 0,8 )

Maximum load bearing capacity factor for the toe failure is Kcmax = 0,183. this
smaller than the smallest of the base failure calculation Kc,1 = 0,185

Therefore the base failure is the governing factor for each fill stage
• Required degree of consolidation Ui :
𝐶𝑢𝑖+𝑖−𝐶𝑢𝑖
- 𝑈𝑖 =
∆𝑐,𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑖−𝐶𝑢𝑖+𝐶𝑢𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙
- Cui = f8 x Kci x 𝛾 x hi (f8 = 1,1 )
𝐵𝑖
-∆𝑐𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑖 = 𝛾 𝑥 ℎ𝑖 𝑥 𝑥 tan 𝜑 ′
𝐵′
1
-𝐵𝑖 = 𝑖 (𝐵𝑖 + 𝐵′ )
2
 49

• Summary of fill stage parameters :

 50

4. Required consolidation intervals for first two fill height :

For bilateral drainage per Diagram E-X :
-U1 = 0,66  T𝛾* = 0,08
𝑇𝛾∗𝑥 𝐷2 0,08𝑥 12
-t1 = = = 2,3.107 sec = 9 months
𝐶𝛾 5 𝑥 10−7
-U2 = 0,60  T𝛾* = 0,07
𝑇𝛾∗𝑥 𝐷2 0,08𝑥 12
-t2 = = = 2,0.107 sec = 8 months
𝐶𝛾 5 𝑥 10−7
 51

Construction schedule :
- Fill to H1 = 2,5 m
- After 9 months, fill to H2 = 4,5 m
- After 8 more months, fill to H3 = 6 m
 52

SPESIFICATION NOTES
In order to establish objective criteria, the relevant geotextile parameters have
to be specified according to standard test methods, as described in the
chapter on “Geotextile Testing”. However, in order to meet the special
geotextile requirements presented in this application chapter, it is necessary to
specify all relevant parameters as mentioned on the right. The values of the
selected polyfelt-grade can be drawn from the data sheet below
53