Evaluation of Deep-Seated Slope Stability of Embankments

over Deep Mixed Foundations

Jie Han1, Jin-Chun Chai2, Dov Leshchinsky3, and Shui-Long Shen4,
Abstract
When embankments are constructed over soft foundations, deep-seated slope stability
often becomes one of the controlling factors in design. Deep mixing methods have
been commonly used as an alternative to solve the deep-seated slope stability
problem. Bishops modified method is a commonly adopted approach for analyzing
the slope stability of embankments on deep mixed foundations. Bishops modified
method assumed slopes fail along a circular slip surface and the soils along this slip
surface provide shear resistance. However, experimental studies have showed that
deep mixed columns under a combination of vertical and horizontal forces could fail
due to shearing or bending. The possible failure modes depend on the combination of
the forces, the strengths of soft soils and deep mixed columns, dimensions and
arrangements of deep mixed columns. Since deep mixed columns are formed by
mixing a certain amount of admixture (cement or lime or a combination) with soil,
they can have a wide range of strengths. A numerical method was used in this study
to evaluate the factors of safety varying with the strengths of deep mixed columns and
their arrangements with three rows of columns having two different thickness. MohrCoulomb failure criterion was used for embankment fill, foundation soil, and deep
mixed columns. A row of deep mixed columns was modeled as a wall in 2-D for
simplicity of analysis. The numerical analysis indicated that the critical slip surface of
the deep-seated slope failure was not circular when the deep mixed columns were
used. The factors of safety obtained using the numerical method were compared with
those using Bishops modified method and Spencers three-part wedge method. The
comparisons indicated that Bishops modified method yielded significantly higher
factors of safety than the numerical method, especially when the deep mixed columns
had higher strengths. The Spencers three-part wedge method yielded lower factors
of safety than the numerical method.
____________________________________________________________________
Ph.D., PE, Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Widener University, One
University Place, PA 19013, USA, Tel.: 610-499-4249, Fax: 610-499-4059, e-mail:
jxh0305@mail.yahoo.com
2
Ph.D., Associate Professor, Institute of Lowland Technology, Saga University, 1
Honjo, Saga 840-8502, JAPAN, Tel.
and Fax: 81-952-28-8580, e-mail:
chai@cc.saga-u.ac.jp
3Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Delaware,
Newark, DE 19716, USA
4
Ph.D., Associate Professor, School of Civil Engineering and Mechanics, Shanghai
Jiao Tong University, 1954 Hua Shan Road, Shanghai 200030, CHINA, e-mail:
suiryu_shen@yahoo.com.cn
1

Introduction
When designing embankments over soft foundations, geotechnical engineers may
face a number of challenges, which include bearing capacity failure, excessive total
and differential settlements, and slope instability, etc. The slope instability of
embankments may develop locally, near the facing, inside the embankment, or
through the foundation soil as local failure, surficial failure, general slope failure, or
deep-seated failure as shown in Figure 1. The deep-seated slope failure is also
referred as a global slope failure, mainly induced by a soft foundation existing under
the embankment. A number of techniques have been successfully adopted to prevent
deep-seated slope failure, such as ground improvement techniques and use of
geosynthetics or piles. As one of ground improvement techniques, deep mixed (DM)
columns have been commonly used as an alternative to solve deep-seated slope
stability problems. Terashi (2002) indicated that nearly 60% of on-land application
in Japan and perhaps roughly 85% of Nordic applications are for the settlement
reduction and improvement of stability of embankment by means of group of treated
soil columns. This paper focuses on the evaluation of deep-seated slope stability of
embankments over deep mixed foundations using limit equilibrium methods and a
numerical solution.
General slope failure

Deep seated failure

Local failure
Surficial failure

Figure 1. Potential Slope Stability Failures

Limit equilibrium methods have been commonly adopted for analyzing the deepseated slope stability of embankments over deep mixed foundations. Bishops
modified method with a circular slip surface is probably the most commonly used
limit equilibrium method. In the analysis of DM foundations, the DM columns and
the soil are either treated as individual components or as a composite ground to resist
the shear stresses. In this study, the DM columns are treated as individual DM walls
in 2-D analyses. Limit equilibrium methods assume that the shear strengths of the
columns are always fully mobilized if a slip surface cuts through any part of the
columns. In reality, the resistance of the columns depends on the intersected location
by the slip surface. As shown in Figure 2, the columns may only provide very limited
resistance at the locations A and C because the soil around the columns may fail prior

to the failure of the columns or the slip surfaces may go around the columns to create
noncircular slip surface or the columns may behave as piles punching into the upper
or lower soil layer as described by Broms and Wong (1985). In addition, the
centrifuge model tests done by Kitazume and Terashi (1991) indicated that the DM
columns failed by bending under a combination of vertical and horizontal forces.
Broms (1999) also indicated that horizontal forces would reduce the bearing capacity
of DM columns. Since the bending strengths of the DM columns are much lower
than their shear strengths, Kitazume et al. (1997) was concerned about the possibility
of overestimation using Bishops slip circle analysis in the current design.

Figure 2. Potential slip locations through DM columns

In recent years, numerical methods have been increasingly used for analyzing slope
stability including the computation of its factor of safety. San et al. (1994) indicated
that finite element and limit equilibrium methods could consistently determine the
locations of critical slip surfaces and required tensile strength of reinforcement in
geosynthetic-reinforced slopes. Dawson et al. (1999) concluded that the factors of
safety of unreinforced slopes obtained using a finite difference method (FLAC - Fast
Lagrangian Analysis of Continua) were in good agreement with those using the limit
equilibrium method with a log-spiral slip surface. Han et al. (2002) used the same
finite difference software (FLAC) to obtain the identical corresponding factors of
safety of unreinforced and geosynthetic-reinforced slopes as the Bishops modified
method (limit equilibrium method). The technique used for computing the factor of
safety of slope stability in the numerical method is discussed in the following section.
As compared with limit equilibrium methods, numerical methods have the following
advantages in solving the factor of safety of slope stability (Cundall, 2002): (1) no
pre-defined slip surface is needed; (2) the slip surface can be any shapes; (3) no
assumptions are needed for functions of inter-slice force angles; (4) multiple failure
surfaces are possible; (5) structures (such as footings, tunnels, etc.) and/or structural
elements (such as beams, cables, etc.) and interfaces can be included; and (6)
kinematics is satisfied. However, numerical methods generally require the user to
have more knowledge and experience in order to properly use it. A complicated and
large size problem may require significant computation time. The inclusion of
structural elements and interfaces may create numerical instability. It is difficult to

perform a specific search when it is sometimes needed (for example, surficial slope
stability needs to be prevented in order to study the deep-seated slope stability). The
comparisons of numerical solutions and limit equilibrium methods are presented in
Table 1. Considering the complexity of the failure mechanisms, the finite difference
method (FLAC) was adopted in this study to evaluate the deep-seated slope stability
of embankments over DM foundations. The computed factors of safety by the
numerical method were compared with those obtained using Bishops circular slip
surface method and the Spencers three-part wedge method.
Table 1. Comparisons of Numerical Solutions and Limit Equilibrium Methods
(Cundall, 2002)
Equilibrium
Stresses
Deformation
Failure

Kinematics

Numerical solution
Satisfied everywhere
Computed everywhere using
field equations
Part of the solution
Yield condition satisfied
everywhere; failure surfaces
develop automatically as
condition dictate
The mechanisms that develop
satisfy kinematic constraints

Limit equilibrium
Satisfied only for specific
objects (slices)
Computed approximately on
certain surfaces
Not considered
Failure allowed only on certain
pre-defined surfaces; no check
on yield condition elsewhere
Kinematics are not considered
mechanisms may not be feasible

Numerical Method
The finite difference program (FLAC 2D Version 4.0) developed by the Itasca
Consulting Group, Inc. was adopted in this study for numerical analyses of slope
stability of embankments over DM foundations. A shear strength reduction technique
was adopted in this program to solve for a factor of safety of slope stability. Dawson
et al. (1999) exhibited the use of the shear strength reduction technique in this finite
difference program and verified numerical results with limit equilibrium results for
simple slopes. In this technique, a series of trial factors of safety are used to adjust
the cohesion, c and the friction angle, , of soil as follows:
c trial =

1
c
FStrial

1
trial = arctan
tan

FStrial
Adjusted cohesion and friction angle of soil layers are re-inputted in the model for
equilibrium analysis. The factor of safety is sought when the specific adjusted

cohesion and friction angle make the slope become instability from a verge stable
condition or verge stable from an unstable condition.
Modeling

The geometry and material properties of the models used in this study are shown in
Figure 3. Deep mixed columns were modeled as continuous walls. Mohr-Coulomb
failure criteria were used for embankment fill, soft soil, firm soil, and deep mixed
walls. The properties of embankment fill, soft soil, and firm soil were kept constant.
The unit weight of all the soil layers including DM walls was 18kN/m3. In this study,
DM walls are installed at the toe, the shoulder, and the mid-point between the toe and
the shoulder with a thickness of 1.0m or 2.0m although they can be installed under
the whole embankment in practice. For a parametric study, the DM walls have an
undrained shear strength varying from 100kPa to 1000kPa and friction angle equal to
zero. The same models were used in numerical and limit equilibrium analyses.
20m
Soil-cement column
c=100 to 1000kPa, =00

1
2

1m or 2m

30m

10m

Embankment fill
c=0, =340

5m

Soft soil
c=10kPa, =00

10m

Firm soil c=100kPa, =00

5m

Figure 3. Numerical Analysis Model

Analysis of Results

Numerical Analyses
An embankment over untreated ground was selected as a baseline case. The shearstrain rate contours of this case were shown in Figure 4. It is shown that high shear
strain rates developed in the embankment and the soft soil, which created a critical
slip zone. The shape of this critical slip zone is circular, which is consistent with the
slip surface assumed in Bishops method. It is apparent that the critical slip zone was
bottomed out by the firm soil underneath the soft soil. Figure 5 presents shear-strain
rate contours for an embankment over a DM foundation. There is no continuous
shear-strain rate zone. It is shown that the shear-strain rate contours intercepted by
soil-cement walls. The high shear-strain rate zones developed in the embankment
and soft soil in front and behind the DM walls. In front of the column at the toe, the

high shear-strain rate zone was caused by the rotation of the column towards the soft
soil.
(15-17.5)x10-8
(12.5-15)x10-8
(10-12.5)x10-8
(7.5-10)x10-8
(5-7.5)x10-8
-8

(12.5-15)x10

(7.5-10)x10-8
(10-12.5)x10-8

Soft soil
Firm soil

Figure 4. Shear Strain Rates Developed in the Embankment and Untreated Ground

>10x10-8
(8-10)x10-8
(6-8)x10-8
(4-6)x10-8
< 4x10-8

(6-8)x10-8
(4-6)x10-8
(2-4)x10-8 Soft soil

(2-4)x10-8
Column Column Column

Firm soil

Figure 5. Shear Strain Rates Developed in the Embankment and theDM Foundation
(wall thickness = 1.0m; undrained shear strength of DM column, cu = 100kPa)
Since the critical slip surface was not very obvious based on the shear strain rate
contours in the embankment and the DM foundation, the velocity vectors obtained by
the numerical method were plotted in Figure 6 to assist in evaluating the critical slip
surface. The velocity vectors shown in Figure 6 represent the movement of the slope
and the soft soil with DM columns. The shape of the critical slip surface can be
approximately considered as a three-part wedge type. This critical slip surface was
simulated in the slope stability analysis using Spencers three-part wedge method in
the next section.

Figure 6. Velocity Vectors Developed in the Embankment and the DM Foundation

(wall thickness = 1.0m; undrained shear strength of DM column, cu = 100kPa)
Limit Equilibrium Analyses
The limit equilibrium program, ReSSA2.0, developed by ADAMA Engineering, Inc.,
was used in this study to conduct slope stability analyses using Bishops modified
method and Spencers three-part wedge method. The tangent to critical circles at
their points of exit for Bishops method is limited in ReSSA to a maximum of 50
degrees. This limitation is to avoid numerical errors leading to misleading values of
factor of safety when the circles emerge too steeply (Whitman and Bailey, 1967). The
critical slip surface based on Bishops modified method for the embankment over DM
columns is shown in Figure 7. Since the slip surface cut through three rows of DM
walls, all DM walls mobilized their full strengths.

Figure 7. Bishops Circular Slip Surface Analysis

(wall thickness = 1.0m; undrained shear strength of DM column, cu = 100kPa)
The critical slip surface based on Spencers three-part wedge method for the
embankment over DM columns is shown in Figure 8. As compared with the shape of
critical slip surface based on the velocity vectors, the three-part wedge slip surface

has a good representation of the critical slip surface obtained by the numerical
method.

Figure 8. Critical Slip Surface in Three-Part Wedge Analysis

(undrained shear strength of DM column, cu = 100kPa)
Factor of safety
The computed factors of safety against deep-seated slope failure using the FLAC
numerical method, Bishops modified method, and Spencers three-part wedge
method are plotted in Figure 9. When the undrained shear strength of DM walls is
equal to 10kPa, it represents a case with an untreated ground. It is shown that all
three methods computed almost identical factors of safety. With an increase of the
undrained shear strength of DM walls, the factors of safety computed by these three
methods become different. Bishops modified method yielded significantly higher
factors of safety than those obtained by the numerical method when the undrained
shear strength of the DM walls is higher. The difference may result from the
misrepresentation of the circular slip surface and fully mobilized strength of DM
walls assumed in Bishops method for this specific problem. However, the three-part
wedge method yielded lower or conservative factors of safety as compared with the
numerical method. Spencers method assumed that the interslice force angles from
the left and right vertical sides of each slice are equal. The inclusion of vertical
strong elements (DM walls) may change functions of interslice force angles between
the left and right vertical sides of slice.
Conclusions

Numerical analyses indicated that the critical slip surface of the embankment over a
deep mixed foundation for this specific problem was not circular. Bishops modified
method computed significantly higher factors of safety than the numerical method
when the undrained shear strength of the deep mixed walls. Spencers three-part
wedge method yielded lower factors of safety than the numerical method.

2.5
Three-row soil-cement walls
Wall thickness = 1m

Factor of Safety, FOS

1.5

Bishop's modified method

Numerical method (FLAC)
Three-part wedge method

0.5

0
0

200

400

600

800

1000

Undrained Shear Strength of DM Walls, cu(kPa)

(a)
2.5
Three-row soil-cement walls
Wall thickness = 2m

Factor of Safety, FOS

1.5

Bishop's modified method

Numerical method (FLAC)
Three-part wedge method

0.5

0
0

200

400

600

800

1000

Undrained Shear Strength of DM Walls, cu(kPa)

(b)
Figure 9. Computed Factors of Safety using Limit Equilibrium and Numerical
Methods (wall thickness = 2.0m)

Acknowledgement

This research work was conducted under the research fellowship provided by the
Japan Society for Promotion of Science (JSPS) for the first author as a visiting
associate professor at Saga University, Japan. This support is greatly appreciated.
The authors are thankful for valuable discussions with Prof. N. Miura at Saga
University on this specific research topic.
References

Bishop, A.W. (1955). The use of the slip circle in the stability analysis of slopes.
Geotechnique, 5, 7-17.
Broms, B.B. and Wong, I.H. (1985). Embankment piles. Third International
Geotechnical Seminar Soil Improvement Methods, Singapore, 27-29 November.
Broms, B.B. (1999). Can lime/cement columns be used in Singapore and Southeast
Asia? 3rd GRC Lecture, Nov. 19, Nanyang Technological University and NTUPWD Geotechnical research Centre, 214p.
Cundall, P.A. (2002). The replacement of limit equilibrium methods in design with
numerical solutions for factor of safety. Powerpoint presentation, Itasca
Consulting Group, Inc.
Dawson, E.M., Roth, W.H., and Drescher, A. (1999). Slope stability analysis by
strength reduction. Geotechnique 49(6), 835-840.
Han, J., Leshchinsky, D., and Shao, Y. (2002). Influence of tensile stiffness of
geosynthetic reinforcements on performance of reinforced slopes. Proceedings of
Geosynthetics 7th ICG, Delmas, Gourc & Girard (eds), Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse,
197-200.
Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. (2002). FLAC/Slope Users Guide, 1st Edition, 82p.
Kitazume, M. and Terashi, M. (1991). Effect of local soil improvement on the
behavior of revetment. Proc. Geo-Coast91, 1, 341-346.
Kitazume, M., Omine, K., Miyake, M., and Fujisawa, H. (1997). JGS TC Report:
Japanese design procedures and recent activities of DMM. Grouting and Deep
Mixing, Yonekura, Terashi, and Shibazaki (eds), Balkema, Rotterdam, 925-930.
San, K.C., Leshchinsky, D., and Matsui, T. (1994). Geosynthetic reinforced slopes:
limit equilibrium and finite element analyses. Soils and Foundations, 34(2), 7985.
Terashi, M. (2002). The state of practice in deep mixing methods. ASCE
Geotechnical Special Publication No. 120, L.F. Johnsen, D.A. Bruce, and M. J.
Byle (eds.), Vol. 1, 25-49.
Whitman and Bailey (1967). Use of computers for slope stability analysis. Journal
of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, ASCE, 93(SM4), 475-498.