GEOTECHNICAL AND SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS

IN THE DESIGN OF HIGHWAY EMBANKMENTS

Roy Anthony C. Luna, MSCE 1, 2

Benjamin R. Buensuceso, Jr., D.Eng.2

AMH Philippines, Inc., University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines
Institute of Civil Engineering, University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines

Abstract : The paper presents the various geotechnical considerations in the design of high embankments and focuses on the
most common stability analysis procedure. Seismic design or earthquake-resistant design is discussed as it applies to slope and
highway embankment stability. Various references in selecting seismic coefficient for pseudo-static analysis are cited. A sitespecific approach using an attenuation relation adopted in the Philippines is presented. Examples were shown, emphasizing
the importance of selecting a rational seismic coefficient, with the ultimate aim of coming-up with cost-effective design.
Keywords : Embankment, Slope Stability, Limit-Equilibrium Method, Pseudo-Static Analysis, Peak Ground Acceleration
1

INTRODUCTION

EMBANKMENT STABILITY ANALYSIS

Recent and ongoing expressway and highway projects,

particularly those along flatlands, have to be constructed on
high embankments because of hydrologic and hydraulic
considerations. Consequently, embankment slope stability
becomes a primary concern.

The main purpose of undertaking slope stability analysis of

high embankments is to contribute to the safe and economic
design of road and highway projects. To accomplish this, an
adequate understanding of geology, hydrology and soil
mechanics, including slope stability principles, is essential.

This paper presents the various geotechnical considerations

in the design of high embankments, current practice on
stability analysis, and approaches in selecting an appropriate
seismic design parameter.

Analyses must be based upon a model that best represents

(1) site subsurface conditions, which can be established by a
reasonably comprehensive geotechnical investigation; (2)
the properties of engineered fill, which is dependent on the
borrow source, the method of construction and degree of
compaction; and (3) applied loads, including inertia forces
due to ground movement. Judgments regarding acceptable
risk or factors of safety must also be made to evaluate the
results of the analyses.

GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS

An exhaustive geologic assessment and geotechnical

investigation is imperative for a cost-effective embankment
design. From the results of the investigation, the stability of
the side slopes, as well as the bearing capacity and
compressibility of the natural ground, shall be assessed.
Liquefaction analysis, particularly if the site subsoil is
characterized by saturated, non-plastic soils, is also
warranted. With relevant and reliable geotechnical data, an
optimized embankment design, or if necessary, stabilization
measures, can be formulated. Stabilization measures may
involve ground improvement techniques, or if right-of-way
considerations may warrant, the use of retaining structures.
Depending on the subsoil condition, implementation of
staged embankment construction can be a cost-effective
approach. By this approach, immediate settlements (for sand
layers) and consolidation (for clay layers) are allowed to
take place, improving the strength of the soils underlying the
highway embankment. Otherwise, rapid construction may
trigger base failure or induce cracks or zones of weaknesses
within the embankment.

Given the slope geometry, geotechnical properties of

engineered fill and ground conditions, the stability of a slope
can be assessed using either published chart solutions or
computer analysis.
Stability charts, such as those of Taylor, Spencer, Janbu, and
Bishop-Morgenstern, can be useful for preliminary analysis
and design. For detailed engineering analysis and design,
slope stability analysis using computer programs, which is
usually based on limit equilibrium approach for a twodimensional model, is typically utilized.
More advanced programs using the finite element or
boundary element methods are also available. However,
such analysis methods require a complete model of the
subsoil (and embankment) and their constitutive parameters
obtained through an extensive program of laboratory tests.

SEISMIC ANALYSIS

4.1
Earthquake-Resistant Design
The development of structural design codes in the last
couple of decades placed emphasis on earthquake-resistant
design. The American Association of State Highway and
Transport Officials (AASHTO), in its Standard
Specifications for Highway Bridges Division I-A (Seismic
Design), articulated this design philosophy as follows:

Hazard to life be minimized;

Bridges may suffer damage but have low probability of
collapse due to earthquake motions;
Small to moderate earthquakes should be resisted
without significant damage;
Realistic seismic ground motion intensities and forces
are used in the design procedures;
Large earthquakes should not cause collapse. Where
possible, damage that does occur should be readily
detectable and accessible for repair and inspection;
Function of essential bridges to be maintained;
Ground motions used in design should have low
probability of being exceeded during normal life-time of
the bridge; and
Ingenuity of the design not to be restricted.

By definition, bridges are extension of roads and highways

over waterways or obstructions. In this context, it is
appropriate to adopt the same philosophy in the seismic
analysis and design of embankments for highways
particularly, expressways and major arterial roads.
4.2
Pseudo Static Method of Seismic Analysis
Earthquake ground motions can induce considerable
destabilizing inertial forces in slopes. Seismic analysis is
therefore essential in evaluating the long-term stability of
slopes and embankments.
Generally, the pseudo-static method is the simplest and most
common method in evaluating stability of slopes during
earthquakes. In this method, the earthquakes inertial forces
are simulated by the inclusion of a static horizontal and
vertical force in a limit equilibrium analysis.
Typically, the seismic force is assumed to act in a horizontal
direction only, inducing an inertial force khW (where kh is
the horizontal seismic coefficient and W is the weight of the
potential sliding mass), in the slope
4.3
Selection of Ground Motion Parameters
As earlier presented, the objective of earthquake-resistant
design is to come-up with a structure that can withstand a
certain level of shaking without excessive damage. This
level of shaking is described by a design ground motion. The
specification of design ground motion parameters is one of
the most important problems in geotechnical earthquake
engineering. In slope stability analysis, this translates to the
selection of an appropriate seismic coefficient kh and the
value of an acceptable factor of safety (FOS).

Table 1 presents a summary of typical seismic coefficients

adopted in practice.
Table 1 Typical Seismic Coefficients
kh
0.10
0.15 0.25
0.05 0.15

Remarks
US Corps of Engineers
Japan
State of California

0.15

Seed (1979)

PGA

Hynes-Griffin and
Franklin (1984)

FOS > 1.0

FOS > 1.0

FOS >1.15
and a 20%
strength reduction
FOS >1.0
and a 20%
strength reduction

PGA is Peak Ground Acceleration. It is the maximum value

of acceleration reached at any instant during the ground
shaking. PGA is given in relation to the acceleration due to
gravity (g) or in absolute values m/s unit.
A very conservative assumption in selecting seismic
coefficient is to assume PGA = kh, but this will result in an
uneconomical design.
Evidently, a rational approach in the selection of seismic
coefficients is essential for the cost-effective design of
slopes.
4.4
PGA and Ground Attenuation Relation
The magnitude of the seismic coefficient to be adopted for a
particular site or project should adequately simulate the
expected earthquake forces. The computation of PGA can be
a rational (and site-specific) approach in establishing the
seismic coefficient for slope stability analysis.
Generally, the following important factors are considered in
determining the PGA:

Probabilistic or deterministic ground motion hazard model

Distance from earthquake generator (fault line or trench)
Geologic conditions
Attenuation relation model

4.4.1 Attenuation Models

Because of the lack of strong motion data for large
earthquakes, the Philippines still does not have its own
ground attenuation model. The Philippine Institute of
Volcanology and Seismology (PHIVOLCS), in its studies,
adopted the model by Fukushima and Tanaka (1990) of
Japan. The use of this attenuation relation model was
considered appropriate since Japan and the Philippines have
similar tectonic setting (subduction zone) and are both island
arcs.
Figure 1 presents the Tectonic and Geologic Map of the
Philippines, showing the various trenches and active faults
within and around the archipelago.

Figure 2. Plot of Fukushima and Tanaka Attenuation Model

After the 1990 Luzon Earthquake, a joint study by the
United States Geological Survey (USGS) and PHIVOLCS
led to the publication of the Estimates of Regional GroundMotion Hazards in the Philippines. Utilizing the Fukushima
Tanaka Attenuation Model, peak horizontal ground
accelerations that have a 10% probability of being exceeded
in 50 years were estimated for rock, medium soil and soft
soil site conditions. Figure 3 is the map showing peak
horizontal acceleration amplitude/s in medium soil.
Contours are in terms of acceleration due to gravity (g).
Figure 1. Philippine Tectonic and Geologic Map (MGB)
Presently, the Philippines is in the process of gathering
strong motion data with the ultimate objective of eventually
developing its own attenuation relation.
4.4.2 Fukushima and Tanaka Attenuation Model
The Fukushima and Tanaka attenuation model is basically a
function of the surface-wave magnitude, as well as the
shortest distance between the site and fault rupture
(earthquake generator). The general functional form of this
attenuation relation is given by:
log(Am)=0.41 M log(R + 0.032*10 0.41M) - 0.0034R + 1.3
Am: mean of peak acceleration from two horizontal
components (cm/s2)
M: surface wave magnitude
R: shortest distance between site and fault rupture (km)
The above relation is considered valid for magnitude ranges
of 4.5 to 8.2 at a distance range of 10 km to 300 km.
Furthermore, the model yields ground motion at the surface.
Thus, correction is required in order to predict the peak
ground acceleration at a particular type of foundation.
The average peak accelerations for rock, hard soil, medium
soil and soft soil sites are 60, 107, 87 and 139 percent,
respectively, of the predicted PGA from the formula.

Figure 3. Acceleration in Medium Soil (Thenhaus et.al.)

EXAMPLE

To illustrate the importance of the selection of an

appropriate seismic coefficient in stability analysis and
embankment design, a 10meters-high road embankment
section is analyzed. Two (2) slope geometries were
considered. Figure 4 and Figure 5 show 1V:1.5H and 1V:2H
slope sections, respectively. Typical intermediate berms,
1.0meter-wide, were provided.

ru=0
1.8

ru=0.1
ru=0.2

1.6
Factor of Safety

ru=0.3
ru=0.4

1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0

0.1

Figure 4. 1V:1.5H slope

0.2

0.3

0.4

kh

Fig. 7 Plot of FOS and kh for 1V:2H slope

6
Figure 5. 1V:2H slope
Typical strength properties of engineered fill (corresponding
to medium dense to dense soils) were adopted. A computer
program (using Bishop Method) was utilized to facilitate the
calculations of factors of safety (FOS) at varying porewater
pressure condition and seismic coefficient.
A value of kh (horizontal seismic coefficient) ranging from
0.05g to 0.4g was considered. The maximum kh = 0.4g
illustrates the case where kh = PGA (see Figure 3), assuming
the site of the example road project is underlain by medium
soil. The case where kh = 0 was also included to establish the
factor of safety at static condition.
Figure 6 and Figure 7 present the plots of factor of safety at
varying seismic coefficient (and porewater pressure ratio).
From the plots, critical acceleration (with moderate
porewater pressure ratio of 0.2) is 0.1g for 1V:1.5H slope,
and around 0.2g for 1V:2H slope.
1.6

Factor of Safety

ru=0
1.4

ru=0.1

1.2

ru=0.2
ru=0.3
ru=0.4

0.8

0.6

0.4
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

kh

Fig. 6 Plot of FOS and kh for 1V:1.5H slope

0.4

CONCLUSION

A site-specific approach in selecting seismic coefficient for

slope stability analysis has been discussed. It is clearly
evident from the examples that variations in seismic
coefficient have tremendous impact on the slope geometry,
and consequently, on the construction cost.
Further research, testing, monitoring of existing roads on
high embankments, and performance evaluation are highly
encouraged. Collaboration of geologists, seismologists and
civil engineers are vital in achieving earthquake-resistant
and economical design of road and transport infrastructures.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors acknowledge the assistance provided by Engr.
Martin Luther L. Cocson of AMH Philippines, Inc., as well
as the valuable discussions with Dr. Ramon D. Quebral of
the Mines and Geosciences Bureau. The examples presented
were based on projects undertaken by the authors.
REFERENCES
Abramson, L.W., Lee, T.S., Sharma, S., and Boyce, G..M.
(2002). Slope Stability and Stabilization Methods. John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (1996). Standard Specifications for Highway
Bridges. AASHTO, Washington D.C.
Bautista, B.C., et.al. (2000). A Deterministic Ground Motion
Hazard Assessment of Metro Manila, Philippines.
Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology
(PHIVOLCS), Quezon City.
Daligdig, J.A. and Besana, G..M. (1993). Seismological
Hazards in Metro Manila. Philippine Institute of
Volcanology and Seismology (PHIVOLCS), Quezon City.
Kramer, S. L. (1996). Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering.
Prentice-Hall, Inc., New Jersey.
Thenhaus, P.C., et. al. (1994). Estimates of Regional Ground
Motion Hazard in the Philippines. United States
Geological Survey (USGS) and Philippine Institute of
Volcanology and Seismology (PHIVOLCS).