PPR341

Published Project Report
PPR341
Drainage of earthworks slopes

D R Carder
G R A Watts (TRL Limited)
L Campton
S Motley (Halcrow Group Ltd)
Drainage of Earthworks Slopes
by D R Carder, G R A Watts (TRL Limited),

L Campton and S Motley (Halcrow Group Ltd)
PPR 341
153(666)
PUBLISHED PROJECT REPORT

TRL Limited
PUBLISHED PROJECT REPORT PPR 341
DRAINAGE OF EARTHWORKS SLOPES
Version: Final
by D R Carder, G R A Watts (TRL Limited), L Campton and S Motley (Halcrow

Group Ltd)
Prepared for:Project Record: 153(666) HTRL Drainage of Earthworks Slopes
Client: T Messafer
(SSR, Highways Agency)
Copyright TRL Limited May 2008
This report has been prepared for the Highways Agency. The views expressed are those of the authors and not
necessarily those of the Highways Agency.
Published Project Reports are written primarily for the Client rather than a general audience and are published
with the Client’s approval.
Approvals
Project Manager Derek Carder
Quality Reviewed Bill McMahon

This report has been produced by Halcrow/TRL under a Contract placed by Highways Agency. Any views
expressed are not necessarily those of the Agency.
TRL is committed to optimising energy efficiency, reducing waste and promoting recycling and re-use. In
support of these environmental goals, this report has been printed on recycled paper, comprising 100% post-
consumer waste, manufactured using a TCF (totally chlorine free) process.
CONTENTS
Executive summary i
1 Introduction 1
2 The distribution of pore water pressure in highway slopes 2
2.1 The distribution of pore water pressures in embankments 2

2.1.1 M1 Toddington 2
2.1.2 M26 Dunton Green 4
2.1.3 A45 Cambridge Northern Bypass (2 slopes) 4
2.1.4 M26 Nepicar 5
2.1.5 M25 Franks Farm 6
2.2 The distribution of pore water pressures in cuttings 7
2.2.1 M25 Godstone 7
2.2.2 A12 Colchester 9
2.3 The effect of vegetation upon pore water pressures 10
2.4 Predictions of the pore water pressure regime 12
2.4.1 Embankments 12
2.4.2 Cuttings 13
3 Critical review of methods of slope drainage 15
3.1 Deep trench drains, counterfort drains and rock ribs 15

3.1.1 A12 Romford 15
3.1.2 A120 Colchester 18
3.1.3 A45 Cambridge Northern Bypass 19
3.2 Shallow slope drains 20
3.3 Embankment drainage blankets and sand drains 20
3.4 Filter and fin drains 20
3.4.1 Filter drains 20
3.4.2 Narrow filter and fin drains 22
3.5 Open ditch and surface water channels 23
3.5.1 Applicability of channels for slope drainage 25
3.5.2 Concrete channels 25
3.5.3 Grassed channels 25
3.6 Vertical and horizontal drains 28
3.6.1 Vertical drains 28
3.6.2 Horizontal drains 28
3.7 Electro-osmosis 30
3.8 Vegetated slopes 31
3.9 Interaction with highway drainage systems 32
4 Best practice guidance in design and maintenance 35
4.1 Design 35
4.1.1 Deep trench drains, counterfort drains and rock ribs 35
4.1.2 Shallow slope drains 36
4.1.3 Embankment drainage blankets and sand drains 37
4.1.4 Filter and fin drains 37
4.1.5 Open ditch and surface water channels 38
4.1.6 Vertical and horizontal drains 40
TRL Limited PPR 341

4.1.7 Electro-osmosis 43
4.1.8 Vegetated slopes 45
4.2 Maintenance 45
4.2.1 Deep trench drains, counterfort drains and rock ribs 45
4.2.2 Shallow slope drains 46
4.2.3 Embankment drainage blankets and sand drains 46
4.2.4 Filter and fin drains 46
4.2.5 Open ditch and surface water channels 46
4.2.6 Vertical and horizontal drains 47
4.2.7 General 48
4.3 Interaction with highway drainage systems 48
5 Survey of practitioners 50
6 Selection of Drainage Measures 51
6.1 Selection of drainage measures 51

6.2 Impact of climate change 52
7 Conclusions 55
8 Recommendations for further research 55
9 Acknowledgements 57
10 References 58
Appendix A. Questionnaire to practitioners 63
Appendix B. Costs of drainage remedial measures at 2002 prices 66
TRL Limited PPR 341

Published Project Report Version: Final
Executive summary
The stability of highway embankments and cuttings is critically dependent on the magnitude and
distribution of pore water pressures within the soil. Pore pressures arise from the presence of water
within the soil matrix, which may be introduced via natural precipitation and/or recharge from nearby
external sources. For all earthwork slopes, rainfall will enter the underlying soil through the surface,
in quantities which depend on the soil type, topography, and vegetation cover. Slope drainage can
control the movement of surface water and also the subsurface pore water pressure in the slope.
Drainage can be very effective if installed at the correct location on or within the slope. In the long
term, systems need to be designed with maintenance operations in mind so that a sustainable system is
installed with a design life comparable to the 60 year design life of a highway slope.
Although it is widely recognised that robust, sustainable and cost-efficient slope drainage measures
are of critical importance, there is comparatively little information on slope related issues in current
Highways Agency documents. There are references in a number of the Advice Notes and
Departmental Standards within the DMRB relating to earthwork drainage, but none deal specifically
with this subject. This study has aimed at addressing this issue by highlighting references in the
DMRB, identifying other sources of information and noting relevant documented case/field studies.
The report commences by reviewing the measured distributions of pore water pressures in both
embankment and cutting slopes. A critical assessment is then made of the available slope drainage
techniques and related issues, these include:
• slope drains, counterfort drains and rock ribs,
• embankment drainage blankets and sand drains,
• filter and fin drains,
• vegetated slopes,
• open ditch and surface water channels,
• vertical and horizontal bored drains,
• electro-osmosis,
• interaction with highway drainage systems.
The current design practices for each of the above techniques are given in the report and a look-up
table is presented that relates the development of pore water pressures in slopes and drainage issues to
appropriate remedial measures, and provides a crude comparison of relative costs.
The increasing frequency of extreme rainfall events caused by climate change requires greater
emphasis to be placed on a consideration of storm water and surface run-off at the design stage. This
is to avoid in-service problems with mud and debris slides and to minimise the infiltration of water
into clay slopes after the development of shrinkage cracks during prolonged hot spells.
The report concludes by recommending an increased use of surface water channels and a more
proactive bioengineering approach in the design of slope drainage systems. These measures offer the
advantages of ease of inspection, reduced maintenance costs and a sustainable technique.
TRL Limited i PPR 341

TRL Limited ii PPR 341

1
1 Introduction
For all earthwork slopes, rainfall will enter the underlying soil through the surface, in quantities which
depend on the soil type, topography, and vegetation cover. Slope drainage can control the movement
of surface water and also the subsurface pore water pressure in the slope. Drainage can be very
effective if installed at the correct location on or within the slope. In the long term, systems need to be
designed with maintenance operations in mind so that a sustainable system is installed with a design
life comparable to the 60 year design life of a highway slope.
The impact of climate change upon drainage and slope stability also needs to be considered in the
design. Advice on this is given by the UK Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP02) and impacts
include:
• higher temperatures,
• changing precipitation patterns (including more extreme events),
• changes in other variables (e.g. number of storms, changes in sea level, regional effects).
Currently the number of slope failures on the highway network is limited and failures which do occur
are mostly associated with the high plasticity, over-consolidated clays which are common in England
(Perry, 1989). Clay slopes are particularly susceptible to drying during prolonged dry summers and
this leads to the formation of shrinkage cracks which rapidly fill with water during intense rain
storms. This ingress of water can lead to softening of clay slopes and adversely affect slope stability
in critical cases. More severe winter conditions with heavier extreme rainfalls will lead to a rise in the
water table with increased pore water pressures in the slope leaving soils, especially those that are
clayey, vulnerable to reductions in soil strength which adversely affect slope stability.
Although the focus of this report is on soil slopes, a wider range of slope failures occurs in the north
of England, Wales and Scotland because of the range of geologies. For example, the issue of
landslides, slumps, and mudflows has been extensively considered by Transport Scotland and a
summary of the findings is given by Winter et al (2005).
Slope instability affects the infrastructure foundation and can damage other assets located on the
embankment or in the cutting. Large slope movements or settlements lead to traffic speed restrictions
or route closure, and can damage the carriageway and any footway. Hence the understanding and
management of drainage provisions to improve the longevity and stability of slopes is of prime
importance to all infrastructure owners. For this reason, although the emphasis of this study is on
highway slopes, some information from other slopes has been included where relevant.
This report commences by reviewing the measured distributions of pore water pressures in both
embankment and cutting slopes, so that a critical assessment can be made of the applicability of
different slope drainage techniques.
The various drainage techniques and issues covered by the report include:
• slope drains, counterfort drains and rock ribs,
• embankment drainage blankets, sand drains and wick drains,
• filter and fin drains,
• vegetated slopes,
• open ditch and surface water channels,
• vertical and horizontal bored drains,
• electro-osmosis,
• interaction with highway drainage systems.
The report concludes with best practice guidance in the design and maintenance of the various
drainage systems.
TRL Limited 1 PPR 341

2
2 The distribution of pore water pressure in highway slopes

An understanding of the distribution of pore water pressures within a slope is of particular relevance
in determining the type and location of suitable slope drainage systems. Methods for the field
measurement of pore water pressures are described by Ridley et al (2003). Pore water pressure is one
of the dominant factors to be controlled to ensure the stability of slopes and a review of the measured
distributions of pore water pressure in typical earthworks slopes has therefore been undertaken. This
is based largely on previous TRL measurements at a number of sites on highway schemes. In general,
these sites are at locations of incipient instability and are therefore very relevant to an understanding
of how drainage provisions can be optimised with respect to stability improvement, and where they
are best located.
The interpretation of the measurements at the TRL sites takes into consideration previous numerical
analyses of pore pressures which have identified potential for water pressures to build up, possibly
leading to delayed collapse of clay slopes. The prediction of moisture migration in highway slopes is
an important aspect.
The groundwater regime in embankments and cuttings is very different and for this reason the case
history studies described in this report are separated into these two categories. It must be noted that
for a vegetated slope, water will be removed by transpiration: these issues are separately discussed
with case history studies in Section 2.3.
2.1 The distribution of pore water pressures in embankments
2.1.1 M1 Toddington
TRL has investigated the pore water pressures in a 6.5m high Gault Clay embankment on the M1
(Carder et al, 2001). The embankment was constructed as part of the section of the M1 (Luton to
Ridgmont) which was opened in 1959. The embankment was constructed using clay excavated from
neighbouring areas of the works and the slope angle was approximately 1 in 2. An open ditch was
used for drainage purposes in front of the toe of the slope and there is no record of any drainage
blanket being used beneath the embankment. Strength profiles obtained from tests carried out using
the Panda penetrometer through the embankment material and into the clay foundation found no
evidence of a layer of higher strength. This tended to confirm that a drainage blanket had not been
installed below the clay fill at the time of embankment construction.
In recent years the site had shown some instability with numerous very shallow slips being evident on
the grassed slope giving it an undulating appearance. In Figure 2.1 the measured pore water pressures
at the piezometer locations are shown along with contour plots of the pore pressure distribution. The
piezometers used incorporated vibrating wire transducers with hydraulic twin tubes for de-airing
purposes so that small suctions could be recorded.
The measurements in Figure 2.1 show the contours of positive pore pressure which extend from the
body of the embankment into the side slope. Within the body of the embankment the pore pressure
initially increases with depth as would be expected because of the incidence of rainfall on the central
reserve and other unsurfaced areas at the top of the embankment. Below about mid-height these
positive pressures reduce as drainage occurs into the embankment foundation. Figure 2.1 shows the
contours of pore pressures of 5kPa and 10kPa extending from the body of the embankment into its
side slope by an amount primarily related to the seasonal rainfall. For example, the contour of 10kPa
pore pressure is far more extensive in May 2000 and February 2001 after periods of heavy rainfall.
Although generally the pore pressures within 1m of the slope surface are in suction, the contour plot
in February 2001 indicates the possibility that after prolonged and intense heavy rainfall, positive pore
pressures could occur near the slope surface at about mid-height. This could account for the incidence
of shallow failures at this site. It is also evident in Figure 2.1 that pore pressures measured on the
piezometer at foundation level and nearest to the toe of the slope fluctuated considerably depending
upon the season. In February 2001 a maximum value of 10.2kPa was recorded at this location and,
after prolonged rainfall events, it is envisaged that even higher pore pressures could be developed at
the toe adversely affecting the slope stability.

3
(a) May 1999
(b) June 1999
(c) August 1999
(d) May 2000
(e) August 2000
(f) February 2001
Figure 2.1. Contour plots of pore pressure (kPa) in the Gault Clay embankment on the M1

4
2.1.2 M26 Dunton Green

The embankment slope on the M26 at Dunton Green is 8.3m high with a slope angle of 1 in 4. The
embankment fill was Gault Clay. Some while after construction, TRL installed an array of flushable
twin tube hydraulic piezometers with hydraulic heads being measured utilising hydraulic scanning
valves which switched each piezometer in turn to a pressure transducer in the gauge house. Each
piezometer was pushed into the base of pre-formed boreholes so that intimate contact was obtained
between the piezometer tips and the clay. In this way the distribution of pore water pressure in the
slope could be determined.
Crabb and Hiller (1993) produced plots of the variation of pore pressure with time as part of an
investigation into the mechanism of shallow failure in Gault Clay embankment slopes, although it
must be noted that no visible signs of failure were evident at the time of monitoring.
The data presented by Crabb and Hiller (1993) showed that there is an annual cycle of pore water
pressure due to seasonal wetting and drying, which penetrates to the depth of about 1.5m. This depth
correlated with that at which shallow failures in Gault Clay slopes commonly occurred and a potential
failure surface is indicated in Figure 2.2.
Potential failure surface
Piezometer
+10
+10
0 5
Metres +20
Figure 2.2. Contour plot of pore pressures (kPa) in the Gault Clay embankment
on the M25 (March 1988)
It is noticeable that pore pressures at depth in the slope are much less than those reported for the
Toddington M1 site (see Section 2.1.1). This may be related to the age of the earthworks as the
suctions in the M1 clay fill have had much longer to dissipate. It is expected that more positive
pressures will develop at depth in the M25 slope in the course of time.
2.1.3 A45 Cambridge Northern Bypass (2 slopes)

A trial of seven different slope stabilisation techniques was carried out on the A45 (now A14) and
reported by Johnson (1985). The purpose of the trial was to identify the most satisfactory and
economical method of repairing and preventing the numerous shallow failures that commonly occur
on Gault Clay embankments. The embankment was 7.8m high with a nominal side slope angle of 1 in
2. The section of the slope chosen for the study was an unfailed section of about 35m length. Pore

5
water pressure measurements using flushable hydraulic piezometers were initiated in January 1984
and the first signs of movement were apparent in May 1985 when a 600mm deep crack appeared near
the crest. By July 1986, heave was visible near the toe of the slope. The pore water pressures recorded
in April 1987 and the shape of the failure surface are shown in Figure 2.3.
Original surface
Failure surface
Ground surface (post-slip)
-80 Piezometer
-40
-10
0
+10
0 1 2
Metres
on the A45 (April 1987)
As a result of the failure it is difficult to draw conclusions about the pore pressures within the failed
zone, however the contours in Figure 2.3 clearly indicate the high suctions beneath the embankment
which extend well into the side slope. It is known that the fill at Cambridge came from a deep borrow
pit at Milton. In the core of the embankment this suction has probably been sustained by the
combination of low infiltration through the pavement and the elevation above the natural groundwater
level, whereas in the slope greater infiltration and lower elevation have allowed the pressure to
increase. Given the high levels of suction, the potential for deeper seated future failures is particularly
low provided that water ingress is limited.
2.1.4 M26 Nepicar

The Gault Clay embankment at Nepicar on the M26 was located on the north-facing slope of the west
approach embankment, where it is 6.7m high and at a slope angle of 1 in 3.3. The length of slope was
considered to be at risk as it was adjacent to an existing, unrepaired failure towards the bridge
abutment end of the embankment. Flushable, twin-tubed hydraulic piezometers were installed in
January 1985 (Crabb and Hiller, 1993). Following piezometer installation, the first evidence of failure
in the instrumented section occurred in June 1988 when cracking and vertical movement were
observed over several metres, close to the crest of the slope. The contours of pore pressures measured
within the slope in December 1988 are shown in Figure 2.4. Further movements and cracking at the
crest occurred subsequently in 1989.

6
Failure surface
Ground Surface
Piezometer
-40
+10
+20
0 5
Metres
on the M26 (December 1988)
High suctions were again measured beneath the embankment and these extended into its side slopes.
These observations were similar to those at Cambridge and although the source of the Gault Clay fill
at Nepicar is not known it is presumed that it came from a deep borrow pit in much the same way.
The contours in Figure 2.4 suggest that positive pressures develop seasonally near to the surface as
water migrates into the clay to dissipate its high suction.
2.1.5 M25 Franks Farm

The embankments in the vicinity of Junction 29 of the M25 motorway were constructed in 1981 using
high plasticity over-consolidated London Clay as fill material. Following a series of slope failures,
both shallow and deep, in the area, instruments were installed in 2003 to monitor the performance of
the slopes at three locations to the south of Junction 29. Flushable twin tube hydraulic piezometers
connected to a vibrating wire pressure transducer were again installed to monitor the seasonal
variation of pore water pressures. However as the main focus of the investigation was to measure
slope movements, an insufficient number of piezometers were actually installed to produce reliable
contour plots of pore pressure. Nevertheless some useful conclusions on the pore water regime could
still be made. The main conclusions were:
• measurements of pore water pressures at the central reservations of the three
slopes indicated the existence of a perched water table in a clayey sand layer,
which overlies the more impermeable clay. Some cyclic change in pore pressures
was measured which was considered to be related to infiltration of rainfall.
• measured pore pressures within the clay fill of the side slopes were, with a few
exceptions, generally in the range +5kPa to -10kPa. Suctions appeared to be
particularly prevalent near the level of the drainage blanket where some under-
drainage occurred and also at shallow depths beneath the grassed slopes.
• at all three slope locations, progressive lateral movements of the slope surface
associated with shallow failures were measured over a 28 month duration.
Superimposed on the progressive trend of downslope movement is a cyclic

7
seasonal effect related to swelling of the clay during the wet season with
shrinkage of the surface during the summer season.
Movement data were similar at all three locations even though at two of these drainage ditches exist at
the toe of the slope, whilst at the toe of the other there is no drainage ditch with some flooding of the
adjoining field occurring during the winter.
2.2 The distribution of pore water pressures in cuttings
2.2.1 M25 Godstone

Following a deep-seated failure of a Gault Clay cutting slope near Junction 6 of the M25, the slope
was remediated using a single row of spaced bored piles (1.05m diameter and 16m long piles at 2.5m
centres) accompanied by extensive drainage works comprising the construction of deep counterfort
drains downslope of the piles and a cut-off drain upslope of the backscarp. Details of subsequent
ground and pile movements are not the subject of this study but are reported by Carder and Barker
(2005a). One aspect of this study however included the measurement of pore water pressures after
remediation and these are of significance when looking at the effectiveness of the installed drainage
measures.
Generally the side-long slope comprised stiff fissured Gault Clay, in some areas weathering of the
upper zones was readily identified and in others the clay was overlain by a few metres of poorly
sorted Head deposits. Gault Clay cutting slopes are known to be a geology associated with a high
percentage of shallow failures (Perry, 1989). On the motorway network they tend to have a
predominant slope angle of 1:2.5. In this case, the relatively deep-seated failure occurred even though
the slope angle was only 1:4 to 1:5.
Figure 2.5 shows the variations of pore water pressure at three selected dates. Two of these (March
and October 2002) were selected to illustrate the normal seasonal range of pore pressure conditions,
whilst the values recorded in January 2003 are shown as pore pressures peaked at this time. On the
latter date, pore pressures at 20m upslope and those close to the pile line exceeded the normal range of
values, whilst any effect was less noticeable at 36m upslope possibly because of the proximity of the
cut-off drain.
Also indicated in Figure 2.5 is the mean level of the water table in the underlying unweathered Gault
Clay; below this level the increase in pore water pressure with depth was approximately hydrostatic.
At all locations a perched water table existed in the weathered clay and head deposits: this was
particularly evident at the piezometer locations furthest (i.e. 36m) upslope from the stabilising piles.
The cut-off and counterfort drainage systems were generally effective in controlling the development
of excess pore water pressures within the remediated slope. However Carder and Barker (2005a)
report continuing lateral movements of the ground at 20m upslope from the pile line. The
development of these movements is strongly related to the cumulative effect of any persistent and
heavy rainfall. In addition to surface lateral movements, peaks in subsurface movement at this
location developed at about 152mAOD (5m depth) within the weathered clay and at 148mAOD (9m
depth) in the unweathered clay. Because these movements are at depth, it is not clear if further
drainage measures on their own would be adequate in controlling them without additional stabilising
measures.

8
Perched water table in
head deposit and
weathered clay
Water table in
unweathered clay
Range of pore
pressures between
March and October 2002
Pore pressures in
January 2003
Cut-off drain
160
155
Level (mAOD)
150 -10 0 10 20 30
Pore pressure (kPa)
-10 0 10 20 30 40
Pore pressure (kPa) Counterfort drain
145
Filter drain
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Pore pressure (kPa)
Pile line
Scale:
10m
Figure 2.5. Ground water profiles in the Gault Clay cutting slope on the M25 after its remediation
9
2.2.2 A12 Colchester

The cutting slope is located on the southbound carriageway of the A12 Colchester Northern Bypass.
The slope has a maximum height of 9m and a slope angle of approximately 1:2. The cutting slope is
mainly constructed in London Clay, although various repairs have been carried out by reinstating the
slope using imported granular material. Following the last reinstatement, the slope failed again by
deep-seated slippage in the underlying clay. A more permanent structural solution was therefore
sought by using a line of spaced piles (900mm diameter and 13m long piles at 3m centres) and
improving top of slope drainage (Carder and Barker, 2005b).
As part of the performance monitoring of the remedial works, piezometers were installed at various
depths within the slope. Figure 2.6 shows the measured pore water pressure distributions after
completion of the remediation.
A cut-off filter drain at the top of the slope was installed immediately after piling was completed and
this controlled the apparent water table to about 2m to 3m depth below the slope surface. There was
evidence of a perched water table in the weathered clay of the slope, as pore water pressures increased
with depth but then reduced again nearer to the weathered/unweathered clay interface at about 9m
depth below the crest of the slope.
Cut-off drain
P1
P5
P9 P2
P6
A12 Southbound
P10 P3
P7
01-06-2003
P11 P4
01-09-2003
40 30 20 10 0
P8 Pore pressure (kPa)
01-12-2003
30 20 10 0
01-03-2004 P12 Pore pressure (kPa)
20 10 0
01-06-2004 Pore pressure (kPa)
01-09-2004
01-12-2004
16-02-2005 Line of spaced piles 1m
Figure 2.6. Pore water pressure distribution in a failed London Clay cutting slope
on the A12 after its remediation

10
2.3 The effect of vegetation upon pore water pressures

The presence of vegetation on a slope brings both hydrological and mechanical benefits to the
stability of slopes. Vegetation modifies the moisture content of the soil, so influencing soil strength,
and the presence of roots in the soil also increases soil strength and, therefore, its stability.
The effect of vegetation can be viewed as an “indirect” drainage measure as its presence can reduce
the soil moisture content and the pore water pressure near the slope surface and prevent ingress of
water into and possible erosion of weathered soil at the surface. Vegetation cover can reduce soil
moisture content through:
• foliar interception and direct absorption and evaporation of rainwater, which
reduces the amount infiltrating into the soil; and
• extracting soil moisture via the transpiration stream, thus reducing pore water
pressure and counteracting the reduction in soil strength that wetting causes.
Transpiration is greater when plants are growing rapidly in the summer, under non-limiting moisture
conditions. Many plants that live in damp habitats are characterised by high transpiration rates, and so
have a high capacity to remove water from the soil. Such plants are potentially useful for reducing
high pore water pressures, but their tolerance of drier soils may be limited.
MacNeil et al (2001) reported a survey of the plant groups relevant to soil stabilisation, the form and
function of the root systems, and the processes by which vegetation may enhance stability. Soil water
depletion is strongly influenced by root depth and distribution. Grasses are capable of rooting to a
reasonable depth in good soils and the ability of many trees to reduce soil moisture to considerable
depth is well known1. However planting of trees on highway slopes may possibly give rise to other
problems such as leaf fall2, disruption to the network if blown over by strong winds, and the need for
coppicing. A suitable compromise may be to plant live willow poles, which have been proven to be
effective in preventing shallow failures by both dowelling action and moisture depletion (Steele et al,
2004).
As plant metabolic activity and transpiration are lower over the winter, this reduces the impact
vegetation has on soil/water relationships during the period when rainfall is at a maximum. This led
Coppin and Richards (1990) to argue that the ability of trees to reduce soil water and affect soil
strength would be less than the effect their roots had on soil reinforcement, especially at the times
critical for slope stability, i.e. in the spring when soil moisture is high and before transpiration rates
begin to increase. However with the increasing impact of climate change and the possibility of intense
summer storms, the use of vegetation may become more important.
Examples of tensiometer measurements of soil suction beneath the north slope of a trial embankment
planted with different types of vegetation are shown in Figure 2.7. As would be expected higher
suctions were recorded under trees and shrubs than those located under perennials and grasses.
Suctions generated by the vegetation varied seasonally with only low suctions being measured
between late autumn and late spring, when earthwork slopes are most vulnerable to failure. Further
examples of suction measurements below vegetation and live willow poles are given by MacNeil et al
(2001) and Steele et al (2004) respectively.
1
Network Rail has identified common high water demand trees as elm, oak, poplar, willow and hawthorne.
2
Network Rail has identified problem leaf fall species as poplar, ash, chestnut, lime and sycamore.

11
Figure 2.7. Tensiometer data for trees, shrubs, perennials and grasses on the north
slope of an embankment

12
2.4 Predictions of the pore water pressure regime
2.4.1 Embankments
The pore water pressure distributions in embankments are very dependent on whether a drainage
blanket was installed at the time of construction and if it is still operative. Coupled consolidation3
analyses using an elastic perfectly plastic soil model were carried out by Geotechnical Consulting
Group (1993) and Carder and Easton (2001). The former found that when an embankment is
constructed directly on a clay foundation, the initial rupture surface can develop rapidly from the toe
of the slope along the foundation. When an embankment is constructed on a drainage blanket, the
potential rupture surfaces are confined to the slope above the drainage blanket and are shallower,
particularly if the surface of the slope is weathered and more permeable.
Carder and Easton (2001) reported that after long term consolidation the final pore water pressure
distributions are as shown in Figure 2.8. In Figure 2.8a the pore pressure in the centre of the
embankment initially increases with depth and then reduces again at the level of the drainage blanket.
Pore water pressures in the foundation then increase again approximately hydrostatically with depth.
Under this pore water pressure regime, suctions develop near the slope face as would be expected.
In some situations, vertical ingress of water to the embankment may result in higher pore pressures
within the clay fill and the pore pressure fixities were therefore modified to produce the final regime
shown in Figure 2.8b.
More significant differences in slope behaviour are predicted if either the embankment is constructed
directly on its soil foundation without using a drainage blanket or if the blanket fails to operate
satisfactorily. The final pore water pressure regime then follows the pattern shown in Figure 2.8c with
the drawdown in water pressure near to the foundation not being observed. In this case the ground
movements which occur are not only larger but more deep-seated.
3
Coupled consolidation allows dissipation of pore pressure according to the specified permeabilities of the
different soil layers. In this way the magnitudes of both the effective stress and the pore pressure can be
determined at different time increments.

13
(a) Drainage blanket present
(b) Drainage blanket present plus increased pore pressure in slope
Pore pressure
(c) Case (a) without drainage blanket
Figure 2.8. Predicted pore water pressure regime after 60 years in service (embankment slope)
2.4.2 Cuttings
Geotechnical Consulting Group (1993) looked in some detail at delayed failures in clay cuttings. The
equilibrium pore water pressures predicted in a clay cutting with an initial earth pressure coefficient
(K) of 1.5 are shown in Figure 2.9. The contours of deviatoric plastic strain in Figure 2.9a show the
development of rupture from the toe. Figure 2.9b shows the equilibrium pore pressures in the slope.
These data were also included in the Rankine lecture on natural slopes and cuts reported by Leroueil
(2001).

14
(a) Accumulated plastic strain 14.5 years after excavation, just before collapse
(b) Equilibrium pore water pressures
Figure 2.9. Analysis of 10m high cutting slope (1:3) assuming K of 1.5
and surface suction of 10kPa
Geotechnical Consulting Group found considerable variability in the predicted time to collapse of the
slopes analysed. The parametric studies for a 1:3 slope gave collapse times ranging from 14 to 45
years. The surface hydraulic boundary condition had a strong effect on stability. An increase in
surface suction from 10kPa to 20kPa went more than half way towards stabilising the 1:3 slope, and it
had almost as much effect as significant under-drainage below the cutting foundation. Further
examination of the role of vegetation in increasing evapo-transpiration and surface suction may
therefore assist in controlling the risk of long term deep-seated failures.
The authors also concluded that surface pore pressures can be reduced by counterfort drains, although
these need not be to the depth of a potential deep-seated slide. Drilled drainage systems which can be
installed horizontally into slopes could also reduce pore pressures sufficiently to eliminate the risk of
delayed collapse.

15
3 Critical review of methods of slope drainage

All methods of slope drainage have been critically reviewed including deep and shallow trench drains,
counterfort drains and rock ribs, embankment drainage blankets, fin and filter drains, vertical and
horizontal bored drains, electro-osmosis, and the use of vegetation control measures. The effects of
climate change which are likely to involve wetter winters and more intense rainstorms in the summer
are also important as slope drainage systems will need to have the capability of dealing with extensive
surface water run-off.
Current design practice and maintenance is dealt with separately in Section 4.
3.1 Deep trench drains, counterfort drains and rock ribs

Drains that run down the slope, perpendicular to the crest, draining the upper 2m (or so) of soil are
often referred to as slope (or trench) drains. Deep slope drains, which sometimes penetrate to the full
depth of the embankment below any potential slip surface, are often known as counterfort drains.
Counterfort drains are normally lined with a geotextile layer to prevent erosion behind and fouling
within them, although detailed design needs to take account of geology. Where the counterfort drains
are filled with coarse material (stone-fill) they are often known as rock ribs: these also provide a
resistance to soil shear and therefore have a stabilising effect. In general this type of drain requires a
positive fall to a collection point to prevent ponding and to avoid introducing water into the slope. A
slotted drainage pipe is sometimes laid in the base to help water flow through the drain.
Information on slope drain performance is available from monitored trials at Romford and Colchester,
and a further trial of a counterfort drainage system undertaken at Cambridge Northern Bypass. The
results of these studies are reported below.
3.1.1 A12 Romford

The A12 trunk road at Romford, which was completed in 1934, was constructed with its south side in
a 6m deep London Clay cutting with an average slope angle of 1:4 (14o). After some earlier minor
movements, the lower half of the slope failed in 1969. The affected part was regraded to about 12o, an
interceptor drain about 1m deep was laid along the top of the regraded slope, and herringbone drains
about 0.6m deep were installed in the slope. Further problems occurred in 1975 when the middle of
the regraded slope sank and there was distortion of the pavement. A softened zone, which may have
been the slip zone, was subsequently identified at a depth of 1.8m in the middle of the slope.
In 1981 deep trench drains were installed running down the slope at 5m centres (Figure 3.1) and
depths of 3m at the top and middle of the slope and between 1.2m and 2m at the bottom. The slope
drains discharged into a filter drain, which discharged into a surface water drain at the west end of the
site. Both the slope and filter drains were 0.6m wide, and backfilled with granular material (Type B
filter material; Specification for Highway Works (SHW, MCHW 1)) which was wrapped round in a
geotextile filter (Dupont Typar 3407 spunbonded polypropylene).
Standpipe piezometers were installed during the drainage works at the locations shown in Figure 3.2
and the pore pressures monitored over the following seven years. To maintain observations between
site visits, a device to record minimum depth to water was placed in some piezometers. The results are
reported in detail by Farrar (1990).
Water tables at depth within the slope were lowered by the installation of drainage, except near the
upper end of the drain. In contrast, shallow perched water tables midway between the drains were not
lowered. Permeability measurements showed that this could be explained by the presence of a more
permeable zone near the ground surface.
Farrar (1990) compared the pore pressures at 3m depth in the drained and undrained slope and

16
Figure 3.1. Plan of site at Romford, Essex
found that the slope drains did have a significant effect in reducing pore pressures. Hutchinson (1977)
gives charts for the estimation of the effect of slope drains on the water table and hence on pore
pressures. Predicted maximum pore pressures obtained by this method for a drain in uniform soil are
shown in Table 3.1. There was generally good agreement between predicted and measured values for
piezometers at 3m depth.
Table 3.1 Minimum depths to water table from 3m deep standpipe piezometers
The measured water table depths using the piezometers at 1.5m depth were again compared with the
predicted values using Hutchinson’s charts by assuming a drain penetration of 1.5m (Table 3.2). The

17
(a) Between slope drains 3 and 4
(b) Between slope drains 10 and 11
Figure 3.2. Location of piezometers at Romford site
charts suggest that the drains would have little effect on water table and pore pressures midway
between the drains and this is confirmed by the measurements. As previously discussed high pore
pressures were measured in the undrained slope and also midway between the drains because of the
perched water table.
Farrar (1990) reported that there was no sign of further instability in the slope since the drains were
installed.

18
Table 3.2 Minimum depths to water table from 1.5m deep standpipe piezometers
3.1.2 A120 Colchester

The immediate and long term effectiveness of slope drainage in a new cutting constructed in London
Clay on the A120 Colchester Eastern and Elmstead Market Bypass in 1980 was reported by Farrar
(1992). The cutting was about 8m high and drainage was omitted from two experimental lengths to
act as control sections.
The cuttings were made with 1:3.5 (16o) slopes, and the deep trench drains (width ~0.5m) had a
design spacing of 7m with a depth of about 4m as shown in Figure 3.3. Type A filter material (SHW:
MCHW 1) was used for the drains located to the west of a railway bridge, whilst more permeable
Type B was used for drains to the east of the bridge.
Figure 3.3. Cross-section showing design of drains at Colchester
Hydraulic and standpipe piezometers were installed at both the eastern and western sites, in the
experimental lengths for which drainage had been omitted, and in the adjacent lengths in which slope
drainage had been installed. Some standpipe piezometers had an incorporated device to record

19
maximum water tables. The piezometer locations and the observations are reported in detail by Farrar
(1992).
At the western site, high pore water pressures were measured in the clay a year after construction and
remained high throughout the period of observation. The slope drains did not function properly until
the exit from the slope drain into the verge drain was excavated and replaced with clean Type B filter
material in 1989. However, even after repair, reductions in pore pressure were small. This is probably
because the drains intercepted a surface deposit of water-bearing granular material. This deposit
introduced water into the drains which was retained by the relatively poorly draining filter drain
material used on this site.
At the eastern site, pore pressures in the weathered clay were initially low but increased over a period
of years. Although the slope drains were not effective in reducing pore pressures initially, in the
longer term they did produce some limited reduction in pore pressures. The time required for
equilibrium conditions to be attained was found to be about 5 years for a distance to the nearest
drainage surface of 2m and 10 years for a distance of 4m.
3.1.3 A45 Cambridge Northern Bypass

The embankment, which was about 7m high with side slopes of 1:2, was constructed from over-
consolidated Gault Clay taken from a deep borrow pit nearby. Generally embankments in the area
have been prone to shallow translational failures. Rock ribs were cut into a length of embankment to
provide drainage and buttressing, both of which were intended to improve the slope stability. Prior to
installation of the rock ribs in 1983, tension cracks up to 100mm wide were found in the slope
indicating that it was close to failure.
As shown in Figure 3.4 installation of the rock ribs comprised cutting trenches 1m wide by 1.8m deep
extending from the toe of the slope to the vehicle restraint barrier of the carriageway (Johnson, 1985).
The base of each trench was sloped near the toe to ensure water drained into the existing ditch. The
trenches were cut at 4m centres and filled with locally available crushed limestone having a maximum
particle size of 125mm.
Figure 3.4. Layout of rock ribs on the A45 embankment

20
By 1989 an untreated section of slope had failed to the east of the treated section. The rock rib section
was unaffected and appeared to have good stability. Although no measurements of pore water
pressure were taken at the site, Boden (1995) concluded that rock ribs were a cost effective solution
worthy of further investigation.
3.2 Shallow slope drains

Whereas the deep trench drainage systems discussed in Section 3.1 serve two purposes in both
reducing pore water pressures in a slope and intercepting run-off, shallow slope drains are only
effective in intercepting run-off and controlling infiltration into the slope. Shallow slope drains, often
known as herringbone drains because of the pattern in which they are laid, are typically about 300mm
wide and 300mm deep and stone-filled. Nevertheless the principle of their installation by trench,
albeit shallow, and backfilling with free-draining granular material is similar to that of deeper drains.
Reference should also be made to Section 3.4 on filter drains.
A chevron or herringbone pattern on the face of the slope can be effective in catching run-off,
although other patterns can be employed. Unless discharges are expected to be high, the cost of
providing open-jointed or perforated pipes may not be worthwhile. These types of shallow drain,
whether including a pipe or not, are very prone to clogging and must be considered to have a very
limited service life. Some engineers consider that in many cases trenching for the installation of
herringbone drains may increase the risk of water infiltration into the slope (via the backfilled
trenches) and therefore cause more problems than are solved.
3.3 Embankment drainage blankets and sand drains

Drainage blankets (or starter layers) installed at the base of an embankment are widely used to
dissipate excess pore pressures during construction and they also have a permanent function in
providing a drainage path. The importance of drainage blankets in controlling pore water pressures
and ensuring slope stability in the longer term has already been discussed in Section 2.4.1.
Drainage blankets are often employed in conjunction with vertical sand drains particularly when
constructing embankments on alluvial deposits. This form of construction was reviewed by O’Riordan
and Seaman (1994). The installation of vertical sand drains is discussed in more detail in Section 3.7.
Finlayson et al (1984) describe a failure resulting from the inadequate design, specification and
monitoring of the drainage blanket below a newly constructed embankment. The drainage blanket
comprised a granular layer with a geotextile filter as wrapping. It was shown that, although not the
only possible cause of failure, the drainage blanket was insufficiently permeable leading to the
formation of a softened zone in the clay fill adjacent to the geotextile. The drainage blanket acted as a
reservoir of water under pressure resulting in a zone of movement along a near horizontal plane at the
base of the clay fill. Immediate remedial action had to be undertaken to avoid costly disruption of the
works programme.
3.4 Filter and fin drains
3.4.1 Filter drains

Filter (French) drains essentially comprise a trench, with a perforated carrier pipe supported on a
concrete bed at the bottom of the trench and backfilled with a free draining filter material. The
concrete bed helps to prevent standing water in the trench infiltrating into the ground. In some cases
this may not be deemed necessary by the designer depending on the underlying ground conditions.
The trench may be lined with a geosynthetic filter/separator to prevent the ingress of fines and detritus
into the drain. A schematic drawing of a filter drain is shown in Figure 3.5.

21
Filter drains are primarily sub-surface drains. However, they are widely used as pavement edge drains
to collect surface runoff and intercept both groundwater and water draining from the unbound layers
within the pavement. Filter drains can function very effectively as a combined surface and sub-surface
drain.
Filter drains are described in HD 33 (Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, DMRB 4.2.3) Surface
and sub-surface systems for highway drainage, and comments on their performance are included in
HA 39 (DMRB4.2.1) Edge of pavement details. The ‘F’ Series of standard drawings in the HCD
(MCHW 3) provides details of three types of filter drain: combined surface and groundwater filter
drains, fin drains and narrow filter drains. Narrow filter drains and fin drains are discussed in the next
Section.
Filter drains can accommodate high volumes of flow, all of which should be within the carrier pipe.
The designed size of the pipe should be sufficiently large such that static water and longitudinal flow
should not occur within the backfill filter material.
Existing ground surface
Geosynthetic filter/separator
In situ soil
Free draining backfill

material
Perforated
carrier pipe
Concrete
Figure 3.5. A schematic representation of a filter drain
Requirements for the backfilling of filter drains are specified in Clause 505 of the SHW (MCHW 1).
Where geosynthetics are used in drain construction, consideration must be given in its selection and
installation to the following factors:
• The pressure head required for water to pass through the geosynthetic filter material
must not exceed expected hydraulic head (too high an entry head will result in water
running along the surface of the filter leading to the washout of fine soil particles).
• Damage to the geosynthetic is likely to occur during maintenance operations.
• Construction and/or maintenance operations that result in soil smearing on the
geosynthetic may cause clogging of the filter.
• Clogging of the filter due to the migration of fines and detritus.
Much published information is available to assist with specifying the requirements for geosynthetic
filter products. It is recommended that designers seek expert advice.
For slopes with large catchments, i.e. where large surface flows are predicted, consideration should be
given to the separation of surface and ground water, so as to avoid introducing large quantities of
water into the ground. One solution, which is preferred by the HA for edge of pavement drainage, is
to construct a channel with an impermeable invert directly over the filter drain. This permits the rapid
removal of surface water and stops it entering the subsurface drain. Combined surface and sub-surface
drains are described in HD 33 (DMRB 4.2.3) and HA 39 (DMRB 4.2.1).
The dimensions of the carrier pipe are selected to accommodate the design flow. Requirements for the
selection of the carrier pipe, and the selection and compaction of the free draining backfill material are
provided in the 500 Series of the SHW (MCHW 1) and the associated Notes for Guidance
(MCHW 2). Slope drainage is not specifically covered within the DMRB or MCHW but much of the

22
information on pavement edge drainage presented in these documents is also suited to this application.
A review of the DMRB and MCHW and their application to the drainage of earthwork slopes is
provided by Farrar and Brady (2000) and contains advice on the performance of filter drains.
Filter drains are well suited for slope drainage applications and are often sited at the toe and/or the
crest of a slope. However, it is of crucial importance that the location of outfalls and the gradient of
the invert are selected to avoid instances of standing water within the backfill that would result in the
infiltration of water into the slope.
It is well known that defects in edge of pavement filter drains can lead to deterioration of the
pavement. It is equally true that defects in slope drains may increase the moisture content in the slope
leading to instability. Site investigations should take special note of existing land drains and any
interaction with these should be carefully considered at the design stage. Adherence to designs and
close supervision during construction are recommended. Special attention to detail is required for
joints between adjacent sections and at outfalls etc.
Todd and Stephens (1997) reported the results from several surveys undertaken to try to correlate
defects in subsurface drains with deterioration of the road pavement. The two primary causes of
premature deterioration due to increased moisture in the unbound materials were poor hydraulic
conductivity of the material and blocked or defective drainage. The actions that caused the defects
appeared to result from:
• a possible lack of understanding of the drain’s mode of operation;
• poor construction resulting from poor quality workmanship (construction and sometimes
design) and/lack of effective supervision;
• lack of maintenance.
It should not be assumed that filter drains are prone to defects. For example, Farrar and Samuel (1988
and 1989) reported that 20 year old filter drains, constructed in Gault clay adjacent to the M20 and
A20 in Kent, were in good condition and were effective in lowering the water table in their immediate
vicinity, but did not prevent shallow translational slope failures. Road detritus was retained on the
surface of the drain restricting the drainage of surface water, but effective operation of the drain at
depth continued. Farrar and Samuel (1988 and 1989) also provided useful information on the
performance of geosynthetic filters, installed around the drains.
3.4.2 Narrow filter and fin drains

The requirements for narrow filter drains and fin drains are presented in Clauses 515 and 514 of the
SHW (MCHW 1) respectively and the associated Notes for Guidance (MCHW 2). Narrow filter
drains are essentially just that, i.e. similar in construction to a filter drain as described in the previous
Section with a maximum diameter of the carrier pipe equal to 100mm.
Fin drains perform the same function as narrow drains. However, they comprise a three dimensional
planar geosynthetic composite (geo-composite) with a very high in-plane permeability, and a carrier
pipe. The geo-composite is installed vertically; the lower end is fitted into a longitudinal slot in the
non-perforated carrier pipe. The geo-composite receives water through the surfaces and rapidly drains
into the carrier pipe. Fin drains may be installed by automated machinery.
Details of narrow filter drains and fin drains are shown in Drawing F18 of the HCD (MCHW 3)
reproduced in Figure 3.6.
Comparative trials of five different fin drains (also known as geo-composite drains) were reported by
Corbet (1990). The site selected for the trials was an area of land adjacent to the A11 Thetford
Bypass. Five suppliers provided fin drains and each in turn was placed vertically in a trench parallel to
its length, and surrounded by a selected backfill. The fill was clayey silty gravelly sand, selected to
have at least 15 percent silt or clay particles which would test the ability of the geotextile to retain the
finer fraction of the backfill. Water was fed into the sides of the trench and the outflow from the fin
drain, and the water table, were monitored.

23
The trials demonstrated the value of such comparative studies for highlighting potential problems. For
example, the wrong grade of geotextile filter was inadvertently supplied for one product which
adversely affected the permeability. This illustrates the importance of good quality control and routine
site testing. The pore size of the remaining four geotextile filters used in the fin drains broadly
conformed to a number of the published design criteria, and functioned effectively as filters.
Figure 3.6. Arrangements for narrow filter and fin drains (reproduced from HCD (MCHW 3))
Corbet (1990) also reported that flow normal to the geotextile filter and entering the fin drain when in
contact with the backfill was less than a thousandth of that measured in laboratory index tests. If such
a test is employed for obtaining design values, a very high factor of safety is essential. Performance
testing involving both soil and geotextile is recommended for a more accurate and reliable estimate of
design properties.
3.5 Open ditch and surface water channels

Open ditch and surface water channels are widely accepted for edge of pavement drainage to remove
surface water and to avoid runoff entering the subsoil or unbound pavement layers. However, in view
of the increasing incidence of heavy storms caused by climate change, they may be increasingly
valuable in slope drainage applications as shown schematically in Figure 3.7.
Projects on surface water channels, combined surface and pipe systems, and combined surface and
subsurface drainage systems (French drains) have been carried out for the Highways Agency by TRL

24
Crest drain
Aqueduct
Fin drain
Toe drain
Combined surface channel and

filter drain
(a) Crest drain, aqueduct and toe drain
Water flow into the

spillway
Discharge from spillway

into a receiving or stilling
basin, and then to an outfall
(b) Spillway
Figure 3.7. Possible arrangement of surface channels, and combined surface channel and
sub-surface drainage systems for slope applications
in association with HR Wallingford (HRW). The findings of these studies have been implemented
through the publication of various Advice Notes within the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges
(DMRB).
Channels are the oldest and simplest form of drainage system. They are easy to construct, inspect,
maintain and repair. Over recent years there has been a resurgence of their use both for highway and

25
urban drainage systems; their usage is often combined with a fin or filter drain to intercept
groundwater flow, discharging into either common or separate outfalls.
3.5.1 Applicability of channels for slope drainage

Channels will collect surface runoff on an embankment or cutting slope, but are not suited for the
collection and drainage of subsurface water. However, with some modifications, they can be used for
the following applications.
• Crest of a slope. The channel will intercept surface water flowing onto the slope and
reduce the potential for erosion at the crest and on the slope itself. Cracks often form parallel
to, and just behind, the crest; the channel should be located uphill of the anticipated location
of the cracks to minimise the potential for these to fill with water.
• Toe of a slope. The toe of a slope is a prime location for the potential ponding of
runoff; failure to remove water from such locations will result in softening of the underlying
soil resulting in failure of the slope. Much detritus can collect at the toe of a slope and in
consequence failure of other types of toe drain from clogging can occur. Channels are thus
well suited to this location as they can be robust, can accommodate high flow capacities, and
are easy to inspect and maintain.
• Aqueducts. Channels can be used at intermediate height(s) on a slope face to collect
and reduce surface flows and transport water off a slope and discharge into spillways. Usage
in the UK is rare and then only on long high slopes, or where the slope is stepped or benched.
• Spillways. Flows from crest drains and aqueducts need to be transported to the bottom
of the slope and this can be achieved with spillways. Spillways are open channels, normally
constructed from reinforced concrete, incorporating energy dissipaters, which discharge into a
stilling basin.
3.5.2 Concrete channels

One of the HA’s preferred options for draining highway runoff is the use of a concrete surface water
channel which offer an economic solution for pavement edge drainage. The solution is based on the
concept of separation of drainage of surface water runoff and sub-surface seepage, which minimises
the risk of the road layers being saturated and consequently damaged.
Roadside channels usually have a triangular cross-section but trapezoidal sections are used where
greater flows are anticipated. Associated fin drains intercept any groundwater and permit the drainage
of the unbound pavement layers. Details of a typical concrete channel edge drain, in a cutting
situation, are shown in Figure 3.8 which is reproduced from Drawing B3 of the Highway Construction
Details (HCD) (MCHW 3). The design of concrete channels is covered by HA 37 (DMRB 4.2.4).
3.5.3 Grassed channels

As a result of a requirement for more sustainable drainage systems, the HA commissioned HRW and
TRL to carry out a long-term study to investigate available options for grassed channels and to
demonstrate the performance of the proposed system by laboratory experiments and field trials; the
study commenced in 1998 and was completed in 2006. Full details of the study, including practical
aspects of constructability and maintenance, were reported by Escarameia and Todd (2006).
Early in the study a design procedure and a resistance equation for grass were developed, and
subsequent field trials showed that these were fully adequate for design purposes. The findings of the
study were implemented by the publication of Advice Note HA 119 (DMRB 4.2.9: Grassed surface
water channels for highway runoff).

26
Figure 3.8. Detail of a concrete surface water channel edge drain in a cutting situation.
(Reproduced from Drawing B3 of the HCD, MCHW 3)
The study also found that in addition to providing an environmentally friendly means of discharging
road runoff, grassed channels are an effective means of attenuating the flow peaks. Comparisons
between average flow velocities in grassed channels and in concrete channels indicated that mean
flow velocities in the former (with grass of 40mm height) are likely to be around 25% of those
estimated for concrete channels.
Grassed channels are constructed by placing topsoil to provide the desired profile; turfs are then laid
on top. The turfs may incorporate a lightweight (polymer) reinforcement to reduce damage from
handling. An alternative to laying turfs is hydro-seeding of the topsoil, but generally the use of turfs is
more advantageous (Escarameia and Todd, 2006).
A channel can be constructed on top of a filter drain, as previously mentioned. Infiltration of water
through the invert of the grass channel will percolate into the underlying drain. If required, hydraulic
separation can be achieved by installing a waterproof membrane over the filter drain and constructing
the channel directly on top. Errant vehicles traversing the grassed channel are unlikely to suffer any
significant loss in control although heavy vehicles, braking on the channel, may suffer a decrease in
control and in some circumstances cause substantial damage to the channel.
Grassed surface water channels are increasingly widely used around the HA network. A view of a
grassed surface water channel constructed adjacent to the M2 in Kent and water flowing in the lined
channel, are presented in Figures 3.9 and 3.10 respectively.
The surface geometry is similar to concrete channels, but their usage offers certain advantages such
as:
• more attractive natural appearance;
• better environmental performance due to the ability to absorb spillages and provide
vegetative treatment;
• reduced peak flow downstream due to the greater resistance and storage volume of grassed
channels.
The latter advantage is of particular relevance in the light of the predicted increase in the incidence of
heavy storms resulting from climate change, and in situations where high velocity flows may be
encountered e.g. for slope drainage.
It is known that grassed surface water channels are capable of reducing the level of contaminants in
water flows. The primary mechanism of pollutant removal is the deposition of sediments transported

27
by the flow; sediments can act as a means of transportation for contaminants or may be contaminants
themselves. The ability of grassed channels to reduce contaminant levels is dependent on channel
geometry, flow velocity, channel length and residence time.
Escarameia, Todd and Watts (2006) reviewed the issue of contamination and proposed a method of
assessing the pollutant removal ability of grassed surface water channels and swales.
Figure 3.9. A grass surface water channel constructed adjacent to the M2.
Figure 3.10. Water flow in a lined grassed channel on the M2.

28
3.6 Vertical and horizontal drains
3.6.1 Vertical drains

Vertical drains are long, thin elements installed through soft clay soils to accelerate the rate of
consolidation by reducing drainage path lengths and exploiting the naturally higher horizontal
permeability of clay deposits, particularly those with sand or silt layers and lenses (O’Riordan and
Seaman, 1994). Vertical drains are normally installed in soft ground at the time of construction;
however their continued function in the longer term is of benefit to stability.
Although displacement sand drains are cheap and simple to install, they cause the most disturbance
and are prone to borehole smear. Non-displacement installation methods are more effective in limiting
disturbance, but there will be a smear zone around the borehole walls. Sandwicks can be considered
as prefabricated sand drains. They are usually made of polypropylene and melt-bonded fabric
stockings filled with a clean sand. Band or wick drains are prefabricated drains using corrugated
polymeric materials (e.g. polyethylene and polypropylene) for the core, and woven or non-woven
fabrics, fibre or paper for the filter. Typically they are about 100mm wide and about 4mm thick. Band
or wick drains are installed using displacement methods by connecting them to a suitably placed
mandrel which is then driven into the ground, either dynamically or statically. In addition to drilling
and displacement techniques, McGown and Hughes (1982) included washing (or jetting) methods
under their classification of installation techniques.
Apart from controlling consolidation during embankment construction, vertical drains can be effective
for in-service slopes where there is a perched water table and a convenient underlying permeable
stratum to carry the water away.
3.6.2 Horizontal drains

Horizontal drains have been used for many years as a means of stabilising wet unstable ground in
slopes, or as a drainage measure to improve the stability of cutting and embankment slopes, and
slopes in natural ground that have been displaying movement. The use of horizontal drains is most
appropriate where the groundwater is too deep to be reached by more conventional measures, such as
trench drains. A literature review has indicated that two types of horizontal drain are used within the
industry, namely horizontal bored drains and horizontal wick drains.
3.6.2.1 Horizontal bored drains

Horizontal bored drains most commonly comprise small-diameter wells, typically less than 150mm
diameter, drilled into the slope to remove groundwater and seepages. The drilling is normally carried
out by helical auger or rotary drilling. During drilling, flushing fluid such as bentonite mud, polymers,
foam, water or air is required to reduce friction and aid in removal of cuttings.
Permanent perforated casing (drain liner) is usually installed to line the drilled hole before filling with
single size granular material. In the early to mid 20th century steel or asphalt coated iron pipes were
used as liner as no alternative material was available. In the long term however, these drains suffer
from excessive corrosion. In America in the 1960s polyvinyl chloride (PVC) drains were first used
(Royster, 1980) although problems were encountered in regards to their flexibility, often resulting in
breakage and spiralling during installation.
The selection of drain casing should be determined based on a number of factors such as:
• length of drain,
• physical ground conditions,
• ground and groundwater chemistry (in relation to corrosion),
• design life of drains.

29
Some examples of projects where the above factors have played a part in drain type selection are the
Handlova Earth Flow (Slovakia), where steel pipes were used when drain lengths exceeded 170m.
Similarly in Hong Kong, in the Po Shan Slide steel pipes were used where drain lengths reached 90m
(Martin et al, 1995). In contrast, PVC pipes have been used in shorter lengths at Grenville House,
Hong Kong, the Nanyang Technological University (NTU) in Singapore, Snowy Mountain in
Australia and New Clear Water Bay Road, Hong Kong where drain lengths did not exceed 35m
(Craig and Gray, 1985).
At Blackstone Edge, Rochdale, 35m long PVC drains were designed in order to alleviate pore water
pressures within the ground (Hillier et al, 2005). On site, the drain casing was changed to steel at two
locations owing to obstructions within the uncased sections of the holes in the Lower Kinderscout Grit
bedrock.
Today, evidence points to plastic drains being the preferred option, as they are resistant to corrosion,
and with advances in technology, the material is becoming more rigid and therefore more suitable for
longer drains. Polypropylene pipes 150m in length have been installed successfully at Albion Lower
Tip in South Wales (Maddison, 1991).
On installation of the drain casing, an impermeable invert must be created, in order to convey
groundwater to the exit point and ensure it does not re-enter the slope. This can be achieved either by
using an unperforated casing invert or alternatively by grouting the area below the pipe.
Drain invert grouting has been successfully used in a number of projects in Hong Kong (Chan, 1987),
but has been less successful in the UK. In particular, this grouting technique was attempted at Albion
Lower Tip in South Wales, but high water flows required an alteration in the design, and casing with a
solid, unperforated, invert was subsequently adopted (Maddison, 1991). In Hong Kong, reports have
indicated that solid invert pipes have performed successfully in a number of projects (Whiteside,
1997).
Filters are installed either internally or externally in order to prevent excessive corrosion and sediment
accumulation. Whilst the performance of both types of filter is comparable, installing external filters
is undesirable as cleaning or replacement cannot be achieved without complete removal of the drain.
At Wattstown Roundabout Cutting on the Porth Relief Road in the Rhondda Valley, the presence of
fines in the ground surrounding the drains (which were installed in bedrock) was considered so small
that no filters were used.
Studies on drainage layout have indicated that for a given area, there is no difference in performance
between a fan and a parallel arrangement (Royster, 1980). The drain arrangement is therefore best
selected based on local conditions including topography, subsurface materials, configuration of the
slope and location of specific groundwater sources.
3.6.2.2 Horizontal wick drains

In North America, horizontal wick drains are being studied by some researchers as an alternative to
the more traditional bored drains. Although literature available on these drains is limited to articles by
Santi et al (2001a and 2001b), his work on the design and installation of this type of drain is
extensive. The drains comprise flat, geotextile-coated plastic channels that are driven into the ground
rather than drilled. The drains are installed using a bulldozer or backhoe excavator which pushes a
small diameter steel tube or disposable drive cone into the slope to be drained. The channel sections
are preloaded with 3m lengths of wick drain, and additional lengths can be spliced with a plier stapler
(Santi et al, 2001a).
According to Santi et al (2001a) horizontal wick drains appear to offer a number of advantages over
conventional bored drains such as resistance to clogging (correct filter size selection is paramount),
they are low cost compared to bored drains, they are flexible and can be stretched by up to 100
percent before rupturing and they can be installed by an unskilled workforce. Despite these
advantages however, there are some conditions where horizontal wick drains would not be
appropriate (Santi et al, 2001b) and these include ground conditions where standard penetration test

30
(SPT) values greater than 30 have been measured, where drain lengths in excess of 30m in harder
soils and 45 to 60m in softer soils are required, and where obstructions such as bedrock, large rocks,
dense sand or gravel are anticipated.
From a literature search, only one example of horizontal wick drain use has been found outside of
North America, at the Stratford Box in London (Channel Tunnel Rail Link). Here horizontal wick
drains were used to reduce the moisture content of tunnel spoil, prior to it being used as landscaping
and general fill material (private communication).
3.7 Electro-osmosis
Under an electro-potential gradient water will migrate from the anode towards the cathode, whence it
may be removed. This phenomenon, termed electro-osmosis, is a well established technique which
was used to stabilise steep railway cuttings in 1939 (Casagrande, 1952). The properties of fine grain
soils are strongly dependent on the moisture content of the soil. The application of electro-osmosis to
such soils can be used to increase the effective stress, by generating a reduction in pore water
pressure, and thus an increase in the shear strength of the soil mass. For construction purposes the
ability to regulate the water content of fine-grained soils is of paramount importance. Electro-osmosis
is effective for the control of seepage forces, and is therefore highly applicable for the stabilisation of
slopes constructed with fine grained soils.
Since the 1940’s for reasons relating to cost and problems with the durability of the electrodes,
electro-osmosis has seen little use within the general civil engineering industry. However the last
decade has seen a resurgence of interest in electro-osmosis, its usage being made more attractive by
recent advances in materials technology that led to the development of electro-conductive
geosynthetics.
Electro-kinetic geosynthetics (EKGs) are electro-conductive geosynthetics that also provide the more
traditional functions of geosynthetics, such as drainage and soil reinforcement. A description of
EKGs, electro-kinetic processes and their application to geotechnical engineering construction is
provided by Nettleton et al (1998). To date applications include the use of electro-osmosis for the
stabilisation of existing slopes beneath the rail network as shown in Figure 3.11, de-watering of mine
tailings and the control of sub-surface soil conditions on sports fields.
The application of electro-osmosis for slope drainage and stabilisation requires electrodes to be
installed within the slope. However, whereas metallic electrodes are robust they are prone to corrosion
and the new range of EKGs has significantly increased the potential applications for electro-osmosis.
EKGs do not degrade, except under extreme conditions, and are available in many different forms,
e.g. sheets, strips or 3D products.
Figure 3.11. Installation of EKGs to effect drainage and consolidation of an embankment for
London Underground. (Reproduced with the permission of Electrokinetic Limited)

31
The installation of EKGs into existing slopes may be achieved without causing disruptions to traffic
operations, and will result in rapid drainage and consolidation of the soil. The process is considered to
be irreversible; however as the electrodes are unlikely to be removed after use, they may be reused as
required simply by reconnecting the electrical supply.
EKGs may be incorporated into new constructions to enable the use of poor fill material that may not
otherwise have been deemed suitable for use. A further advantage is that the form of the EKGs will
permit them to also perform as soil reinforcement thus providing additional stabilisation as
demonstrated by Jones and Pugh (2001).
To date electro-osmotic techniques using EKGs have not been used for the stabilisation of earthworks
or structures around the highway network. However, the efficacy of the technique has been proved by
full scale trials, and it has been used to stabilise an embankment beneath an active railway line. It is
considered that the technique could be used effectively for the drainage of water from within an
embankment and to increase the embankment stability. It is recommended that if such usage was to be
considered for a highway scheme it should be monitored to provide a greater understanding that could
be applied to further schemes, leading to the generation of specific guidance for design, operation and
maintenance.
3.8 Vegetated slopes

The influence of vegetation upon the pore water pressure regime in slopes has been discussed in
Section 2.3. On the motorway and trunk road network it is generally evident that “most slope failures
occur on sparsely vegetated slopes”.
Over the last decade TRL has gained extensive experience in the use of vegetated slopes, including
the use of live willow poles (MacNeil et al, 2001; Steele et al, 2004). The bioengineering role of
vegetation in determining the moisture regime and stability of earthworks has been discussed in detail
by Coppin and Richards (1990), Marsland et al (1998) and Marriott et al (2001).
Although vegetation is not a direct method of providing slope drainage, vegetation generally limits
ingress of surface water into slopes and encourages runoff at a controlled rate. Transpiration acts to
reduce pore water pressures and the root growth binds the surface layers together minimising both
erosion and the formation of shrinkage cracks.
The main roles of vegetation in influencing drainage can be considered to be the following:
• Soil moisture depletion, through the transpiration processes, which will reduce pore
water pressure and counteract the reduction in soil strength that wetting causes. Transpiration
is greater when plants are growing rapidly in summer. Account must therefore be taken of the
reduced effect in the winter when slope stability problems generally arise, although with
climate change the frequency of intense summer storms may increase. Foliar interception and
direct absorption and evaporation of rainwater may also act to reduce water infiltration into
the soil.
• Surface cover shading, of the soil provides some protection against intensive drying
in full sun and the formation of shrinkage cracking which allows deep infiltration of
rainwater. However, it should be noted that in certain soils prolonged extraction of moisture
by plant roots can lead to desiccation and thus to the formation of shrinkage cracks. There is a
compensating action, however, in that the root matrix tends to restrict movements by binding
cracks together.
Although it may be considered that vegetation increases the permeability and infiltration of the upper
soil layers due primarily to the presence of roots and increased surface roughness, Coppin and
Richards (1990) state that these effects are generally offset by increases in interception and
transpiration. They present infiltration rates for different rainfall intensities based on the work of
Nassif and Wilson (1975).

32
In addition to the above factors vegetation also has beneficial effects on slope stability. These are
primarily:
• Root reinforcement, where shear strength is increased as root fibres are produced and
extend across the plane of potential shear.
• Buttressing and arching, where trees and root columns act as piles or dowels to
counteract downslope shear movements. Arching of the soil between adjacent trees and root
columns depends on their spacing, diameter and embedment.
These latter effects are not the subject of this study on drainage issues, but further information can be
found in Coppin and Richards (1990).
There are a number of reviews which cover the general growth of vegetation and the selection of
appropriate plant groups, e.g. Coppin and Richards (1990), Bache and MacAskill (1984), Schiechtl
and Stern (1992). The advice of a specialist in ground bio-engineering should be sought. The
following gives some guidance on the attributes of the different plant groups:
(i). Grasses have a wide range of tolerances and quickly establish through vegetative spread
to give good ground cover. Grasses tend to be relatively shallow rooting and more suited to
surface protection, binding the surficial layers together, and may either attenuate or promote
surface water run-off depending on the species selected. Rhizomatous species are of particular
benefit to bio-engineering, because they can form a mat of underground stems. In general
terms however grasses rarely grow very deep.
(ii) Herbs and legumes are commonly used in conjunction with grasses. Herbs are broad-
leaved, non-woody plants which have a range of growth habits from upright to prostrate.
Seeds of herbaceous species can be expensive and certain species may prove difficult to
establish. Some species are deeper rooting than grasses, and therefore more suitable for
deeper stability, but many die back in winter. Legumes are particularly important where soil
fertility is low, because they can fix atmospheric nitrogen. They are cheap to establish and are
good companion species for grasses, but they are less tolerant of difficult sites.
(iii) Shrubs and trees are woody perennials, which have a wide range of above and below
ground habits. They can be single or multiple stemmed, and some spread by suckers from
roots. Rooting habit can vary from deep tap roots to shallow branched roots. Those of deeper
rooting habit will have a potential role in stabilising shallow slope failures in the longer term.
In general shrubs and trees take longer to fully establish and mature than grasses and
herbaceous plants.
Although vegetation can play an important part in reducing pore water pressures and attenuating
surface run-off, it is normally employed in conjunction with a more direct drainage measure.
3.9 Interaction with highway drainage systems

An effective highway drainage scheme manages the control of runoff and groundwater within the
highway boundary. However, to be fully effective any design must take into account the possibility of
water entering the area from an external source. External water flows are typically generated from
flooded or ineffective land drains, elevated water levels in watercourses or runoff from catchments
outside the highway boundary. Advice on the identification of natural catchment areas is provided in
HA 106 (DMRB 4.2.1: Drainage of runoff from natural catchments).
The unrestricted flow of surface water entering the highway boundary can result in soil erosion, slope
instability, increased sediment in the highway drains, saturation of the drainage system, degradation
of the pavement foundation and localised flooding of the highway. In sustained flooded conditions
there may be a loss in ride quality necessitating expensive repairs/reinstatement operations. Therefore,
to minimise potential problems, it is preferred that flows from external sources and the highway
drainage are separated; however this may not be possible in every situation.

33
The first line of defence in minimising the influx of external water flows is generally provided by a
deep ditch constructed just inside the boundary fence to intercept both surface runoff and
groundwater, shown schematically in Figure 3.12.
Boundary fence
External catchment
off
Run
Highway pavement
with edge drain Ditch
Figure 3.12. Schematic diagram showing a ditch used to intercept external water flow
encroaching the highway boundary.
Further drains, in addition to the pavement edge drain, may be required where there is a potential for a
high volume of external runoff. Typically surface water at the top of a slope is removed via a concrete
channel to negate the possibility of water entering the soil at the top of the slope and generating
problems of stability. At the slope toe a channel can also be used to intercept runoff, but a more
widely used solution is a combined surface and sub-surface drain with a suitably sized carrier pipe
especially where large groundwater flows are expected in a cutting or where the road has long lengths
of near-zero gradients. Advice on the construction of a combined channel and pipe system for surface
water drainage is provided in HA 113 (DMRB 4.2.6: Combined channel and pipe system for surface
water drainage). Where surface runoff from external catchments is low or where space is limited, the
runoff may be collected by the pavement edge drain.
Figures depicting the construction details for surface water drains, filter drains and edge of pavement
drains comprising surface channels, are provided in the Highway Construction Details (HCD)
(MCHW 3) at the locations given in Table 3.3.
It should be noted that drawings B9 to B13 in the HCD also include edge of pavement details for
highway drainage in an embankment situation. These items have not been included in Table 3.3 as it
is assumed that, if they are designed and functioning correctly, there are no implications in terms of
slope performance.

34
Table 3.3 Figure reference numbers for drawings in the HCD (MCHW 3)
Figure reference
Drain type Generic form
HCD (MCHW 3)
Combined surface water and ground Edge of pavement drain in a

B1
water filter drain cutting
Concrete channel and ground water Edge of pavement drain in a

B2, B3,
filter drain cutting
Edge of pavement drain in a

Concrete channel blocks and drains B4
cutting
Surface water drains Trench and bedding details F1
Filter drains Trench and bedding details F2
Different types of drainage

Drainage channel blocks F15, F16
block

35
4 Best practice guidance in design and maintenance

Following the review of methods of slope drainage, information was gathered on the guidance
currently available for their design and maintenance. In general this information was hard to obtain
and much reliance is placed by Consultants on the experience of designers and the practice followed
on previous highway schemes. The various methods of slope drainage are now considered in turn.
4.1 Design
4.1.1 Deep trench drains, counterfort drains and rock ribs

Flow nets can be used to predict the seepage pattern and predict the drainage effect of trench drains.
The theory was put into a systematic form following finite element analyses by Hutchinson (1977)
who also validated the findings against the then available case records. The definitions of the various
parameters are shown in Figure 4.1.
(1) ground surface

(2) original piezometric level on plane EH
(3) piezometric levels on plane FG after drainage
(4) mean piezometric level on plane FG after drainage
(5) mean piezometric level on drain inverts after drainage
(6) trench or counterfort drain
(7) clay seal
(8) impermeable boundary at depth
Figure 4.1. Cross-section of typical trench drains (Hutchinson, 1977)
Figure 4.2 shows the design chart presented by Hutchinson (1977) for the piezometric level between
adjacent trench drains. Values are given both for fully penetrating drains (n=1) and for partially
penetrating drains (n=4.5). In both cases the horizontal permeability (kh) is assumed to be the same as

36
the vertical permeability (kv). The ratios S/D and h/D are also taken to be approximately equivalent to
S/ho and h/ho.
Figure 4.2. Variation of piezometric level at drain invert level between trench drains
(Hutchinson, 1977)
In Figure 4.2, for example, the maximum head of water (h) in the drain would occur at mid-width of
the trench (i.e. at x/S=0.5). To control the water head to a particular level in the drain, the appropriate
spacing between trenches (S) can then be determined for a known depth of trench (D). The depth of
trench is often decided on first as it may be related to the height of the slope, however the chart in
Figure 4.2 can also be used to determine the depth of trench from the other variables if so desired.
Finite difference calculations of seepage were also carried out by Bromhead (1986). The solutions all
show that for maximum effectiveness the drains should penetrate to the base of the permeable
stratum, although some benefit can be obtained with partly penetrating drains. Further look-up charts
of mean piezometric heads between trench drains for impermeable and permeable bases are given by
Bromhead (1984, 1992).
The ready availability of software packages to undertake the type of seepage analyses described above
now means that for significant schemes a more sophisticated analysis is often undertaken using the
geomorphology and data specific to the site (e.g. soil permeabilities, drainage boundaries, measured
ground water tables).
4.1.2 Shallow slope drains

Little guidance is available on the design of shallow slope drainage systems. This is primarily because
they are cheap and easy to install and extensive design costs are not therefore justified.

37
The design of their layout is therefore a matter of engineering judgement and very site specific taking
into account the ground contours, the presence of ponding or wet spots, the availability of drainage
outlets at the toe of the slope, avoidance of significant vegetation4, and any other relevant factors. A
typical layout of herringbone drains is shown in Figure 4.3.
Figure 4.3. Typical layout of herringbone drains (after CIRIA Report C592, 2003)
4.1.3 Embankment drainage blankets and sand drains

The design of basal drainage layers receives some consideration in HA 44 (DMRB 4.1.1) in so far as
it is stated that “their function and permeability must be checked to ensure that water drains freely and
they do not act as a reservoir of water which could soften adjacent clayey soils”. HA 44 suggests that
requirements for a basal drainage blanket may be met by Class 1C coarse granular material which can
be a cheap and effective alternative to the more difficult to produce Class 6B selected coarse granular
material.
Little guidance on the design of drainage blankets is given, although a consolidation analysis is
normally carried out to confirm the rate at which excess pore water pressures dissipate during
embankment construction. Generally it is assumed that adequate performance during construction will
result in adequate performance in the longer term, although a geotextile filter is advisable in the latter
case to prevent silting and clogging.
4.1.4 Filter and fin drains
4.1.4.1 Filter drains

Filter drains (also called French drains) essentially comprise a carrier pipe bedded in a granular
material close to the bottom of a trench. Typical constructions are shown in Figure F2 of the HCD
(MCHW 3). The requirements for backfilling of trenches and filter drains are given in Clause 505 of
the SHW (MCHW 1); natural or recycled coarse aggregate or recycled concrete aggregate may be
used of either Type A, B or C and is classified by the particle size distribution as specified Table 5/5
4
This is not only to avoid damaging the vegetation, but also to minimise root penetration into the drainage
system in the longer term.

38
of the SHW (MCHW 1). In some cases broken/crushed glass and shredded rubber tyres (Watts and
Todd, 2006) have also been used as a filter material.
The carrier pipe and sub-surface drain should be designed in accordance with HD33 Surface and sub-
surface drainage systems for highway works (DMRB 4.2.3). The trench may be lined with a
geosynthetic filter fabric; the pore size should be selected using the same criteria as that used for fin
drains given in Clause 514 of the NG (MCHW 2). The geosynthetic filter fabric is intended to inhibit
the infiltration of fine particles from the surrounding soil into the carrier pipe. It is not essential
however as in some cases fine particles may actually clog the geosynthetic fabric and its presence is
thus likely to hinder future maintenance operations.
The region directly above the surface of a filter material and bounded by the sides of the trench, can
act as a channel that will permit the rapid removal of surface water under conditions of high capacity
runoff; such drains are known as combined surface and sub-surface drains.
A composite construction employs combined surface and sub-surface drains with a grassed channel
similar to that shown as Type V in Figure B15 of the HCD (MCHW 3). Guidance on the hydraulic
and structural design of grassed surface water channels is provided in HA 119 Grassed surface water
channels for highway runoff (DMRB 4.2.9). The configuration of the channel is similar to that of a
concrete channel as described in HD 33 (DMRB 4.2.3) and HA 37 Hydraulic design of road edge
surface water channels (DMRB 4.2.4).
4.1.4.2 Narrow filter and fin drains

(Note. Fin drains, because of their construction, are sometimes termed geocomposite drains; this
terminology is used in the forthcoming Eurocodes.)
The requirements for narrow filter and fin edge drains are given Clauses 515 and 514 respectively of
the SHW (MCHW 1).
The accompanying Notes for Guidance for Clauses 515 and 514 (MCHW 2) cover installation and
design problems in some detail. Specific advice on the pore-size and durability requirements for
geosynthetic filter materials, are given in Clause NG 514 (MCHW 2).
Standard construction details are provided in the HCD (MCHW 3) for construction and drainage
detail as shown in Drawing F18 and reproduced in Figure 3.6 of this report.
It is acknowledged that the above Clauses are intended for edge of pavement drains. However, much
of the information is considered relevant for the subsoil drainage of earthworks.
All fin drains and their constituents, and the geosynthetic used in narrow filter drains, must be the
subject of a British Board of Agrément certificate for Roads and Bridges which certifies the properties
required in Clause NG514.
Fin drains are most easily installed by the use of automated drain-laying equipment, but the ease of
installation is dependent on the soil conditions. As for all drains, care must be taken to ensure that the
operation of the drain is not compromised by poor connections.
4.1.5 Open ditch and surface water channels

The principle of using channels for surface water drainage is to keep the water on the surface for as
long as possible. The reasoning is that while water remains at surface level there is less opportunity
for surface run off to be introduced into the unbound pavement construction or in some cases an
adjacent slope, with the consequent softening of the material.
Surface water channels, whether concrete or grass, follow the same design principles. Surface water is
kept on the surface and, in a pavement situation, subsurface water is removed by fin or filter drain.

39
Guidance on the design of surface water channels is contained in HA37 (DMRB 4.2.4) which,
although originally written to provide guidance on the design of concrete channels, is also applicable
to grass channels.
Surface water channels may be either trapezoidal or triangular in cross-section but for vehicle safety
reasons the depth of concrete channels is limited to 150mm with the channel slopes no steeper than
1:5 on the carriageway side (HA 83, DMRB 4.2.4). If protected by a safety barrier the dimensions of
the channel may be amended. Grass channels that are 200mm deep are permitted and this is because
the soft edge to the grass channel poses less risk to damaging vehicles than concrete.
Outlets from the channels are designed to HA 78 (DMRB 4.2.1). Outlet spacing ideally allows all the
flow in the channel to be diverted into the outlet, so that the length of contributing carriageway is
equal to that of the channel draining to the outlet. Where part of the flow is allowed to bypass the
outlet, the outlet spacing must then be decreased by a factor N, the design efficiency of the upstream
outlet.
Concrete channels are usually constructed off the pavement sub-base using slip form paving
techniques, whereas asphalt or grass channels are constructed by pre-forming the channel in the
subsurface material and then overlaying with the asphalt/bitumen or topsoil as required.
Channels are conventionally used for edge of pavement drainage and may be at the top or bottom of a
highway slope. However their wider use in a mid-slope location may follow similar design principles.
4.1.5.1 Hydraulic design

The hydraulic design guidance is contained in HA37 (DMRB 4.2.4) and is applicable to channels
constructed from a range of materials including concrete, asphalt/bitumen or grass. The hydraulic
resistance of a channel depends upon its surface texture, the standard of construction, and the presence
of deposited sediment. The flow capacity of the channel can be determined from the Manning
resistance equation which has the form:
where Q is the flow rate, A is the cross-sectional area of flow, and S is the vertical fall per unit
distance. The hydraulic radius, R, of the flow is given by R=A/P, where P is the wetted perimeter of
the channel. The Manning’s roughness coefficient ‘n’ is empirically derived and is a function of the
surface roughness of the channel.
Appropriate average values for ‘n’ are contained in HA37 (DMRB 4.2.4) for concrete and asphalt and
HA119 (DMRB 4.2.9) for grass surfaces, and these are reproduced in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2. Average values of Manning’s ‘n’
Channel Type Manning’s ‘n’
Concrete 0.013
Asphalt/Bitumen 0.017
Grass Dependent on grass type and calculated

for individual channels
Typically 0.050 – 0.100

40
The value of n for grass channels is calculated for individual channels where the variables are the
longitudinal slope (S), grass height (H), and hydraulic radius (R) in the equation below:
0.05
n=
mH
1 5 / 3 1/ 2
R S
where: m is 0.0048 for perennial rye grass and 0.0096 for fescues dominated mix.
The design capacity of the channel is defined as when the channel is just flowing full at the design
flow. Higher standards of design may be required at changes in alignment to super-elevation or at sag
points to minimise the flooding risk. However the maximum length of carriageway that can be
permitted to drain to a section of channel is based on the allowable flood widths of the hard strip or
shoulder.
In terms of the design of outlets from channels, guidance is contained in HA78 (DMRB 4.2.1) and is
equally applicable to channels of all constructions. It is essential in the design that the level of the
outlet pipe does not allow the surface water level to impede the inflow from the channel. Outlets may
be in-line or off-line. An off-line output may be provided by a weir, but this will require the provision
of a safety barrier.
4.1.6 Vertical and horizontal drains
4.1.6.1 Vertical drains

As previously mentioned, vertical drains are normally installed in soft ground at the time of
construction to improve its stability; however their continued function is also beneficial in the longer
term.
The design of a vertical drain system is normally governed by the time allowed in an embankment
construction programme for consolidation to occur. The design procedure specifies the type of drain
and also its spacing and length. In practice the use of vertical drains will not greatly improve the rate
of consolidation for soft soil layers of thickness less than 3-4m.
There is a combination of radial and vertical pore water flow to a vertical circular drain, which is
considered as being within a cylinder of soil. Associated radial and vertical consolidation can be
calculated separately from theoretical considerations, but the overall performance of a vertical drain
system requires assessment of the effects of drain installation (remoulding and smearing of the
surrounding clay), the consolidation and flow characteristics of the soil in relation to its depositional
structure and macrofabric and the flow characteristics of the drains and how these will change.
The effective diameter of a circular drain, dw, will be the same as the drain or the hole into which the
sand is placed. For a pre-formed band drain of width a and thickness b, Hansbo (1979) suggested that
dw=2 (a+b)/Q.
In practice, the insertion or construction of the drain will create a smeared outer zone with a reduced
permeability kr, compared with the permeability of the undisturbed clay, kh. Barron (1948) produced
an expression for calculating consolidation rates for the smear case. For jetted sand drains it can be
assumed that kh/kr=1. For pre-fabricated drains the effect of disturbance will increase as the spacing
reduces. Holtz et al (1991) report values of kh/kr of between 1.5 and 2 for soft clays. Hansbo (1981)
used a value of kh/kr =1.5 for pre-fabricated drains. The guidance for the choice of these parameters is
limited and a field trial may be necessary if analyses show smear to be critical to the design.
The effect of drain discharge capacity will become significant, particularly in the lower part of the
drain, if the permeability of the drain decreases with time or for very long drains. The drain resistance
can also be affected by deterioration of the drain filter, infiltration by soil particles and folding of the

41
drains during installation and subsequent settlement of the soil. The permeability of the drainage
blanket above the drains should also be sufficient to allow lateral flow to occur without restriction.
The drain should have sufficient capacity to enable the water to discharge to layers above and below
the consolidating layer. The rate of consolidation can be reduced if the flow is “choked” by the drain.
Hansbo (1981) developed an expression to calculate the degree of consolidation at any depth in a
drained layer.
More recent design advice is given by many authors, typical of these is that of Zhu and Yin (2001a;
2001b). They presented design charts for use in determining the required drain spacing according to
the radius of the drain, the required degree of consolidation, time available and other geotechnical
engineering properties of the soil.
It should be noted that in the unusual event of vertical drains being installed post-construction, the
principles of diameter, spacing, etc. given in Section 4.6.2 can be applied.
4.1.6.2 Horizontal Drains

Horizontal Bored Drains
Available information indicates that there are two distinct design approaches related to horizontal
bored drains: prescriptive drains and designed drains.
Prescriptive drains
These are installed in conjunction with other stability measures, for example ground anchorages, soil
nails or retaining structures. In these circumstances, horizontal drains are intended to provide an
improvement in slope drainage and thus contribute to stability enhancement, although they are
generally not relied upon in design to provide a quantified increase in slope stability (Martin and Siu,
1996).
The majority of reported case histories detail the use of prescriptive drains, with no detailed analytical
basis governing their installation positions and dimensions. Proposed drain locations, lengths and
spacing appear to have been determined based on previous practice and knowledge of site conditions,
with final layouts also guided by assessment of the conditions encountered during installation. This
approach is known as the ‘observational method’ and its use is described in papers by Choi (1974)
and Kenney et al (1977). The use of an observational approach was also described by Santi et al
(2001b) with reference to horizontal wick drains in North America.
Huculak and Brawner (in Royster, 1980) considered this observational approach in more detail
suggesting that both the lateral spacing and length of the horizontal bored drains are dependent on
several factors that need to be determined in the field. They suggested that the lateral spacing of
drains is dependent on the quantity of water tapped in the first few installations, the suspected internal
drainage pattern, the height and volume of the potentially unstable area, and the permeability of the
soil. In addition, they suggested that the drain length is dependent on the height of the cut or distance
from crown to toe of the slide, the location of the probable slip plane, and the distance from the face
of the slope to the location of the water source.
Designed drains
These are designed and installed as critical items to achieve a specific quantitative objective such as
an adequate factor of safety or groundwater level reduction or limit. The drains are often designed
using a numerical model in order to assess their likely effects on the groundwater regime in their
vicinity. The drains can be used together with other stabilising measures or as a ‘stand alone’ feature
(Martin and Siu, 1996).
Simplistic methods to enable horizontal drains to be designed to meet quantified criteria were
proposed as early as 1958 by Baker and Yoder, with other, more detailed design methods
subsequently proposed by Choi (1974), Kenney et al (1977), Prellwitz (1978), Nonveiller (1981),
Choi (1983) and Lau and Kenney (1984). More detail on these design methods can be found in a

42
report produced for the Highways Agency by Halcrow in January 2007 entitled “Review of the use of
horizontal drainage systems”.
The design methods are based on theoretical considerations of groundwater flow but owing to the
need to make a number of assumptions that may be difficult to substantiate, and then to perform
detailed calculations based on these assumptions, the design methods appear to be little used in
practice. Detailed design of drain installations is however recommended in Hong Kong literature, with
examples at Tsz Wan Shan Estate and Grenville House (Martin and Siu, 1996).
Horizontal wick drains
As an alternative to horizontal bored drains, Santi et al (2001a) studied the use of geosynthetic
horizontal wick drains, which are driven into the ground rather than drilled. The majority of horizontal
wick drain design has been achieved using the ‘observational method’ whilst installing test drains,
although preliminary design of the reduction in water level can be undertaken using the following
design process.
The design process assumes that the water table surface between any two horizontal wick drains (or
horizontal bored drains) will take the form of an inverted parabola. Low points will exist at the drains,
and midway between them, a high point (hmax) exists which is defined as the height of the water table
above the level of the drains.
In addition to the assumption regarding the geometry of the water table surface, Santi et al also
assumed that the drain is horizontal and offers no resistance to flow, the water table coincides with the
drain along its entire length, and that Darcy’s law is valid for the situation, in order to construct an
equation.
Values relating to drain length (b'), drain spacing (L), flow rate (Q) and permeability of the soil (K)
are then used in the following equation in order to determine a value for hmax.
Values of hmax can only be calculated once site-specific parameters have been recorded, subsequent to
installation of the horizontal wick drains. However, the equation can be used as a preliminary design
tool prior to drain installation in order to work out approximate lengths and spacings required to
reduce the water table by a set amount.
Specifications
Martin and Siu (1996) provided four criteria which stated the basic requirements for horizontal bored
drains to perform successfully. In summary, these are:
• The size of the drain should be adequate to carry the maximum water flow without
disturbance to the adjacent ground or development of excessive outflow pressures.
• There is no significant loss of flow along the drain length owing to re-infiltration into the
ground.
• Any drain should be sufficiently strong and rigid to be easily installed to the designed
length and orientation, and capable of supporting the borehole without deforming or
collapsing.
• The slotted or perforated length of any drain should be designed so as to prevent soil
ingress, or it should be provided with an appropriate filter.
Details of available ‘standard’ documentation, guidelines and bespoke specifications are summarised
below.
Standard Documentation
No ‘standard’ specifications were found within the national or regional authorities in the UK,
including the Highways Agency, or mainland Europe.

43
In North America, the California Department of Transport (Caltrans, 2001) has significant experience
of installing horizontal bored drains, and has developed installation and design methods, contained
within Chapter 4, Section 68-2 of their standard specifications. In addition, Caltrans recommends
maintenance procedures including an ongoing inspection programme starting immediately after
installation, complete with a cleaning schedule if a reduction in discharge is noted.
Guidelines
No published guidance was found relating to horizontal drains in UK or mainland Europe.
Dr Paul Santi however, of the Colorado School of Mines, has developed guidelines, which are
intended to apply to the installation and maintenance of horizontal wick drains (Santi et al, 2001a).
Government guidance has been published in Hong Kong relating to horizontal bored drains. The
documentation is based on previous experience and is provided only as guidance, rather than as a
mandatory standard. Three documents were found from Hong Kong providing technical guidance on
the use, monitoring and maintenance of horizontal bored drains.
• Groundwater lowering by horizontal drains (Geotechnical Control Office 2/85: Craig and
Gray, 1985).
• Performance of horizontal drains in Hong Kong (Geotechnical Engineering Office 42:
Martin et al, 1995).
• Monitoring and maintenance of horizontal drains. Technical Circular of the Environment,
Transport and Works Bureau, Hong Kong, Works Branch Technical Circular No 10/91.
Although many of the published case histories do not describe design guidelines, those that do have
tended to refer to Hong Kong practice, specifically GEO 42. For example, the GEO suggests that
maintenance is undertaken on horizontal bored drains six months after installation and then once
every year. Chan (1987) examines the use of a multi purpose valve, installed in horizontal bored
drains, which can be used to flush the drains. The valve is closed for a few days to allow an
accumulation of water, and is then opened in order to flush the drains. Care must however be taken
not to destabilise the slope by preventing drain flow. In addition to using water flow to flush the
drains, the GEO states that a thin brush or rake can be used to clean dry soil from the drain invert
(Martin and Siu, 1996).
In WBTC No 10/91, it is stated that monitoring should be undertaken every two months during the
dry season, weekly during the wet season and at a greater frequency during heavy storms.
Bespoke Specifications
As a result of informal correspondence with consultants, it appears that, where used, specifications in
the UK tend to be bespoke and (largely) based on Hong Kong guidance. It is understood that
specifications tend to relate to installation, rather than performance of drains. Examples of this were
found at the Barnstaple Bypass and at Albion Lower Tip in South Wales. For the Albion project, the
installation specifications were produced in consultation with the contractor to ensure ‘buildability’.
In addition, at Albion Lower Tip, a different monitoring strategy was adopted to that recommended in
WBTC No10/91, with the flow rates monitored every month between May and September inclusive
and every week between October and April inclusive.
4.1.7 Electro-osmosis
The electro-osmosis of fine grained soils will increase the effective strength by the removal of excess
pore water. The reduction in pore water pressure drives the consolidation of the soil/fill material. It
has been demonstrated that significant negative pore water pressures, e.g. up to -180kN/m2, can be
generated through electro-osmosis (Hamir et al, 2001). Some bonding and/or cementation of particles
may occur. The procedure is thought to be irreversible.

44
The water flow is driven by the applied electromotive force that has to overcome the resistance to
flow generated by friction between the water and the surface of the soil particles. An equation
describing the flow established by Mitchell (1993) is directly analogous with Darcy’s Law for
hydraulic flow.
qA = ke. A. UV
UL
where: qA rate of flow

ke electro-osmotic permeability
UV/UL voltage gradient
A cross sectional area of the flow.
The electro-osmotic permeability for most soils lies in the range 1×10-9 to 1×10-8m2/Vs (Lageman et
al, 1989) and is independent of pore size (Casagrande, 1949).
Electro-osmosis will drive the water to the cathode, which might typically take the form of a hollow
tube to allow the water to be pumped away, or where conditions permit (e.g. in a slope) the cathode
may installed so that the water drains out naturally. The anode may be of similar form to the cathode,
but if the anode is closed high negative pore water pressures will be generated (Nettleton et al, 1998),
and the estimated change in pore water pressure (UU) is given by:
UU = ke. Ww V
kh
where: kh hydraulic permeability

Ww bulk unit weight of water
V applied voltage.
For design, the required change in pore water pressure to achieve the design strength of the soil can be
calculated. The degree of consolidation that will be achieved, with an estimate of the anticipated
volume of water that will be drained from the soil, can be estimated from oedometer tests in the
laboratory. The voltage gradient necessary to achieve the change can be readily calculated, and a
suitable arrangement of electrodes, electrode spacing and applied voltage can also be determined.
The applied voltage and the electrode spacing define the rate at which de-watering will take place.
The duration of the application of electricity is dependent on the required change in soil conditions.
High voltages and close spacing can provide rapid dewatering but desiccation of the soil surrounding
the anode, under high voltage gradients, must be avoided or the treatment will cease to be effective. In
most instances designs for the dewatering scheme will be tailored to the requirements of the client.
Typically, substantial improvements to the soil condition will be achieved in one week and the
treatment will be completed in two weeks.
The effects of electro-osmosis are generally considered to be irreversible. Nevertheless providing the
electrodes are not removed or damaged in any way, a system once installed can be re-activated at any
time. Such ability could be advantageous in an area subjected to seasonal flooding.
The application of electro-osmosis to improve the shear strength of a fine grained soil is a proven
technique. However, no accepted formal design procedures are available and therefore engineers
considering usage of the technique on their own schemes are strongly advised to seek expert advice.

45
4.1.8 Vegetated slopes

Quantification of the benefits of vegetation to slope stability, in terms of reducing the risks of both
shallow and deep-seated failures, is given by Coppin and Richards (1990). Other primary sources for
numerical evaluation of slope stability include Greenwood (2006) who developed a program for slope
stability analysis to include the effects of vegetation, reinforcement and hydrological changes as part
of the ECOSLOPES project. These methods primarily include for the effect of root reinforcement in
improving the soil strength and in the dowelling effect across the potential shear plane.
Although there is no design standard on evaluating the benefits to drainage of vegetation on the slope,
the following principles are commonly adopted:
• An assumed reduction of pore pressures near the slope surface when carrying out the
slope stability analysis at the design stage. In some cases it is preferred to implement this by
increased soil cohesion due to the soil suction.
• During the winter the effect of vegetation on soil moisture content and in developing
soil suction will be at a minimum. This needs to be considered by designers carrying out the
slope stability analysis.
• In terms of the selection of vegetation during the design process, some advice on the
performance of different plant groups is given in Section 3.8. In general a more open cover
results in higher runoff volumes and a more rapid runoff response, whilst shrubs and trees
result in more attenuation. These considerations are normally site specific and the advice of a
bioengineering specialist is normally sought on this issue.
• The differences in the grass cover within grassed channels are considered in Section
4.1.5. With taller grasses retardance of flow increases and this has an effect on the Manning n
values used to calculate the flow.
It must again be noted that drainage aspects are generally considered to be secondary considerations
in vegetated slope design compared with the benefits of root reinforcement and dowelling effects.
4.2 Maintenance
This report has served to highlight the importance of drainage measures for ensuring the long term
stability of highway slopes, yet the long term stability can only be assured as long as the drainage
continues to operate satisfactorily. The provision of adequate and appropriate maintenance is required
to maximise the life of drainage measures, however there appears to be little guidance on this. There
are references in a number of Advice Notes and Departmental Standards within the DMRB and also
in BSI Codes of Practice, however the advice given generally relates to the maintenance of drainage
systems by inspection and gives little if any guidance on the actual practicalities of undertaking the
work. The form and location of many types of earthwork drains, for example, stone filled trenches on
sloping ground, essentially preclude the undertaking of routine maintenance and therefore it is not
until defects are identified that maintenance and repair works are carried out. BS 6031 Code of
Practice for Earthworks (BSI, 1981), states that regular inspection of drainage systems is an essential
basis for programming the frequency and extent of maintenance work, with paragraph 11.2.3 giving
general guidance on when and how inspection should be undertaken.
The following sections identify some of the issues that may lead to the need to undertake maintenance
works on the various drain types discussed in this report.
4.2.1 Deep trench drains, counterfort drains and rock ribs

The coarse backfill in these types of drains may become clogged in time and may require
replacement. The size and location of these drains, often greater than 2m deep and on steep slopes,
makes the replacement of the filter media, by either new or cleaned existing material into a large
enough job to warrant a special scheme. To mitigate the effects of clogging and minimise

46
requirements for future maintenance works these drains are generally laid to a positive fall and are
most commonly wrapped in geotextile to keep clay and silt particles out of the collector system,
though these are also prone to clogging. In addition the need for maintenance can be further reduced
by introducing carrier pipes into the drain base, as these are designed to be self cleansing. Should
blockages occur then rodding or flushing of the pipes from the inspection manholes can be
undertaken.
4.2.2 Shallow slope drains

These are generally employed to intercept surface run-off and prevent infiltration, although there is
some argument, that as they are rarely wrapped in geotextile or lined they may actually encourage
captured water to soak into the ground. They are very prone to clogging and thus should be inspected
regularly with a view to undertaking complete replacement should the indications be that water is no
longer infiltrating into the drain. In some instances where drains up to 1.0m deep are employed there
is merit in using a geotextile wrapped coarser filter material in the top 300mm of the drain. This can
be easily removed and replaced thereby negating the need to reconstruct the entire drain. Feedback
from some of the HA Managing Agent Contractors (MACs) indicates a preference towards using
open lined ditches to intercept surface run-off.
4.2.3 Embankment drainage blankets and sand drains

This type of drainage is normally employed to alleviate porewater pressures during construction and
therefore its continued effectiveness long term is less critical. As it is buried within and below the
base of embankments access to it for maintenance purposes is generally not possible without major
reconstruction and thus the importance of appropriate design is crucial.
4.2.4 Filter and fin drains

The efficiency of filter drains can be seriously impaired by the formation of a silt crust, with attendant
vegetation growth at the top of the filter material or by the accumulation of trapped silt in the lower
layers. The surface defect can be detected easily by inspection at ground level, but the deeper
accumulation can generally only be confirmed by excavation, usually by means of trial pitting. It is
probable that, unless there is an obvious case for a localised defect, a length of filter drain will show a
consistent defect. As with deep drains the replacement of the filter media, by either new or cleaned
existing material will often prove to be a large enough job to warrant a special scheme. Where piped
filter drains have been employed maximum use of gully, catchpit and inspection chambers should be
made for any emptying and cleansing operations and for general inspection procedures to check that
the filter drains are operating properly.
4.2.5 Open ditch and surface water channels
4.2.5.1 Concrete Channels

Maintenance of concrete channels is generally confined to sweeping. Sediment washed from the
carriageway and adjacent unpaved area is carried along the channel towards the outlet. At various
points there is potential for the sediment to be deposited in the channel. This can occur where there is
a change in longitudinal gradient; as the gradient reduces the flow velocity is reduced and
consequently there is less energy to transport the sediment. This material can build up into significant
volumes thereby reducing the channel capacity. Conventional cleaning is by mechanical sweeping.
Debris can build up in the outlet gratings and may not be removed by conventional sweeping.
Sediment may also accumulate in the catchpits of the outlet chambers; this can only be removed by
accessing the chamber by removing the grating and using a conventional gulley sucker or vacuum

47
tanker. A further issue with regards to maintenance of these drains which often gets overlooked is that
the soil adjacent to the edge of the channel can sometimes be softened and eroded often leading to the
formation of a slight step. This step can act as a barrier to the surface run off and actually hold the
water out and force it to sink into the ground under the channel, thus negating the channel’s value.
Maintenance of the soil edges around the channels is therefore essential to ensure it continued
effective operation.
4.2.5.2 Grass channels

The maintenance of grass channels is more onerous. The grass requires cutting 2 to 3 times during the
summer and autumn and the carriageway side channel edge must be trimmed to ensure that a grassed
ridge does not develop. Grass channels are prone to damage when over run by a vehicle, particularly
if the grass is short and the channel wet. Ridges and ruts that may form as a result can be flattened by
repositioning the topsoil and turf into the rut. Vehicular over run trials conducted at TRL (Escamareia
and Todd, 2006) found that HGVs under braking tend to cause the most severe damage and that long
grass tends to result in less rutting.
The presence of litter in grassed channels was observed to have a detrimental effect on the grass
growth with grass dying when covered by large pieces of litter, such as cardboard sheet and vehicle
debris. Damaged areas of grass channel can be readily repaired using cut turf. Where a polymer grid
has been used to reinforce the grass channel, care needs to be taken when mowing to ensure that the
grid has been correctly located below the grass surface. Instances of the grid being placed on top of
the channel occurred on the A120 resulting in damage to both the polymer grid and the mowing
machinery.
4.2.6 Vertical and horizontal drains
4.2.6.1 Vertical Drains

Vertical drains are normally installed to alleviate porewater pressures during construction and
therefore their continued effectiveness long term is often less critical. If their continued effectiveness
is however required for long term embankment stability and they are suspected of no longer
functioning, flushing is not normally a practical option and a complete reinstatement is required.
4.2.6.2 Horizontal Drains

Published information found relating to post-construction maintenance has been found in literature
from both Hong Kong and North America. In Hong Kong, details of maintenance procedures are set
out in WBTC No 10/91, whilst in North America, Caltrans provides details of maintenance
procedures.
In Hong Kong, GEO suggests that maintenance is undertaken on horizontal bored drains six months
after installation and then once every year. Chan (1987) examines the use of a multi purpose valve,
installed in horizontal bored drains, which can be used to flush the drains. The valve is closed for a
few days to allow an accumulation of water, and is then opened in order to flush the drains. Care must
however be taken not to destabilise the slope by preventing drain flow. In addition to using water flow
to flush the drains, the GEO states that a thin brush or rake can be used to clean dry soil from the drain
invert (Martin and Siu, 1996).
In North America, Caltrans recommends an ongoing inspection programme starting immediately after
installation, complete with a cleaning schedule if a reduction in discharge is noted. Cleaning should be
accomplished using a high pressure water pump, complete with a self-propelling jet inserted into the
entire length of the drain (Long, 1980). At Cloverdale, (Smith, 1980) cleaning of horizontal bored
drains constructed in 1941 was undertaken 15 years after installation. Whilst this is much longer than

48
the recommendations detailed by Caltrans, the flushing event saw an improvement in the drain flow
rate from 697m3/day up to 1077m3/day (Smith, 1980).
In the UK, the only available data on drain maintenance is related to Albion Lower Tip in South
Wales. Internal cleaning of the pipes in the horizontal bored drains was undertaken in 1998, almost 10
years after their installation. This operation resulted in a 300% increase in flows from the drains. Over
the subsequent months however, flows gradually returned to their ‘pre-cleaning’ levels.
4.2.7 General
In recognition of the difficulty in undertaking routine maintenance of earthworks and in particular
earthworks drainage, the Highways Agency have published HD 41/03 entitled “Maintenance of
Highway Geotechnical Assets” in 2003, a document providing best practice guidance for the
inspection and maintenance of highway geotechnical assets for trunk roads in England. The document
advises on an effective approach to the management of geotechnical assets, linked with the
introduction (in England) of a data management system and of mandatory requirements for inspection
activities and maintenance works. The document stipulates that inspections of geotechnical assets
shall be undertaken annually and five yearly (detailed inspection) to meet the requirements of the
HA’s “Routine and Winter Service Code”, with the intention that the inspections will thus provide for
identification of maintenance needs. The Code states that “the inspection and reporting of the
condition of the highway Geotechnical Assets as required by the standard, provides an assessment of
the likely risk of defects occurring or deteriorating with time. The identification of such risk and thus
the provision of maintenance prior to defects occurring, as opposed to remediation afterwards,
provides a more cost effective and proactive approach to maintenance”.
4.3 Interaction with highway drainage systems

The standard HD33 (DMRB 4.2.3: Surface and subsurface drainage systems for highways),
Clause 5.1, states “It is essential that existing land drainage and runoff from existing catchments be
taken into account in the design of highway drainage.” Failure to take due consideration of external
water flows could potentially result in flooding of the highway drains leading degradation of the
highway pavement and the instability of earthworks.
A review of flooding incidents around the highway network (Todd, 2004) established that 65 per cent
were associated with the performance of drainage systems and 35 per cent were due to high water
levels in adjacent rivers or streams. Subsequent research to develop techniques to minimise the
potential for flood conditions resulted in the publication of Advice Notes HA 106 (DMRB 4.2.1:
Drainage of runoff from natural catchments) and HA107 (DMRB 4.2.7: Design of outfall and culvert
details). These documents should be used in conjunction with the recommendations for earthwork
drainage and the use of cut-off and intercepting drains provided in the Standard HD33 (DMRB 4.2.3).
HA 106 (DMRB 4.2.1) presents guidance on how to deal with surface water runoff from natural
catchments draining towards a highway, in order to limit the frequency and severity of flooding
incidents caused by runoff beyond the highway boundary. It is aimed at increasing the resilience of
the highway to extreme weather conditions. Advice is given on different approaches to the collection
of runoff, the estimation of the volume of runoff and the design of ditches. A flow chart describes the
methodology for the identification of an external catchment through to the design of a satisfactory a
drainage solution.
HA 107 (DMRB 4.2.7) gives guidance on detailing outfall structure to highway drainage systems and
the design of culverts. Advice on the hydraulic design of culverts is given in Chapters 5 and 6 of
CIRIA Report 168, Culvert Design Guide; the Advice Note relates the guidance in this report
specifically to highway applications.

49
The only reference to drainage from external sources within the Specification for Highway Works
(MCHW 1) and the Notes for Guidance (MCHW 2) is found in Clause 511 and relates to land drains
severed by highway construction and the remedial works that should be undertaken. Highway works
that effect external watercourses are covered in Clause 606.
For the purpose of design, the abiding principle is that surface runoff that would naturally drain
towards the highway should be intercepted before it can enter the highway drainage system. Where
this is not possible due to topographic or spatial limitations the flow may be directed into the highway
drainage system but as far downstream from the edge drain as can practically be achieved. It is
important that standing water should not occur adjacent to the pavement construction except in the
most extreme conditions when it may become unavoidable.
The current emphasis in slope and highway drainage is to use sustainable urban drainage (SUDS)
techniques with careful thought on how water can be treated to improve quality and attenuated to
reduce peak flows. As part of this approach the use of permeable pavements and pavement reservoirs
to achieve better water control is the subject of separate HA research by TRL.

50
5 Survey of practitioners
A questionnaire was devised primarily aimed at HA Managing Agent Contractors (MACs) to assess
for each drainage technique the following factors:
• the frequency of usage,
• the design principle used,
• any problems found with design, installation, or maintenance,
• a broad assessment of effectiveness,
• the required maintenance intervals.
Initially the questionnaire was sent out to four of the HA MACs to assess whether any refinements of
the questionnaire were necessary before its wider circulation. The most detailed reply was received
from Area 8 and a copy of this is given in Appendix A. Considerable use had been made of
counterfort drains and rock ribs in this Area primarily to lower the groundwater table in the newly
constructed cutting slopes of the A14. This technique was assessed as having good effectiveness; the
need for any future maintenance was not known. Area 8 had also employed drainage blankets in the
A14 and A421 embankment constructions and these were considered to be very effective. Open ditch
and surface water channels had also been employed at three schemes with better success when at the
top of the slope than when mid-slope.
The other three MACs only returned limited information and a summary of their responses is as
follow:-
• Area 7 identified occasional usage of slope drains (e.g. herringbone drains) in the 1980s
at one remediation scheme. These were assessed as having good effectiveness and having needed
no maintenance over the more than 10 year period in service. This particular MAC was unable to
identify any other specific slope drainage measures in recent years. It is not clear whether this
absence of data is because of the topography and geology in the area, lack of funding for
preventative drainage measures, or other reasons.
• Area 11 identified the use of slope drains (e.g. herringbone drains) on three highway
cuttings although no further details were available. Open ditch and surface water channels had
been used at more than thirty sites; these were employed at both cuttings and embankments at
both toe and crest locations. Filter drains had also been employed at more than 24 sites, once
again these were a mix of embankment or cutting and toe or crest locations. Information on
design principles, problems, effectiveness, and maintenance intervals were not forthcoming.
• Area 5 identified two cutting slopes where slope repair had been carried out employing
counterfort drains running from crest to toe. The design of the counterfort drainage system had
been undertaken using the charts published by Bromhead (1992). These drains had been installed
in 2005 and 2006 and no problems had been encountered in their design and installation. Drain
performance was assessed as good. No maintenance is currently planned.

51
6 Selection of Drainage Measures

The implementation of drainage measures has two main objectives, (i) to prevent or minimise the
potential for ground water reaching the slope, and (ii) the removal of both groundwater and surface
runoff from the slope and the toe area. Gilbert (2007) recommended that ground investigation for the
design of slope drainage systems should include:-
• geomorphological mapping,
• soil permeability assessment,
• ground water table monitoring,
• ground water response monitoring.
Gilbert also emphasised the importance of combining seepage and slope stability analysis at the
design stage.
Run-off from adjacent catchments and future engineering works may affect the in-service
performance of a slope drainage system, and the occurrence of such events should be considered at
the design stage.
Drainage trenches installed behind or below the slope crest to intercept surface and ground water
should have an impermeable membrane below the invert and on the downhill side to minimise the
likelihood of collected water from re-entering the soil. The absence of a membrane may result in an
increase in groundwater, so increasing the potential for failure of the slope.
Drainage measures (such as filter drains) often have a working life of only about 15 to 20 years.
Positive drainage measures such as channels have a much longer life. Where possible, sustainability
issues should be considered in the advice on the choice of materials for the different drainage
techniques, bearing in mind the required 60 year design life of slopes.
Aspects of hydrology relating to catchment assessment, catchment runoff estimation, annual rainfall
and extreme events, etc. are not addressed in this report. Such factors however must be considered
when designing drainage measures. Guidance on these issues is given in HA216 (DMRB 11.3.10).
Some guidance on appropriate typical drainage measures for use in different situations is provided in
Table 6.15. The likely relative cost of each technique is indicated as being low, medium, or high; this
crude ranking takes no account of issues involved in disposing of the water collected. The remedial
measures suggested in Table 6.1 should not be considered in isolation; it is probable that in many
situations a combination of measures will be employed to provide an optimal solution.
Many problems with the stability of highway slopes and flooding of the carriageway arise as a result
of defective drainage systems. Efficient and well maintained drainage systems are important to the
continued operation of the adjacent highway, and a small improvement to a drainage system can lead
to a significant improvement in embankment stability. The consequences of poor construction or lack
of maintenance can be very costly in terms of remedial works and disruption to traffic.
6.1 Selection of drainage measures

In general, application of the drainage measures listed in Table 6.1 will be successful in most
situations. Instances will occur however, where the typical remedial measures identified in the Table
may be inappropriate, and therefore these measures should not be applied unilaterally. A full
appreciation should be made of both “cause” and “effect” and of all factors likely to affect the
operation of the drainage measure.
5
An assessment of approximate costs of various drainage remedial measures was carried out by Halcrow in
2002. This information is included in Appendix B although costs are normally very site specific and the data
should therefore be used with caution.

52
Over-consolidated clay embankments for example are prone to shallow failures (see Section 2). High
suctions existing within the clay pores cause free water to be sucked into the superficial layers thereby
softening the clay. In this situation the installation of an interceptor/filter drain (as suggested in
Table 6.1) is unlikely to be effective because of the impermeable nature of the clay. In addition there
is a risk that runoff collected in the ditch may enter the slope through the ditch sides and invert. The
second option identified in Table 6.1, of increasing the slope vegetation, may be more appropriate for
reducing the potential for shallow failures; this is confirmed by its recommended use to alleviate
water infiltration. For extreme cases it could be further argued that the infiltration results from
excessive surface water which could be controlled by using surface water channels at top or mid-slope
locations.
The conditions specific to each site should also be carefully considered, before referring to Table 6.1,
as they may govern the suitability of typical solutions. For example, an over-consolidated clay
embankment near Junction 29 of the M25 (see Section 2.1.5) showed some evidence of water ponding
in the clayey sand overlying the more impermeable clay. This is likely to feed water towards the side
slopes causing both shallow and deep instabilities and therefore in this instance, one of the techniques
for alleviating “high pore pressure within the slope” given in Table 6.1 would be the preferred
solution.
The use of vegetation is recommended for the provision of sustainable drainage measures. It is
important however to select the type of vegetation to achieve the desired objective; engineering
judgement may be required. For example, grass is very effective in binding the slope surface together
to combat softening and degenerative weathering. In general, a more open vegetation cover results in
higher runoff volumes and a more rapid runoff response, whilst shrubs and trees result in more
attenuation. Vegetation will lose water through transpiration and generate a reduction in pore
pressures. Where shallow slip failures are likely to exist, the dowelling effect of live willow poles can
stabilise the slope, and the ability of the willow to reduce the pore pressures in the slope will also
promote stabilisation. The former provides an immediate solution whereas the latter is a slower
process, but in the long term both mechanisms may be equally effective. Grass turfs used to line
surface water channels will attenuate flows and thereby reduce the likelihood of surcharging the drain
under storm conditions.
6.2 Impact of climate change

The increasing impact of climate change and the probability of summer storms of increased intensity
mean that the design of effective slope drainage systems is now more important than ever. For
example the change in precipitation patterns was especially evident in the summer of 2007, which was
the wettest since records began in the UK and resulted in severe flooding. Climate change would
however, normally be expected to produce hotter summers, albeit with intense storms, thus the
weather in 2007 was totally unexpected and difficulties in its prediction were highlighted.
The increased frequency of extreme rainfall events means that a more innovative approach may be
needed in the design of slope drainage systems. Greater emphasis must now be placed on designing
for storm water and surface run-off, to avoid mud and debris slides, and to prevent water infiltration
into clay slopes after the development of shrinkage cracks in prolonged hot spells. The following
recommendations may be of particular benefit:
• An increased use of surface water channels6 not only at the top and bottom of
slopes but also in critical cases at mid-slope locations. Maintenance of such channels is
relatively straightforward in so far as any build-up of silt and detritus is visible and can
readily be removed. The state of subsurface drains, after storm conditions, is not so
easily assessed and dealt with.
6
Adequate outlets and sufficient catchments or balancing ponds are required when using channels to deal with
the rapid collection of water.

53
• Adoption of a more proactive bioengineering approach in designing vegetation

cover to either attenuate or promote surface water flow off the slope according to site
requirements. Both root reinforcement and foliage cover (to prevent the surface heating
up) may limit the extent of shrinkage cracking in the summer; the use of live willow
poles for this purpose can provide additional slope stability by dowelling action.

54
Table 6.1. Appropriate drainage measures for different situations
Potential or actual drainage issue Appropriate slope drainage measure
Instability
Potential for shallow failures (where the Increase vegetation (L).
maximum depth of the rupture surface
Install shallow slope drains* (L).
does not exceed 2m)
Potential for deep failures Install drainage (deep trench drains, counterfort drains, or rock ribs)
running down the slope (H).
Install horizontal bored drainage (H).
Surface water run-off
Run-off from external catchment (i.e. Install interceptor filter or fin drains – lined below and on the downslope
adjacent land/highway) at top of slope side (M).
Install surface water channel (M).
Flooding at toe of slope from adjacent Install filter or fin drains (M).
land/highway
Install open ditch (L) or surface water channel (M).
Significant run-off from slope surface Install surface water channel at toe or mid-slope (M).
Install filter or fin drains at toe (M).
Install drainage (deep trench drains, counterfort drains, or rock ribs)
Ground water (excess pore pressure)
High pore pressure at toe of slope Install filter or fin drains (M).
High pore pressure within slope Install drainage (deep trench drains, counterfort drains, or rock ribs)
Install horizontal bored drainage (H).
Increase vegetation (L).
Install horizontal or vertical bored drainage to replace malfunctioning
drainage blanket (H) – embankment only.
Install electro-osmosis system (H) – usually embankment situation.
Water infiltration
Softening/weathering of surficial layers Increase vegetation (L).
Water seepage
Poor condition of any existing slope Implement maintenance/ replacement (L to M).
drainage
Install additional drainage measures (L to H).
Poor condition of highway drainage Implement maintenance/ replacement (L to M).
Seepage through permeable layer or Install horizontal bored drainage (H).
from spring
Install interceptor filter drain (M).
* Soil dependent - may not be effective in over-consolidated clay slopes.
Relative cost rating: L Low
M Medium
H High.

55
7 Conclusions
The stability of highway cuttings and embankments is critically dependent on the magnitude and
distribution of pore water pressures within the materials (soils, rock and earthworks fill) forming the
slopes. Pore pressures arise from the presence of water within the slopes, and may be introduced via
natural infiltration from runoff and/or groundwater flow and also possibly through artificial recharge.
In the case of infiltration, rainfall will enter earthwork slopes and the underlying soil through the
surface in quantities which depend on the duration and intensity of the rainfall, the soil type, the
topography, and the vegetative cover; for a vegetated slope, some water will be removed by
transpiration. Groundwater flow into a slope will depend on the local hydrogeological regime.
Artificial recharge can arise from deliberate sources such as soakaways or accidental sources such as
leakage from ‘closed’ or blocked drainage systems.
The failure of highway slopes owing to adverse pore pressures can have significant impact on the
operation of the highway network and has implications for the safety of highway users. The
recognition of the risks associated with slope failures and the mitigation of such risks should be
identified during the design and construction phases of new infrastructure or improvement schemes.
Where the security of slopes is to be provided by means of drainage, either in part or as a whole,
designers should identify all factors that may affect the efficacy of the proposed drainage and take this
into account.
The importance of ground investigation in the design of slope drainage systems has been emphasised.
Investigations should include geomorphological mapping, permeability testing, and monitoring of
ground water levels and responses. Both seepage and slope stability analysis should be considered at
the design stage together with the effects of climate change, as the increasing frequency of extreme
rainfall events requires greater emphasis to be placed on a consideration of storm water and surface
run-off. This is to avoid in-service problems with erosion, mud and debris slides and to minimise the
infiltration of water into clay slopes after the development of shrinkage cracks in prolonged hot spells.
Robust, sustainable and cost-efficient drainage measures are of critical importance for ensuring the
long-term stability of highway slopes. Comprehensive information for consideration in design is
presented in the earlier chapters of this report. It has been shown that where practical the use of
surface water channels and bioengineering designs offer significant advantages in relation to reduced
construction costs, ease of inspection and general maintenance providing for increased sustainability.
A survey of HA’s practitioners yielded little information in relation to inspection/maintenance
routines currently being undertaken on HA assets. The surveys appear to indicate that a reactive
approach to problems is routine and that there is little to no planned maintenance of drainage systems.
It is considered that a proactive approach to inspection/maintenance as advocated by DMRB HD
41/03 should be adopted to provide for early identification of problems and timely and cost effective
implementation of remediation.
8 Recommendations for further research

• The continued satisfactory functioning of drainage designed and installed to slopes is
essential to maintaining their stability and security long-term. Whilst a 60 year design
standard is normally applicable to highway earthworks including slopes, the current study
found virtually no information readily available to designers or those responsible for
maintenance on the longevity/reasonably expected design life for the various forms of
drainage normally adopted to provide for slope stability. Neither is there any comprehensive
documentation detailing the factors likely to affect drainage longevity, which should be taken
into account in design and require prior investigative studies. It is considered that the
collation of details and preparation of a guidance note on factors affecting drainage longevity,
design and management considerations would be beneficial. The study should include details
of industry experience of typical service life for the various forms of drainage used in slopes

56
to allow consideration of whole-life costing, maintenance and planned replacement

requirements.
• The impact of climate change and the probability of summer storms of increased intensity
mean that the design of effective slope drainage systems is now more important than ever. To
facilitate improved design it is considered that an assessment of the efficacy of existing slope
drainage systems within the highway network needs to be made, taking account of the
increased risk of extreme rainfall events and flooding from external sources. This assessment
needs to be related to geotechnical databases quantifying slope condition and risks of failure.
• DMRB HD 41/03 provides for a proactive approach to managing geotechnical assets
including slopes and any associated drainage. However, it is far from clear as to whether this
is being effectively implemented. Early identification of problems can be expected to provide
for timely cost effective management and remediation in a planned manner compared to a
reactive approach to incidents that could require closure or part closure of the highway
network at short notice. It is considered that further enquires with HA’s practitioners might
be used to identify best practice in the implementation of HD 41/03 and for the dissemination
of that experience to others.

57
9 Acknowledgements
This Task 153 was commissioned under the HA SSR Framework for Technical Consultancy 2/666
and was undertaken by Halcrow Group Ltd in collaboration with TRL Limited. The TRL work was
undertaken within the Infrastructure and Environment Division. The HA client for the project was
Dr T Messafer. The project managers for Halcrow and TRL were Ms L Campton and Dr D R Carder
respectively.

58
10 References
Bache D H and Macaskill I A (1984). Vegetation in civil and landscape engineering. Granada
Publishing, London.
Barron R A (1948). Consolidation of fine-grained soils by drain wells. Transactions, ASCE, Vol.
113, pp718-747.
Boden D G (1995). Performance of slope maintenance and repair techniques on the Cambridge
Northern Bypass. TRL Unpublished Project Report PR/CE/52/95. Wokingham, TRL Limited.
British Standards Institution (1981). BS 6031 Code of practice for earthworks. London, British
Standards Institution.
Bromhead E N (1984). An analytical solution to the problem of seepage into counterfort drains.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 21, No.4, pp657-662.
Bromhead E N (1986). A suite of programs for groundwater modelling on microcomputers.
Computer Applications in Geotechnical Engineering. Midland Geotechnical Society, Birmingham,
pp185-194.
Bromhead E N (1992). The stability of slopes. Blackie Academic & Professional, an imprint of
Chapman & Hall, Bishopbriggs, Glasgow.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Construction Manual (2001). Subsurface
drains. Chapter 4, Section 68-2.
Carder D R and Barker K J (2005a). The performance of a single row of spaced bored piles to
stabilise a Gault Clay slope on the M25. TRL Report TRL 627. Wokingham, TRL Limited.
Carder D R and Barker K J (2005b). The performance of a single row of spaced bored piles to
stabilise a London Clay slope on the A12. TRL Report TRL 642. Wokingham, TRL Limited.
Carder D R, Barker K J and Easton M R (2001). Lime pile remediation of a Gault Clay
embankment slope on the M1. TRL Report TRL 514. Wokingham, TRL Limited.
Carder D R and Easton M R (2001). Analysis of performance of spaced piles to stabilise
embankment and cutting slopes. TRL Report 493. Wokingham, TRL Limited.
Casagrande L (1949). Electo-osmosis in soils. Geotéchnique. Vol 1(3), pp159-177.
Casagrande L (1952). Electro-osmosis stabilisation of soils. Journal of the Boston Society of Civil
Engineers. Vol 39, pp51-83.
Chan R K S (1987). Use of horizontal drains to stabilise a steep hillside in Hong Kong. Proceedings
of the 9th European conference of soil mechanics and foundation engineering, Dublin.
Choi E C C (1983). Seepage around horizontal drains in hill slopes. Journal of Hydraulic
Engineering, Vol 109, No 10, pp1363 – 1369.
Choi Y L (1974). Design of horizontal drains. Journal of the Engineering Society of Hong Kong, Vol
2, No 4, pp37 – 47.
CIRIA (Construction Industry Research and Information Association). London
Report 168 (1997). Culvert Design Guide.
Report C592 (2003). Infrastructure embankments – condition appraisal and remedial
treatment.
Coppin N J and Richards I G (1990). Use of vegetation in civil engineering. CIRIA Report.
London, Butterworths.

59
Corbet S P (1990). Comparative trials of fin drains. TRL Contractor Report 221. Wokingham, TRL
Limited.
Crabb G I and Hiller D M (1993). An investigation of the mechanism of shallow failure of Gault
Clay embankment slopes. TRL Unpublished Project Report PR/GE/30/93. Wokingham, TRL Limited.
Craig D J and Gray I (1985). Groundwater lowering by horizontal drains. GCO Publication No
2/85, Geotechnical Control Office, Hong Kong.
Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB). Stationery Office, London
HD 33. Surface and sub-surface systems for highway drainage. (DMRB 4.2.3)
HA 37. Hydraulic design of road edge surface water channels. (DMRB 4.2.4)
HA 39. Edge of pavement details. (DMRB 4.2.1)
HD 41. Maintenance of Highway Geotechnical Assets. (DMRB 4.1.3)
HA 44. Earthworks – Design and preparation of contract documents. (DMRB 4.1.1)
HA 78. Design of outfalls from surface water channels. (DMRB 4.2.1)
HA 83. Safety aspects of road edge drainage features. (DMRB 4.2.4)
HA 106. Drainage of runoff from natural catchment (DMRB 4.2.1)
HA 107. Design of outfall and culvert details (DMRB 4.2.7)
HA 113. Combined channel and pipe system for surface water drainage. (DMRB 4.2.6)
HA 119. Grassed surface water channels for highway runoff. (DMRB 4.2.9)
HA 216. Road drainage and the water environment. (DMRB 11.3.10)
Escarameia M E and Todd A J (2006). Grassed surface water channels for road drainage. Report
SR 662. HR Wallingford Limited.
Escarameia M E, Todd A J and Watts G R A (2006). Pollutant removal ability of grassed surface
water channels and swales: Literature review and identification of potential monitoring sites. TRL
Report PPR 169. Wokingham, TRL Limited.
Farrar D M and Samuel H R (1988). Field study of filter drains the Maidstone by-pass, Kent. TRRL
Contractor Report, Number CR 61. TRL Limited, Crowthorne.
Farrar D M and Samuel H R (1989). Field study of filter drains at Swanley, Kent. TRRL Research
Report, Number RR 179. TRL Limited, Crowthorne.
Farrar D M (1990). Observations of slope drainage at Romford, Essex. TRRL Research Report
RR302. Wokingham, TRL Limited.
Farrar D M (1992). Observations of slope drainage at Colchester, Essex. TRL Research Report
RR368. Wokingham, TRL Limited.
Farrar D M and Brady K C (2000). Drainage of earthworks slopes: a review. TRL Report 454.
Wokingham, TRL Limited.
Finlayson D M, Greenwood J R, Cooper C G and Simons N E (1984). Lessons to be learnt from
an embankment failure. Proc. Instn. Civ. Engrs, Part 1, Vol. 76, pp207-220.
Geotechnical Consulting Group (1993). The design of slopes for highway cuttings and
embankments. TRL Unpublished Project Report PR/GE/37/93.
Gilbert P (2007). Delivering effective earthworks drainage solutions. Slope Engineering 2007
Conference, London. (www.slopeengineering.co.uk)

60
Greenwood J R (2006). SLIP4EX – A program for routine slope stability analysis to include the effects
of vegetation, reinforcement and hydrological changes. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, Vol.
24, No. 3, pp449-465.
Halcrow Group Ltd (2007). Review of the use of horizontal drainage systems. Highways Agency
Framework Agreement, Contract HA2/367.
Hamir R B, Jones C J F P and Clarke B G (2001). Electrically conductive geosynthetics for
consolidation of reinforced soil.Geotextiles and Geomembranes. Vol.19, pp455-482. Elsevier.
Hansbo S (1979). Consolidation of clay by band-shaped prefabricated drains. Ground Engineering,
Vol. 12, No.5, pp16-25.
Hansbo S (1981). Consolidation of fine-grained soils by prefabricated drains. Proc 10th Int Conf on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Stockholm, Vol. 3, pp677-682.
Hillier R P, Nettleton I M and Collins A (2005). A case history of slope movement, monitoring and
investigation. Edge Consultants.
Holtz R D, Jamiolkowski M B, Lancellota R and Redroni R (1991). Prefabricated vertical drains:
design and performance. Construction Industry Research and Information Association, Butterworth.
Hutchinson J N (1977). Assessment of the effectiveness of corrective measures in relation to
geological conditions and type of slope movement. Bull.Internat. Assocn. of Engineering Geology,
Vol 16, pp131-155.
Johnson P E (1985). Maintenance and repair of highway embankments: studies of seven methods of
treatment. TRRL Research Report RR30. Wokingham, TRL Limited.
Jones C J F P and Pugh R C (2001). A full scale field trial of electro-kinetically enhanced cohesive
reinforced soil using electrically conductive geosynthetics. Proceedings of International Symposium
Kyushu 2001. Landmarks in Earth Reinforcement Vol. 1, pp 219-223 – Editors Ochia H, Otani J,
Yasafuku N and Omine K. Balkema, The Netherlands.
Kenney T C, Pazin M and Choi W S (1977). Design of horizontal drains for soil slopes. Journal
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol 103, No GT11, pp1311 – 1323.
Lageman R, Pool W and Seffinga G A (1989). Electro-reclamation: state of the art. NATO/CCMS
3rd Int Conf on Demonstration of Remedial Action Technologies for Contaminated Land and
Groundwater. Montreal, Canada. pp115-136.
Lau K C and Kenney T C (1984). Horizontal drains to stabilise clay slopes. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, Vol 21, No 2, pp241 – 249.
Leroueil S (2001). Natural slopes and cuts: movement and failure mechanisms. Geotechnique, Vol.
51, No. 3, pp197-243.
MacNeil D J, Steele D P, McMahon W and Carder D R (2001). Vegetation for slope stability. TRL
Report 515. Wokingham, TRL Limited.
Maddison J D (1991). Albion lower tip landslide – control of groundwater levels using well points
and bored drains. Third International Conference on Land Reclamation: An End to Dereliction?
Cardiff, UK.
Manual of Contract Documents for Highway Works (MCHW).
Volume 1. Specification for Highway Works (SHW)
Volume 2. Notes for Guidance (NG)
Volume 3. Highway Construction Details (HCD)
Marriott C A, Hood K , Crabtree J R and MacNeil D J (2001). Establishment of vegetation for
slope stability. TRL Report 506. Wokingham, TRL Limited.

61
Marsland F, Ridley A M and Vaughan P R (1998). Vegetation and its influence on the soil suction
in clay slopes. Proc 2nd Int Conf on Unsaturated Soils, Beijing, Vol 1, pp249-254. International
Academic Publishers, Beijing.
Martin R P and Siu K L (1996). Use of horizontal drains for slope stabilisation in Hong Kong.
Transactions of the Hong Kong Institution for Engineers, Vol 3, No 2, pp25 – 36.
Martin R P, Siu K L and Premchitt J (1995). Performance of horizontal drains in Hong Kong.
GEO Report No 42, Geotechnical Engineering Office, Hong Kong.
McGown A and Hughes F H (1982). Practical aspects of the design and installation of deep vertical
drains. Vertical drains, ICE, Thomas Telford, London, pp3-18.
Mitchell J K (1993). Fundamentals of soil behaviour. 2nd Edition. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Nassif S H and Wilson E M (1975). The influence of slope and rain intensity on runoff and
infiltration. Hydrological Sciences Bulletin, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp539-553.
Nettleton I M, Jones C J F P, Clarke BG and Hamir R B (1998). Electro-kinetic geosynthetics and
their applications. Proc of 6th Int Conf on Geosynthetics. Atlanta, USA. Vol 2, pp871-876.
Nonveiller E (1981). Efficiency of horizontal drains on slope stability. Proc 10th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Stockholm, Vol 3, pp495 – 500.
O’Riordan N J and Seaman J W (1994). Highway embankments over soft compressible alluvial
deposits: Guidelines for design and construction. TRL Contractor Report 341. Wokingham, TRL
Limited.
Perry J (1989). A survey of slope condition on motorway earthworks in England and Wales. TRL
Research Report RR99. Wokingham, TRL Limited.
Prellwitz R W (1978). Analysis of parallel drains for highway cut-slope stabilization. Proc 16th
Annual Engineering Geology and Soils Engineering Symposium, Boise, Idaho, pp153 – 180.
Ridley A, Brady KC, and Vaughan PR (2003). Field measurement of pore water pressures. TRL
Report 555. Wokingham, TRL Limited.
Royster D L (1980). Horizontal drains and horizontal drilling: An overview. In Transportation
Research Record 783, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, pp16 – 20.
Santi P M, Elifrits C D and Liljegren J A (2001a). Design and installation of horizontal wick
drains for landslide stabilization. Transportation Research Record 1757, TRB, pp58 – 66.
Santi P M, Elifrits C D and Liljegren J A (2001b). Draining in a new direction. Civil Engineering,
Vol 71, No 6, ppA10 – A16.
Schiechtl H M and Stern N R (1992). Ground bioengineering techniques for slope protection and
erosion control. Blackwell Science, Oxford.
Steele D P, MacNeil D J and McMahon W (2004). The use of live willow poles for stabilising
highway slopes. TRL Report TRL619. Wokingham, TRL Limited.
Todd A J (2004). Review of flooding incidents on the HA Network in Autumn 2000 – Stage 2. TRL
Published Project Report PPR024. Wokingham, TRL Limited.
Todd A J and Stephens V A (1997). The effect of highway drainage on the pavement longevity:
Trials and investigations. TRL Unpublished Report PR/CE/194/97. Wokingham, TRL Limited.
UK Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP02). Scenarios Gateway.
http://www.ukcip.org.uk/scenarios/
Watts G R A and A J Todd (2006). Rehabilitation of filter drains and the use of alternative filter
media – the results of a laboratory study. TRL Unpublished Project Report UPR/IE/181/06.
Wokingham, TRL Limited.

62
Whiteside P G D (1997). Drainage characteristics of a cut soil slope with horizontal drains.
Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology, Vol 30, pp137 – 141.
Winter M G, F Macgregor and L Shackman (2005). Summary and recommendations for debris
flows in Scotland. Scottish Road Network Landslides Study (Eds: Winter, M G, Macgregor, F &
Shackman, L), 109-113. Trunk Roads: Network Management Division Published Report Series.
Edinburgh: The Scottish Executive.
Works Branch (1991). Monitoring and maintenance of horizontal drains. Works Branch Technical
Circular, No 10/91. Hong Kong Government.
Zhu G and Yin J-H (2001a). Design charts for vertical drains considering construction time.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 38, pp1142-48.
Zhu G and Yin J-H (2001b). Consolidation of soil with vertical and horizontal drainage under ramp
load. Géotechnique, Vol. 51, No. 4, pp1142-48.

63
Appendix A. Questionnaire to practitioners

64
65

66
Appendix B. Costs of drainage remedial measures at 2002 prices
Operation Unit Cost

(£/unit)
Open ditches m 10 – 30
Lined channels m 80 – 460
Piped filter drains (<3m depth) m 80 – 230
Piped filter drains (<5m depth) m 280 – 460
Drainage blankets m2 20 – 80
Bored drains m 390 – 460
Wells m 180 – 290
Drainage tunnels m 750 - 1050

Abstract
For all earthwork slopes, rainfall will enter the underlying soil through the surface, in
quantities which depend on the soil type, topography, and vegetation cover. Slope drainage
can control the movement of surface water and also the subsurface pore water pressure in the
slope. Drainage can be very effective if installed at the correct location on or within the slope.
In the long term, systems need to be designed with maintenance operations in mind so that a
sustainable system is installed with a design life comparable to the 60 year design life of a
highway slope.
The report reviews the distribution of pore water pressures within a slope measured by TRL at
a number of sites on highway schemes and follows with a critical assessment of the
applicability of different slope drainage techniques. The report concludes with best practice
guidance in the design and maintenance of the various drainage systems. The increased use of
surface water channels and a more proactive bioengineering approach are recommended in
the design of slope drainage systems. These methods offer the advantages of ease of
inspection, reduced maintenance costs and a sustainable technique.

Drainage of earthworks slopes
For all earthwork slopes, rainfall will enter the underlying soil through the surface, in quantities
which depend on the soil type, topography, and vegetation cover. Slope drainage can control the
movement of surface water and also the subsurface pore water pressure in the slope. Drainage can
be very effective if installed at the correct location on or within the slope. In the long term, systems
need to be designed with maintenance operations in mind so that a sustainable system is installed
with a design life comparable to the 60 year design life of a highway slope.
The report reviews the distribution of pore water pressures within a slope measured by TRL at a
number of sites on highway schemes and follows with a critical assessment of the applicability
of different slope drainage techniques. The report concludes with best practice guidance in the
design and maintenance of the various drainage systems. The increased use of surface water
channels and a more proactive bioengineering approach are recommended in the design of slope
drainage systems. These methods offer the advantages of ease of inspection, reduced maintenance
costs and a sustainable technique.
Other recent titles from this subject area
PPR302 Performance of an interseasonal heat transfer facility for collection, storage and re-use
of solar heat from the road surface
DR Carder, KJ Barker, MG Hewitt, D Ritter, A Kiff, 2008
PPR169 Pollutant removal ability of grassed surface water channels and swales: Literature review
and identification of potential monitoring sites
M Escarameia, A J Todd, G R A Watts, 2006
PPR130 Post-incident recovery in highway tunnels - achieving best practice
S Bird, J E Potter, J Gillard, 2006
PPR140 Ventilation during road tunnel emergencies
R C Hall, 2006
PPR082 A study of water movement in road pavements
J M Reid, G I Crabb, J Temporal, M Clark, 2006
Price code: 3X
ISSN 0968-4093
TRL Published by IHS
Crowthorne House, Nine Mile Ride Willoughby Road, Bracknell
Wokingham, Berkshire RG40 3GA Berkshire RG12 8FB
PPR341
United Kingdom United Kingdom

T: +44 (0) 1344 773131 T: +44 (0) 1344 328038
F: +44 (0) 1344 770356 F: +44 (0) 1344 328005
E: enquiries@trl.co.uk E: trl@ihs.com
W: www.trl.co.uk W: www.uk.ihs.com

PPR341

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PPR341

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Published Project Report

Drainage of earthworks slopes

by D R Carder, G R A Watts (TRL Limited),

PUBLISHED PROJECT REPORT

PUBLISHED PROJECT REPORT PPR 341

DRAINAGE OF EARTHWORKS SLOPES

by D R Carder, G R A Watts (TRL Limited), L Campton and S Motley (Halcrow

Prepared for:Project Record: 153(666) HTRL Drainage of Earthworks Slopes

Copyright TRL Limited May 2008

Project Manager Derek Carder

Quality Reviewed Bill McMahon

2 The distribution of pore water pressure in highway slopes 2

2.1 The distribution of pore water pressures in embankments 2

3 Critical review of methods of slope drainage 15

3.1 Deep trench drains, counterfort drains and rock ribs 15

4 Best practice guidance in design and maintenance 35

TRL Limited PPR 341

6 Selection of Drainage Measures 51

6.1 Selection of drainage measures 51

8 Recommendations for further research 55

Appendix A. Questionnaire to practitioners 63

Appendix B. Costs of drainage remedial measures at 2002 prices 66

TRL Limited PPR 341

TRL Limited i PPR 341

TRL Limited ii PPR 341

TRL Limited 1 PPR 341

2 The distribution of pore water pressure in highway slopes

2.1 The distribution of pore water pressures in embankments

TRL Limited 2 PPR 341

(a) May 1999

(b) June 1999

(c) August 1999

(d) May 2000

(e) August 2000

(f) February 2001

TRL Limited 3 PPR 341

2.1.2 M26 Dunton Green

Potential failure surface

2.1.3 A45 Cambridge Northern Bypass (2 slopes)

TRL Limited 4 PPR 341

2.1.4 M26 Nepicar

TRL Limited 5 PPR 341

2.1.5 M25 Franks Farm

TRL Limited 6 PPR 341

2.2 The distribution of pore water pressures in cuttings

2.2.1 M25 Godstone

TRL Limited 7 PPR 341

2.2.2 A12 Colchester

16-02-2005 Line of spaced piles 1m

TRL Limited 9 PPR 341

2.3 The effect of vegetation upon pore water pressures

TRL Limited 10 PPR 341

TRL Limited 11 PPR 341

2.4 Predictions of the pore water pressure regime

TRL Limited 12 PPR 341

(a) Drainage blanket present

(b) Drainage blanket present plus increased pore pressure in slope

(c) Case (a) without drainage blanket

TRL Limited 13 PPR 341

(b) Equilibrium pore water pressures

TRL Limited 14 PPR 341

3 Critical review of methods of slope drainage

3.1 Deep trench drains, counterfort drains and rock ribs

3.1.1 A12 Romford